Indian rope trick at the UN
By K Godage
When I first heard that India had sponsored a Resolution in the UN General Assembly to hijack from the Security Council the selection of the next Secretary General I read more into it than an intention on the part of India to ‘democratize’ the process of selection.
I asked myself the question “Surely India could not be intending to field a candidate? India the emerging superpower, India that is aspiring to become a member of the Security Council? ( not that she has no right to do so but it does seem that such an act would fall into the category of “simply not done things). “No it just can’t be” thought I.
But I was wrong. India has indeed put forward a candidate, Sashi Tharoor who is an Under Secretary General of the UN.
The Resolution tabled at the General Assembly stated that the GA was the chief deliberative, policy making and representative organ of the United Nations and implied that the present process of selection of the SG lacked legitimacy and transparency and to enhance both these factors it was suggested that the Security Council forward three names of prospective candidates for selection by the UNGA.
The reason for India seeking to have the choice made by the GA is of course obvious; India, as one of the founding fathers of the Non- Aligned Movement enjoys much support among the countries of NAM and certainly has a better chance than most other candidates if there is a vote in the GA. Fortunately the big powers saw through this most ‘transparent’ of moves and this effort at performing a rope trick appears to have failed.
In the fifty plus years of the UN not only have super powers not fielded candidates but even the big powers have not fielded candidates for the post of SG. There was good reason for this, an SG from one of their countries would have found it extremely difficult to take a position contrary to that of his country on an important international issue in which his country’s interest was involved.
However fairly the man acted, allegations of bias would have been made and this would have undermined the credibility of the UN itself; this possibility of a conflict of interests and the fact that the SG could be compromised, led to the major actors on the international scene not putting forward nominees.
Does India not consider herself to be in the major league and an important player on the international scene? If she aspires to sit at the High Table to decide on the destiny of our planet then how could the Chief Executive also be from India?
This effort to secure the post of Secretary General will without doubt compromise her bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council. The Secretary General of the UN needs to have credibility in the interest of the organization itself.
All Secretaries General other than Boutros Ghali of Egypt have been from small countries, Dag Hammarskjold was from Finland, Javier Perez D Cuellar from Peru, U Thant from Myanmar and Kofi Anan from Ghana. This precedent must be followed in the interest of the UN itself.
In 1996 India contested a non permanent seat in the Security Council and suffered a humiliating defeat — on that occasion Japan along with some countries of far less importance than India were elected, she certainly got egg on her face. India has yet to forgive Japan for that humiliation; most recently India indicated to Japan her objections to Japan playing a leading role in our peace process though she herself is making every excuse under the sun for not even joining the Co-Chairs. I doubt very much as to whether Japan would support India’s candidate; we must remember that Japan does have influence.
The humiliation India suffered was ten years ago but much has happened since, India has grown in stature, she is now a nuclear power (Japan’s protests over the Pokran N tests have not been forgotten by India) and is being described as an emerging super power and far more confident. This is perhaps why she is now floating a candidate for the top job at the UN but she is running the risk of another similar humiliation or is it that she expects her new-found friend the US to back her candidate and also expects her old friend Russia to also support her nominee in addition to France. Is India not taking China for granted? Is it in Pakistan’s or China’s interest to have an Indian as SG ?
If China supports India would China not be incurring the wrath of her old and trusted friend Pakistan? Would an Indian as SG be acceptable to the Islamic world? Would they not now request Pakistan to nominate the affable, capable and experienced Diplomat Munir Akram as a nominee or Dr Ms Lodhi former Ambassador to the US or Nafia Sadiq who also has the advantage of being a woman. Munir Akram would be more than acceptable to the Islamic world.
Further the Hindu – Muslims riots which have become an everyday feature in India in recent times will also not lend to Islamic countries supporting the Indian nominee. Then there is the unresolved Kashmir issue; a UN Observer Mission is stationed in Kashmir; what would Tharoor’s position be if a fifth war broke out between Pakistan and India over Kashmir?
Incidentally what would be his position if Baluchistan seeks to break away from Pakistan? Would he, as an Indian, find satisfaction in the further dismemberment of Pakistan and would this influence his judgment? He would no doubt have supported the creation of Bangladesh and found satisfaction in seeing Pakistan dismembered.
As for China a consideration that would attend them would be as to whether Sahshi Tharoor can ever be his own man in the light of the close relationship that has developed between India and the US.
Tharoor could become a puppet at the hands of the US and the likes of anti Third World Bolton, the US Ambassador to the UN, who is opposed to the reform of the UN and the millennium goals.
When India did not declare its support for our candidate it was perceived here as another unfriendly act; I was under the impression that we not only shared history but also have common norms, shared values and interests and considering her frequent statements regarding the close relations that exist between our two countries, (”our two countries are inseparable, your territorial integrity and ours are one” etc) to have enthusiastically supported our eminent candidate as if he was their own candidate but now we realize that India had her own agenda and the close friendship they profess to is confined to mere words.
It is also a matter of interest as to how Tharoor’s name came to be announced only now. Tharoor has been living all of his adult life abroad, not in the service of his country but attached to the UN, understandably to pursue his own interests (incidentally would he, after having lived for over two decades in that country, by any chance be an American citizen?) so how did he come to be nominated?
He would of course have wanted the nomination for this opportunity will not come again in his lifetime; and perhaps he had India’s Permanent Representatie, Nirupam Sen’s support, for it was the latter who floated the Resolution referred to earlier to hijack the selection procedure so that India with her old Non-Aligned connections could facilitate his selection and swing it, but I wonder as to whether the sophisticated Indian Ministry of External Affairs would have approved of it, particularly because they would have weighed the consequences of failure and seen the risks involved.
Perhaps, as in this country India too has capitulated to the politicians and the politicians have got involved and have for once overruled the Ministry of External Affairs. This is not an improbability given the culture of politics on the sub-continent, the disease could have spread to India also.
If this has indeed happened I am frankly disappointed for I have the greatest respect for the professionalism of the Indian Foreign Service which in many respects is the guardian of their national interest and this candidature I feel is in Tharoor’s interest and not in the national interest of India.
If India wishes us and the world to accept her as an emerging super power and as the regional power then she should act like one
I do hope that India would test the waters and then gracefully withdraw her candidate if there is even the smallest possibility that he would not make it. She should save herself the embarrassment of rejection by the international community. India should then support Dhanapala as a consensus South Asian candidate or is this too much to expect?
This is where we miss the likes of men of the stature of Inder Kumar Gujral. He was indeed a visionary and a man before his time. [DailyMirror]
[K.Godage is formerly Sri Lanka`s Associate Foreign Secretary]
Related:
