Addressing Anit Mukherjee’s rebuttal
Anit Mukherjee disagrees with the argument that India should reconsider its policy of contributing troops for UN peacekeeping operations. In addition to rebutting four arguments from the case Sushant Singh and I made in our op-ed in the Indian Express last week, he offers three arguments of his own in favour—-that involvement in UN peacekeeping contributes towards India’s soft power; that our arguments can be extended to justify pulling out from the UN as a whole; and that India need not demonstrate the same apathy towards UN peacekeeping as other great powers.
Let us, for a moment, accept the soft power argument. The question, then, comes back to asking what India has to show for it. India has been engaged in UN peacekeeping roles in Africa for decades—yet African states aligned with China and did not support India when it came to the UN Security Council reform. Indeed, African states have been more attracted by China’s “non-interference in internal affairs” (also known as arm-the-dictator) policy. The more promising agent of India’s soft power in Africa is the Indian entrepreneur. As Harry Broadman’s book reveals, the Indian business influence in Africa has been a quiet win-win affair. [See the Indian difference]
But it is unwise to overstate the usefulness of soft power when it comes to its influence on foreign policies of states. [See soft power, hard reality & the second delusion]
Can our arguments against the UN peacekeeping be extended to call for our retreat from the UN as a whole? That’s entirely another debate, but why not? It would be wonderful if this debate over UN peacekeeping leads to a fundamental re-examination of India’s participation in the United Nations system. Starting with, perhaps, that rogue body—the UN human rights council.
Anit is on the strongest ground when he says that India need not demonstrate the same apathy as other established powers. But surely, when states that are richer, have greater military and economic resources, formally sit in the UN Security Council and have more at stake globally don’t see a need to contribute, the question remains why India?
Anit rejects four of our arguments:
First, the authors find it hard to justify the death of Indian peacekeepers in the ‘service of an ideal’. On the contrary, an ideal justifies everything — from fighting for one’s country, exposing corruption in the badlands of Bihar or dying to bring peace in the Congo. If there are no ideals to serve, then no cause is worth fighting and dying for.
This is similar to a point made by Mihir in the discussion on this issue last week. But there are two issues here: first—are soldiers motivated by ideals, and second, should the Indian government use its armed forces in the service of idealism. Most soldiers, without doubt, are motivated by ideals. But it is entirely a different issue for the Indian government to use its resources (military power or public finances) in the service of “ideals”. It is not for the Indian government to pursue universal ideals as an end in itself. The Indian government must pursue only the national interest—the well-being and development of its citizens.
Second, the authors contend that despite being one of the largest troop contributors to the UN, we have not been suitably rewarded with a UN Security Council seat. Participation in peacekeeping operations does not hurt the case for India. Exactly the opposite. The goodwill earned through the high rates of participation and sacrifices made by Indian soldiers will only help in securing India’s place on the high table. When—and not if—the Security Council does reform, India has a stronger case by virtue of participating in these missions.
This was what they used to say. But it didn’t turn out this way in 2006 when it came to the crunch. Why will things be different the next time? For the record, we do not believe India’s peacekeeping should be “rewarded” with a UN Security Council seat. Rather, that all the goodwill from peacekeeping didn’t help India’s case.
Third, the authors advise that instead of gaining the sort of exposure that comes from UN missions, the Indian military would be better served by working on bilateral or multilateral exercises with the UK, Japan, ASEAN and others. However it need not be an ‘either/or’ choice—India has the capability and the capacity to do both, as it is currently doing, and participating in one does not adversely impact participating in the other.
We addressed this in our op-ed: it is not at all about capabilities. Rather it is the quality of the UN peacekeeping operations. As the Congo controversy shows, putting Indian troops in poorly governed operations leads to unhappy results.
