| noname |
Posted
on 10-Feb-03 06:29 PM
TL Friedman wrote in the NYT (Feb. 9) that France should be replaced by India in Security Council. Anger with France at this time can be understood. But, why India? He argues that 'Because India is the world's biggest democracy, the world's largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation, and, quite frankly, India is just so much more serious than France these days.'
Richard Wilcox opines that because of influential Indian-American community and US-India strategic alliance, India should be accommodated in the Security Council (but not at the expense of France, as Wilcox is a democrat!).
A paradigm shift in the US foreign policy towards India and shaping of a new world order after this year's HAJJ can be speculated.
This whole episode reminds me of the glorious past of underdeveloped and developing countries when a visionary leader like Nehru was leading India. Such powerful was the non-aligned movement and the collective voice that Nepal too could think of fighting for Secretary General in the UN. Where is our voice now? Can India be so accommodating as in the time of Nehru? Is there any room for us as Nepalese and South Asian to be glorified - in case India makes it to the Security Council as permanent member?
I doubt.
|
