(Update) India Abstains on Libya

Is there anything better than an academic who doesn't pull punches? Check out this seething condemnation:

"India’s failure to endorse this resolution reflects poorly on its ability and willingness to shoulder key global responsibilities and duties," Indiana University professor Sumit Ganguly argues in today's Deccan Chronicle. "The Indian argument that the current resolution fails to specify enforcement measures is little more than a dubious cover for a policy of inaction and, bluntly put, cowardice…. Worse still, this posture suggests that India, despite all its claims to great power status, is singularly incapable of making tough decisions and instead is willing to resort to various verbal smoke screens to justify its inability to act. Sadly, after long beseeching foreign dignitaries, both trivial and significant, to garner support for the UNSC permanent seat, once again India’s leadership has resoundingly demonstrated that it is probably even undeserving of a non-permanent seat."

Ganguly argues that India’s choice to sit out the resolution is not only morally reprehensible but "also damages its material interests. There is little question that its decision to abstain will harm its incipient and growing relationship with the United States."  

That may well be true. But I'd argue (as I have below) that voting No, if that's what conscience and pragmatism dictated, would have been a much stronger argument for India's rise as a great power than opting out.  What is abstaining, anyway?  It's basically saying, "I don't want to be part of the decision process."

_____________________________________________________

It may have a strong logical and moral argument, but India made its own argument against its inclusion as a permanent member of the UN security council today, when it abstained from voting on a proposed UN intervention in Libya to impose a no-fly zone that would protect rebels fighting Gaddafi.

If leadership is about making tough choices, surely "we're not sure whether the answer is yes or no" ain't on the list.

India wasn't alone. Five nations – China, Russia (which have veto power) and non-permanent members India, Germany and Brazil – abstained from voting on the resolution which cleared the way for air strikes over the oil-rich north African country, according to the Indian Express. China and Russia however did not exercise its veto power.

But the Indian government nevertheless must have sensed general disappointment from its citizens, some of whom remember the good old days when India was not afraid to take risky stances (speaking out for the Palestinians, for instance). The Ministry of External Affairs issued a brief explanation of the reasons why India decided not to decide. Here it is in doublespeak:

———-

1. India has been following with serious concern the developments in Libya, which have led to loss of numerous lives and injuries to many more. We deplore the use of force, which is totally unacceptable, and must not be resorted to. We are very concerned with the welfare of the civilian population and foreigners in Libya.

2. The UN Secretary-General has appointed a Special Envoy, who has just visited Libya. We have not had the benefit of his report or even a report from the Secretariat on his assessment as yet. This would have given us an objective analysis of the situation on ground. The African Union is also sending a High Level Panel to Libya to make serious efforts for a peaceful end to the crisis there. We must stress the importance of political efforts, including those of the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy, to address the situation.

3. The resolution that the Council has adopted today authorizes far reaching measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with relatively little credible information on the situation on the ground in Libya. We also do not have clarity about details of enforcement measures, including who and with what assets will participate and how these measures will be exactly carried out. It is, of course, very important that there is full respect for sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Libya.

4. Mr President, the financial measures that are proposed in the resolution could impact, directly or through indirect routes, ongoing trade and investment activities of a number of member-states thereby adversely affecting the economic interests of the Libyan people and others dependent on these trade and economic ties. Moreover, we had to ensure that the measures will mitigate and not exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya. Clarity in the resolution on any spill-over affects of these measures would have been very important.

5. Mr President, we have abstained on the resolution in view of the above. I would like to re-emphasize that India continues to be gravely concerned about the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Libya and calls on the Libyan authorities to cease fire, protect the civilian population and address the legitimate demands of the Libyan people.

——-

Item Number 3 and 4 are both clear reasons to vote No, if India was convinced of those two points. But that would have taken real guts. That would have been India aspiring to lead. By abstaining, India has made a strong case that it prefers to follow (it had a chance to give input, and rejected that chance), and that's a strong argument indeed that it's not ready for a permanent role.