We the People of the Whole World

 

Dr. Rao VBJ Chelikani

1. Scourge of the World Wars: Soon after the scourge of two World Wars, the United Nations Organisation asserts the primacy of the people, wherever they are, and their aspirations for peace and development in global governance. Though the repenting states adopted the founding Charter, soon, the newly independent states started asserting their national and strategic interests and have not been very cooperative to prevent conflicts and to contribute for faster development. However, for the first time in human history, concern for global governance has come to the forefront. Also, for the first time, some states have acquired nuclear power that can wipe off the entire humanity from the planet. Hence, all people, to whichever state they might belong, have a stake in watching or even in judging the behaviour of the states in terms of their motives in international relations.

Another problem with global governance is that the UN bodies and institutions are being operated to the extent of 90% by national bureaucrats from the member-states. No doubt, they are better paid. Though the civil societies, formed voluntarily by the people are given a place and are mentioned invariably on many occasions in the texts, in reality, they are moderately associated with the functioning of the UN bodies and Agencies. As most of the developing member-states are jealous of their power, independence and authenticity and are mostly authoritarian regimes, their bureaucrats, particularly those that came from the developing countries, as a matter of taste, do not like the idea of sharing the decision-making power with non-state actors. Added to that, most of these NGOs are established and operated from liberal democratic countries, most of which had colonial pasts. Thus, the civil societies are mostly informed; and sometimes consulted and associated, though a much greater role was envisaged in the texts. UNESCO was the only exception. However, whenever international conferences are held in liberal democratic countries, the NGOs are increasingly gathering to manifest and share their views with the participating states.

Gradually, over the years, there formed a section of the people among the population in the liberal democratic countries, particularly in the grand metropolitan cities who are international in social origins and global in outlook. They, including those who originated in developing countries, finally settled mostly in Western democracies and behaved without national prejudices and pro-state loyalties. On the whole, globalisation is creating a truly worldwide middle-class that has no inhibitions about accepting and adopting foreign lifestyles without any national strings. There are, now, millions of Indian families that have somebody from their family in a foreign country, without any existential problems. Those families can never be pushed to make jingoistic claims. There are ever growing number of statesmen and women from Baltic, Scandinavian and Western countries, capable of thinking and behaving in international relations, without being influenced by their national interests. Gradually, most of the new recruits to the UN institutions and Agencies are also imbibing the spirit and culture of international civil service, rising above their state loyalties. May their tribe thrive! We need not distrust everything foreign.

2. India's Role: India as a member-state has never expressed fully the vitality of its cultural mission through the UN channels, as its political representatives had always been dictated to behave according to the set-diplomatic postures written down by the career diplomats, based on India's geopolitical constraints. The Indian bureaucracy monopolises access to the UNO and its Agencies and does not easily allow non-officials and local civil societies to participate in them for reasons of internal security. However, many Indians who happen to be abroad, have been acceding to important posts in the System by non-diplomatic channels and making a mark as hardworking international civil servants. They managed to penetrate into the System by sheer individual merit, as they are recruited outside the government channels. As a political representative and leader of a developing country, Nehru, the first architect of our foreign policy was uncomfortable with the UN procedures, as he got accustomed to delivering long extempore mass addresses and also Krishna Menon, who when he appeared before the General Assembly, pleaded his cause with all legal arguments, as if it was in an International Court of Justice and had delivered one of the longest speeches ever in the annals of UN General Assembly, apart from Fidel Castro of Cuba. Even P.V. Narasimha Rao and Dr. Manmohan Singh who were intellectually competent to reflect on the issues in the global context, whenever they briefly attended international conferences, read out impassively the text prepared by the diplomatic corps, without adding any personal vision. They were only re-confirming statements of the already stated geopolitical preoccupations of Indian diplomacy. Even now, the political leadership is coached to plead mainly for two things in their bilateral relations with other states - to condemn terrorism anywhere and in any form, and to recommend that India deserves a place in the Security Council. Currently, the External Affairs Ministry controls the internal states so tightly that if any minister of any state in India would like to visit a foreign country, she or she needs to go through an elaborate procedure of verification to get a 'political' visa from the External Affairs Ministry. This has been for obvious reasons of internal security and external threats. Even a chief minister who is already holding a diplomatic visa is not allowed to go to attend the 2024 Olympic games in Paris, as the MEA has refused him the 'political visa'. A little later, it happened to another chief minister also.

Nor, the UN Agencies are allowed to work freely everywhere and with everybody in India. When such an observation was made by the undersigned some decades ago, as a representative of an international non-governmental organisation, before two eminent but very different people, Ambassador T.N Kaul and Prof. Sarvepalli Gopal in UNESCO in Paris, on different occasions, they nodded their head approvingly but helplessly. This was of course in the eighties; the situation might be different today.

3. The Third Voice of the Global South Summit (VOGS), hosted by India in virtual format on 17th August 2024 was attended by just 20 leaders. This Summit is planned ahead of the UN 'Summit of the Future' to be held in New York in September 24. Mr. Mohammed Yunus who won the Nobel Peace Prize and who participated as the new interim leader of Bangladesh, pleaded for global cooperation for equitable financing, not grants, particularly for social and environmental projects which benefit the people directly. In the same month, China too convened another huge physical meeting with African states and promised to create millions of jobs for them. On both the occasions, the invited leaders clearly expressed their concern for the prevailing 'tensions and conflicts' in the world, which are to be taken into account while talking of any further cooperation. Mr. Modi recognized that “Solutions to these concerns depend on just and inclusive global governance.” Now, the world has changed; without global cooperation, no isolated national development is possible. Any moves of 'Strategic Autonomy' of individual countries or of blocs and groups are not valid concepts, and particularly in the context where each crisis is turning into a global crisis. We need global solutions for all inter-state conflicts, and no state can find individual solutions.

(to be continued)