Stand on Syria

It is a truism that those who dont take risks cannot win. India cannot acquire the stature of a big global power if it always refuses to choose. Delhi has rarely joined cause with the West at international forums in such situations. But that has been inextricably linked to its obsolete idea that whenever Western powers move a resolution against an Eastern regime,it is a case of Western imperialism. India had continued to look at Libya through that prism of colonialism last March when it opposed the UNSC resolution against Gaddafi. As Delhi subsequently learnt,it was on the wrong side of history. A similar mistake on the resolution on Syria would have left India isolated and cost it dearly in terms of its interests in mainstream Arab states. This resolution,after all,was sponsored by the Gulf Cooperation Council in its entirety,whose significance for India in terms of economics and oil cannot be understated.

Any diplomatic action like this vote needs to be presented as part of a consistent modus operandi. Indias permanent representative to the UN,Hardeep Singh Puri,did that by explaining the vote as in keeping with Indias support for the efforts by the Arab League for a peaceful resolution through a Syrian-led inclusive political process. Nevertheless,the implications of Russia and Chinas veto could be an extended bloodbath as witnessed in Homs just before the vote. To placate Moscow and Beijing,references to regime change,sanctions and military intervention had already been dropped. It now remains for the backers of the defeated resolution to engage in hectic diplomacy again,immediately.