Violating diplomatic norms

Nothing pleases Indians more than an offer of diplomatic help in securing a permanent berth for their country on the UN Security Council. Visiting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown did exactly the same.
Airing his 'idea whose time has come' at a gathering in New Delhi on Monday, he supported India's bid to take a greater place on the world stage, arguing that international institutions, if they are to be credible, cannot ignore countries like India and China. He had arrived from a four-day visit to China, and was fully cognisant of the difficulties that confront the expansion of the Security Council permanent membership. An elated Manmohan Singh rhymed by echoing the argument of his counterpart.
Apparently, the feelings of bonhomie were sustained by the 20 billion dollars worth of commercial deals that are presently in the works between the two countries. But Gordon Brown's rhetoric about a reorganised UN froze up completely when a reporter asked him whether any major Islamic country too could be seated on the Security Council. Of course, the world body's transformation from its genesis as a club of the Second World War victors to an outfit seized of grim international realities of the 21st century is very much warranted, but not in the way the British Prime Minister described.
Over the years, the United Nations has come to symbolise a gathering of equals. If its reformation has become problematic, it is only because some 'privileged' member-states, who want to use the organisation for their political ends, would like it to be changed the way they like.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's other remarks during his maiden visit to India were equally disappointing; as he seemed to be absolutely oblivious of the diplomatic norm of avoiding comment on the affairs of a third country. "Failed states and failing states", he informed a gathering of industrialists, "can harbour terrorism and be a source of disorder and then spread right across the international community.
So it is time to set a new and ambitious agenda to prevent conflict and destabilisation and reconstruct failing and failed states". He then noted that the world was not currently equipped to respond to the rise of non-state terrorism and spread of weapons of mass destruction. Not surprisingly, his sermon carefully skirted the issue of growing incidence of state-sponsored terrorism in Held Kashmir as well as the fictitious demon of 'weapons of mass destruction' in the Iraq of Saddam Hussain that Britain teamed up with Americans to go after and destroy.
And, the joint statement issued in New Delhi at the end of his visit was more revealing about the presence of vultures in the sky. According to that document both Britain and India "shared hopes" that Pakistan would see an early return to stability and "recognised" the importance of free and fair elections on February 18. President Pervez Musharraf may like to thank Gordon Brown when the two meet in London later this week for being so thoughtful about Pakistan.
The US-UK consensus to build India into a regional counterbalance to China is understandable. It is also understandable that Britain sees in the Indian middle class a huge market. The presence of a large Indian-origin vote bank in the United Kingdom that Gordon Brown would turn to sooner than later is also a fact to be kept in mind. But, mutually beneficial bilateral relationship should not be promoted at the cost of regional harmony.
For quite some time the people of Pakistan were satisfied that the Indian people and government had desisted from commenting on Pakistan's internal affairs. Some of us had seen this reluctance rooted in the feeling of amity that President Musharraf's initiatives, mostly one-sided, had infused into the Pakistan-India relations. Others gave the credit for it to Dr Manmohan Singh's political maturity. But Prime Minister Gordon Brown's two-day visit to India seemed to have been hijacked by the Pannikar-brand chauvinists.