India has been in the UN Security Council as a non-permanent member before, and several times at that. This group of 10 is distinct from the five permanent members — the US, Russia, Britain, France and China — which wield a veto. It does not enjoy the same significance as them. Nevertheless, even being a non-permanent member is of value: the Security Council is, after all, virtually the board of directors in world affairs when it comes to political and security matters. It would be wise all the same not to get carried away by India’s election to the UNSC on Tuesday, impressive though the margin of its victory was. Let us remember that even Pakistan has been a non-permanent member, although its standing in the world has never been too high. Election results are eventually the outcome of give and take in the environment of the politics of the day.
In the end, all that the Indian win really means is that the world perceives this country as a responsible power, and a force for good that has contributed significantly to the UN system. It does not by a long shot mean that this may be construed as necessarily being part of the process that may take India further on the road to permanent membership. That is an entirely different game, one subject to multiple pressures from the four corners of the world, including China and Pakistan, not usually well-disposed to India’s enhancement on the world stage. In the Tuesday vote India secured the support of 187 of the UN’s 191 members, more than any other country that got elected. What a contrast from 14 years ago when India was roundly thrashed by Japan for the Asian seat as a non-permanent member. External affairs minister S.M. Krishna is right when he suggests that the pattern of the vote is indicative of India’s increased weight in world affairs. Had Kazakhstan not withdrawn from the fray earlier this year, India would have been required to press its weight against that of the Central Asian country. The fact that it didn’t come down to this is a measure of Indian diplomacy, its fine equation and influence with Kazakhstan, possibly the most important of the Central Asian republics due to its mineral wealth and size, and India’s regional standing. The real diplomatic victory was perhaps when India was able to persuade Almaty to withdraw in its favour.
The difference between now and when India was last in the UNSC — in 1991-92 — lies in the fact that the world has changed so dramatically in the past quarter century, and so has India in a positive direction in this time, permitting New Delhi to exert a measure of economic and technological weight on the world stage, which can translate to political influence if the diplomacy is not botched. In this period this country is also seen as having become a responsible nuclear weapons power which is ready to exert a moderating influence in the area of nuclear non-proliferation without becoming a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Being in the UNSC when crucial changes are in the crucible in the context of Afghanistan, where India has invested much in terms of human resources and treasure, and when unforeseen developments could occur in Kashmir at the instigation of Pakistan or China, is a comforting thought. However, responsible positions also bring on added responsibility. As a UNSC member, India will be called upon to take a stand on sensitive issues when it comes to debate and vote. Ducking and weaving will not be an option, as it is now. A sharper, more decisive foreign policy stance might be called for. This, of course, does not mean being foolishly outspoken.