muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Praful Bidwai asks what kind of Power India should be, a question for the thoughtful, but while an idealism will certainly be found appealing in some sections of thinking society, it should also be examined whether the kind of idealism Praful bidwai suggests would not be better served from a positon of power - after all, is change more effectively applied from within or from the outside, especially when one consider that the security council is the creation of vitorious WWII powers
Reality check for India
By Praful Bidwai, Guardian News & Media Ltd
Published: 00:00 October 25, 2010
When India got elected recently to the UN Security Council as one of its five temporary members for two years, India's Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was ecstatic. He termed this a "big day for Indian diplomacy" and a "reflection of the expectations that the world has from us". The Indian media joined the chorus to celebrate this "monumental" victory, which will give India a chance to "showcase its eligibility to become a permanent member" of the council. New Delhi has long nurtured this ambition and backed it indefatigably, while throwing in its lot with the other Group of Four (G4) aspirants Japan, Germany, Brazil.
But it's ludicrous to exult over an election for which there was no contest; under the Asian rota system, India's victory became inevitable once Kazakhstan was persuaded to withdraw from the race. And India lobbied furiously for the seat. It also helped that Pakistan didn't campaign against India.
India's recent election stands in sharp contrast to 1996, when it last contested the Asian seat against Japan. The result then was a humiliating 142:40 defeat.
Of course, there has since been a sea-change in India's global status, with its rising profile as a potential economic superpower, and a great regional power, whom nobody wants to displease.
India has even extracted a unique deal from the US under which its nuclear weapons are legitimised and the world resumes regular nuclear commerce with it although India has signed no atomic restraint/disarmament treaty.
Does the temporary membership bring India any closer to a permanent seat on the council, with or without a veto? The answer is, probably not. The G4 association carries its own burden: China is as keen to keep Japan out of the council's permanent membership. Germany's bid raises more eyebrows than India's. And the coffee club' comprising Italy, Spain, Mexico, Pakistan and others stiffly opposes the G4.
It would be wiser for India to redirect its energies radically. The country should stop obsessing with a permanent seat and instead work to strengthen the general assembly and make it more vibrant and responsive to the weakest states. What matters much more than position, status or symbols of status is how India uses its rising power.
Major issues
Here, it remains unsure, timid and confused. In place of crafting proactive independent positions on major issues such as Iran, Palestine-Israel, Afghanistan, climate change, north-south relations, and the great recession, India tails the West a complete U-turn from the days of non-alignment. So preoccupied is India with nurturing its new strategic partnership' with the US that it has failed to leverage its own special advantage in respect, for instance, of Iran, with which it has enjoyed good relations.
India not only put in abeyance a lucrative gas pipeline project from Iran via Pakistan, but voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under coercion' from Washington despite its stand that Iran is not in substantive breach of its IAEA and non-proliferation obligations. India should play a mediatory role that prevents Iran from being cornered and allows it to pursue legitimate nuclear activities with IAEA inspections.
India had a principled position for Palestinian nationhood for decades. It recently abandoned it to embrace Israel as an ally and major military supplier. But India hasn't used its relations with Israel to encourage less reckless behaviour on its part, or help the Palestinians.
India pledged to uphold the Group of 77 developing countries' stand on differentiated north-south responsibility for climate change and for an ambitious, legally-binding agreement with deep enforceable emissions cuts by industrialised countries. But India struck a collusive, ineffectual, obligations-free deal at Copenhagen with the US and the biggest emerging polluters, which spells disaster for the planet.
These positions are rooted in the domestic elite's pro-Western biases and cry out for correction. India's elite greatly relishes its growing global power. It does not ask what kind of power India should be and how it can use its influence to make the world better while promoting India's enlightened interests as a tribune of the global underprivileged. That's a tragedy for a nation with the Gandhi-Nehru legacy.
Praful Bidwai is a regular columnist for The Hindu.
Reality check for India
By Praful Bidwai, Guardian News & Media Ltd
Published: 00:00 October 25, 2010
When India got elected recently to the UN Security Council as one of its five temporary members for two years, India's Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was ecstatic. He termed this a "big day for Indian diplomacy" and a "reflection of the expectations that the world has from us". The Indian media joined the chorus to celebrate this "monumental" victory, which will give India a chance to "showcase its eligibility to become a permanent member" of the council. New Delhi has long nurtured this ambition and backed it indefatigably, while throwing in its lot with the other Group of Four (G4) aspirants Japan, Germany, Brazil.
But it's ludicrous to exult over an election for which there was no contest; under the Asian rota system, India's victory became inevitable once Kazakhstan was persuaded to withdraw from the race. And India lobbied furiously for the seat. It also helped that Pakistan didn't campaign against India.
India's recent election stands in sharp contrast to 1996, when it last contested the Asian seat against Japan. The result then was a humiliating 142:40 defeat.
Of course, there has since been a sea-change in India's global status, with its rising profile as a potential economic superpower, and a great regional power, whom nobody wants to displease.
India has even extracted a unique deal from the US under which its nuclear weapons are legitimised and the world resumes regular nuclear commerce with it although India has signed no atomic restraint/disarmament treaty.
Does the temporary membership bring India any closer to a permanent seat on the council, with or without a veto? The answer is, probably not. The G4 association carries its own burden: China is as keen to keep Japan out of the council's permanent membership. Germany's bid raises more eyebrows than India's. And the coffee club' comprising Italy, Spain, Mexico, Pakistan and others stiffly opposes the G4.
It would be wiser for India to redirect its energies radically. The country should stop obsessing with a permanent seat and instead work to strengthen the general assembly and make it more vibrant and responsive to the weakest states. What matters much more than position, status or symbols of status is how India uses its rising power.
Major issues
Here, it remains unsure, timid and confused. In place of crafting proactive independent positions on major issues such as Iran, Palestine-Israel, Afghanistan, climate change, north-south relations, and the great recession, India tails the West a complete U-turn from the days of non-alignment. So preoccupied is India with nurturing its new strategic partnership' with the US that it has failed to leverage its own special advantage in respect, for instance, of Iran, with which it has enjoyed good relations.
India not only put in abeyance a lucrative gas pipeline project from Iran via Pakistan, but voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under coercion' from Washington despite its stand that Iran is not in substantive breach of its IAEA and non-proliferation obligations. India should play a mediatory role that prevents Iran from being cornered and allows it to pursue legitimate nuclear activities with IAEA inspections.
India had a principled position for Palestinian nationhood for decades. It recently abandoned it to embrace Israel as an ally and major military supplier. But India hasn't used its relations with Israel to encourage less reckless behaviour on its part, or help the Palestinians.
India pledged to uphold the Group of 77 developing countries' stand on differentiated north-south responsibility for climate change and for an ambitious, legally-binding agreement with deep enforceable emissions cuts by industrialised countries. But India struck a collusive, ineffectual, obligations-free deal at Copenhagen with the US and the biggest emerging polluters, which spells disaster for the planet.
These positions are rooted in the domestic elite's pro-Western biases and cry out for correction. India's elite greatly relishes its growing global power. It does not ask what kind of power India should be and how it can use its influence to make the world better while promoting India's enlightened interests as a tribune of the global underprivileged. That's a tragedy for a nation with the Gandhi-Nehru legacy.
Praful Bidwai is a regular columnist for The Hindu.
