| Username |
Post |
| SMR |
Posted
on 30-Oct-02 10:31 PM
"During the question and answer session after his half hour speech, Sinha was put on the spot when Musharraf's former media adviser stood up and asked, "How can you apply to be a permanent member of the Security Council after you mishandled Sri Lanka, bullied Dhaka and blockaded Nepal?" "
Do you think India deserve to be the permanent member of the Security Council?
==================================
Questioning J&K's accession akin to questioning Pakistan's creation: Sinha
Shyam Bhatia in London
External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha has said that questioning the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India was on par with reopening the issue of the creation of Pakistan.
Sinha's robust response questioning the existence of Pakistan followed the questions put forward by Ijaz Hussein, a former media adviser to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.
"The story of Jammu and Kashmir's accession to India is part of the Independence Act," Sinha said. "If you want to re-open all those questions, then you have to re-open the question of the creation of Pakistan.
"Why have a plebiscite only in Jammu and Kashmir?" he asked. "Why not in the whole subcontinent and ask if we want one nation as we were before?"
Hussein was a member of the invited audience at London's prestigious International Institute of International Affairs where the external affairs minister had been invited to make a keynote address entitled The Future Directions of India's Foreign Policy.
But what was billed as a low key, but important event, suddenly became highly charged after Sinha's bland but authoritative summation of India's foreign policy.
During the question and answer session after his half hour speech, Sinha was put on the spot when Musharraf's former media adviser stood up and asked, "How can you apply to be a permanent member of the Security Council after you mishandled Sri Lanka, bullied Dhaka and blockaded Nepal?"
"You need a surgical operation in Kashmir, not antibiotics. What about the two dozen UN resolutions on Kashmir that have been ignored?" he continued.
"Pakistan has talked of implementing UN resolutions for a long time," Sinha replied. "But the UN resolutions and plebiscite, the resolutions of 1947 and 1948, these were rejected at the time by Pakistan. Suddenly, Islamabad has demanded that these resolutions should be implemented."
Earlier, Sinha spoke of India's vital interests in South Asia and said New Delhi enjoyed excellent relations with all neighbours, except Pakistan.
"We want a peaceful, prosperous and stable Pakistan," Sinha said. "We are prepared to resolve all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, but we are not prepared to accept terrorism as an instrument of State policy."
Quoting Kautilya, Sinha said Indian foreign policy was consistent and geared to defending the country's national interest. He added that both foreign policy and national security issues were supported by a broad national consensus.
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 08:09 AM
Hell NO! If there is to be any expansion of permanent members, they should consider Japan and Germany. These two nations are major industrial powers as well as big donors for development in the third world. They don't go around hegemonizing their neighbors like your good friend India who is so keen to do so. They have learned their lessons well from WWII. India is Mukh me Ram Raam, Bagali Me Churri!
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 08:39 AM
From a realist's point of view, I disagree with Dirk.
A country need not be NOT hegemonizing their neighbors in order to be considered for a permanent membership in the Security Coucil. From among the current five permanent members--China, France, Russia, the UK and the US--name one country that has not hegemonized their neighbors, or non-neighbors alike, at one time or another in history. Ironically, isn't it the very ability to act as a hegemony that displays the country's power and prestige, thus their importance in global politics, that secures their position as a likely permanent member of the SC? This is not to belittle Germany and Japan's important roles in world politics--I agree, for the reasons that you have mentioned above, that they should also be considered for the permanent membership in the SC.
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 10:54 AM
Poonte the Realist,
Let's see when or if the permanent membership expansion takes place..and if it does, will your bhaiya Bharat be included or not? SMR had asked for our opinion and that's what I gave. The five permanent members came to be exactly that..because they had initiated the formation of the UN right after WWII. Like they say, it's a whole new ball game now!
I believe it would be proper —and realistic—for Nepal to point out merely that it is time that its structure is consonant with the 21st century, moving away from the geo-political realities of 1945 when the UN was first established.
India merely being a billion-person country, possessing nuclear warheads, and purporting to be the "largest democracy in the world" doesn't provide enough justification(s) for her membership in this elite group.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:12 AM
Dirk,
I am sure you understand the distinction between being a realist and being realistic.
Realistically, I agree that the SC expansion is a far fetched idea, let alone India be considered as one of the member states to be included in the expansion.
As a realist--as someone who believes in the reality of the power politics--I still maintain that the "hegemonizing" factor should not, and does not, bar a country from being considered for the permanent position in the SC--on the contrary, the ability to demonstrate hegemonic powers strenthens a country's position as a likely candidate for the permanent seats in the SC.
Cccccccap ishhhhh????
|
| dirk |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:26 AM
Let's see if your theory happens to have any merit. I was not trying to make the point that hedgemony of India would bar her from being a permanent member. I'm sure it hinders if it has to come to a vote of some kind. A lot of smaller states would not support India's candidacy including Pakistan. Then, there would be several Islamic states that would automatically side with Pakistan...and create polarization.
What I'm saying is that Japan and Germany have better arguments for their candidacies including bankrolling a hefty proportion of UN expenses.
Kapishe, Bambino?
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 11:35 AM
No kapishe, dada-bambino...Pakistan aside, my personal belief would certainly be damned if ALL the other South Asian countries sided with India IF it ever came to that.
|
| Poonte |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 03:07 PM
ehehe...didnt notice yet, eh, Dirk? :P
Correction!!!!
