I feel it hardly matters who voted against Mr. Tharoor's candidature.We need to do the ground work before venturing into any competitive issue.If and when India decides to get into a global race, it needs to make people believe in its profoundness of talent.It should introduce its candidature much before it actually gets into the race.
As mentioned rightly in the article, where was the need for India to contest, it could have done better things or else @ least it could have proposed the name of Bill Clinton who has soft corner for India. History has show that UN post has not fetched anything significant and have always been from third world countries, perhaps this is the first time that an developed/advanced country has got the honour.
Mr. Bhadrakumar's insightful analysis misses only one point -- which P5 member vetoed Tharoor's candidacy. While we will never know with certainty, it was clear that Tharoor's indefensible defence of the UN's Oil-for-Food Corruption cost him respect in Washington DC.
Our country strongly believes in participating rather than winning.This shows up in all the international initiatives that we undertake. We are made that way is all that we can say. We have the NAM but that doesn't get us anywhere.We have the G-77 but this too is a non starter. Our country has the second largest population in the world and this gets us nowhere.We have a plural,secular democracy, an old but vibrant civilization but this is of no avail. We mean no harm or evil to anyone anytime anywhere, this does not mean a thing.We have a microcosm of the very UN that we seek to represent and this too is of no avail. We pay our dues to the UN, we send peacekeeping forces in troubled areas and payback our loans to the International Body and yet we count for nothing. We have no pulling power within the UN, we stand with the poorest and tiniest of the countries. Is there anything worse than to be ignored in places that matter. Do we still wish to be a member of such a gathering Its time to take a hard look at what is our international personality.
Mr. Tharoor's candidacy may have been nixed for a variety of reasons by China or more likely the US. Regardless of who did it, firmness in diplomacy does warrant being explicit particularly in today's environment - John Bolton for all his presumed gruffness has accomplished a lot more than either Holbrook or Albright for the US. Even Pakistan's Munir Akram who has been through several SGs and is as smooth as an oil slick,is noticeably more direct than most of India's reps to the UN.
Arguably the best candidate would have been Ashraf Ghani and not Moon - most certainly not Tharoor who represents a latter day version of Annan - a
Indians have a problem.They have declared themselves world class without being world class. If Indians have to succeed they must introspect.
Frankly speaking India does not have much of standing in the International Community. Secondly,China is posing problems to India.China is silently blocking India and undermining India.
