Withstanding last-minute U.S. pressure, India abstained from voting on a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution approving “all necessary measures,” including imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution was passed with 10 members, including the U.S., France, the U.K. and Lebanon, voting in favour and five — Russia, China (both permanent members with veto rights), Brazil and Germany, besides India — abstaining.
The Western alliance of the U.S., France and the U.K. lobbied energetically in New York for a consensus on the issue. Senior American officials, including the Obama administration's special adviser for the Middle East, Dennis Ross, called the Indian mission at the U.N. asking for a vote in favour of the no-fly zone resolution rather than abstention. But South Block's position remained clear: India would not support the use of force.
In a compromise, while approving the no-fly zone, the resolution excluded “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” It widened the earlier scope of sanctions passed unanimously by the UNSC by proposing the freezing of assets of seven more persons close to Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi and five other entities, including state-owned companies. The earlier sanctions include an arms embargo, assets freeze and travel ban on Colonel Qadhafi and his loyalists and a referral to the Hague-based International Criminal Court.
India contested the reasoning behind all these measures in its ‘Explanation of Vote.' It felt that the UNSC should have focussed on ceasefire and bringing violence under control instead of choosing the option of “force based on relatively little credible information on the situation” from Libya.
India said there was no clarity on details of enforcement measures, including “who and with what assets would they participate and how these measures will be exactly carried out.” Concern for civilians including its own nationals also weighed on India in deciding to abstain.
Indian diplomats at the United Nations encapsulated the country's stand. Envoy to the U.N. Hardeep Puri said: “This resolution calls for far-reaching measures but we never got answers to very basic questions. This entire exercise has been based on less than complete information.”
India spoke about the absence of a report by the Special U.N. Envoy on Libya appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General or even a report from the Secretariat.
Keywords: Libya resolution, United Nations Security Council
This clearly demonstrates why we don't need more permanent members of the Security Council. India, Brazil and Germany aspire to permanent seats but when it comes to making a crucial decision they have shown themselves to be weak-willed. If this is what they would do as permanent seats, we might as well give up now and let the world rot. There is nothing wrong with expressing concerns but these three countries are not doing anything they couldn't do in the General Assembly.
India has done the right thing by sticking to a non-aligned status because this issue could also be solved tactically without risking the life of innocent citizens. Bombardment is not the only solution.
India likes to sit on the fence and by doing so try to come out smelling of roses irrespective of which way the end game pans out. But then that is very much a trait demonstrated by most Indians. It would have been commendable if India could take a stand either positive or negative. Perhaps the powers that be in India were not able to determine which horse would reap them the highest illegitimate profit. Considering the corruption at high levels in India this may be the reality.
This will go down as another inaction in a long line of impotent foreign policy decisions by India. This proves that India is not and will never be any kind of 'superpower'. A real superpower is defined by its ideas and its willingness to defend those ideas wherever they are violated. And please stop using the word 'western' in a derogatory manner. I have some news for you - we are a culturally 'western' country whether you like it or not. Our state institutions, our constitution, our infrastructure, technology etc. are based on western philosophy and the enlightenment.
India has grand aspirations to a seat on the UN Security Council but the reality is that its foreign policy is an outdated relic of the 'non-alignment' policies of the Cold War, which prefers to see everything in terms of realpolitik where the only conceivable actions that a state can take are those made out of pure self-interest. This is the crucial difference between the US, Europe, Japan, etc (the 'West') and the former non-aligned countries like India and Brazil, who are happy to preach peace, send delegations, have cultural exchanges, and solicit contracts and $$$ but are completely unwilling to lift a finger when people in other countries are being slaughtered.Now... hm... let's see here.... India saw fit to invade East Pakistan in 1971 and then (suitably) justify it on humanitarian grounds with the reasoning that Yahya Khan and his associates were brutalizing the people of East Pakistan. Now, 40 years later, as Qadaffi brutalizes his own people who have risen up for freedom, India finds it convenient to sit on the sidelines and proffer up a variety of excuses premised on the fantasy that Qadaffi is a nice guy and not a murderous thug who's going to abide by his promises and not kill or torture any more of his own people. And this is precisely why India is not yet ready for the Security Council... it has big aspirations and wants to bask in the limelight but is not ready and not prepared to accept the responsibilities that come with power. For their part, I hope the Libyan rebels join their Tunisian and Egyptian comrades and overthrow the tyrant and establish a democracy that respects freedom and human rights. And for the sake of justice, I trust they'll remember for a long time that India just sat on the sidelines and did nothing to help them.
By not supporting the use of force against Gaddafi, India is in effect supporting the use of force BY Gaddafi. This is not a question of force or no force - Gaddafi for sure is using force to ruthlessly crush a popular revolt against his rule. So, either he is stopped by the use of force, or he will win by the use of force. India, unfortunately, has decided to support the latter. Malvino writes that "we shouldn't support attacking another country", but is it OK for a leader to brutally attack his own people?
India has done the right thing.As much as India against the Libya govt we shouldn't support attacking another country.
Khadafi is a modern version of Julius Caesar. He is of the breed of absolutist rulers that hands out bread, circus (and more) to a sizable part of the population, to win their loyalty. He lauched a civil war, because he had enough people on his side to do so. Foreign intervention in civil wars does not have a good track record. Napoleon invaded my country (Portugal) in 1808. There was, at that time, a sizable oposition to absolutist rule, but the French invasion gave much political strength to the absolutist cause, for many years to come. I fear this will become one more disaster, one more to add to the Vietnam, Iraq and Afganistan afairs.
The days of the cold war are over. India should not continue to pursue its non-aligned stance. It needs to take meaningful leadership in the world. By choosing not to support the Libyan rebels, India signals that it cannot make responsible decisions with its newfound clout and importance on the world stage.
Wise choice, India should steer clear of alignment. Non-alignment should be maintained for political interests.
SHAME ON YOU INDIA, Forget stratigic alliance, Your first priority is Human suffering, everything else comes second.I am a Indian national and going through this humiliation from your actions.
The wikileaks has actually helped Libya... Qadhafi should be thankful to Wikileaks and 'The Hindu' as India abstained from voting to 'demonstrate' its independent foreign policy
The US is doing it again. Bush convinced the world with the 'weapons of mass destruction' theory to occupy Iraq and created mayhem in the regions. Thousands of people died a prosperous country in now in shambles. Now it is the turn of Obama, who wants Libya to be his Iraq.
Please Email the Editor