Background :-
The recent diplomatic engagements that played over a month upto the Seoul Plenary session of NSG and the subsequent developments has been at the center stage of Indian media.The consequence of India not getting a membership of NSG has been disappointing.However , while many have lauded the diplomatic pursuations few have criticized it on the basis of outcome. In this regard, here is our analysis of the issue :-
India has already got NSG waiver , so should we worry about membership ?
Ans– In this regard, there was an article that reads “India’s obsession with NSG” , although we have not gone through the entire article , it is quite indicative of its stance from the heading itself.The question is should India be obsessed with NSG ?
To answer the above question , we have been deliberating why and why not , however one of our UPSCTREE core member pointed out a very good arguments in this regard:-
“It is always better to be inside the room that takes decisions and makes policies than to be an outside of its door , waiting for the outcome”
So , in this ground , it is always better to be on the decision making table , becasue that changes the whole game altogether and most importantly , one will have a say in the decision making process – which is as important as the outcome of the decision itself.
In a nutshell, yes, India should put its all weight to get things done diplomatically and more so to get NSG membership.
The next question is the way the diplomatic engagement was launched and the way media played it out as if it is a do or die situation.
Ans :- In this regard, we firmly believe that every action that one pursues should be a do or die situation.Because there should not be regret afterwards that we have not done enough.That’s a regret one can not afford- whether preparing for an exam or getting a membership.
In this context , India did manage to punch above its weight , the outcome are indicative of it.
What are the lessons from the outcome ?
Here is the list :-
- India managed diplomatically pursue the matter and made enough noise about it, which is good.Noises are good in geopolitik , becasue right noise builds right perception and India’s geopolitics profile has only increased after this.
- The outcome clearly indicated who are our friends and who are our foes- pretty clearly.Which is good , becasue , then one knows who the foes are and how to fight it- you can not win a fight if you don’t know the opponent.We now know who is who and policy can be calibrated accordingly.
- The fact that all the major countries – 38 out of 48 out-rightly supported India , where as 9 remained neutral and one played the spoil-sport indicates India’s international importance.
- Moreover , nothing is stronger than an Idea whose time has come .India’s time has come , and it is just a matter of time.
- If one delves in to the philosophical angel of this question, Indian philosophy gives importance to work than outcome.Work is in our control , not the results- so working hard is not a bad thing.Means are as important as ends ,in diplomacy one should not only be judged by outcome but also by the means.
- Disappointment on the outcome is fine , but to be disheartened due to the outcome is neither necessary nor required.Diplomacy is a subtle art , everyone will pay their debt and everyone will get their credit – history stands testament to it.
- To blame the diplomats for putting all the effort is a no-brainer.The outcome is not the result of this particular endeavor, it has it’s past too.History clouds the judgements and has its way to influence geopolitics.Why China did what it did becomes obvious if we look at our past clearly.The efforts are new but the outcome is old.
Interestingly, the MEA has put a public statement saying that it will be difficult for India to implement Paris climate agreement as it hits NSG roadbloack.
Here is an article that explains rather clearly why China did what it did ?We are publishing it as is-
Editorial :-
If reports emanating from Seoul, where NSG plenary session was held on June23-24, are to be believed, India’s request for membership was turned down despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of 38 out of 48 member countries favoured India’s inclusion into the group. Nine other members were not against India’s inclusion but they wanted clear-cut criteria to be put in place simultaneously for inclusion of non-NPT signatories like New Delhi.
However, there was one country which was dead against India’s inclusion and it was none other than China, India’s arch-rival in Asia as well as one of the two neighbours with whom India had fought an overt and full-fledged war in the past.
Despite the strenuous efforts of Ministry of External Affairs and its diplomats, China refused to budge an inch from its stand. In fact, it was not even ready to discuss India’s case in Seoul. Facing tremendous pressure from other member states, it agreed for a discussion reportedly on the condition that India will not be granted membership, at least in this session.
Even the much-touted ‘personal touch’ diplomacy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi , who met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on June 23 and pleaded for Chinese support, failed to work or break the ice.
Not only that, Chinese even refused to pay any heed to the sane advices that came from common friends like Russia and France. The US also tried its best to persuade China, although not at the same level they had worked phones in 2008 to ensure one time waiver for US-India civil nuclear deal, but to no avail.
Since NSG as a group takes all decisions through consensus, China’s strident anti-India posture ensured that New Delhi was denied entry into NSG, at least for the time being. China, obviously, played the spoilsport for India.
In international diplomacy, these things are neither unusual nor unheard of. It is only natural that a big group rather a cartel like 48-member NSG will take its own time before it arrives at a consensus on an issue which generates diverse viewpoints and opinions.
However, what has baffled observers is the obduracy with which China publicly took an anti-India stand this time. It’s a fact that even in 2008, China was not in favour of the India-specific favour but it had preferred not to go public with its opposition. At that time, Chinese relented after the then US President George Bush personally called up the then Chinese President Hu Jintao.
In fact, NSG is not the first instance in the recent times when China has taken an anti-India position.
