The debate initated at this blog on the utility of UN peacekeeping assignments for India has got Richard Gowan pitching in with his take on the subject. He asks the question– “What if India gave up on the UN?”
You can follow the debate sparked by these comments over at Pragmatic Euphony, a blog devoted to India’s national interest. Fears of new violence ahead in the eastern Congo suggest that Indian peacekeepers may be in the headlines again this summer, as this is one of the theatres in which they are squarely on the frontline. A rapid drawdown of Indian forces isn’t imminent – New Delhi has good reasons to look responsible after (i) it took flak for helping kill off Doha (whatever the merits!) and (ii) the IAEA signed off on the US-India nuclear deal this week.
But these online stirrings may be the start of something bigger. India could well lose faith in the relevance of peacekeeping – recent violence in Kashmir and reports that Pakistan was implicated in July’s attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul are reminders that it has urgent problems on its doorstep to tend to. New Delhi is also deeply skeptical about all the current talk about the Responsibility to Protect (as it demonstrated during the Burmese cyclone crisis) and is liable to demand an ever-greater say in UN strategy-making if it is to stay involved. That raises the tricky question of when if ever India will get a permanent Security Council seat…
If India cut back on its peacekeepers it would be incredibly difficult to sustain big peace operations in places like the Congo. This is often obscured by (i) a lazy assumption that the South Asians will be peacekeepers forever out of habit; (ii) a focus on the views of African troop suppliers, especially in Darfur; and (iii) possibly excessive excitement about the prospect of other countries getting involved, like China. China’s peacekeeping commitments are still less than a quarter of India’s.
Read the full post by Richard at Global Dashboard here.
Richard has it nearly right here but the issue at stake is more than UN peacekeeping. It is time the world community and the powers that be sat up and took notice; India can not be merely viewed as a supplier of troops for UN peacekeeping assignments in Africa and Asia. The power – economic, military and soft – wielded by India today deserves to be recognised with a seat at the right forums, whether it be the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, the G-8 or the Brenton Woods institutions.
The debate must focus on the issues of reform and restructuring of these hoary world bodies, which lie at the heart of the problems besetting the global system today; a system, which still reeks of global power equations obtained immediately at the end of the Second World War. Portraying India as an implacable and inexorable power-hungry nation demanding an inordinate share of “global power without responsibility” not only does great disservice to India and its unstinted contribution to the cause of global peace and stability, but also brings forth a real danger of eventually pushing the global institutions, like the UNSC, G-8 and IMF, into an irrelevance.
Time to sit up and take notice…
I certainly don’t wish to imply that India is “merely” a supplier of peacekeepers, although I believe that UN operations are strategically significant. That’s not only true in a high-profile case like Lebanon (where Indian and European troops work together in a framework based on NATO structures, an interesting hybrid) but missions in Africa too. At a time when African resources are increasingly significant to international trade (and Indian firms are investing in them at a significant rate) strengthening security there has global importance, even leaving aside humanitarian concerns.
Nor do I wish to suggest that India wants “power without responsibility”. I fully agree that it deserves a far greater role in international institutions. Ultimately, we need institutions that both (i) properly include 21st century powers like India and (ii) are able to deliver effective security through better peacekeeping, counter-terrorism cooperation and so forth. For some interesting ideas on how to do that, take a look at the Manging Global Insecurity project, with which I am very marginally involved:
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/mgi.aspx
Enjoying the debate, Richard
Why do you think India is not properly represented in world forums?
The UN security council seat is a contentious issue alright. But don’t you think India becoming a permanent member with veto rights will make the situation worse than it already is? Not for India, but for UN, especially the effectiveness of the security council.
As for WTO, India obviously enjoys enormous say, to the point of being accused of derailing the latest round. This when India is still an insignificant player in global trade. Have we crossed the 1% mark yet?
India is already a regular invitee at G8 summits. Considering that we compete with Brazil, Russia and South Korea for the 10th or 11th position in the size of the economies, aren’t we getting whats our due?
We should also remember that India’s role in Global forums has perpetually been disruptive. Whats the point in say inviting India to a Global Warming summit, when India will play the ugly ‘per-capita emission’ game despite being one of the largest polluters of the world.
This hankering for perquisites (recent IAEA waiver, demand for SC seat etc) do project India as power hungry whiners and may have very negative foreign policy implications in the future.
India needn’t worry about taking flak for the WTO issue. That’s laughable, and everyone knows who really was to blame. I think India should at least threaten to quit the UN. That might help focus some attention on the long standing issue of the permanent seat at the Security council.
@Richard:
Thanks for the comments. I agree that India has a stake in improving the security situation in Africa — within or without the UN. There are two other examples of world power securing their interests in Africa. One is China with its support of the Darfur regime in Sudan, and the other is the US, which has planned the AFRICOM in Liberia. Similarly, India needs to find its own model in Africa.
It is important that India moves from being part of virtually all the UN peacekeeping arrangements to selective UN missions, which meet its national aims. It can’t be deployed there along with other “sub-standard militaries of the third world”, ostensibly only for some green bucks. The preferred option for India should be to enter into bilateral defence agreements with African nations and work from there, where the Indian government can exercise better control and forge a worthwhile relationship to secure its economic interests.
Moreover, if India needs to send troops to Afghanistan for strategic reasons, then this deployment of nearly 10,000 soldiers with the UNPKO should logically move there. India has to decide what is best to secure its long-term geopolitical interests and the commitment to the UN may have to, unfortunately, suffer in the bargain.
While most commentators agree that India needs to be part of the major world bodies, the nations who have been entrenched in these bodies for last 60 years or more are unwilling to shed their places. On the G-8 issue, Liam Halligan had a very incisive comment in The Guardian last month: