A lot of discussion has been taking place ever since news of Shashi Tharoor, popularly called as “India’s man in the UN,” being one of the candidates for UN secretary general is out. After Kofi Annan’s term expires, a new member will be elected and Tharoor is one of the prospective candidates.
Along with this speculation whether he will become the Secy Gen. or not, is also the discussion regarding his pros and cons vying for this place when Annan steps down from his post come December 2006.
Hordes of articles have been done forming opinions and conjecturing the answers for the big question. Here is a TOI article and a Zee News article on that.
The first thing that comes to my mind when I think of the United Nations, is the United States of America hand-in-hand with a power game and politics. It’s a known fact that India has been vying a permanent membership in the UN Security Council and India’s request has always been denied, albeit diplomatically put down. India’s demand for the ‘power to veto’ has also always been declined. At present, the UN Security Council has five permanent members and has fiercely guarded this position so as no other nation gets a permanent membership. This has been the scenario ever since the UN was formed on October 24, 1945 after the end of World War I. Those five permanent members are China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. 10 non-permanent members get chances to be Council and are replaced by new ones as soon as their term expires. Major decisions and binding on member countries are made here and that explains the stringent ‘no-entry-for-other-nations-policy.’
The US as always has very diplomatically evaded giving direct answers as to who is going to be supported by them, whether it’s Tharoor from India or a candidate from Sri Lanka, South Korea or Thailand. And why would they not be? They would back a candidate keeping in mind their vested interests and keeping any potential threat at an arms length.
I sure do hope Tharoor’s service to the UN for 28 years brings us some good. Of the few interviews that I have read of the guy, I’m convinced of his diplomatic skills. May he be uplifted to the Secy Gen. position from Under-Secretary General. His elevation and leading the UN will be a major mark that India will be making in the international arena.
A major hurdle for India and Tharoor might be the fact that Secretary Generals do not come from large countries. The Secy Gen’s. are usually represented by small countries and knowing that India is a large country and a major power that the world is reckoning with, the ride could be bumpy. Even the five permanent members aren’t allowed to stand for this post as well as the major powers of Germany and Japan. There have been reports that UN’s Department of Public Information has had a not so very good image lately and currently Tharoor is heading that.
In spite of all this, watching Talking Heads on NDTV 24x7 last night left me skeptical. Barkha Dutt, who was interviewing Tharoor tried to stump him with the relations between the US & UN, and that how the United Nations is just a tool in the US’ hands. That how US went ahead with the Iraq war in spite of a ‘no’ from the UN, and about the Iran condition-the Tehran conflict. Tharoor cleverly wriggled out of the questions coolly and confidently, leaving a sour taste in my mouth. He answered all of Dutt’s questions unflinchingly coupled with the clarity and speed with which Dutt was shooting questions at him. Of course, it is clear that he is UN’s man. I disliked one of his final statements that said, “I am not India’s secretary general, I am an Indian Secretary General. I am a Secretary General for all the 191 UN members.” There. “Indian but not India’s man.”
And I think India can very well forget to get a seat in the Security Council. A few requirements for India to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council are a two-third majority of the present Security Council in favour of India. This seems easy. At least 3 out of five countries on the Council would vote in favour of India. That is if this happens at all. But another tricky clause requires ratification by major countries of the world approving India’s admission to the Council. So we can kiss our Security Council membership a goodbye.
Lets see, if the lunch/dinner that US President Bush and Indian Prime minister ManMohan Singh had yields us any good.
11 comments:
Well I think its a good thing that he wants to be an Indian secretary general and not India's secretary general. They are supposed to be bias.. why did that leave a bad taste in your mouth?
The world isnt about good verses bad trinnie... if you want that go watch professional wrestling or something :)
I disliked one of his final statements that said, “I am not India’s secretary general, I am an Indian Secretary General. I am a Secretary General for all the 191 UN members.” There. “Indian but not India’s man.”
As Aditit said. I see nothing wrong with that. He may want to be an Sec Gen who happens to be Indian. By default the Sec Gen cannot be biased. India's man in the UN will be their repsentative which is not Tharoor.
He is sharp and intelligent though.
As for the security Council seat as they say in NY,, fuggedabtit, ain't gonna happen.
is professional wrestling even about good and bad? its all gray.. there is no black and white..
=(
@ elfie: i didnt get ur analogy or connection between good & bad and shashi tharoor!
explain pliss....
@everyone else: well, my sole problem is that i dont want to see tharoor as america's chamcha. hate that, he already is a UN chamcha and UN is just a tool in USA's hand...u guys already know the iraq war and the iran thing!
and yeah, we're nevaaah gonna get into the security council!
*am bitter*
btw, am not talking abt him being biased and stuff...but i dont want him to be a chamcha either...wat am i saying? as if i pull the strings....!!!!
sheesh!!!
@aditi...
when bret hart beat yokozuna to win the championship title ... :) .. i cried that day.. everything in my life was good again .. :D
I think Tharoor’s campaign is will be built around his oft-quoted statement that “the UN needs reform not because it has failed, but because it has accomplished enough over the years to be worth investing in"..and hes been heard saying that he will quit writing if he gets selected.. also says a lot about this mans priorirites..he knows what hes contending for..and well I also cried when Arnold went into molten iron in terminator..but that was ten years back..
@ elfstone
bret hart is cute.. i think or was it his brother.. hmm obviously i dont follow
@ shitrint
Ok.. but if the UN is a tool in the US hands (which i wont question) then why does it matter whether we get the security council seat or not? Why are we seeking approval from the states?
Additionally.. you have to understand UN doesnt have its own funding per say and it doesnt have its own army either. It makes the best of stringent circumstances. Its hard being moral police for the world and have to keep America in hand because that is where your power comes from.
I think the world needs another superpower because only then can there be balance.
I dont see indias rush to get into the security council a good move. obviously im not a diplomat. However from where i see it the benefits we stand to gain from getting a COVETED 'seat' pale in comparison to the strain India will be putting on itself(If it does get in ... remote possibility). The higher ups may have already realized that the only way for india to get in is to do a DAMN good job of kissing US of A's indignant arse... which wud defeat the purpose of getting in anyway.
As for UN being US of A's lapdog, even getting to have a say in the league is an act of benevolence on the part of the "noble" US of A. whether Tharoor secures the position after Annan is not the question ... how he plans to "diploamtically" outwit the only super power of the times (if he can) is the moot point.
iamit.
I hope his candidature would pave the way for India to eventually bcum a member of the security council.. the UN Security Council today depicts the economy that prevailed abt 6 decades back, abt the time of World War II.. the dynamics of global economy and geo-politics have changed drasticaly esp as the 'emerging economies' are gaining momentum. This NEEDS to be reflected in the UN security council.. the pursuit of inclusion of India in this council have been going on since 1999. I hope it sees an end soon..
And abt UN being the puppet of US.. no matter how disgusting that sounds, i think that wud remain that way for some time, as long as US remains as powerful as it is today..
..Me
Post a Comment