BdONU :: In international diplomacy, is the enemy of your friend your enemy?
Analysis by Vrinda Choraria, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
By Vrinda Choraria
The experience of India as a once colonized nation and its struggle for independence have traditionally been reflected in its international relations through a commitment to a policy of non-interference and the primacy of state sovereignty. This has been demonstrated in the way India reacts to human rights crises outside its national borders and in the way it votes on country resolutions in the different United Nations bodies.
In its last term as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, from 2011 to 2014, India abstained on most of the country resolutions. Just as India rejected resolutions on the human rights situation in Belarus, for example, it also withheld its support for any of the key joint statements on situations in specific countries.
However, regarding the Palestinian situation, India to date has maintained its resolute support for the Palestinian people, voting consistently in favor of resolutions on the subject in the UN Human Rights Council. India has stuck to its conviction that the solution to the Palestinian situation should be based on the pertinent UN resolutions, namely the Arab Peace Plan and the Quartet Roadmap. In defense of a sovereign, independent, viable and united Palestinian State within secure and recognized borders, side by side and at peace with Israel, and with East Jerusalem as its capital, India supports peaceful dialogue between the two parties. India’s position can be attributed to two equally important issues: the fact that India has the world’s second largest Muslim population and because the country also had to fight for its own independence. The most recent example of this solidarity can be observed by India’s vote in July 2014 on the resolution establishing an independent investigation by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the Israeli offensive in Gaza.
India’s votes in the UN General Assembly also reflect the country’s position on Palestine. For example, in December 2013, India voted in favor of a resolution approved by the General Assembly on the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and on the sovereignty of the Arab population over their natural resources in the occupied Syrian Golan. In the same month, India also voted in favor of a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.
However, with the change of government in India, a transformation seems to have been occurring since mid-2014. With the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Modi in power, bilateral relations between India and Israel, which had previously been insipid and secret, are now apparently being promoted. There are also signs of efforts to tone down the reactions of India in the Human Rights Council, which implies that this government is comfortable with its conviction to make public what only used to be expressed privately, that strategic ties with Israel are more important than an automatic solidarity with Palestine.
In July, when the resolution on the investigation of the Israeli offensive in Gaza was put to the vote, India, together with its counterparts in the BRICS, voted in favor, in accordance with the traditional posture of the Ministry of External Affairs. India voted with another 28 countries in favor of the resolution, while the United States voted against the resolution and 17 countries, including the closest allies of the U.S. in Europe, abstained. However, after the vote it came to light that the office of the prime minister, which is directly involved in the running of foreign policy, was surprised by the vote and angered that an abstention had not even been considered.
Meanwhile, although India voted against Israel in Geneva, the Indian parliament was unable even to adopt a resolution against the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Gaza. The ruling BJP party rejected the opposition’s suggestion that the parliament discuss the “unprecedented escalation of violence in the regions of Gaza and the West Bank in Palestine causing the death of dozens of civilians” and adopt a resolution condemning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The external affairs minister claimed that such a discussion was not possible, since it could harm India’s diplomatic relations with both Israel and Palestine.
The government also moved quickly to make up for the “diplomatic impasse” caused by India’s vote in Geneva. In September, shortly after the Human Rights Council concluded its session, Prime Minister Modi held talks with Benjamin Netanyahu in New York – the first meeting between the prime ministers of the two countries in over a decade. Since the meeting between the two prime ministers and, later, between the foreign ministers of the two countries, defense deals worth nearly 700 million dollars have been signed. Furthermore, it is believed that the dismissal of Indian foreign secretary Sujata Singh, who was responsible for the decision on the vote against Israel, was influenced by this vote in particular!
The BJP, the party of Modi, has always been pro-Israel. During the years when Modi was isolated from the West, due to his role in the Gujarat riots, it was non-Western countries like Israel that invested heavily in his state. Modi even visited Israel during his time as chief minister of Gujarat.
Obviously, the type of economic development that India is pursuing and that Modi planned during his campaign will not benefit from the country’s support for Palestine at the cost of economic ties with Israel and the United States.
Nevertheless, the staff at the Ministry of External Affairs have denied any shift in political direction, citing various statements by the government in different forums. In December 2014, in a press conference, the ministry’s official spokesperson, when responding to a journalist who asked whether India was reconsidering its position on Palestine, referred to the results of the vote in parliament on July 21, 2014. The external affairs minister, in a political statement to the Rajya Sabha (the upper house of the Indian Parliament) on the conflict in Gaza, expressly declared that India continues to firmly support the Palestinian cause while also maintaining good relations with Israel. The spokesperson also emphasized the declaration by the external affairs minister at the meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Ministerial Committee on Palestine in New York, in September 2014, that India as a founding member of the NAM has always supported the cause of the Palestinian people and that this support is a central feature of India’s foreign policy. The spokesperson stressed, therefore, that India’s support for Palestine “will not change”.
But for those of us who monitor foreign policy, real political shifts are seen in subtle moves outside the bounds of rhetoric. And, indeed, in recent years, various moves by New Delhi indicate an improvement in India’s relationship with Israel and a gradual strengthening of ties with the United States and its allies. The pattern of opening embassies and consulates is considered an important factor in the analysis of foreign policy. In 2012, Israel opened its third consulate in India, in Bangalore. This is significant and demonstrates the importance that Israel places in its relations with India, considering that there are only four countries in world where Israel has three or more diplomatic representative offices – United States, Canada, China and the fourth is India.
We still need to wait and see whether these are just optical illusions or whether a real ideological shift is occurring, which will become more evident to us all in the future.
