India’s election as a non-permanent member of the UNSC with the support of 187 of UN bodies 192 member states should not be considered as a surprise win after losing to japan by 100 votes differences. India has always been one of the top contributor to UN’s peacekeeping efforts around the world. Whether it be the Afghanistan economy, infrastructural , social and economic development or eradicating poverty in Sub Saharan Africa or helping in fighting with LTTE in Sri Lanka and post infrastructure development or helping UNOCI by military personnel . India has always been forefront in achieving various UN resolution. But any decision will likely depend on our own assessment of the extent to which India to play a responsible as a permanent member.
Permanent membership provides an opportunity for the member countries to establish its credentials and credibility in handling burning issues which comes up with degree of responsibility. As the principle empowered organ of the UN system, The Security council deals with questions of international security that are often intensely political. United states as P-5 member has become synonym for the UN. US is able to mobilise all permanent behind its ill initiatives. UNSC has been a mute powerless spectator during illegal invading of Iraq , imposing new sanctions on Tehran , illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian territory. UNSC has become singularly unsuccessful in dealing with new and emerging crisis like terrorism and piracy.
It is on these sorts of question that India’s performance as a “responsible stake holder ” in the international system will likely to be tested. In June 2010 Brazil and Turkey both non-permanent member of security council voted against a resolution imposing new sanction on Tehran. Both countries have just helped broke a crucial agreement under which Iran would have sent out a considerable part of its low enriched uranium stock in exchange for the eventual supply of medical grade enriched uranium for use in a research reactor. In the eyes of many , if not most countries Brazil and Turkey acted highly responsibly by voting against the sanctions resolution.
How might India have voted had it been on the security council on this summer ?
India criticised sanctions but sent a file to New York by voting with the US at IAEA in 2005 -06 regarding Iraq file. Criticising is one thing and voting against is another thing. If the same situation arises again, as it surely will in the next two year there will be no shortage of senior officials who will argue that New Delhi has more to gain by siding with US than sticking to its independent position.
The rest of world values India precisely because of its reason for itself and sticks to its position. Before aspiring for UN permanent seat India should succeed In following an independent foreign policy and should shed the tag of “soft- power ” and its voice must be heard across the globe. When has India taken a firm stand on a international issue contrary to that of a super power after Mrs Indira Gandhi oppose the Russian invasion of Afghanistan on her second winning in the early 80’s?Vital interests of India in global market especially in service sector and its growing appetite for military hardware and nuclear technology from abroad would make it difficult for it to trade and follow independent in foreign relation.
But whatever the future may hold, India should act responsibly and creditably without any prejudice. India should resolve its outstanding disputes with its stakeholder on its own and in way whole world looking for India as a key player in the peace and stability building process. UPA government will have to focus less on convincing the US about how responsible we are. India should instead work hard to demonstrate how a restructured security council build around the inclusion of rising power like itself.
AMIT(SUNNY)
amit845449@gmail.com
its really disgracefull
ReplyDelete