An Indian view of the Security Council
India’s Frontline magazine has an interview up with India’s UN ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri. He offers an inside perspective on the recent functioning of the Council and, in particular, the diplomacy surrounding Libya and Syria. The interview includes a few interesting nuggets. On Libya’s referral to the International Criminal Court: The only disagreement that I ...
India's Frontline magazine has an interview up with India's UN ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri. He offers an inside perspective on the recent functioning of the Council and, in particular, the diplomacy surrounding Libya and Syria. The interview includes a few interesting nuggets.
India’s Frontline magazine has an interview up with India’s UN ambassador, Hardeep Singh Puri. He offers an inside perspective on the recent functioning of the Council and, in particular, the diplomacy surrounding Libya and Syria. The interview includes a few interesting nuggets.
On Libya’s referral to the International Criminal Court:
The only disagreement that I recall on 1970 was the formulation contained therein, referring Colonel Muammar Qaddafi and some others to the International Criminal Court. There was a lively discussion within the Council, and some of us said, “Look, the threat of a referral would be more appropriate, because once you’ve referred somebody to the ICC then the clock is ticking, and you don’t have the leverage which is required.” The Americans agreed with our view, but some of the European members were in a terrible rush. They said, “No, no, we have to [refer it to the ICC]. This is the minimum.”
On the regrets of the emerging powers regarding the authorization of force in Libya:
The South Africans have told me on a number of occasions that their vote for the resolution was a mistake. But they said that their decision was not influenced, but conditioned, by the expectation that Resolution 1973 would help bring peace to Libya. Our assessment was different. Our assessment was that this was going to result in an Iraq kind of situation, with a Security Council rubber stamp. And I think in retrospect we were absolutely right. Interestingly, Russia and China also abstained. But you talk to the Russians and the Chinese now; they say, “We made a mistake. We should have cast the veto."
On the situation in Syria:
Those who want a strong condemnation of Damascus will tell you that helpless civilians turned to the opposition, and they armed themselves only when they were being slaughtered. Be that as it may. It is very difficult to calibrate as to when one became the other, when the peaceful became the armed, when a qualitative change took place. My sense is that you cannot get peace in Syria unless both sides walk back. Therefore, you need complete cessation of violence. You need an inclusive Syrian-led dialogue without preconditions, and you need the engagement of all sections of civilian society on issues related to constitutional reform.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
