'There Has Been No US Pressure'

Edited excerpts from the Keynote Address by the Foreign Secretary at the Centre for United NationsPeacekeeping, New Delhi, in the national seminar on "Complex Peace Operations: Traditional Premises AndNew Realities" on August 21, 2003.

India is among the longest serving and the largest troop contributors to UN peacekeeping activities. Ourcredentials in this regard are second to none. We have a formidable track record of having more than 67,000personnel who have participated in 37 out of the 56 U.N. peacekeeping missions established so far. We haveemerged as one of the most dependable and sought-after troop contributing countries in the world.

What is more, we have taken up difficult challenges. Starting with Korea in 1950, we have beenparticipating in difficult missions such as in Cambodia, Angola, Rwanda, Somalia etc and now, once again theIAF is in Congo. None of this is without risks. Only two weeks ago, Shri Satish Menon, the Deputy Commandantin the BSF tragically laid down his life while serving in the U.N. Mission in Kosovo. We solemnly salute thisbrave officer and also 108 others before him who have made this supreme sacrifice under the U.N. flag.

Apart from being a leading troop contributor, we have also been an energetic and influential participant inthe U.N. debates on peacekeeping, and have helped in shaping current thinking on many conceptual issues. Indiahas played an important role in the deliberations in the UN on the recommendations of the Brahimi Report, andsupported efforts to make the UN more efficient and effective in its peacekeeping functions.

It is eminently appropriate therefore that this National Seminar has as its theme the contemporary issueunder the title "Complex Peace Operations – Traditional Premises and New Realities". Let me express somethoughts on the theme, in the light of our recent preoccupations and experiences.

I would like to emphasize that this is no longer an innocuous, theoretical debate, confined to academiccircles. It is a timely issue for discussion also in the public domain. This became abundantly clear duringthe extensive and animated national debate that took place recently on the question of deploying our troops inIraq. The debate involved practically all sections of people: parliamentarians, policy makers, analysts,defence forces and the general public.

While the advantages and disadvantages of sending our troops to Iraq as a part of the stabilization forcewere hotly debated, there were some who sought to see the whole issue only in terms of so-called "U.S.pressure" on India. There has been no US pressure on India. US would, of course, like India to contribute tothe stabilization force but to say that a request amounts to pressure would be a reflection of an undue senseof vulnerability. We value our relations with the US and whenever possible we should explore issues on whichwe can work together.

I would like to emphasize, however, that to see India as bending to pressure is not to do justice toourselves. The strength and stature of our country has been demonstrated time and again in the independentstance we have adopted on important global issues and the independent decisions we have taken in matters thatconcern us. We cannot be pushed into taking any decision that is not of our own making. Our decisions willalways be arrived at after careful consideration of all relevant aspects of issues under examination, and willbe guided, in the final analysis, solely by our national interests. So was it in this case.

Let me share some reflections on the broader theme: "traditional premises and new realities". Ourstandard approach to ‘peacekeeping’ is well known to most of you and can be summarized briefly. We believethat the UN has a major responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and thatpeacekeeping continues to be one of the key tools or instruments available to the UN.

We view peacekeeping in the traditional sense of the term as an effort to assist in ‘keeping peace’ andfacilitating a return to normalcy, preferably within a finite, well defined timeframe. We have believed thatpeacekeeping follows a ‘peace accord’ between parties to a conflict and a commitment by them for apeaceful settlement. Peacekeeping operations should strictly adhere to the principles of the UN Charter, inparticular, the principles of full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States andnon-intervention in their internal affairs.

We have also insisted that peacekeeping operations should be considered only at the request of the MemberStates involved, and should be under the command and control of the UN. It is also our belief that Chapter VIoperations, based on consent of the parties are more likely to succeed and Chapter VII operations which are inthe nature of an enforcement operation should be viewed as exceptions.

While the above has constituted our approach to peacekeeping, we are nevertheless fully alive and sensitiveto the reality of the changing nature of peacekeeping, and the growing complexity and scale of theseoperations. In the last ten years the principles and practices in peacekeeping have undergone something of arevolution. These changes have been described and commented upon variously. Let me merely identify a fewelements:

• Peace keeping, an operation relevant to keeping peace between two or more states has also moved to keepingpeace within a state. There is involvement of the UN not only in situations of inter-state conflict but alsoin the intra-State conflicts.
  
