Why Did The UPA Give Up The Veto Claim?

Nagendar Sharma: How representative can a world body like the UN be called when it hasfailed to give due importance to the main countries in the developing world,such as India? Is the UN only club for the rich countries?

Yashwant Sinha: Well this just shows that the situation which existed incertain world level organisations during and after the Second World War, stillexists today. The changes witnessed by the world during the past 60 years arenot being reflected in these organisations, and this is the reason why they haveweakened over the years, and do not have the kind of influence today which suchworld level organisations should have, and, infact, had in the past decades.

Listener from Lucknow : The UPA government says it is ready to accept the UN Security Council membership even without a veto power. Isn’tit strange that we are clubbing ourselves with countries like Japan forpermanent UN seat? Now Japan would get unqualified support from the US, butduring past 60 years India has not won any such ally which would support usblindly. Do you think the Indian policy is right?

Yashwant Sinha: Earlier, the UPA government’s stand was that it wouldaccept the permanent membership of UN Security Council only with the veto power.Categorical statement to this effect was given in the Rayja Sabha by theExternal Affairs Minister of the UPA government, and this was a feeling in thecountry also. Later on, surprisingly the UPA government changed its positionthat it would accept the permanent membership even without a veto power. Now,till date, it is not clear what concession has India got in return for havingmade a drastic change in its position. In terms of diplomacy, and when talkswere progressing, I think the timing of the UPA government decision to give upthe veto power claim was not correct. The country has a right to know whatconcessions the government has got for having made a change in its position, asit does not seem that India has managed anything despite this surprisingclimbdown.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Sinha, why did the present Indian efforts for the permanent membershipfail? Did the UPA government wake up late or the sense of urgency was missingand, in your view, what could be the way forward?

Yaswant Sinha : In 1994, when India first made its claim for apermanent seat in UN Security Council, there was a Congressgovernment in office. Since that time, all successive governments have takenthis claim forward. Whenever Indian ministers and officials have been meetinginternational diplomats, this claim has been pitched forward. I have the firsthand experience of the efforts made during the NDA government, and I can sharethose with you. During the talks at all international fora for the Indianclaims, I can say this with satisfaction today that the majority of countries whomwe spoke to were in favour of India being a permanent member of the UN SecurityCouncil. These talks have been taken forward by the present government.

Now thecommonly asked question is: why should India be made a member of the SecurityCouncil? The answer to this is that ours is a fast growing and big developingnation. The developing world looks towards India as their powerful voice. Ithink the present government wanted to enter the security Council as arepresentative of the developing world, and it was correct to have taken thisline. 

But the major weakness which I saw in the approach of the UPA government,for this whole exercise, was being a part of G-4 (Group of four: we formed a group withGermany, Japan and Brazil). Now what happened due to this was that India wasclubbed as a rival country by those who have problems with Germany and Japan,and, infact, had no troubled relations with India. I would like to give you anexample here. Russia has been supporting India at all international fora onalmost all issues including that of India’s candidature for permanentmembership, since the days of Soviet Union. This time however, Russia also joinedChina in opposing India’s bid. This happened because China was againstJapan becoming a permanent member. Similarly, America and China also opposedIndia’s bid in almost one voice. So what I am saying is that by joining theG-4, India attracted the opposition of all the countries which were opposed toGermany and Japan, but were not directly against us.

I see no problem in having joined hands with Brazil. Infact, to my mind, abetter strategy for India would have been to form a group with developingcountries from Latin America, Africa and Asia. In all three of these continents,India has many friends. Look at African Union, it was a big group of 53 countries,a majority of them have good relations with us, but India could notcoordinate its efforts properly with them. So I think that having gone withcountries of the developed world like Germany and Japan, did not prove to be abeneficial strategy for us.

Listener from Mathura : It is not a question of the UPA governmentalone, but all the governments, including the NDA government, in which you werethe foreign minister for a long time, all have messed up India’s chances ofbeing a permanent member.

