India declines U.S. proposal to head caucus of democracies

[Guest guest]

India declines U.S. proposal to head caucus of democracies

 

http://www.hinduonline.com/today/stories/01210002.htm

By Malini Parthasarathy

 

WASHINGTON, SEPT. 20. Even as New Delhi has been arguing forcefully

the case for a seat on the U.N. Security Council, in an unpublicised

move that has perplexed officials in Washington, the Vajpayee

Government has turned down a proposal by the Clinton administration

that India assume the leadership of an informal caucus of

democracies, representing some 100 countries, at the United Nations.

India's sudden reticence in this regard is described as ``baffling''

by officials here who noted that India along with the United States

had since March been expressing great enthusiasm for the idea of a

community of democracies. India was, in fact, a co-convenor of the

conference of this Community of Democracies (CD) hosted by Poland in

late June, this year.

 

The idea of a caucus to function in the U.N. which would coordinate

perspectives on issues relating to democracy that were on the U.N.

agenda that had relevance to democracy emanated from the Warsaw

meeting in which some 100 countries had participated. Apart from the

host Poland, India and the United States, South Korea, Chile, Mali

and the Czech Republic were co- convenors. The CD had decided to work

on some common goals such as encouraging relevant international and

regional institutions to be transparent and supportive of efforts to

strengthen democracy, facilitating the sharing of the best practices

to deepen democracy, improving mechanisms to respond to threats to

democracy and coordinating assistance for countries undergoing

democratic transitions.

 

It was also suggested at Warsaw that a ``democracy caucus'' be

created within existing institutions ``as a mechanism to promote

dialogue and build consensus'' among those who shared these goals.

The United States, which believed that India had the strongest

credentials in the grouping by virtue of its vibrant democracy, had

been strongly urging India since June to take the leadership of this

proposed caucus. Even as recently as September 12, in New York at a

dinner for Foreign Ministers, the U.S. Secretary of State, Ms.

Madeleine Albright, renewed her suggestion to the External Affairs

Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, that India lead the proposed democracy

caucus. Mr. Singh is said to have reiterated India's disinclination

to do so while promising that India would continue to participate

actively in the processes of the CD.

 

Poland, the host country, had evidently expressed its logistical

unpreparedness to take on this responsibility and so also South Korea

which is scheduled to host the next meeting of the CD. Therefore the

search for another leader had become inevitable and the United States

thought India should take the responsibility. This reflected,

according to an administration official here, ``a vote of confidence

in India'' by the United States. The Clinton administration has been

stressing the fact that a binding factor between India and the U.S.

is the shared commitment to democracy which it sees as the basis for

more substantive cooperation between the two countries. In the Vision

Statement that emerged from the U.S. President, Mr. Bill Clinton's

visit to India last March, this envisaged cooperation between the

United States and India is referred to. ``... that is why the United

States and India are and will be allies in the cause of democracy. We

will share our experience in nurturing and strengthening democratic

institutions the world over and fighting the challenge to democratic

order from forces such as terrorism. We will cooperate with others to

launch an international Community of Democracies this year.''

 

American officials say that they find India's hesitation surprising

especially because it had already agreed to be a co- convenor of the

Warsaw Conference and had participated as such. Therefore the arising

of second thoughts about taking a leadership role is seen here as

inexplicable. The proposed democracy caucus is not one that would

``beat up on other countries'', an American official pointed out,

``but is intended to strengthen democracy in existing democracies.''

 

The deliberations of the CD as had reflected in the Warsaw meeting

had attracted some controversy. Apart from the unease expressed by

some countries that the CD represented an initiative by the United

States seeking to thrust its own political agenda on other nations,

France had also refused to endorse the Warsaw declaration and had

withdrawn from the CD, criticising its ``evangelical'' tone, saying

that Western standards were being shoved down the throats of other

countries. It had also raised an objection to the idea of a

``democracy caucus'' saying that it would in effect create a new

bloc, replicating Cold War divisions. However, India had not

expressed any misgivings on this score at Warsaw.

 

Asked whether the unwillingness to risk a confrontation with France

could currently be the reason for India's expressed disinclination to

take a leading role in this caucus, sources here said that they had

not really been given any clear reason by the Indian side as to why

it was holding back. But what appears to have left the Clinton

administration puzzled is the contradiction in India's approach. On

the one hand, India is seen as seeking international support for its

initiatives against terrorism and has been canvassing vigorously its

claims to a Security Council seat, but on the other hand it seems to

have passed up an opportunity to take on a high-profile role in the

context of the United Nations.