Time to begin lobbying

Lacking the vision to either reinvent the Third World’s signature grouping, the Non-Aligned Movement, or the courage to carve out a path of its own, New Delhi seems to be paralysed by NAM’s don’t-hurt-anybody, status-quoist views : if the world fails to agree on who the additional permanent members of the Security Council should be, then expansion of this body must be limited to non-permanent members.

Prime Minister I.K. Gujral, whose primary love was widely believed to be foreign affairs, may be accused of betraying that young affection. Neither during the widely-publicised encounter with US president Bill Clinton in September or with Italy’s Prodi in the week after in Rome, did Gujral seek support for India’s membership as a permanent member. Only in his address to the UN on September 24, two days after he met Clinton, did the Prime Minister rather colourlessly raise India’s interest in shouldering responsibility in world affairs. The speech was largely blacked out by the world press.

In recent years, the Ministry of External Affairs has dragged its feet in presenting India’s undeniable case to the world. It has hesitated in taking realistic steps in the new world order, believing that “doing deals” would blight India’s ancient civilisational moral graph. The result was that in early December when the UN general assembly debated the question — and decided to continue discussion into the 53rd session this year — India’s name as a new member was absent from the tongues of most delegates.

On its part, New Delhi is somewhat unhappy with the fact that despite the much vaunted “strategic dialogue” with the US, Washington continues to look at India and Pakistan through the prism of the Cold War. US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson told journalists in early December that Washington “cannot support India for permanent membership…since Pakistan also wants to become a member.”

American analysts argue that if the US begins to support India for such a seat, “can you imagine what will happen to our relationship with Pakistan?” A western diplomat inNew Delhi added: “India and the US have had three dates so far, with Clinton, US undersecretary of state Thomas Pickering and secretary of state Madeleine Albright. Let’s see now if the kissing leads to anything further.”

Indian foreign policy analysts say that one way for India to get this permanent UN seat it wants so desperately, would be to “seriously talk” to at least some of the present permanent powers (USA, Russia, China, UK and France), a euphemism for possible deals New Delhi could make with these nations.

Other analysts feel, however, that since the price through such a route could be much too high, India should embark on a comprehensive strategy with the rest of the world that realistically takes into account what these nations want.

Instead of giving high-risk credit lines to the cash-strapped republics of Central Asia, for example, or model farm machinery to North African states like Senegal — when they would much rather use ready cash — India should look at the more immediate needs of these states. One observer pointed out that India would have fared much better in the 1995 contest for a non-permanent seat against Japan if it had rightaway given out hard currency gifts to poorer nations.

“New Delhi’s problem is that it fritters as much money over long-term projects abroad which don’t give it any immediate benefit. But it must now learn to get its act together and spend money on things where results are not only immediate, but also public. The days of labouring over the soul of Africa are over,” the analyst said.

India’s inability today to evolve a coherent strategy to fight for permanent membership — and therefore, international recognition of its power — is perhaps a result of the non-permanent seat it lost to Japan. The loss of nerve seemed to have also affected action in other areas in 1997 : when Lok Sabha speaker P.A. Sangma decided to contest the Inter-parliamentary Union election in February, the ministry sat on the decision for so long that it lost precious canvassing time. Sangma still performed creditably by beating the contender from Argentina in the September election, but lost out to his Spanish rival, who had spent the last two years promoting himself.

Worse, India got through the October 30 elections of the prestigious Economic and Social Council of the UN (EcoSoc) only in the third round; Pakistan made it in the first round.

Ministry sources, however, say that Gujral seemed to have gotten over his earlier lethargy by raising India’s “natural” interest in such a seat with Madeleine Albright when she visited in November — considering that India, more or less, supports the US-backed proposal envisaging permanent seats for Germany, Japan and one permanent seat each from Asia (India believes this is rightfully hers), Africa and Latin America. But Albright, in talks with the prime minister, nevertheless stuck to her “we don’t oppose or support India” line.

US ambassador Richardson’s statements too continue to worry India. “You guys,” he told journalists fromAsia, Africa and Latin America recently, “should make your own choices as to specific countries to gain Security Council membership.” The US, he reiterated, would only support Germany and Japan.

The new government in the new year obviously has its task cut out on this issue. It not only needs to persuade Washington to come out of the closet, its also time to look at alternative centres of influence. Russia is already believed to have committed itself to support New Delhi in any Security Council expansion. Chirac’s January visit acquires additional significance. With 1998 being the year when the expansion is likely to take place, all eyes are now on how New Delhi will handle one of its most important foreign policy objectives in the new century.