India must take firm position on global issues
India's successful re-election to the United Nations Human Rights Council is surely worthy of celebration. It received the most number of votes in the Asia-Pacific group and, as both our Prime Minister and India’s Permanent Representative to the UN have noted, this was the result of the country's continued commitment to the safeguarding of human rights. It also reflects the country’s standing on the world stage. However, having said that, it is equally important to add that unless India effectively leverages this opportunity to make an impact, it would mean little to occupy a seat at the council just for the sake of it. The UNHRC has been criticised for being ineffective and biased, and there is a general consensus that the rights body is plagued by the same problems that brought down its predecessor, the UN Commission on Human Rights. loose membership requirements, for example, have meant that countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and several African dictatorships — many of whom are habitual human rights offenders — have made it to the panel. Moreover, non-democratic states are known to have exploited their membership to the UNHRC for domestic political gain. For example, such states have seen their trade with China rise after gaining membership to the council; similarly, non-democratic African states have been found to be more likely to receive foreign aid from China after they gain council membership. To make matters worse, while non-democratic states have used the UNHRC card to whitewash their rights records, democratic ones have found themselves at the receiving end. For example, with regard to countries like Sri lanka and Israel, the council's ‘human rights violator' tag has been used as a stick when they have refused to toe the Establishment line. The question here is: What is India doing to improve the council's performanceIJ Or, is it even interested in taking charge and pushing for reformsIJ Unfortunately, at this point there is little to suggest that it is taking any concrete step. Its voting record at the UNHRC points to the contrary. We are sometimes confused even about national priorities (as India's Sri lanka vote proves).
India, along with other emerging nations, has often complained that the existing global governance structures do not give it adequate space to make itself heard and participate in international decision-making processes on an equal footing. Yet, as Western lawmakers and diplomats point out, even when India had the opportunity to lead on issues of global import, it usually shied away from taking on additional responsibility. This is particularly the case with difficult policy issues that may require New Delhi to upgrade its approach to foreign policy-making. For example, while India on the one hand contributes one of the biggest contingents of peacekeepers (and, therefore, plays a substantial role in maintaining world peace on the ground), on the other hand it is reluctant to take a definite stance on key issues. A case in point is how India has yet to articulate its views on how the world should tackle the rise of the Islamic State. New Delhi's security apparatus is ensuring that national interests are protected, but at the international forum, we should be leading more from the front.