Straining To Be Heard

ASK them about their agenda and Indian consular officers will usually strike an erudite pose and rattle off a long list. So it came as something of a surprise when they lapsed into embarrassed laughter and mumbled generalities on being questioned about India's foreign policy imperatives on the eve of Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao's visit to the Americas .

Of course, the diplomats representing New Delhi at the United Nations would know, lobbying tirelessly as they have been for India to be considered for a permanent berth in the Security Council. But they were simply too rushed and caught up in a flurry of hectic activity, what with Kao's arrival just a few days away.

All that was forthcoming was an ambiguous statement from the minister for press at the Indian Embassy in Washington, Shiv Shankar Mukherji : "We are not trying to play any definitive political role. Roles are defined by your strength. On the whole, I would say we are comfortable with a role which would allow us to express our opinions on matters, relate to the world and ensure our voice is heard ".

The hazy definitions notwithstanding, New Delhi has always seemed certain of one thing: that a country of India's size--both demographically and geographically--ought to be a significant player in the global arena. Still, even in South Block, nobody seems to be very clear about how this is to come about. But one thing is for sure: India has always seen itself as a regional super-power and has made this known to the rest of the world in no uncertain terms.

But its sphere of influence is being threatened. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)-the Cartagena meet from October 17 to October 20 is the second since the end of the Cold War--used to be a platform where India enjoyed centrestage, first under Jawaharlal Nehru and then under Indira Gandhi. NAM was a powerful grouping of global relevance during the Cold War era. But since then it has lost much of its relevance and is far from cohesive. Recently this was evident in its inability to reach a consensus on the permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Other problems were evident during the initial meetings of officials and foreign ministers to finalise the agenda for the summit when India's efforts to get NAM to adopt a unified stand on issues of interest to developing countries fell through. Rao was expected to re-orient the movement to adopt a common posture on non-proliferation, transfer of technology, environment and access to markets for the developing countries.

Sources in New Delhi say Islamic countries appear to be more inclined towards towing the American line as long as the US takes care of their interests, while the South American and African countries are in no position to go along with NAM on major issues, what with their strings tied to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Iran and Iraq are the only two exceptions.

It is clear that the importance of NAM is diminishing in India's foreign policy. But though NAM may have lost its significance, non-alignment could still be of relevance. However, it would not be surprising if New Delhi takes stock of its NAM policy in the aftermath of Cartagena, if things go as expected and nothing of any importance is agreed upon.

As for the other major stop on the Prime Minister's itinerary, the 50th anniversary celebrations of the UN, here too some deep thinking on India's role in the organisation seems to be in order. Equally important is the question, where does the organisation stand half a century after being called into existence? While there is no doubt that the UN will remain the only viable forum to discuss and define world affairs , it is currently in the eye of a turbulant storm of criticism. Its peace keeping operation in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia turned out to be disasters, its coffers are empty and the bureaucracy in its corridors inflated as never before.

To top it all, the big powers are slowly losing interest in operations in faraway lands unless there are some personal stakes involved. The UN is crying out for reform and will inevitably be overhauled. It is this impending reform that offers India its best opportunity to slip in forum to discuss and I through the back door.

External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee recently told the UN General Assembly that 50 years ago developing nations, emerging from the chrysalis of colonialism, were "hardly the stuff on which absolute sovereignty is built". But all that has changed drastically today. The same nations could now stake their claim to permanent membership of the Security Council and thereby enjoy more of a say in matters of inter-national importance.

The UN needs commitment of international solidarity from its members, not as lip service but in hard currency. What can India offer? A prolific role in UN peacekeeping operations up to now (for which it has earned all-round appreciation at the world body), a sixth of the world's population, a pluralistic society, a democratic political system and the third largest army in the world. India has always fulfilled all its commitments to the UN and provides one of the largest contingents of experts from developing countries for UN projects.

The working group's report on UN permanent members whose veto would be limited only to matters relating to punitive action. It also recommended a joint working group with members from the General Assembly and the Security Council to promote global disarmament.

But former foreign secretary Muchkund Dubey, who was one of the members of the working group, is not optimistic about the reforms. He notes: "(The major powers) do not want the UN to assume too important a role even in the changed political context. They want the UN to advance their national and strategic interests and do not want the UN to put restrictions on their designs or have its own source of income."

While unable to block the move towards UN reforms, three of the five permanent members have worked towards keeping power and influence with the advanced nations. This is something that world leaders will have to deliberate upon when they meet in New York. Significantly, India and other developing countries have more or less accepted the fact that Japan and Germany will be admitted to the Security Council as permanent members.

Germany and Japan, with characteristic efficiency, have always paid their dues. Last year, Germany contributed 8.93 per cent and Japan 12.4 per cent of the overall UN budget, while they came up with 8.9 per cent and 12.5 per cent, respectively, of the UNPROFOR's. In comparison, India's contribution to UNPROFOR was a mere 0.0173 per cent. In addition, permanent members are required to contribute 53 per cent of the money spent on peacekeeping operations.

However, money is not the main block in India's claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council being accepted. It is its refusal to sign the NPT and the Kashmir issue, successfully internationalised by Pakistan, which have been used to weaken India's case.

Then there is the lack of clout. Despite priming itself to be a regional power, India's influence is limited in the world body. Says Dubey: "India does not have much leverage to force changes. It could have some leverage if G-77 and NAM work together, but there is no unity of purpose in NAM. The developing countries are too vulnerable. The success of their structural adjustment programmes is predicated to their access to markets in the industrialised countries. There is no will to unite and adopt a common approach to the UN reforms."

For its part, Pakistan has openly declared its vehement opposition to India's attempts to enter the Security Council. Indeed, Pakistan and Indonesia will be India's prime competitors for the Asian permanent seat in the Council.

But if India is to have a shot at a berth, South Block will have to get its act together. Says Dubey: "India has not done enough. It has prepared no blueprint for reforms in the political, security and economic fields in the UN. It simply reacts to such proposals, with a short-term and medium point of view."