Fourth, the authors dismiss the enhanced pay for soldiers participating at UN missions as indicative of a ‘mercenary force’. That is a little unfair, especially in this day and age in India, when money is emerging as one of the most powerful gods in our pantheon. A typical jawan serving in these missions earns, approximately, four times his monthly pay. Why should this opportunity be denied, especially since tenure with the UN does not come easily and involves a very strict selection process which makes it a much coveted posting. For instance, Col Kushar Thakur, Commanding Officer of 18 Grenadiers, after successfully capturing Tiger Hill during the Kargil war, asked for and obtained, a UN mission to Sierra Leone as a reward for his battalion.
Let’s take this argument further. Let’s say that the United States proposes an arrangement wherein the Indian Army will deploy its troops to Iraq, on much higher wages than what the UN pays. Would this be acceptable? If this sounds outrageous then why should a UN peacekeeping deployment be less so?
The issue of how much soldiers earn and how they are rewarded is an entirely different issue. It is an issue that Indian policymakers have to put much thought into. Should we be passing out lucrative assignments in to reward gallantry in battle? Would this lead to cases like that of the infamous ketchup colonel? The way we appoint, train, manage and pay our service personnel requires overhauling. At best, UN peacekeeping is not going to make a difference on this front. At worst, it will delay the much needed process.
Nitin,
Your views on this topic are becoming anarchist by the day. Ideals are worth fighting for. Not just by soldiers but by nations too. The world mercifully isn’t all driven by capitalist narrow minded ‘me first’ policies. There is a reason why rich countries waive loans of poor countries, why countries like Japan give-away enormous national wealth to help developing countries, why states like Norway work hard to bring peace to war-torn nations.
India has been a beneficiary of enormous kindness and generosity of other nations. From food in the 60s to various technology transfers to this day and enormous financial aid throughout our existence, we have eaten from others’ hands. Now simply because some 30% of the country is ‘rich’, should we trample upon others? From IAEA to IMF to ADB to WHO, we will go beg their help when we are in a crisis, but would not send troops that could save lives? And when an institution doesn’t reward us with undeserved positions (like a security council seat), we should pull out of it?
Oh Boy! what an Idea?! “retreat from the UN as a whole”.
Balaji,
From food in the 60s to various technology transfers to this day and enormous financial aid throughout our existence, we have eaten from others’ hands.
“throughout our existence”? So how long have we existed? And why was it that by the 1960s we had no choice but to receive food aid? I suggest you read Will Durant’s “The Case for India”, first published in 1930 (and I believe there’s a new edition out now). Indian history didn’t start in 1947.
But here’s something that should fill you with even more outrage. Even if you think we “ate from others’ hands” I contend that India has no obligation at all to send troops for UN peacekeeping. Where in my post did you see me argue that we should not provide economic aid, agricultural assistance or lower trade barriers?
Dude Balaji,
This is about sending soldiers for UN peacekeeping. United Nations p.e.a.c.e.k.e.e.p.i.n.g which is friggin’ different from Japan and Norway doling out foreign aid or “IAEA to IMF to ADB to WHO”. Perhaps you should read everything before hyperventilating.
@Balaji:
Why is a security council seat an ‘undeserved position’ ? Why are some 5 countries more deserving ? Is it just coincidence that 4 of them were WW2 victors ? If you think that countries are fighting for some ideals in wars, think again. Both the US and USSR joined WW2 pretty late, when they themselves were attacked by the Axis powers. The US might claim today that they fought for freedom and democracy, but weren’t freedom and democracy endangered between 1939-42 when war was raging in Europe ? What about Britain and France, which denied the very same freedom and democracy to their colonies.
Countries provide aid etc because they expect something in return. Why is the US offering India the nuke deal ? So that we buy fuel and plants from Russia and France ? Certainly not, they expect their own industry to benefit. And please explain how not sending peacekeeping troops = trampling on others.
Btw, the US too claims that it is fighting for some ideal in Iraq. Do you support that ? They did topple an unpopular dictator and are trying to establish a democracy. Please do not say that the action was not UN-mandated. Ideals are not hostage to UN mandates.