  
• The objectives pursued in operations have enlarged from assisting in the maintenance of ceasefire to theincreasingly detailed stabilization, humanitarian, and civilian police components. UN operations have widenedand peace keeping is seen as one element in a larger process of managing a ‘post-conflict’ situation.Examples: East Timor or Afghanistan.
  
  The nature of ‘Peace operations’, itself a new term instead of the conventional ‘PeacekeepingOperations’ has therefore changed from being uni-dimensional to multi-dimensional involving a wide spectrumof activities – humanitarian assistance, refugee returns, provision of interim State services, establishmentof rule of law, assistance to international criminal tribunals, facilitation of political process, monitoringof elections, and even establishment of transitional governments, etc.
  
  
• The use of civil police and other civilians is increasing in these operations. We ourselves are gettingmore and more requests for policemen and have had police contingents in Bosnia and Kosovo.
  
  
• There are also varying mandates under the UN: from classical UN peacekeeping operations, to UN-authorisedmultinational operations as in the case of Afghanistan and operations outside the ambit of the UN such as thecoalition forces in Iraq.
  
  
• Another significant evolution is the UN’s reliance on regional and sub-regional organizations to supportand even carry out missions on its behalf. The recent example is of ECOWAS in Liberia.

This is not an exhaustive but an indicative listing of some of the changes that we see around us today. Itis clear that there are new realities. Indeed it is bound to be so since the structure and features ofinternational relations have undeniably changed since the 1990s. India recognizes the changes and the newrealities. The question then is how do we respond to them?

For a country like India – with its size, population, resources, a rich and successful experience ofhandling internal dissensions and problems, well established institutions, a proud record of independence ofjudgment and action - some of these precepts and practices amounting to erosion of sovereignty and dependenceon others for even the essential tasks of governance cannot be but a matter of concern.

Our basic approach has been to uphold the principle of sovereignty and of supporting assistance fromoutside, including the UN, only at the explicit request and consent of the State. Having said this,nevertheless we cannot shut our eyes to the reality around us and of the needs, the vulnerabilities and eventhe demands of weaker or smaller states which may seek international involvement in the resolution of theirconflicts or in the protection of civilian populations.

In some cases the government is simply not functional, in others the institutions have collapsed or arenon-existent: in other words the sovereignty cannot be exercised effectively at all. I would not nameexamples, but these should be clear to you. It is in such cases and only in such cases that we can countenancethe question of the role of the international community including the UN, in peace operations in its largersense as a component of nation-building.

In recent months we have pondered on some of these issues as we have looked at the situations inAfghanistan, in Congo, in Liberia and in Iraq. All these are different situations and let me say thatIndia’s interests are also different. Let me identify a few points, which in our view are relevant indetermining India’s response for requests for assistance.

• To start, India’s policy on involvement in peace keeping operations continues to be shaped by acommitment to UN, its objectives and a commitment to Peace. The involvement of the UN implies a certainlegitimacy, an international recognition and acceptability. In saying this, I am not implying that alldecisions of the Security Council are necessarily objective or wise or fair. In the real world we are wellaware that the decisions of the Security Council could also be a product of the power politics. Nevertheless,they do confer a certain international legitimacy as distinct form adhoc or unilateral decisions.
  
  
• We also are influenced by both the goodwill of the countries served by our peacekeepers and by theprospect of minimizing the civilian suffering which is a concomitant to peace.
  
  
• We should however be failing in recognizing the realities that I described, if each and every of ourdecisions on peacekeeping is an automatic response to a UN request (and only to a U.N. request). There are toomany conflict situations, too many requests and too few resources for India to so respond. Therefore, thebilateral relations and the regional equations and an assessment of India’s interests broadly defined haveto be a part in determining our response.
  
  
• The perception about India’s involvement in a country or in a region where our troops might go, thepublic sentiments about the role that India would play and the national sentiment in India about suchinvolvement are also undoubtedly factors which would influence a decision.
  
  
• Operational questions such as the issue of command and control, the resources for meeting the costs, thenature of the risk and the functions that the peacekeepers are expected to carry out are all relevant factors.
  
  
• The professionalism of our armed forces, the international exposure and experience that they would get bysuccessfully carrying out a peacekeeping assignment in different parts of the world is no doubt also an inputin the Government’s decision making.
• Therefore, an assessment of India’s overall national interests in a given situation has to beundoubtedly the major determinant in deciding on our response.