*....my personal belief would certainly be damned if ALL the other South Asian countries **DID NOT** side with India if it ever came to that.
|
| czar |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 07:18 PM
In the context of south asia, India may be the 300 lb gorilla on the block, but it takes more than muscle to sit at the table with the big boys.
Their track record in dealing with its neighbours while not inspiring is a lot better than say, Uganda and Rwanda's. Putting aside Nepal's instinctive mistrust of India, well founded though it may be, India has yet to demonstrate leadership on a single south asia issue of import. I may be wrong and would welcome being corrected on this.
Japan and Germany are likely candidates for the Security Council not just for having deep pockets, but for the judgement they have displayed over the past 5 decades in global matters.
True, the land of the risin sun at this time dont look like they can't fight their way out of a paper bag if judged by the way their economy has been handled. And the Oktoberfest n sausage guzzlers look all set to bust the EU's central banks economic policies.
That aside, their foreing policy and international relations over the years have consistently reflected a caution with arms. This, most of all, is one that contributes mightily in trusting them with the Security Council, if not anything else.
If it was just by money alone then Denmark, the largest contributor to the UN after Japan, would qualify hands down as the new kid on the Security Council !
Don't anybody get excited, just my two cents worth, right or wrong.
Cheers !
|
| krishna |
Posted
on 31-Oct-02 08:01 PM
Czar, your observations are applaud worthy.
Let me elucidate further,
Dealing with neighbours?? Yes definitely India has had some bad impacts on the neighbouring countries, specially with Pakistan. Nepal definitely cannot afford to couter India's defence on applying for the security council. Because the way India has hindered Nepal's progress on goods import, Nepal would be on the dust had it not been for India to support on the edible goods and certainly some export quality stuffs.
On the other hand, Pakistan were sure to oppose Indian views because of their ongoing intense terrorism exchange and their inflating feeling of pride and superiority over Kashmir that has lasted ever since. But it is upto the UN coucil to determine. I am to the views that I really don't think the dispute over Kashmir is any kind of corroborating evidence on India's not being prerogated a level with the big boys. I would be astonished if Bangladesh are resistant. Having said that, I donot intend to advocate the Indian Superiorism on the Sub-Continent level. However they have still a while to go before they will be a bestowed a space in the elite level.
If its not now, its not long.
|
| czar |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 04:01 PM
India played a role in the Afghan war. It chose to support and side with Mr. Dostum and Co., the northern alliance. This was India's counter move for Pakistan's ISI creation of the Taliban.
More of a tit for tat policy than enlightened self interested. The northern alliance were hardly likely to negate the actions of the ISI insofar as what it was stirring up in Kashmir. What India gained was a market for its goods in return for its support of the late Masood Shah and later Dostum, two Afghan warlords who helped tear apart Kabul after the Soviets departed. It was also a poke in the eye to Pakistan.
Inspiring stuff ? Hardly.
A second, more troubling issue, seems to be the apparent, and I say apparent, indiffirence India seems to have for the Maoist leadership currtently lounging about in India.
If Nepal had harboured troublemakers that India wanted, and was seen to have some sort of complicity with them, then India could vaguely claim to have some excuse for doing the same now with the Maoists.
As far as I know, niether politics nor history bears this out.
Add to it, the long simmering issue of the Bhutanese refugees, then further doubts surface. One might not even be blamed for thinking that the foreign policy mandarins in south delhi are asleep at the wheel. Hmm, one doubts that, given the furious overtime they put in on every small issue regards Kashmir.
Which begs the question, just what are India's intentions ? What could India gain ? Water resources and hydro-power at its own terms would be a very quick thought.
I would question that. Politicians require quick results to ensure support from fickle constituents. Hyrdropower takes years to develop and millions, if not billions, of dollars. Nothing quick about that. True, the Indian economy does require a large and low cost source of energy. Nepal may be the answer to those prayers.
But at what cost ? One that India is willing to pay, given the apparent benefits ? And is all of this by design, or through sheer lack of foresight and ability that it fails to see Nepal inexorably slide into the abyss. Does India then plan to step in to 'resuce' the Hindu Kingdom's sanctity, just as they did Sikkim ?
These shenanigans do not inspire one to vote India into the UN Security Council. No thank you.
|
| krishna |
Posted
on 01-Nov-02 08:48 PM
Quick thoughts!
I donot intent to contradict opposing views on India's defence to a place in Security Council. Having said that I root czar's inference on why India is not worthy of dwelling as a lasting membership in the elite level.
But my question is, who can counterbalance India protecting its admission with big fellows? Except ofcourse Pakistan, can anyone in the vicinity as well as the third world counter the interest??
If you look at the elaborations of India's innovations on Industries such as cottage, medium and large ones, it is astonishingly fast increasing development. The per capita has multiplied in the past recent years, courtesy of the UN, world bank.
I know probably the court of appeal and the supreme court will listen to the legislative history but like I said before, I donot think history is the enough as well as the right evidence to determine whether India is the potential candidate.
If you look at the history of US it doesn't have anything better. The afro american history is so much for now. There are many other incidents that I donot feel necessary to mention.
However there are many evidences to prove that India is definitely not the possible candidate, certainly not for now. I am judging it five years from now, probably more, probably less.
|
