During India's first nine months on the Security Council, it has worked with the U.S. on broad themes but often differed on country-specific issues. Council membership has a price: many votes inevitably disappoint some of India's constituencies and international friends.
When U.S. President Barack Obama announced in Delhi that the United States looked forward to “a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member,” he was met with thunderous applause. This was the most tangible form of U.S. support for India's ambition to be recognised as a major global player. From the U.S. perspective, it was an act of faith. The U.S. and India have always had a harder time working together in the multilateral arena than they do bilaterally, and the United Nations has been especially tough.
How do things look nine months after India joined the Security Council for a two-year term? Finding ways to work together has been a challenge for both countries. India has also had to deal with the costs of being in the limelight — the public choices that come with Council membership, and that inevitably disappoint some constituencies and some international friends.
India and the U.S. have worked most closely together on what one Indian observer called “thematic issues.” Peacekeeping has been an area of strong India-U.S. cooperation for years. This reflects not just India's standing as one of the top three troop contributing countries, but also its strong professional contributions to the U.N.'s peacekeeping capacity. These have earned strong U.S. support and appreciation. Similarly, control of small arms has been a good area for cooperation.
India's time on the Security Council has expanded the list of broad policy themes where the U.S. and India make common cause. Counter-terrorism is an especially important one. The Indian permanent representative to the U.N., Hardeep Singh Puri, sought the chairmanship of the Security Council's Counter Terrorism Committee, and went about guiding its work in a serious way. This included deepening its links to the expert panel that works with it, the Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate. On September 28, Mr. Puri orchestrated a celebration of the committee's work in the 10 years since its creation, an event that provided the opportunity both for garnering civil society support for the group and for good coverage in the Indian press. U.S. policy-makers support this effort, appreciate the results, and look forward to further collaboration in this area.
The more contentious broad themes have to do with trade. These come up more often in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) than at the U.N. The U.S. and India have a strained relationship in the WTO, in spite of extensive efforts at high-level consultations.
When it comes to country-specific issues, however, U.S.-India interaction at the U.N. is more difficult. The Security Council's agenda always contains a large number of debates and resolutions on the Middle East, where the U.S. and India start from different policy positions. The large majority of resolutions passed this year were adopted unanimously. This included some uncontroversial measures on Libya, Afghanistan, and extension of an expert committee established in conjunction with the Security Council's decision on sanctions for Iran.
Of those where voting was contested, however, the U.S. and India were on opposite sides most of the time. On Libya, India abstained on a March 17 resolution establishing a no-fly zone, together with Brazil, Russia, China and Germany. The resolution was strongly supported by the U.S., and passed with the remaining 10 votes.
Somewhat to India's discomfiture, Syria came up during India's term as Security Council president in August. India was clearly pleased that the conclusion of the council's debate took the form of a council president's statement rather than a formal resolution. This obviated the need for a formal vote for or against. However, India found itself directly at odds with the U.S. in the October 4 vote defeating a Syria resolution that had been under discussion for some three months. India abstained, along with Lebanon, Brazil and South Africa. Russia and China vetoed. The council's other Muslim-majority country, Bosnia, voted yes, together with the U.S. and seven other members.
The most contentious of the country issues before the council this year is Palestine. India co-sponsored a resolution on Israeli settlements, eventually vetoed by the U.S. This type of “split vote” has become routine — the other 13 Security Council members also voted for it. Much more troublesome for the U.S. was India's pledge to vote in favour of U.N. membership for Palestine. The application was eventually referred to the Security Council committee that reviews membership applications, amid speculation that the Palestinian Authority had tacitly agreed to slow the process down. But of all the hot-button issues for the U.S., this was the most difficult. Washington had announced that it would if necessary use its veto to block a Palestinian membership application outside of the framework of the stalled peace negotiations with Israel. However, the U.S. was urgently seeking a way to sidestep the issue and avoid the damage to its relations in the Muslim world that would follow a veto. India's early public stance, along with the other potential “yes” votes for full Palestinian membership, thus put Washington in a potentially painful and embarrassing situation.
Country issues before the Security Council generate far more political passion than broad policy themes. This has two consequences. For the U.S., negative consequences of India-U.S. differences are felt further up the political ladder, and with greater intensity, than the positive vibrations from Indo-U.S. cooperation on such broad issues as peacekeeping and counter-terrorism. India's position on the Palestinians, on Syria, or on Libya was in keeping with many years of Indian policy toward the Middle East, and was clearly not intended as a rebuff to the U.S. But from Washington's perspective, the fact that India and the United States so rarely line up together on the U.N.'s “hot button” issues is troublesome.
