India’s choice of renowned thinker and writer Shashi Tharoor as its candidate for the post of United Nations secretary general, passing over many of its senior politicians, is testimony to its traditional approach to the organisation. India has neither sought to use the UN as an instrument of its policy, nor sought sinecures in it for its politicians.
Since the dispute over Kashmir at the time of partition, India has not taken any bilateral issue to the UN, nor has it encouraged others to do so. Its major contribution has been in resolving differences and building consensus rather than in promoting its own ideas. India’s proposals at the UN have been aimed at developing crucial areas of international law.
India has also been very restrained in presenting its nationals as candidates for important posts. This is the first time that it is aspiring to the top UN post, though there was no dearth of qualified Indians on earlier occasions.
Even the timing of Tharoor’s nomination reflects traditional Indian thinking. India did not rush in with a candidate as soon as it was established that it was Asia’s turn to fill the position. Nor did it get in the way of other candidates from Asia as long as they appeared to make headway. India was not hostile to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) candidates, Surakiart Sathirathai of Thailand or Ban Ki Moon of South Korea, and even though it has reason to be concerned about Jayantha Dhanapala of Sri Lanka for his role at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 1995, it did nothing to weaken his position. Only after these three candidatures seemed unviable did India enter the game.
Surakiart started off well and made some headway, not only in Asia but also among the permanent members, but his helplessness in the face of political turmoil in his own country has worked against him. Asean, itself, appears to be rethinking his candidature. Moon was flying high until the largest group in the UN, the non-aligned group — which does not include South Korea — insisted that the next secretary general should come from one of them. Finally, Dhanapala’s chances were undermined by the fact that Sri Lanka’s new government is not enthusiastic about him. Only at this point did India decide to nominate Tharoor.
The next secretary general has to be a good manager and a strong reformer, given the state of affairs at the UN as Kofi Annan prepares to exit. For the United States, this will be the real issue.
Annan did not lack enthusiasm for reform, but unfortunately the oil-for-food scandal eroded his credibility. Of all the candidates, only Tharoor has worked at various levels in the UN and knows the organisation inside out. He has proven managerial skills and a vision for reform, which he has already written on. Indeed, he would do well to present a blueprint for change even before his election. None of the other candidates would be able to do so convincingly.
Those familiar with Tharoor’s work are unanimous about his wisdom and diplomatic skills. When peacekeeping operations were at their peak, Tharoor piloted many of them, particularly in the former Yugoslavia. The UN Department of Public Information, which he now heads, was in no position to improve the image of the organisation as it had the worst reputation of all UN departments.
Tharoor’s standing as an author and commentator helped him not only to rebuild his department, but also to reshape the image of the organisation. Thanks to his work, disparaging remarks about the UN are no longer heard, even from US congressmen and senators.
In offering Tharoor, India appears to have made a concession regarding its own candidature for permanent membership on the Security Council. There was a school of thought in India that, just as permanent members do not seek the top position in the UN, India as an aspirant should also refrain from presenting a candidate. But such a restriction should apply only to veto-wielding nations. India has already conceded that it is not seeking the veto. As for reservations on Indian policies and positions, Tharoor has never been an Indian policymaker or diplomat. No one in the UN has blamed him for acting in a partisan manner on issues of importance to India.
If Asia does not rally around this candidate, who is credible, able, suave, reform-minded and has a reasonable chance of success, there is a serious danger that other regions will come forward with their own candidates. Tharoor’s entry has opened up an opportunity the Asian nations would do well to use. An international civil servant with the full support of his country is an ideal Asian candidate to propose. — Â