Hi All,
I enjoy your posts Nitin and I think Pragati has a lot of promise and congratulate you for it. But excuse me while I rebut your rebuttal of my rebuttal 🙂
1. Soft power, by it’s very definition is difficult to measure. Has UNPKO soft power worked in India’s favor? Perhaps not/perhaps yes. As I said in the op-ed, if there is a failure it lies with the diplomats in not capitalizing on the soft power (economic diplomacy/cultural diplomacy/etc) generated through Indian participation in such missions and in the military’s failure to build upon it’s regional expertise. Some of the officers who serve in these missions would be ideal candidates for building up a core of officials with regional expertise, but the military is too ‘slow-thinking’ to do so. Similarly, Indian diplomacy and diplomats, for the most part – and this is doing an injustice to VV Rao, I understand, but I also argue that he is the exception, are still stuck in the scotch drinking era, understaffed and rarely do they get it. Consider how popular bollywood is globally and what has the MEA done to capitalize on it ? Sponsored USO type shows? I think Nitin is right to argue that Indian businessmen have been far ahead of the curve on this one.
2. Both your points about lack of African support for Indian seat at the UN is a little “off-target”. (Speaking of which, Nitin, in your reproductions of my rebuttal on this point you have missed one of my main sentences which was that “But the reasons for not getting a seat in the Security Council lie elsewhere— namely in great power politics and the difficulty is redesigning the Council to reflect contemporary global powers”) India was part of the G4 for UN reforms- it was not as if African nations were voting on India alone. So lets not think of that episode as the benchmark for the amount of support we have. And, of course, African nations would be more comfortable with, as Nitin says, ” “non-interference in internal affairs” (also known as arm-the-dictator) policy.” Who wouldn’t? If this policy prevents great powers from intervening in my domestic policy then I would support it too. One of the problems- and I think that’s something we can debate- is the lack of ideas in our policy towards African States ( towards all states for that matter). How many of our best diplomats have had assignments there? They all goto Europe,US, China, Japan- but Chad?? Think about how adversely that impacts the children’s education.
3.I am all for a debate on India’s participation in the UN. But also understand that at a time when issues like climate change is being debated there and the US appears to coming around to some sort of multi-lateralism, we dont want to be in the wrong side of history. Work in the UN for our national interests, by all means but perhaps it’s too early to pull the plug on it. Look- if India continues to do well economically, it’ll be untenable for the UNSC and the G8 to keep India outside. And hence, “when- not if” ; Anyway, the fact is that we should not be in any tearing hurry to hanker at the seat on the council- stick to your fundamentals (economic growth, internal stability and military modernization) and all will come in due time, if the rest of the world wishes the UN to be relevant that is.
4. Don’t reject the ‘service of ideals’ notion too quickly. It’s an important tool to gain legitimacy, especially in democratic societies. Arguing on pure national interest will not fetch you much traction in the opinion of most people. Ideals are very important, without which it’s difficult to agree upon anything really. After all, your ideals itself are national interest!!
5. The counterargument about more pay for Indian troops in Iraq is completely different, after all that is a political decision. Perhaps I should have been clearer- financial motives should not be the most important driving factor for participation in UNPKO. On the other hand, operating in such missions lead to increased capabilities, building relationships with militaries that obviously help if you wish to be thought of as a great power and increasing your visibility in the eyes of the international community, including with aid workers. All of these are tremendous assets and not things we should dismiss of no consequences.
Enjoy the debate, though. I think it’s crucial to study the problems of UN PKO and India must push reforms at the world body. But there are more chances that India would make a difference from the inside than outside and, in that regard, you have done us all a favor by talking about this issue.
regards
4.
Going by Balaji’s logic rice Christians from Asia and Africa have an obligation to fight for US (and other western countries) in Iraq and Afghanistan … 🙂
Nitin,
India giving financial aide to other poor countries while receiving aid from other countries is just bravado. Its again the “we are now among the top dogs” attitude.
