Commentary/Amberish K Diwanji
The lessons India must learn from the UN defeat
India's bid to win a non-permanent seat in the United
Nations Security Council came a cropper against the economical
might of Japan, backed by the United States. While many expected
India to lose, what must have come as a shock was the margin of
defeat: 141 votes to 40, with three abstentions. India could
only garner less than two sevenths of the votes picked up by Japan.
More than anything, this should force India to be realistic about
its chances to find a permanent seat in the Security Council,
given the fact that the competitors will include financial giants
Germany and Japan.
India's defeat will also hopefully awaken Indian
officials, who live in their
own make-believe world of India as a superpower in the making,
to the reality about Indian power.
Indian hawks, and there are many of them in influential circles,
never shy from pointing out India's might in terms of military
power. With the world's second largest army, and an air force
and navy among the top 10, no doubt India does appear powerful
on paper. Yet, as Paul Kennedy points outs so perceptively in
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: An Economic Military
History from 1500 to 2000, military strength is only one factor
of a country's economic prowess. It is time we in India
realise this and stop day dreaming.
The truth about military budgets is that Japan's
military budget is higher than India's. Even though Japan puts
aside only 1% of its GDP for defence, that 1% makes it today the
world's third largest military outlay, after the US and Russia,
and more than China, and certainly much, much more than India.
In fact, budget-wise, India does not even figure in the top 10.
Japan does not possess nuclear weapons today, but would not find
it difficult to manufacture them should the need arise (such as
a threat from North Korea or China). And technologically, few
will doubt that Japanese equipment, military and civilian, are
the most advanced in the world.
On the other hand, the ongoing resource crunch has
forced India to reduce its military budget down to 2.5%
of its GDP. This means that in real terms, the money available
has actually come down over the past five years, because our economy
has not increased to make 2.5% a large amount. And what is worse,
most of India's defence expenses goes in the soft areas: pensions,
salaries, administrative matters. Defence
purchases and military exercises have been curtailed down to the
bare minimum, simply because there is no cash.
The Indian armed forces
have vast personnel, and these, instead of being a source of strength,
are actually a drain on the economy. Plans are afoot to make
the armed forces lean and mean, but these will take time. Technologically,
we cannot afford the best, and remain dependent on Russia. Our
own efforts at indigenous arms -- the main battle tank, the light
combat aircraft, and an aircraft carrier -- remain stalled.
More important is the role of our economy. There
is no denying that Japan's economic clout carried the day. It
is very difficult not to vote for the country on whom you depend for
aid and investment. As a matter of fact, even India seeks Japanese
aid. In a world growing closer due to integrating markets and
globalising finance, countries hungry for investment will find
it difficult to turn down a Japanese request. This point must
be borne in mind when the fight for a permanent seat begins.
Middle-class Indians, for whom making India a superpower, and
being a permanent member of the Security Council is one manifestation
of that, love to point out that as per the IMF list of economies
in terms of purchasing power, India is the fifth largest (after
the US, Japan, China, and Germany). For them, this means that
India is a great power.
What they forget is that weapons are
purchased in dollars, even from Russia. In dollar terms, the
Indian economy is nowhere near the top ten, and India's share
of global trade is less than 1%.
One of India's constant war cry is the role that
India has played in UN operations over the years, its uncrowned
position as the leader of the Third World, its role in disarmament.
To be fair, after World War II, there was no way Japan and Germany
could have sent their troops overseas, even under the UN flag,
without raising the hackles of other nations. As recently
as 1993, when Japanese troops were sent to Cambodia, there was
a brouhaha. One can imagine what would have happened if such
soldiers had been sent in the 1960s.
No doubt, India's role has
earned it high marks in the international fora, especially in
the 1950s and 1960s. This was specially so as India carried a moral
value in its dealing and refused to lean on either the US or the
Soviet Union, giving it a larger than life image on the world
stage.
Yet, after India was forced to get close to the then Soviet
Union in the early 1970s, its role as non-aligned was compromised,
and forever tainted. Even in 1980, when the whole world condemned
the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, India did not, further reinforcing
its image as a Soviet stooge.
India's role in disarmament is now under scrutiny,
given its refusal to sign the NPT and the CTBT, especially the
latter. It sounds principled to refuse to sign until the nuclear
powers give a commitment to disarm, but it can also be seen as
aspiring to nuclear status at a time when the world is trying
to get away from them. And the Third World today needs investment and aid. It is these very factors that will
make Third World countries back Japan or Germany, especially if
they are further supported by the US. India's leadership of the
Third World is of little avail if it really cannot help the poor
countries improve their economies.
Officials at the ministry of external affairs
claim that India was defeated because of its stand on the CTBT,
and the US ire at it which made it oppose India. This is
nonsense. Between India and Japan, the US will almost always
support Japan, even if India had signed the CTBT, so let us not
whine. The CTBT must hardly have bothered the voting countries.
After all, even Australia, which finally helped pass the CTBT,
lost in its bid for a seat. The difference was purely economic
might. Backing Japan gives countries hope for investment and
aid; what will backing India get them? This is a question that
Indian must answer.
It is time to take stock of our assets and strengths.
It would be most embarrassing to seek permanent membership of
the UN if we can't even get 50 votes. And a permanent seat without
the power of veto is most useless, giving responsibility without authority.
India already knows that the US will not back India; and the
West (including Japan) will not be easy to defeat. So are we
really prepared for the long-drawn battle? Do we have the resources
and moral strength to ensure a decent competition? This is what
our officials have to think over before jumping into the fray where
defeat is imminent.
|