Yashwant Sinha: As I was saying earlier, the Indian bid is about 11 yearsold now. However the real movement in this came after the Iraq War of 2003, withthe announcement of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan that he was setting up ahigh-level committee to suggest reforms in the United Nations, and I can saywith satisfaction that this was as a result of continuous pressure exerted bydifferent countries, including the NDA government of India. Kofi Annan had saidthat this committee would submit its report in a time bound schedule. However,when the report came in 2004, the government in India had changed and it was theresponsibility of the UPA government to have followed-up the report. I would saythe UPA government made efforts in this direction, but their approach was notcorrect. Had the Indian government’s approach been correct, I think Indiacould have become a permanent member during the UNGA session starting this week.Therefore, you cannot accuse our government of having been slow orirresponsible on this issue.

Listener from Pakistan : As of today, the UN is an organisation whichis a hostage to strong arm tactics of America. This country can do anything andget away, while the hopes of third world countries from the UN have been dashed.What role can a country like India play to revive the importance of UN?

Yashwant Sinha: You have asked a very good question. It is a fact thatAmerica has been using strong-arm tactics against the UN. If for a particularaction, America gets the UN support, then it obeys its sanction. However, if itfails to get UN sanction, America does not hesitate at all to resort tounilateral action, whether it be Iraq or Serbia. This is happening because aworld body like the UN has considerably weakened over the years, and thereforeit is of paramount importance for the developing world, countries such as India andPakistan, that they work for a multipolar world. Now you would ask whether thisis possible. Yes, it is very much possible, and for this to happen, countries ofthe developing world would have to come together. The problem is that due topetty self-interests, countries of developing world have been unable to unite.Unity in the developing world and revival of dormant international movementslike Non Aligned Movement (NAM) is the need of the hour to fight thisunilateralism.

Listener from Delhi: Don’t you think that time has come for thedeveloping world to form an alternate organisation of its own to protect theinterests of third world countries, as the UN has been a complete failure insafeguarding the interests of poor countries even after 60 years of itsinception?

Yashwant Sinha: I think forming an alternate world organisation is notpossible at this juncture. What is required is that third world countries raisetheir voice effectively in a unified manner. I  mentioned NAM, whichrepresented a powerful voice during the days of a bipolar world, when America andUSSR were the two power centres. The world has moved towards unipolarity, butorganisations like NAM still exist, they have moved towards dormancy, and needrevival. Then there is G-77, a big and active organisation of the third world. Inorder to have our voice heard, I think the third world countries should work onstrengthening these two organisations. I also think there is no need to bedisappointed on the failure of India’s efforts to garner support for its bidto enter the UN Security Council. I still think, if we are still successful inbuilding a favourable opinion towards India, we would finally succeed in our bid.

Listener from Jharkhand : You have said India’s bid is 11 yearsold. What should be done now so that we could be a permanent member of the UNSecurity Council soon? Do you think India should support America in its campaignagainst Iran’s nuclear programme?

Yashwant Sinha: No, India should not support the US on the question of Iran.Till the time Iran is using the nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, there isno cause for any worry. India has time and again made it clear to Iran thatshould not go for any secret nuclear weapons programme. Therefore, the Indian policyon Iran should be keeping in mind the clear distinction between peaceful use andsecret weapons programme, and India should not come under any pressure of theUS, while deciding on its relations with Iran. So far as your question on howcould India become a member of the Security Council soon, well, there is noinstant solution available. We would have to pass the long drawn out process. Yes, ifwe adopt the right strategy, we could be a member of the Security Council within aspecific time frame, but that would depend on the direction of diplomacy thatthe present government decides to adopt.

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Sinha, right before the beginning of UNGA, where Indian PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh would be meeting President Bush, statements from theAmerican side have been curt that India should not proceed on proposedIran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, and Indian relations with Iran could putIndo-US nuclear energy pact in danger. Can the Indian regime still afford to goahead with Iran?