On April 1, 2016, it had blocked an UN Security Council move to blacklist Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar who India has accused of masterminding the Pathankot airbase attack.
What has changed since 2008 that has forced China to take an unambiguous anti-India stand on international forums like NSG and UNSC?
In fact, there are a host of issues and developments that has made China wary of India’s rising international profile.
In Seoul, China objected to India’s NSG entry on the ground that New Delhi is yet to sign the NPT but in reality, the NPT was just a fig leaf that Beijing used to thwart India’s candidature.
Despite being a NPT signatory, China’s own record on proliferation – from Pakistan, North Korea and Iran – is pathetic.
The actual reasons behind China’s anti-India hostilities go beyond NPT. In fact, they have nothing to do with NPT.
Let’s have a look at some of these factors:
1. China’s growing unease over deepening Indo-US military ties
It’s an open secret that China has always been suspicious of deepening military ties between India and the United States.
China believes that through these military tie-ups, United States is trying to prop up India as Beijing’s counterweight in Asia-pacific reason.
China did not hide its concern over the recent Indo-US logistics exchange agreement under which militaries of India and the US can use each other’s assets and bases.
US willingness to sell India cutting-edge military hardware including local manufacturing of F-16 fighter jets has further added to the Chinese fears.
The recent statement of an US official that Washington will do everything to boost India’s naval power has been seen by China as yet another American attempt to undermine and challenge its strategic interests in Indian ocean region.
China knows that it can’t stop two sovereign nations from engaging into military cooperation but its frustration over its helplessness is now getting manifested in its increasingly anti-India posturing on international platforms.
2. Beijing’s fears on Indo-US interference in South China sea dispute
China’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands have been objected to by many countries. In fact, China has faced resistance on this issue from time to time by many countries including Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia.
The dispute also involves clash of interest between different nations on issues like acquiring fishing areas, the potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas under the waters of various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.
The United States has openly opposed the Chinese move and India has also started calling for restraint and peaceful resolution of the dispute.
The two countries have started mentioning South China Sea in joint statements recently although during last US visit of Modi, the two sides deliberately omitted the topic given the fact that India was hopeful of Chinese support on NSG issue.
China sees a design in India and US taking a similar line on South China Sea dispute and considers it a ploy to curtail its influence in the region
3. China alarmed over India’s military ties with its adversaries like Japan and Vietnam
The recent reports of India trying to sell supersonic BrahMos missile to Vietnam has also alarmed China. Some media reports have also pointed out that Vietnam has expressed keen interest in Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas as well.
The growing military ties between India and Japan have further annoyed china. Much to China’s discomfort, India, Japan and US are regularly holding naval exercise, Malabar 2016 being the latest one.
Obviously, China is not taking these military moves kindly.
4. Not ready to welcome New Delhi on big table and de-hyphenate India and Pakistan
China does not want India to emerge as a rival power in Asia and as part of the strategy, it wants India to remain bogged down with Pakistan.
That’s one reason why China encouraged Pakistan to apply for NSG membership just after a week India moved its application.
China knows that as long as India is forced to compete with Pakistan on international platforms, it can’t acquire the respect to claim a seat on the table meant for big powers.
5. Chinese concern over aggressive diplomacy of PM Modi in neighbourhood
China is also looking with suspicion at the aggressive diplomatic posturing of PM Modi.
The recent Chabahar port agreement between India and Iran has also ruffled the Chinese feathers.
Chinese believe that Indian presence in the neighbourhood of Gwadar port (that it is developing in Pakistan) may also give a foothold to Americans as the two countries now share a logistics exchange agreement.
PM Modi’s outreach to countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Qatar and Afghanistan has further raised the eyebrows of the Chinese. It is concerned over the impact of India’s new aggressive diplomacy over its client state Pakistan.
Should India retaliate against China?
India’s attempt to get entry into NSG may have failed this time but this is not end of the road for New Delhi.
As the Americans have pointed out, the process has begun and India may get the membership by end of this year. The American official pointed out that even in the case of India’s MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) application, the members deliberated upon it for nearly a year and then arrived at a conclusion.
There have been suggestions that India should curtail trade opportunities for Chinese as a retaliatory measure but there is no unanimity among experts on that.
“This will be very immature. In international diplomacy, ups and downs are part and parcel of the game. Even Chinese have faced similar situations. There is no need for any knee-jerk reactions,” former diplomat TCA Rangachari pointed out.
Ambassador Rangachari is not the only one who advises against any knee-jerk reaction from India. Former diplomat Kishan S. Rana agrees with him.
“ It’s true that China is opposing India’s NSG bid and wants to support Pakistan on this issue. But we have to take every call with a cool mind,” Ambassador Kishan S. Rana said.
On their part, both India and China look to keep each other engaged both bilaterally as well as on multilateral platforms.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be travelling to Hangchou in September to attend G20 summit while Chinese President Xi Jinping is coming to India in October to attend BRICS summit.
That India will be finally included in the NSG club is almost certain but whether Chinese will fall in line easily or will delay India’s entry for a longer duration remains to be seen.
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.