There is ofcourse no obligation to send troops. But what use is maintaining one of the largest standing armies in the world, if they cannot give a helping hand in bringing peace to the world?
Even arguing from your “whats in it for us” perspective, do you seriously think we can compete with China in doling out aide? Whats happening in Africa now? Or take Srilanka, feed them a million years and give any kind of economic assistance, but will it prevent Sri Lanka from getting arms/training from China/Pakistan? Instead, how long will it take to wipe LTTE off and bring permanent peace to Sri Lanka?
And arguing that we can do peacekeeping outside UNPKO is just rhetoric. No body is gonna invite us anywhere unless its looting Iraqi oil or something like that. NATO or other US led operations often involve Combat operations followed by Peace keeping. So would you rather have Indian Soldiers die fighting wars that should never be fought in the first place?
About the food crisis, I guess there weren’t many good advisors like you to the government then. Its as if, having an opinion about the past is gonna obliterate the reality that the world fed us through the famines of the 60s.
Anonymous Coward,
>> Why is a security council seat an ‘undeserved position’?
I think arguing this would divert from the post. Anyway, I would rather have permanent memberships abolished from the Security Council. Even otherwise how is a country which has territorial disputes with most of its neighbors or one that remains a mute spectator when almost all its neighbors are in the brink of becoming failed states, gonna take care of the security of the world? India cannot be trusted with the security of anyone including its citizens. All the more reason to serve under the UN command.
Comrade Balaji, command performance. We seem to be putting on our Arundhati Roy act today. Are you dressing up as her as well — complete with the locks and the pout — to immerse yourself in the intense drama of it all, so to speak?
Pathetic ranting of armchair intellectuals. The UN doesnt give a damn if you dont send troops. At least this way your country is getting some money.
OldTimer,
You are being a little hard on Balaji, dont you think :-)i absolutely disagree with Arundhati Roy, but she is the typical “intellectual from Bengal” – aka the modern commie.
Balaji, i want to address a few of your arguments
“There is ofcourse no obligation to send troops. But what use is maintaining one of the largest standing armies in the world, if they cannot give a helping hand in bringing peace to the world?”
You kind of contradict yourself by saying that there is no obligation for India to send troops on one hand and then in the same breath ask how useful is it to have a large Army if it does not help out in other places. The Indian Army’s first and foremost duty is to be in defense of the motherland – nothing more, nothing less. Any other deployment of Indian troops should require us to ask the question – how does it help us ? We are after all sending men and women to fight in a war zone in a country that has not declared war on us – Nitin is asking the question – “for what exactly?” -so that we could preen how good we are morally ?
If some people like Mukerjee argue that it is about ideals, Nitin asks the question – what exactly has the idealism helped us with. Also how come this idealism of ours has been mysteriously absent in the crisis in Sudan, Burma, Zimbabwe ?
“Soft power” can only do so much – Nitin has a previous post on hard power about Maorists and another tribe and the importance of hard power.
soft power is vastly over rated – a glaring example of this would be the United States of America – American culture is easily the most pervasive in the world – I dont know if there is one reality show in the world like American Idol which has a world wide following – I dont know of one country in the world whose movie industry, comic book characters, fashion trends has such a world wide following. I dont know of any other country which has sacrificed its sons and daughters in defending freedom like America did – World War 2, Korea, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq. But each these wars were also fought to keep America’s strategic interests alive – not just some idealistic idea – the US was forced into the World War by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – it was an open challenge to its influence in the Pacific and the US responded by declaring war on Japan.
America is easily the most reviled nation in the world – it has been this way a long time before the Iraq war – in fact most people saw 9/11 as a comeuppance for the country – all the soft power it has from its cultural influence does not do a damned thing in the court of public opinion on which is the most dangerous country to world peace.
“About the food crisis, I guess there weren’t many good advisors like you to the government then. Its as if, having an opinion about the past is gonna obliterate the reality that the world fed us through the famines of the 60s.”
