news details |
|
|
| Tharoor has a long way to go | | Lack of coherence in South Block’s decision-making | |
by G. Parthasarathy
Among the many myths that have landed India in deep diplomatic embarrassment in the past are myths about so-called “solidarity of the nonaligned and developing countries” and the belief that just because we have supported Arab and African causes in the past, we will get the support of Arab and African countries in world forums like the United Nations and the nonaligned movement. This fanciful thinking led us to one of our worst diplomatic disasters since Independence, when we contested against Japan for a seat to the UN Security Council in 1996.
The then External Affairs Minister, Mr I.K. Gujral, appeared to believe that the spirit of “Afro-Asian solidarity” would lead developing countries in Asia, Africa and elsewhere to back India’s candidature against Japan, which as a loyal ally of the US, offered no meaningful support either to the struggle against apartheid, or the “Arab cause”. We were in for a rude shock. Japan trounced India in the elections securing 142 votes against the barely 40 votes India secured. Less than a handful of India’s Arab and African friends backed us in this ill-fated and ill-advised diplomatic misadventure.
Ever since the fiasco of 1996, we have been prudent in avoiding actions that could again lead to diplomatic disgrace. But as our economy grew rapidly and we started engaging the world meaningfully in economic terms, we have been extremely successful regionally, having been invited to forums like the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum and even to G 8 Summits. In elections to the U.N. Human Rights Commission earlier this year India received 173 votes trouncing even Japan in the number of votes we secured. But, amidst all these developments flowing from carefully crafted diplomatic strategies came the surprise announcement that India was nominating an Under Secretary-General of the UN, Mr Shashi Tharoor, as its candidate for the post of UN Secretary General. This decision was taken without any comprehensive survey of Mr Tharoor’s chances either by the Prime Minister’s Office, the External Affairs Ministry or our Permanent Mission to the UN.
Mr Tharoor hails from Kerala and his nomination followed setbacks that the ruling dispensation faced in recent Assembly elections in the state. Interestingly, when the Prime Minister visited St. Petersburg during the G 8 Summit, not a single world leader endorsed Mr Tharoor’s candidacy.
It is now the turn, by convention, of an Asian to become the UN Secretary-General. The other candidates in the fray are Thai Deputy Prime Minister Suraikart Sathirathai, South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon and Sri Lankan diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala. Under UN General Assembly Resolution 11/46, the Security Council is expected to send one name for the post of UNSG for endorsement by the General Assembly. In order to determine the measure of support each candidate enjoys, the 15 members of the Security Council are asked whether they “encourage” or “discourage” a particular candidate, in a series of “straw polls”. If any candidate is opposed by a permanent member of the Security Council, he automatically withdraws from the race.
While Mr Tharoor has emerged second in the first “straw poll”, where the Thai and Sri Lankan candidates did not do well, there is still a long way to go before any result emerges, as there is still no indication of how the US and China have voted and will ultimately act. The waters will get really muddied for Mr Tharoor should Pakistan put forward a credible woman candidate like Maleeha Lodi, as UN General Assembly Resolution 51/241 of 1997 says that the selection process should pay “due regard to regional rotation and gender equality”.
India cannot ignore the hard reality that it has entered the fray without getting the support of even a single member of the UN Security Council, including from our very supportive Russian friends. Past elections to the post have often been bitterly contested. If China vetoed the reelection of Mr Kurt Waldheim in 1981, the Clinton Administration denied reelection for Mr Boutros-Ghali in 1996, leading to the emergence of Mr Kofi Annan as a compromise candidate. It was the Chinese veto that led to Mr Javier Perez de Cuellar as a compromise candidate in 1981. Japan is not enthusiastic about South Korea’s candidature, and the Thai Deputy Prime Minister who has the backing of China and Pakistan does not appear to enjoy western support.
We should also bear in mind that there is widespread feeling, including in the US, that the new Secretary-General should come from an East Asian country, with credentials that make him acceptable to both the US and China. We also need to remember that on issues involving the UN Security Council, the US and China will not hesitate to work together, if necessary, to undermine India’s candidature. This happened last year, when following a meeting between the Permanent Representatives to the UN of the US and China in New York, the US and China jointly torpedoed the joint bid by Germany, Japan, India and Brazil for permanent membership of the Security Council. Should such joint efforts by the US and China lead to the emergence of a statesman like Singapore’s former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong as a compromise candidate, India would be well advised to withdraw Mr Tharoor’s candidature.
The decision to nominate Mr Tharoor led to India being forced to back off from a major proposal that it was championing for “democratisation” of the UN. This proposal, which had widespread support, would have involved empowering the UN General Assembly rather than the unrepresentative Security Council with a decisive say in the election of the UN Secretary-General. Mr Tharoor, an articulate and well-read person and a prolific writer, does not enjoy the same support that persons like Mr Kofi Annan and Mr Perez de Cuellar enjoyed in the past.. It is also not clear what precise national interest was to be served by nominating him for the post of UN Secretary-General. As an international civil servant Mr Tharoor quite rightly proclaimed that while he is grateful for to the Government of India for nominating him, he will (if elected) be “an Indian Secretary-General” and not “India’s Secretary-General”.
The manner in which Mr Tharoor’s candidature was initiated gives one an uneasy feeling that there is a lack of coherence and careful consideration in decision making on serious issues of national security and foreign policy. Whether it is on Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Iran, West Asia, or even on issues of terrorism, domestic political considerations now appear to play a far greater role than we have ever witnessed in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
