Should India pull out of UN peacekeeping missions?
Last week, Nitin and Sushant proposed in an op-ed in the Indian Express that India has to scale down its contribution to the UN peacekeeping operations. They contend that rather than for “serving an ideal” or for “better compensation for its soldiers”, such deployments should be strictly governed only by one principle– India’s national interest.
A couple of days later, Anit joined the debate with another op-ed in the Indian Express countering their arguments and putting forth reasons of his own for continuing with India’s policy of contributing heavily to these UN peacekeeping assignments.
Now, Nitin has a put up a blogpost at The Acorn, pointing out the logical fallacies in Anit’s postulations.
It is an engrossing debate, not because I happen to know the authors personally, but because it puts the spotlight on a very pertinent policy issue that needs immediate attention of the establishment. Eventually, where we stand on this subject is a vindication of whether India has really moved on from mouthing hypocritical platitudes on NPT, NAM, South-South cooperation and G-88 of a bygone era to the realities of Indo-US nuclear deal, NSSP, TEAM-9, ASEAN and G-8 in this era of an emergent India or not.
Sticking with this archaic policy in these times only continues to bracket India and its military with Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Ghana and numerous other underdeveloped countries and their sub-standard militaries. As this blogger had said earlier in this post, India ought to look at the company it keeps in these missions.
Hi Prag,
I enjoy your blog and read it regularly. I think you’re one of the best. Having said that, can I jump into this one?
I don’t think that where we stand on this subject is necessarily “a vindication of whether India has really moved on from mouthing hypocritical platitudes…” I think it’s simply whether India should do PKO or not. Clubbing it all together to signify that the idea proposed by Nitin Pai and Sushant Singh- “withdraw from UN peacekeeping” is more suitable for an ‘emergent India’is debateable. After all, the people who matter- most Indians and their political representatives, would be uncomfortable with that proposition.
Also, I dont think it’s a sign of a great power if India stops associating with ‘underdeveloped countries and their substandard militaries’. So now we have an exclusive club of developed militaries that we should only associate with? It overlooks the fact that building interpersonal relationships with ALL countries and ALL militaries is better served,( the Col meeting another Col makes a difference, irrespective of where they are from unless we are status conscious) to great power aspirations that saying- “oh, if you’re developed, we’ll invite you the officers mess, if you are not- go back to your huddles”
Thanks
@ pragmatic
Thank you. Read the informed and very interesting articles and analyses by N Pai, SK Singh and the counter by A Mukherjee. Also took a dekho at the IA website which is very detailed on the subject. Checked out the list of the 109 little and larger wars by Empire between 1837 and 1901, some of which include Indian Forces. Thereafter too. Seems the Officers and Soldiers, Regiments were always glad to go ‘walking out’ for the Distinction and the Money or ‘prize money’ involved, Then as Now.
Getting seriously involved in Afghanistan, in the other ‘stans, would have been factored in as a parallel Forcing in for more practical or policy reasons. We live in interesting times. More technology, more media please.
Blame it all on the exchange rate.
If the dollar was not at 1 : 40 vis a vis the INR, UN Peacekeeping missions would have long since lost their lustre for the military.
Come on, if the army earns some shekels as a reward for jobs well done at home, for fires quelled, flood situations controlled and the borders kept safe, why do we want the good times to end?
For the Europeans to volunteer for Congo at UN rates is something like an Indian voluntereing to serve in Dandakaranya at the Indian temporary duty rates. Hell, every self respecting Indian would prefer Delhi to Jharsuguda.
On the other hand, it is definitely true that the dollar is used to buy up the armies of the developing world to clean up the mess created inter alia by the white man himself in the first place.
On balance, to put matters into perspective, we have to ask whether we gain influence in the Dark ( Emerging?) continent due to our commitment to UNPKOs.
Another point is, every country seems to be contributing as per their USP. The Europeans and the Japanese salve their conscience by pouring in money. The Indians put in the boots on the ground.
Now someone wants us to pull out. Perhaps we contribute with money instead? oops, sorry. Where’s the money?!?!
So there we are – pretenders to the high table; but neither here nor there. Neither poor enough to visibly hanker for the gold ,nor rich enough to send some cash.
Are the MNFs the answer? You bet your top dollar or bottom rupee that we did well not to be associated with the quagmire in Iraq. After another twenty years, it may even appear that our decision (indecision?) to put soldiers into Afghanistan was good for us.
In a complex world, solutions are complex.I think if India withdraw soldiers from UNPKOs, then the movement called the UN is well and truly done for. We may as well hand over the last vestiges of perceived independence to the yanks.
Hallelujah!