From Delhi's perspective, the country-specific issues confront India's policymakers with the costs of being in the multilateral limelight. Security Council members cast votes in a highly visible forum, on very specific issues, with the full glare of international publicity. Often, these votes force India to choose, not whether to accept international criticism for its position, but which of its friends to anger. In the first third of its Security Council tenure, India has generally sided with the U.S. on issues that are important but not passionate; it has taken the other side on issues that generate greater political heat.
Interestingly, while there is strong consensus in India that the country deserves a permanent Security Council seat, one occasionally hears ambivalence about how useful the seat would be and how much policy priority it deserves. Former government officials occasionally muse that “club membership” carries more costs than benefits. Neither the Manmohan Singh government nor any successor, however, is likely to back away from this campaign.
Assessing the benefits to India of Security Council membership is a complicated exercise. Achieving recognition as a global player is an important policy goal in its own right. But when one looks for the vision of global governance that India seeks to advance, the picture is clouded. Policy documents and analyses from Indian academics speak in familiar terms of defending sovereign states against interventionism and of creating a world order in which poor countries are as able as rich ones to make their voices heard. But the role that many Indians are most comfortable with draws heavily on the concept of “sovereign autonomy” — balancing powers that seem too strong, and relishing a solo role where possible.
This is hard to do in the multilateral arena, where successful diplomacy relies on giving others credit and on the constant building and rebuilding of coalitions. India's diplomats are among the world's best at navigating U.N. procedures, and are masters of the drafting process. Nonetheless, apart from its skillful stewardship of the Counter Terrorism Committee, it is not clear that India has been a major broker of contested issues in the Security Council itself. The August statement on Syria, for example, seems to have been largely orchestrated by Brazil and France.
India has decades of practice in building support in the Non-Aligned Movement, an important constituency for it at the U.N. (Interestingly, there is a special tab on the website of India's U.N. mission devoted to the NAM.) It has come to rely more heavily on more selective groups, notably BRICS (with Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa). All these countries are on the Security Council in 2011. It is perhaps significant that BRICS accounted for all but one of the abstentions on the Libya and Syria resolutions. Working in coalition with the U.S. is a more unfamiliar pursuit. India's goal of a larger global role would be well served by adding this to its repertoire.
The U.N. is of course not the only multilateral forum where the U.S. and India work together. Their relations have been more harmonious in the G-20 and the multilateral development banks — and more difficult, as noted, in the WTO. It would be naïve to expect these two large countries, whose interests are closer than before but still have important differences, to line up in lock-step in any multilateral organisation. But their ability to manage their differences and find mutual accommodation on a reasonable share of country-specific issues as well as big foreign policy themes will be an important test of how well their partnership can work outside the strictly bilateral realm.
(Teresita and Howard Schaffer are former U.S. Ambassadors, with long years of service in South Asia. They are co-founders of southasiahand.com. Teresita Schaffer is a non-resident senior fellow at Brookings Institution; Howard Schaffer teaches at Georgetown University.)
Keywords: BRICS, UNSC, India-US ties
as indicated in the article,India had to face ,Thematic issues like
peace,terrorism and trade.Also it had country specific issues when
confronted with other countries especially With US.In all these
cases India found it difficult to dance to the US tunes.It had to
manage with its own classical dances which may not be in tune with
US jarring music.While Americans expected their dances like Tango,
Rumbo,Salsa,Bachata,cha cha,Ballet,Brake types to be accepted by
India,they could only be contented with Indian dances like kathakali.
Bharatnatyam,oddissi,Bangra,Kuchipudi,manipuri,garba etc.We hope the
STEPS taken by the both countries are atleast in tune with the sound
of co-operative spirit and welfare of the world.
Well thought !
Meticulously designed article.It clearly indicates the differences and consensus between India and U.S. in matters related to foreign policy. It would have been better if differences in WTO had been given. I hope such article (differences in WTO) would also be published soon. Having said all this, once again a brilliant and informative article... Thank You Hindu.
Japan couldn’t get permanent seat in UN because US never wanted that, even if Japan bear 19% of UN’s expenditure similar to US. this way Japan remained dependent on US, either for nuclear power against China or for Veto power in UN. if India will also start supporting US blindly, lose her friends like Russia and other developing countries, US will not value India as anyhow India will have do what US wants. India will get UNSC seat only if India will prove that it is not in control of West and will maintain its stand which it had since NAM. in this case, West will have to understand that India is a deserving nation for UNSC seat which maintains enough support of other developing nation who don’t like colonizing mentality West and Indian right on permanent seat in UN can’t be ignored. Like, more West will face problems in Afghan or by any other 9/11 type attack in West by Al Qaeda based in Afghan or Pakistan, more US will understand Pakistan’s sponsored terrorism problems of India also.
If every country started aggressively pursuing its national interests then the world would turn into an anarchic planet.Indian statecraft is a shiny example of how the historic foreign policy pillars are used to bolster the 21st century diplomacy.
