A true assessment of a country’s foreign policy has to take into account its attention to issues which go out of the public eye. Such an evaluation has to also focus on the response of states whose interests, a country believes, it is promoting. As the Narendra Modi government enters the last stretch of its present electoral term, it would be useful to examine how it fared on some matters germane to these propositions. While not detracting from the government’s diplomatic achievements, including the finalisation of a “clean” Delhi G20 summit joint statement, such scrutiny would help in fully judging its foreign policy record.

India has emphasised, over the past several years, its affinities with the Global South. It has claimed that it is keeping the interests of developing countries front and centre in its positions on social and economic issues in multilateral contexts. The Modi government especially stressed during India’s G20 Presidency that it was giving voice to the aspirations of the Global South. For this purpose, it held a “Voice of the Global South” summit in January and again its iteration virtually in November. These were noble efforts, for the disparities between the advanced and developing worlds are growing in the digital era. And, as India straddles both worlds and joins the high tables where global rules are set, it wishes to signal that it will not turn its back on the interests of the developing countries.

With all this effort, it could be expected that it would secure the support of the Global South countries in elections, big and small, to UN bodies. It was therefore surprising that, in an election held on November 24 for one of the Vice President’s positions for the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Pakistan defeated it by 38 votes to 18. Pakistan is currently in a mess. It is under a caretaker government and its economy is in tatters. It continues to be a centre of extremist ideologies and terrorism. Yet, India lost the seat by a big margin.

The UNESCO Executive Board consists of 58 members which are divided into six regional groups to give equitable representation to countries from diverse regions in UNESCO bodies. India is part of the 12-member Asia-Pacific group. The Vice-President’s position is not one of great consequence and an election for it takes place only if the group does not arrive at a consensus for it. The Asia-Pacific group could not do so. Hence, under UNESCO rules, the entire 58-member Board voted. It would seem from Pakistan’s margin of victory that it managed to secure more support from developing countries than India.

Each election has its own dynamics and generalisations from only one may not be warranted. Clearly though, in this case, India’s UNESCO delegation, the Ministry of Human Resource Development which is the nodal ministry for UNESCO and the Ministry of External Affairs which is responsible for all aspects of India’s external engagements, should have read the tea leaves of this election better. This is not only because it was galling to lose particularly to a Pakistan in such dire straits, but also because it opens up questions, however indirect, on India’s efforts’ efficacy with countries of the Global South.

Another matter, completely different from the UNESCO election relates to Indian efforts to extradite Kim Davy from Denmark to India. Davy was involved in the Purulia arms drop case of 1996, but there is no statute of limitation in criminal matters. Davy has publicly acknowledged his involvement in breaking Indian laws. Denmark’s executive and judiciary have treated India with disdain in the Davy matter. At one stage, India had closed shop with Denmark till Davy was extradited to face the law in India. However, over the past decade India not only normalised relations, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Denmark in May 2022 for both a bilateral visit and an India-Nordic summit. Danish prime ministers have visited India too. The premise of this opening up was that the Danes would act along with Indian law enforcement agencies to see that Davy was extradited to India.

Nothing seems to have been heard publicly from India on this matter. In 2023, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told the media that when he had visited India as prime minister in 2019, he and the Indian leadership had decided that this was not a “political” but a judicial issue and that law enforcement authorities would deal with it. He said that he had been informed that it was a “work in progress”. Well, it seems that no progress has been made to get Davy to India. Has India decided to “forget” the Davy issue? This is not the way great powers behave. This writer recalls how the US sought the extradition of a national of one of India’s neighbouring countries from India after they discovered that he was accused of murder in Boston almost three decades earlier. Finally, extradition is never only a
judicial issue.

In the Italian Marines case, India accepted the International Tribunal’s Award which mandated their trial in Italy. The Supreme Court put its seal of approval on this process in mid-2021. While the families of the two Indians who had been killed by the marines were monetarily compensated, the question is whether the Indian Mission in Rome followed the proceedings against the marines in the Italian court. It could not intervene in the Italian judicial process but it could have ensured that the Italian judicial system gave the case the care it deserved. There is no public indication that the Mission was directed by Delhi to do so or that a Mission official attended court proceedings to indicate that India takes the deaths of its nationals seriously. A Rome court acquitted the marines in June 2022.

Nations are judged not only through their large actions but also by how they act in small matters concerning their individual citizens or the breaking of their laws. Often, they are judged by their conduct in these as through their grand gestures and “forthright” statements.

The writer is a former diplomat

Opinion | Behind suspension of 143 MPs, a political immoralityPremium Story

UPSC Key, December 21: What to read today and whyPremium Story

In AI push, Centre to step up compute capacity, offerPremium Story

ExplainSpeaking: Behind India’s fast GDP growth, Sensex surgePremium Story

UPSC Key, December 20: What to read today and whyPremium Story

Indian courts have no jurisdiction in Gupta case: Czech ministryPremium Story

C Raja Mohan writes: Between Trump & Putin, a vulnerablePremium Story

Over 100 MPs suspended: What Parliament rules sayPremium Story

IE100: The most powerful Indians in 2023Premium Story

Why India waited 14 years after independence to move troopsPremium Story

Kashmir through Karan Singh’s eyes: A nine-decade journeyPremium Story

QOSHE - The MEA which is responsible for all aspects of India’s external engagements, should have read the tea leaves of this election better - Vivek Katju
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

The MEA which is responsible for all aspects of India’s external engagements, should have read the tea leaves of this election better

9 3
23.12.2023

A true assessment of a country’s foreign policy has to take into account its attention to issues which go out of the public eye. Such an evaluation has to also focus on the response of states whose interests, a country believes, it is promoting. As the Narendra Modi government enters the last stretch of its present electoral term, it would be useful to examine how it fared on some matters germane to these propositions. While not detracting from the government’s diplomatic achievements, including the finalisation of a “clean” Delhi G20 summit joint statement, such scrutiny would help in fully judging its foreign policy record.

India has emphasised, over the past several years, its affinities with the Global South. It has claimed that it is keeping the interests of developing countries front and centre in its positions on social and economic issues in multilateral contexts. The Modi government especially stressed during India’s G20 Presidency that it was giving voice to the aspirations of the Global South. For this purpose, it held a “Voice of the Global South” summit in January and again its iteration virtually in November. These were noble efforts, for the disparities between the advanced and developing worlds are growing in the digital era. And, as India straddles both worlds and joins the high tables where global rules are set, it wishes to signal that it will not turn its back on the interests of the developing countries.

With all this effort, it could be expected that it would secure the support of the Global South countries in elections, big and small, to UN bodies. It was therefore surprising that, in an election held on November 24 for one of the Vice President’s positions for the Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific........

© Indian Express


Get it on Google Play