Our place in the world

I write these words as I begin my second (and last) week at the United Nations in New York as an Indian delegate to the General Assembly, an unfamiliar role for a former international civil servant used to being on the other side of the fence.
It’s been a thrill to speak for my country on human rights, public information and peacekeeping. But the big news, of course, is the resounding electoral victory India pulled off for a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council in 2011-12. It was difficult for Indian MPs to walk past a foreign delegate in our first few days here without receiving congratulations on our record margin of victory, which can only be interpreted as revealing overwhelming respect for our standing in the world and the contribution we are capable of making on the Council. With such a stunning endorsement, expectations are also high, and we will have to give thought to how best we can fulfil them.
Several powerful states, aspirants to permanent seats in a reformed Security Council in recognition of their greater global role in recent years, will serve alongside us in the Council. Germany and South Africa were elected at the same time as us, while Brazil and Nigeria are halfway through their two-year terms as non-permanent members. This also means that, unusually, four international groupings will be found on the Council in 2011: RIC, the Russia-India-China triumvirate that meets twice a year at foreign minister level; Bric, which adds Brazil to the list; IBSA, the India-Brazil-South African alliance of the three largest southern hemisphere powers; and BASIC, which brought Brazil, South Africa, India and China together during the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen last year. Interestingly enough, the only country that belongs to all four is India.
If that is a pointer to the extent to which we have become a fulcrum in global politics, it also points to the exceptionally heavyweight nature of the Security Council that will come into existence in January. Half the members of the Group of Twenty (G-20), the grouping that is now the world’s premier forum on international economic questions, will be on the Council, dealing with issues of peace and security. The “Permanent Five” (P-5) countries — the US, Britain, France, China and Russia — will not lightly be able to take these members for granted. They have become accustomed, in recent years, to arriving at deals amongst themselves and more or less imposing them on the 10 non-permanent members. This will not be possible with the five big ones, who will expect to be consulted and whose acquiescence on key questions can certainly not be assumed. At the same time, the performance of the aspirant countries on the Council will be seen as a harbinger of what is to come if and when they receive permanent status, which puts the spotlight all the more on
us.
One of the immediate implications of serving on the Council will be the need to take positions on matters that in recent years some of our mandarins have preferred to duck. During our very first month on the Council, a referendum is scheduled to take place in South Sudan on possible secession from Khartoum, an event whose outcome could easily spark serious violence — and that too, in an area where Indian UN peacekeepers are already serving. The implications of the likely commencement of a US troop draw-down in Afghanistan or the future of the UN peacekeeping operation in Nepal will touch areas of direct importance to our own national security. Issues like possible sanctions on Iran, the stop-and-start West Asia peace process, and the world’s response to a likely change of political leadership in North Korea, will almost certainly come up on the Council’s agenda as well. These are all matters that call for creative and courageous thinking, going beyond entrenched positions or reflexive allegiance to non-aligned solidarity.
We will also have to reconsider our traditional opposition to the Council’s tendency to broaden its own mandate by taking on issues we feel belong properly to the General Assembly. The Council has tended to stretch into areas like the prevalence of HIV/AIDS, climate change and the empowerment of women, which go beyond any strict construction of the term “peace and security”. And yet, as a member both of the G-20 and the Security Council, we may well see an interest ourselves in bringing up issues of food security or energy security, which touch on the core concerns of both groups and which afford an intriguing opportunity to take advantage of the interconnections between them.
There are also serious staffing implications of Council membership. The need to acquire expertise on diverse issues and to participate in the adoption of some 60 Security Council resolutions a year (not to mention presidential statements on the same issues, which have less legal force but require unanimity to be adopted) will test our capacity and our negotiating talents. Various sub-committees and working groups of the Council (including one of great interest to India, on terrorism) will also require full-time attention. In August 2011, India will preside over the Council by alphabetical rotation, and may find itself playing a key role in the process of the election (or more likely, re-election) of the UN Secretary-General, which must take place before the end of 2011.
All in all, our place on the Council offers an extraordinary opportunity, after two decades of absence from the global high table, to demonstrate to the world what 21st century India is capable of. We must emerge from the experience with our reputation and credibility as a major global player enhanced. I am confident that our diplomats will not be found wanting.

Shashi Tharoor is a member of Parliament from Kerala’s Thiruvananthapuram constituency