India can't shrug off the huge responsibility which comes with NAM,simultaneously US is a country India can ill afford to whip publicly.India might not be on the same page with US on certain issues but then even mono-zygotic twins have differences of opinions.Its a delight to see US swing in favor of India lately vis-à-vis Pakistan,may be to leverage more support from India at the Security Council.But I feel the 'independence' of Indian foreign policy is too heavy a ship to be moved by the US.
The idealistic part of foreign policy will be our persona for the world and the pragmatic part of it will grease our relations with the superpower.What strikes the most is the aplomb with which India has been balancing the two ends of our statecraft.
India needs to decide what principles it wants to stand for before seeking a permanent membership. India has been for non intervention in another country's affairs since the inception of it's role in UN. This stance is primarily driven by it's history of being governed by another nation (Britain) and the political convenience of dealing with the Kashmir issue. However if we want to be a responsible global power, you cannot turn a blind eye to a dictator like Gaddafi or Assad slaughtering his own people. Russia or China don't have stellar records in this area. So you dont have to follow them blindly. Or for that matter neither does the the US. Make your own principles and follow them.
From an Indian perspective the article highlights the fact that India's commitment to the NAM, a highly courageous and morally upright position, is still strong despite intense Western pressure to toe their line. India's fight to maintain the territorial integrity of all nations, and give all nations an equal international voice in both politics and economics, is well recognised, respected, and appreciated by dozens of smaller, less powerful nations across the globe. India MUST ALWAYS maintain her independent foreign policy, which appears to have been under the siege of the "US-India Special Relationship". There is a fundamental chasm between the national philosophies and concomitant psyches of India and the US (the West in general) which cannot be bridged by superficial diplomatic niceties and CBMs.
Great Britain and its global power through Suez Canal and Indian subcontinent came to an historical end with emergence of US power after WWII. Now, with next generation of mainland Chinese emerging as a super economic/military power, it's imperative Indian decision-makers keep their regional (Asian) perspective in focus whether in Afghanistan or elsewhere. Irrespective of political-strategic backwardness (corruption!) in Delhi - due principally to lingering influence of caste sytem in domestic politics - India will be propelled into competition with mainland China, either in a friendly or unfriendly environment; thus decline and fall of American power and influence must form a strategic part of India's ultimate political emergence on world stage, me thinks.
It is now high time, after the end of 2nd world war, that not only veto powers as enjoyed by only five countries should forthwith be abolished but also a full and comprehensive review of all organizations of UNO, viz, Security Council, World Bank, IMF,WHO, UNCTAD, UNESCO, FAO etc.by indepedent professional institutions needs to be undertaken.UNO & all its organizations need to be restructured, staff strength reduced to half, annual costs reduced to 30%.It is yet not even partially established the outcome of the Security Council in relation to disputed problems between countries. Besides, WTO, IMF, World Bank etc. dominated by a few powerful ones since their creation till date have not served the enshrined objectives. Even, pressure for imposing democracy in several countries as also pampering dictators by a few powerful countries have created problems more than they solved. Countries like India should be encouraged to voice concern of their countrymen while debating issues.
Warmth of India-US relations does not mean that India has to follow US everywhere; India has its own policy, its own relations with countreis at large and has its own interest in the global politics. The blind pursuit of US in one direction has isolated itself and India cannot support that stance, even at the cost of UNSC membership, if that be so. An Independent sovereign India pursues its foreign policy without any pressure. India's support for Palestinians is not new, it is decades old even before India establsihed diplomatic relations with Israel. There will never be a full agreement between India and US on world issues.
India's stance or even the strategy seems to be ambivalence. It fails to recognize that a leader cannot please everyone all the time. Such a leader will fail to gain respect. That is what has been happening to India. India does well in peace efforts and counter-terrorism areas simply because you cannot go wrong supporting them. Other topics need strong decision making, courage, and willingness to implement such decisions and face the consequences, whatever it may be. India has not recognized this. It has all the potential otherwise to become a leader. India fails to live by its own Mahabaratha values. When it does it will automatically be seen by others as a leader.
Though India-US has different point of view on hot issues but still both countries are making good progress in their mutual relationship. But if India supports US in all the matters then its friendship with other countries will severely effected. India is a developing countries it need to develop from all the dimension. Last year when US sanctions on Tehran and forced India to don't use ACU for Iran's oil payment, though India followed US request but it didn't stop it import of Oil from Iran. I guess at that US expected sanction from India on Iran also. When Barak Obama announced that he will take all US troop from Afghanistan by 2015. He wanted India to play a major role in the development of Afghanistan.On the other hand India want very effective step towards the anti-terrorism from US , specially in Pakistan.So, this mutual expectation from each other make them inseparable to each other.
