India gets its method right in Libya’s madness

India’s position on the Libyan crisis has been pilloried first for abstaining from a UNSC vote authorising the use of force in Libya and then contradictorily recognising the rebel led National Transitional Council (NTC). For many, this is proof that pretensions of pacifism cloaked in morality have remained the cornerstone of India’s foreign policy.

However, if one looks closely, the Libyan case demonstrates how India has managed to balance national interest and morality within its foreign policy matrix. By staying invisible, India has not only protected its own interests but also diffused any responsibility which an overt player has to bear.

These interests revolve around oil, infrastructure and power with many PSUs and private companies already involved there, — a ‘friendly’ Libya being the minimum requirement. At the same time, India under the UPA can never realistically be expected to give up non-alignment, no matter how anachronistic. More importantly, not having a veto in the UNSC, we were in no position to “bargain” as the Russian and Chinese did, leveraging military action against increased access to the Libyan energy sector. Hence, right from the beginning, we never really had a strong hand to play militarily, diplomatically or politically.

Given our traditional role as NAM’s obstructionist-in-chief we were never going to be privy to NATO plans for regime change or reap the benefits of it. Basically India was swimming blind — unable to perceive the scope of military action and so unable to plan an endgame. The risk of taking sides at this point had a huge price attached to it — so instead of the steady stream of demagoguery or alternately obsequiousness that our foreign policy doles out - we kept quiet, very quiet. Abstaining from the resolution was therefore recognition, not just of the reality of India’s diplomatic weakness, but also a transition from obstructionism to calculated indifference.

Foreign policy seldom has anything to do with common sense - more often articulating the need to maintain the external impression of continuity. Since the die had been cast with Russia and China switching sides late in the day, no Gaddafi loyalist could have guilt tripped India over the abstention, no pacifist could find fault with India, nor could any human rights activist. Gaddafi specifically even tried to woo India with the promise of more and cheaper oil, but much more importantly reversed his position on Kashmir, saying that Indian military actions there were necessary to maintain the peace (though in a backhand way implying what he was doing in Libya was no different). NATO for its part went on record appreciating India’s abstention as a step in the right direction.

The rebels, too seemed to have no quarrel with India, excluding us from the ambit of coercive statements they directed specifically at China, Russia and Brazil, to ensure that these three would not scuttle rebel interests.
In one stroke, we added three feathers to our hat - the West, Gaddafi, and the rebels. Having avoided confrontation, India also avoided the humiliation that goes with a public retreat — an unfortunately frequent event, given the clumsiness of our foreign policy. Of note here is the statement by Abdeljalil Mayouf, head of the rebel controlled Arabian Gulf Oil Company (AGOCo) stating that China and Russia would find doing business in post Gaddafi Libya next to impossible. The statement produced the desired results - alarming Russia and China into abstaining.

The recognition of the NTC, once Tripoli fell, was perfectly in line with India’s stated policy of dealing with a country as a whole, opposed to supporting rival claimants to the throne. That recognition was conveyed through a short sharp and terse statement of fact — quite a change from the comical obsequiousness with which India has normally worded such statements. Unlike the West, India has refrained from making an argument against Libya on the basis of ideals, and yet adhered to its humanitarian concerns — imperative for any democracy. Here, we saw India trying to pave a middle ground between an idealistic philosophy and a realistic foreign policy.

While it is true that India has won no great support for its nonchalance and certainly won’t win the kind of big contracts the French, British and Americans will, India certainly protected the integrity of its current interests in Libya, that is to say for once, Indian foreign policy has actually taken national interest into account.

True we haven’t made friends, but we have not made enemies. As many doomsayers have predicted, should Libya go downhill from here on, India certainly won’t get blamed for the mess. While our foreign minister has been quite rightly criticised for his lethargy, in this particular case, verbal lethargy, it seems, saved the day.