And nothing can obliterate the fact that India was F-L-E-E-C-E-D by its colonial master Britain during its occupation. India’s contribution to the global economy was around 22% before the Brits took over. After they left, it was decimated to around 2% of the worlds economy. So I guess that if we are look upon gratefully on the kindness of the outside world, we may also have to remember what the great powers did to our national wealth – its a two way street. And no, India is not obligated to pay back this effort in blood. Not at all – we dont need to feel any guilt here.
“I think arguing this would divert from the post. Anyway, I would rather have permanent memberships abolished from the Security Council. Even otherwise how is a country which has territorial disputes with most of its neighbors or one that remains a mute spectator when almost all its neighbors are in the brink of becoming failed states, gonna take care of the security of the world? India cannot be trusted with the security of anyone including its citizens. All the more reason to serve under the UN command.?
See, this is where idealism of yours hits a rock hard place called power – you’d rather have permanent memberships abolished, but what you want or dont want does not really matter – the victors of WW2 and China wanted to project their power that they had on the world in the form of permamnent seats in the Security Council – thats what matters. In fact the United Nations which you want India to serve so idealistically itself was not idealistic enough to grant a permanent seat to the largest democracy in the world. It was about power, it is about power and it will always be about power. In fact our demands to be included in the UNSC seem to have grown stronger with perceptions of how our powers have increased over the last couple of decades.
India does not need to take care of the “security of the world” as you stated to be a UNSC member – if that were a criteria, I’d have to ask how come Britain, France which hang onto American coat tails are UNSC members ? What exactly is their contribution to solving global disputes or providing global security ? How come Russia is a member, when it has no qualms threatening the security of its smaller European neighbors ( Georgia, Ukraine) with its oil and gas blackmail ?
How the hell is China “securing the world” – well may be its provding security by scaring most of them into submission !!
But I do agree that India is not a fit for the UNSC – not because it cannot secure the world or save the failed states in its neighborhood ( heck even the US cannot handle Pakistan today, why would you blame India?). But because becoming a permanent member would mean taking sides on the conflicts of the day. India is very very hesitant to project its power or rub countries off the worng way, no matter how big or better it can get. For a nation which sees the UNSC membership as some kind of entitlement, while refusing to take a stance on global issues at the same time, this membership would be a huge political problem
Nitin, I don’t know if this is the right thread, but I am posting my replies to your rebuttal in the previous thread here…
My position is even a single casualty is one too many if it is not in the interests of the nation. You should read it with the next sentence, where we write that the Indian embassy takes pride that our participation is in the service of an “ideal”.
I agree with Anit Mukherjee on this: an ideal justifies India’s participation in UNPK operations, even if that entails a few losses of life, as long as it doesn’t affect India’s interests adversely.
Sure. Let the UN recruit troops from Nepal, Fiji or Nigeria.
I doubt if troops from these countries have the training, discipline, and professionalism to carry out their duties well. All the same, I will not deny that the UN system is severely flawed troops from other countries need to be recruited in large numbers too. All I am saying is that Indian participation should not be conditional to that of other countries.
The US and UK might be doing what they are doing for good reason. If the reasons are good, then we would do well to learn from them.
I agree that they are doing it for their own selfish reasons. But I do not think that India should go down the same path. If an India troop presence saves the lives of defenceless innocents, I am all for it.
Suppose you’re walking down a road and see a ruffian molesting a woman. The people around you aren’t doing anything. So do you stand and wait for others to do their bit before you act?
Mihir,
Suppose you’re walking down a road and see a ruffian molesting a woman. The people around you aren’t doing anything. So do you stand and wait for others to do their bit before you act?
The analogy you offer points to the possible reasons for our diverging views. I start with the premise that international relations are conducted in an anarchy in an amoral context. This is quite unlike the situation within states, where there are morals, many of which are enshrined in laws, and where there is often rule of law. So there is no direct analogy between the morals of intra-state affairs; and the ‘morals’ of international affairs.