Author seems to be complaining that India does not behave like a UK(read sidekick) at the UN. If the US expects that from India, it is daydreaming. Well, the US endorsing India's quest for a permanent seat is not charity, nor does it need think that it would make India subservient to US. 'Co-operating' does not mean following US stand. If the US and other permanent members try to keep other emerging countries out, the UN itself will loose relevance. Indians know that well. So India is well prepared to play the game. The US will no longer find it easy to bully the whole world. So get over it. The sooner the better.
From my academic and professional experience dealing with US relations with South Asian conuntries,it's more than clear what US State Dept's principal objective is in promoting such one-sided commentary on Indo-American relations. Krishna Menon used to scare the wits of Dulles brothers who controlled CIA and State Dept under Eisenhower when southasian cold war was started by Pentagon with establishment of SEATO (Pak/ISI included)....American exceptionalism is a concept which Indians must not only understand but also remind themselves that under no cirsumstances will Indian interests coincide with Amerrican exceptionalism, in particular, in South Asian affairs. The EU is faced with similar policy constraints when dealing with Nato Council in contest of strategic policy decision-making. The EU and Nato do not see eye to eye on every issue primarily because Pentagon military perspective always predominates and overides State Dept perspective.
This Article clearly signifies the inportance of Indo-U.S. bilateral cooperation at the U.N. The time has come for both the nations to keep aside smaller contentitous issues and bring larger mutuallity in relationships.Both U.S. and India have a lot to provide to the whole nation and U.N. is one platform to take the initiative.After Nehrus Non allignment movement and Panchsheel this is first time that India has got a major say on World stage and It should try and capitalise it.
Though the authors deserve appreciation for this well written article, their suggestion that India should work with the US in coalition in order to play a larger global role is unacceptable to me. This sounds like aligning India's foreign policy with the USA's interests. India must shape its foreign policy as per its domestic, regional and international interests. If being subservient to the major international players like the USA or China is a precondition for India to attain a wider global role, it should rather go alone even if it means missing an opportunity of getting a permanent membership at the UNSC.
It is high time that India is elevated to have the veto power, like the other five. India deserves. I must say that Indian diplomats in general are not very forceful and articulate in their deliberations on issues that matters. They need to be trained and guided by professional mentors. When you see some of the spokesman on the stage they look very pathetic. I am a passionate Indian, that does not mean we should be boisterous or arrogant, but be in a position to argue our case when it matters.
India needs to be a self reliant while taking decisions on such issues...dancing to US tunes will not gain anything for india. US uses carrot and stick policy to lure the nations to realise its ambitions. India should have a rigid stance and worthful directives otherwise luring to US carrot might cause India to pay very high price !
Understanding the fundamental goals/views of why the 'western' powers do what they do is key to make sense of this 'dance' going on. To put it painly the 'western' powers have attempted to control the world in the past few centuries by either colonization (old way) or neo-libralism (new way). This means putting up puppet dictators (Middle east, South America), building military bases around the world, 'intervening' in the name of bringing peace & democracy etc etc. all to protect their 'interests'. BRICS have managed to largely avoid the perils of these 'policies' & it is historic to see them join hands and stand up against this nefarious world view. If this doesn't sound right to you go check history & think if these 'powers' are given another 100-200 years would there be world peace & equality? We are probably at the ebb of those in the recent modern history. If there has to be a positive change not only do the BRICS need to be at forefront but US & allies need to change their 'view'
A very thoughtful and balanced analysis. Having served as Nepal's alternative representative to the UN Security Council (1988-89)and as Nepal's DPR during 1985-1990, I can well appreciate the point about UNSC membership not being an unalloyed blessing for the country concerned. It would be interesting and instructive, I belive, to compare the complicated US-India 'dance' in the UNSC today with one between the US and Pakistan, when the latter was last a non-permanent member of that principal UN organ.
Can one expect such a piece from the Schaffers sometime in the future?
Shouldn't there be anything like independent foreign policy for India?
Abolish Veto power in the UN Security Council. Let the member countries enjoy equal power with due respect. Otherwise the complicated dance will continue for ever.
"India's goal of a larger global role would be well served by adding this to its repertoire." . It has become quite standard practice for Americans to first heap praises on India and its people and then sheepishly drop a line like the above in between. There is no reason for us to simply forget our non-aligned experience for earning the Americans' favour. If they think that they can win our support by buttering us up like this then they are totally wrong. And why do we even need their support? With America's role in global discussions diminishing, it makes better sense for our diplomats to seek greater regional, strategic and pragmatic relations with China.
Very informative and absorbing article, with careful dissection of India's position, strategy and direction of policy at the UN.
Brilliant article!
Please Email the Editor