As a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, India can draw on its past UN experience to nudge nations towards multilateralism. Discuss (200 Words)
Refer - Business Line
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 4 years
KEY POINTS
· In June 2020, India was elected a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC). This has happened at a crucial time for the current multilateral order, which to many observers has entered a state of crisis. Climate change and Covid-19 are only the most glaring reminders of the urgent need for global cooperation.
Universal principles
· Thus, India’s endeavour at the UN moved from being a fight for overseas Indians and their status in the Empire to one based on universal principles.
· It became a fight for all — beyond Indians. Accordingly, in October 1946, when the General Assembly reconvened, India’s new delegation gave fresh meaning to the old dispute.
· At the same time, India also envisioned human rights at the UN as a pragmatic way to protect Indian communities abroad against state violations. In a context where the Indian state could not protect overseas Indians directly, the UN could offer a potential solution.
· Mehta promoted a strong version of human rights along three lines. First, she advocated a UN mechanism of implementation and enforcement of these rights.
· Second, Mehta advocated for binding character of human rights. Third, along with the Lebanese and Filipino delegates, she advocated a right of petition by individuals and organisations and for empowering the Human Rights Commission to study them.
· In the end, Mehta did not push her resolution on implementation further, after Nehru reminded her of the more modest brief she had been given. Still, she kept advocating enforceable principles of human rights by the UN and a legally binding convention.
A crucial juncture
· This story is, therefore, not one of unqualified success. One should also note the cautionary side of India’s ambitions regarding human rights as indicated by Nehru’s remark.
· Yet, what is striking is the extent to which India was willing to champion proposals on human rights that were more ambitious than what most delegates were ready to accept, and that directly challenged a strict principle of state sovereignty.
