Analysis of India's Proposal as a UN Security Council Non-Permanent Candidate dated June 5, 2020

Updated: May 26

Abhivardhan,

President,

Global Law Assembly.


The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India - released a proposal with regards India's Candidature into the Non-Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council. As procedures indicate, India's membership into the non-permanent membership bloc in the UNSC will begin from January 2021, provided that a proper vote makes that possible. The Executive Board of the Global Law Assembly therein provides a special executive comment and analysis on the challenges and positive aspects resembled in the Proposal by the External Affairs Minister and the Permanent Mission of India at the UN, New York.


General Overview

The proposal resembles India's paradigm shift in the practicable contours of diplomacy and confidence-building. In general, India reflects the signs of multi-alignment as the core aesthetics of its negotiation and discussion basis. Furthermore, India does reflect a limited yet gradual transformation in its faith towards the 'strategic autonomy' doctrine. Nevertheless, despite the fact that post-colonial, third-world countries in Asia are not perfect and their institutional and administrative capabilities may have limited translations into the actions, which may be expected, India at least keeps promises to shift its contours from a pacifist and lethargic position it had assumed before 2009. Furthermore, the proposal beyond the imagery of promises accepts and regards the resistant nature of the ground realities that bind India from exerting a more liberalized approach towards geopolitics & international peace and security. Considering India's strategic role in Central Asia and fluid affinity towards the Westosphere (or nation-states that are a part of the Western bloc), the proposal is sober and reconciling.


Indian Approach Towards Multilateralism as a Nation-State

India's vision towards multilateralism escalates and translates from the very constraints undiscovered and lived with by the diplomatic community and the Government of India with respect to the concept of strategic autonomy. The imagery of multilateralism is apparent to India's moralist stance, which is reflective of the diplomatic commitments and statements rendered by missions, ambassadors and ministers. Despite the fact that India's realtime strategic capabilities will strengthen in a positive manner, Indian diplomats and ministers must never shy from their commitments and never should limit their considerations. One of the most truer advantages Indian diplomats can always have is that due to India's moralism - the polity receives a reasonable buffer to confront the challenges that affect India, while at the same time, the Indian diplomatic fraternity is way capable to influence abstraction in its policy initiatives, in any possible arena, which may or may not invite condemnation, but preserves India's plans upon any situation, which is a matter of fortune. There are two significant examples here:


India's Diplomatic Outreach over the Article 370 Controversy

In reality, Indian diplomats did succeed in dealing with the issue of Article 370 by preventing the UN Security Council to proceed with the public-level consultations. Despite the fact that the international media, human rights-related NGOs and consultative non-intergovernmental organizations and some states tried to internationalize the issue, the propensity of the issue was appropriately thawed down by the Government of India. However, if India intends to expand the amorphous capabilities of multilateralism as a healer to the communitarian and localized redemptions of the international community, it is important that India boosts its communication capabilities and proposes reasonable and well-trusted solutions since the dilution move are within in the jurisdiction of India and the Constitution of India, 1950 - in legal, political and aesthetic terms.


India's Diplomatic Outreach over the issues related to the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019

There was a blunt turnover which was set to happen from the side of the European Parliament in early 2020 with respect to the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. With regards, a subjective ambiguity and autonomy acquired by the Government of India in administrative terms, there may be policy considerations that can be discussed amicably by the Ministry of External Affairs, as their relative discretion resides. Nevertheless, the limited nature of the law enacted does not directly influence India's commitments to its refugee policy. However, a lack of communication and political ambiguity from the Government of India was certainly not a reasonable step and thus, India needs to have a good domestic outreach and its investigation and interrogation strategies must be coherent with the nature of the issues that encumber (a) India's foreign commitments; and (b) India's domestic propensities.