Yashwant Sinha: Right or wrong, Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline hasbecome an issue. India should totally ignore what America is saying on theissue, since it has its own interests and viewpoint, the American law is not aninternational law. If this gas pipeline is in our national interests, then weshould fearlessly go ahead on the project with the other two countries, and weshould also be prepared for the consequences. If due to this gas pipeline,America wants to scrap the Indo-US nuclear pact, it can do so, but we shouldhave no second thoughts on the gas pipeline. Indian leadership needs to tell theAmericans in clear terms that they should have not nothing to do with thisproject, it is a matter between India, Pakistan and Iran, and it is solely theirbusiness.

Nagendar Sharma: But after the failure of G-4, in your view what diplomatic lineshould the Indian government be following so that India could be successful inits bid?

Yashwant Sinha: In diplomacy there are certain steps which cannot andshould not be undone. Since the Indian government has gone too far on G-4, I amnot advocating that you abandon it. You joined it, now stay with it. Ourattempts now should be to widen the support among the developing nations and getas many of these countries -- as many as we can -- especially those who have goodrelations with India. More importantly, we should listen to thereasons for indifference of these countries towards India’s candidature. 

Iwould like to make it clear here that if at all the G-4 resolution were to bepassed by a two-thirds majority during the UN General Assembly session beginningthis week, all the four G-4 member countries -- i.e. India, Brazil,Germany and Japan – would have to individually get a two-thirdsmajority of the assembly for becoming a permanent member, therefore at somestage we would be standing alone for our cause. Also during this UNGA session,we should talk to countries which matter, i.e. the existing permanent membersof the Security Council. Until India wins over the confidence of the US, Chinaand Russia on this issue, I think it would not be possible for us to be apermanent member.

Listener from Bihar : Whether it be the NDA government, when youwere the foreign minister, or the present UPA government, why is ourforeign policy always a failure? NDA government tried to get Pakistan declared aterrorist state after the attack on Parliament and J&K assembly but failed,UPA tried hard to get a permanent seat of UN Security Council and seems to befailing. Has failure become a habit in Indian foreign ministry?

Yashwant Sinha: First I would like to answer your question on terrorism and NDAgovernment. It is incorrect to say that the NDA government’s policy inprojecting its case internationally vis-à-vis terrorism failed. Today, if theopinion in the world is that Pakistan is a source of international terrorism, itis because of NDA government’s efforts. After the attack on Parliament,Indian government’s view on terrorism was accepted by majority of thecountries and group of countries. Therefore you cannot brand the foreign policyin black and white as a failure of NDA or UPA governments. 

There is and alwayshas been a broad consensus in the country on the foreign policy On the issue ofpermanent membership also, there is a consensus in the country, especially amongthe political and diplomatic class, and efforts are being made in thisdirection. Differences are there on whether step A taken by the government ofthe day was right, or step B could have been more effective, but there are nodifferences on the goal to be achieved. I still think all is not lost on thisissue, if effective steps are taken with a sense of urgency in the rightdirection, we should see the light finally. I am still hopeful that if India isable to fight its case properly, by the end of the year we should see the UNreforms happening.

Listener from Mumbai : Whenever the UN wishes to send peacekeepingforces in any troubled part of the country, India is in the forefront toprovide its forces for such purpose, still we have been given a raw deal for theSecurity Council, as America does not want to see India there. Hasn’t Indiabeen fooled, and does this not reflect a foreign policy failure?

Yashwant Sinha: You are absolutely right. India has been sendingpeacekeeping forces as and when required by the UN since the days of Korean War.Infact so exemplary has been the record of Indian soldiers that even in far-off,remote countries, where much is not known about India, they recall thetrack-record of our soldiers. Our peacekeeping experience has been a majorfactor in our seeking a permanent seat in the UNSC as well. However, I do not agree with linkingthis to UN working under American pressure. UN also has been opposing Americaregularly, as was seen during the Iraq war, but America is in a position toover-rule even the UN, as we discussed earlier.