@Gollum,
Thanks for the very kind words.
I think it’s simply whether India should do PKO or not.
Isn’t it part of a larger strategy and where we stand today [or aspire to] on the world stage? We have successfully broken the shackles to our economic past and there are major paradigm shifts in the way we conduct our foreign policy. Does India’s military contribution to UNPKO fit in with our current foreign policy goals? I doubt if they do now.
It overlooks the fact that building interpersonal relationships with ALL countries and ALL militaries is better served,( the Col meeting another Col makes a difference, irrespective of where they are from unless we are status conscious) to great power aspirations
Finally, the world is about status and power– call them cliques if you like. What else is P-5, Nuclear weapon states, G-8 and the like? Birds of the same flock stick together. Earlier we were with G-88, now we want to be part of G-8.
Don’t we want to be dehyphenated with Pakistan on security angle and China on the economic angle in international talk? I might have put it rather bluntly but that is the fact of life…
Committing soldiers to UN, like many other decisions, is not at all an Army decision. Instead of paying hard cash to UN we commit soldiers and earn lots of foreign exchange in return (Not a single dollar comes to the armed forces except for the payments done to the personnel). The money spent on these deployed assets goes from the Defence Budget whereas the ‘Shekels’ given to the personnel come from GOIfunds alloted for UN. Close to a billion USD are credited by the UN per year in addition to the savings in our committed contribution to the UN at a fixed rate depending on population and GNP. The extra money earned can then be used to waive of loans or give subsidies which can get you votes. So like many other schemes this is a good a way for the Indian state to use the armed forces to get enhanced benefits for the politicians. It will continue to happen, as in the past, that the soldier will repair the damage done by the politico-babu nexus. It happened in 1948, we are still paying for it. It happened in 1962, 1971, 1987 (IPKF), 1999, 2001-02 and I forgot 1989-present in kashmir and 1955-present in the NE.
@PS:
At the level of the individual soldier, it is about financial rewards. But at the national level, it has to be about foreign policy goals.
@Raja:
Yes, it is finally about the money for an individual soldier.Other than that, I think Nitin has already answered most of your queries in his blogpost.
I think if India withdraw soldiers from UNPKOs, then the movement called the UN is well and truly done for. We may as well hand over the last vestiges of perceived independence to the yanks.
The P-5 decides where the mission will be, the G-8 funds it, and Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, India, Jordan, Ghana, Nigeria and a few other African countries send their troops. Where is the “perceived” independence of the contributing nations in all this? Remember Sierra Leone and the Balkans and what happened to India there.
If I may put it so, the individual soldier earns some extra money from the UN missions… the nation does not earn anything of value. The choice is well and truly upon us.
@Guru:
The money spent on these deployed assets goes from the Defence Budget whereas the ‘Shekels’ given to the personnel come from GOI funds alloted for UN. Close to a billion USD are credited by the UN per year in addition to the savings in our committed contribution to the UN at a fixed rate depending on population and GNP.
May I request you to verify the facts or provide the references. I think the shekels to personnel are provided by the UN, and not by the GoI. The total contribution for the equipment (wet lease) is around 250 million USD, which is a minuscule percentage of India’s defence budget, forget the national budget.
It is military’s push to get more missions, as it provides extra remuneration to its soldiers. Else, as Anit has said, Colonel Kushal Thankur wouldn’t have asked for a UN mission for his unit as a reward for their gallant action in Kargil.
If these contributions are not in the interest of the services, they should fight to reduce them. On the other hand, they are increasing them and deploying units at 3 times the officer strength in the UN while units on the LoC and Kashmir suffer from a dearth of officers.
@Pragmatic
The problem- and sometimes the assets of blogs are that sometimes they go in unexpected directions.
I guess the main point that the authors make was whether India should or should not take part in UNPKO’s?
To that I am inclined to say- yes.
“Does India’s military contribution to UNPKO fit in with our current foreign policy goals?”
To this, I think it it does, you think it doesn’t. What do we do?
And dont reduce the complexity of the issue by saying that it’s only pay off is for the money to soldiers. It’s much more than that.
And why are you disregarding increased bandwidth of interaction? The power structures of the world are like an old boys club, admittedly, but earning the goodwill of the lots below you is important too- and it pays off in not easy to spot ways….
“Indian troops need more of the kind of exposure that comes from joint exercises with the armed forces of the United States, Britain, Japan and ASEAN. Such exposure will not only create personal networks, system interoperability and joint operating procedures but also assist in military modernisation.”
Most commenters are missing the above crucial point – ‘shekels’ to soldiers, international exposure/ relation, justification for permanent seat, etc.