India refrained from voting in the UNSC resolution to establish 'no-fly zones' over Libya. In order to stop pro-Ghaddafi elements in their assault over the rebels, the resolution refers to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
India has yet to frame a robust and uniform foreign policy, especially during international crises. Furthermore, in cases of pariah states like Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Libya, India's posture remains unclear. However, India's deputy permanent representative Manjeev Singh Puri said India could not endorse the drastic steps called for in the resolution without hearing from the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy and former Jordanian foreign minister Abdel Ilah Al-Khatib.
In a press release, the Indian External Affairs Ministry asserted that on 17 March in New York, Puri had said: “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 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.”
India, along with China, Brazil, Russia and Germany abstained from voting. It needs to be mentioned that India is presently a non-permanent member of the Security Council, and it is evident that India does not subscribe to the direct use of force against Libya.
Moreover, New Delhi indicated that the UNSC 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. Also, India expressed concerns that the perceived measures might exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.
On the other hand, though Ghaddafi declared a unilateral ceasefire on March 18, there are reports that only two days later at least 26 people were killed and over 40 wounded after forces loyal to Ghaddafi attacked the rebellious city of Benghazi in Eastern Libya (as per Al Jazeera).
The Voice of America reports that at the crisis summit on Libya at the Elysee Palace in Paris (March 19), major world leaders have concurred to use 'force' against Muammar Ghaddafi. French war planes assaulted Libyan targets Saturday evening, the first foreign strikes enforcing a United Nations "no-fly" zone over Libya.
Is the world going to witness another Balkanization as was seen in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s? Will Libya be divided into rebel held east and pro-Ghaddafi west? Could we experience another Iraq, despite the fact that the UNSC resolution categorically prohibits an occupation force from being stationed in Libya?
Nevertheless, in this scenario, India's actions are what need to be analyzed. Was this a BRIC + G-4 effect? Interestingly, apart from Japan, which is at present not within the Security Council, other nation-states of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and G-4 (Group seeking permanent membership of the UN Security Council) unanimously abstained from voting.
By so doing, India has definitely exhibited its independent foreign policy stance and to a large extent has tried to eradicate the prevailing notion of its pro-U.S. tilt. However, at the same time, such an [in]action on India's part may not be very encouraging for its prospects of bagging a permanent seat in the UNSC with American help.
a global affairs media network
Libya, UNSC Resolution and India
March 30, 2011
India refrained from voting in the UNSC resolution to establish 'no-fly zones' over Libya. In order to stop pro-Ghaddafi elements in their assault over the rebels, the resolution refers to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which authorizes “action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
India has yet to frame a robust and uniform foreign policy, especially during international crises. Furthermore, in cases of pariah states like Iran, Myanmar, North Korea and Libya, India's posture remains unclear. However, India's deputy permanent representative Manjeev Singh Puri said India could not endorse the drastic steps called for in the resolution without hearing from the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy and former Jordanian foreign minister Abdel Ilah Al-Khatib.
In a press release, the Indian External Affairs Ministry asserted that on 17 March in New York, Puri had said: “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 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.”
India, along with China, Brazil, Russia and Germany abstained from voting. It needs to be mentioned that India is presently a non-permanent member of the Security Council, and it is evident that India does not subscribe to the direct use of force against Libya.
Moreover, New Delhi indicated that the UNSC 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. Also, India expressed concerns that the perceived measures might exacerbate an already difficult situation for the people of Libya.
On the other hand, though Ghaddafi declared a unilateral ceasefire on March 18, there are reports that only two days later at least 26 people were killed and over 40 wounded after forces loyal to Ghaddafi attacked the rebellious city of Benghazi in Eastern Libya (as per Al Jazeera).
The Voice of America reports that at the crisis summit on Libya at the Elysee Palace in Paris (March 19), major world leaders have concurred to use 'force' against Muammar Ghaddafi. French war planes assaulted Libyan targets Saturday evening, the first foreign strikes enforcing a United Nations "no-fly" zone over Libya.
Is the world going to witness another Balkanization as was seen in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s? Will Libya be divided into rebel held east and pro-Ghaddafi west? Could we experience another Iraq, despite the fact that the UNSC resolution categorically prohibits an occupation force from being stationed in Libya?
Nevertheless, in this scenario, India's actions are what need to be analyzed. Was this a BRIC + G-4 effect? Interestingly, apart from Japan, which is at present not within the Security Council, other nation-states of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and G-4 (Group seeking permanent membership of the UN Security Council) unanimously abstained from voting.
By so doing, India has definitely exhibited its independent foreign policy stance and to a large extent has tried to eradicate the prevailing notion of its pro-U.S. tilt. However, at the same time, such an [in]action on India's part may not be very encouraging for its prospects of bagging a permanent seat in the UNSC with American help.
