A stubbornly defiant to the United Nations resolutions, India has been offered help to get it seated as Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. The offer came on Monday from visiting US President Barack Obama as he spoke to the Indian parliament. "I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a Permanent Member", said he amidst thunderous desk thumping.
Nothing pleases Indian rulers, across the board, more than words and promises that tend to cast India as a great power - a kind of resurrected Hindu empire of ancient times that ruled all the land and sea between the Straits of Malacca and the eastern coasts of the Arabian Peninsula. That India has consistently refused to implement UN resolutions calling for plebiscite to determine Kashmiris' desire on their political future and holds millions of Kashmiris in perpetual bondage, cut no ice with President Obama, we are disappointed. And what a paradox: instead of asking India to respect Kashmiris' human rights and pull out brutal machines from the occupied country he was asking New Delhi to force Iran (a friend of Pakistan) and Myanmar (a friend of China) "to uphold ideals of freedom and human rights".
Given that the UN reforms have been on the table since early 1990s and do not appear imminent, President Obama's endorsement means nothing more than ego-messaging of Indian leadership. Obviously, Pakistan's official reaction was mild but in the eyes of public ambiguous in that it was the FO spokesman's 'hope the United States would take a moral view and set aside any temporary expediency or exigencies of power politic'. Knowing full well that the task to expand the membership of the Security Council is almost impossible in the given circumstances, President Obama's words have only added to the complexity of UN reforms process.
As things stand today, the Security Council cannot be expanded unless all five Permanent Members and two-thirds of the General Assembly membership agree to support the move - which is not the case at present with China determined to use its veto. Also, how about others that equally match the potential India is said to have. To majority of the UN members, an entitlement to the Security Council membership should be in line with the need for regional and ideological representation instead of an aspirant's proximity to a superpower. The United Nations would greatly strengthen its representative character by admitting a Muslim country to speak for the Muslim Bloc and an African country for the whole of Africa. But India enjoys no such distinction.
The US endorsement for India's Security Council membership at best is a morale booster and a pat on the back to prepare itself for a future role as counterbalance to China. No doubt, President Obama is under domestic pressure to create jobs, which are expected to come as a result of his visits to populous countries like India and Indonesia. But is it the manner the American leadership conducted the foreign policy. Consider the price the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is exacting - $10 billions that is said to be the upshot of President Obama's Mumbai agreements is not more than what United States spends in 10 days in Iraq and Afghanistan. One would argue he is in Asia to erect a wall around China, something we would see coming up in 15 to 20 years from now - a la the string of allies' the United States had bought over to encircle the Soviet Union in early 1950s.
China is an established nuclear power, and a matching capability is now being supplied to India also. According to a fact-sheet released by the White House in Washington, simultaneous to President Obama's visit to New Delhi, the United States has agreed to 'remove the restrictions that were preventing India from gaining full acceptance in the exclusive nuclear club and from acquiring nuclear technology from other countries'. In order to "further transform their bilateral export control co-operation to realise full potential of their strategic partnership" India has been exempted from the application of all restrictive clauses of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty so that it gets unhindered access to the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group.
We too had a 'Strategic Dialogue' with the United States recently but with a difference, that while the United States asked us to 'do more' it told India to 'have more'. It's the time for our government to undertake deep, dispassionate introspection - before Pakistan gets completely marginalised in the emerging scenario. The government, particularly the foreign ministry needs to revisit the question of our participation in the so-called war against terrorism. Haven't we bitten more than what we can chew?
Comments
Comments are closed.