The Daily Fix: ICJ judge win shows what India can achieve with determined – and quiet – diplomacy

Rohan Venkataramakrishnan, scroll.in

uncaptioned image from article

The Big Story: Speak softly

The Indian diplomatic corps is rejoicing this weekend, having notched up a relatively significant victory over a First World power, a victory that seems even more significant because that nation was the United Kingdom. In a one-on-one contest to fill an empty seat at the International Court of Justice, India garnered sufficient support and pushed enough buttons to convince its former colonial ruler to drop out of the race. That ensured re-election for India’s candidate, Justice Dalveer Bhandari, and also marked the first time in the court’s seven-decade-long existence that one of the P-5 – the five permanent nations on the Security Council – would not be at the table.

Fed by diplomats speaking mostly anonymously to journalists, the Indian press is full of triumphal stories, reporting on how one diligent junior officer’s dogged work highlighted the technicalities that bolstered India’s cause and how embassies around the world were pressed into action. Even the British recognised the significance of India’s win, with the local press seeing it as evidence of the UK’s diminished global stature and a ruling party Member of Parliament telling the Foreign Secretary it is a sign of a failure.

However, there are some who insist this is just a consolation prize because India failed to win the spot that traditionally goes to an Asian nation. (That went to Lebanon.) Others are quick to point out that this will not help India’s case in Khulbushan Jadhav matter, where India is currently tussling with Pakistan at the International Court of Justice about a former Indian Navy man jailed for allegedly being a spy. Islamabad will get an ad-hoc judge of its own to balance the fact that New Delhi has one at the table.

But those arguments miss the point. This is not a judicial victory, but a diplomatic one. Breaching the P-5 wall is a greater achievement than simply securing the Asian votes. From either perspective, India has pulled off something significant, one that strikes a small blow in a bigger war: reforming the United Nations Security Council and getting the world to acknowledge the balance shifting away from the traditional powers.

For India, it is important to contrast this with the extremely public diplomacy around the push last year to enter the Nuclear Suppliers Group. That effort, like this one, came with plenty of determined action from embassies, the External Affairs Minister and even the prime minister. But it also saw politicians and diplomats constantly feeding the press, helping create a climate where it seemed as if India was going into a do-or-die battle with China even though the outcome would be mostly symbolic.

In the event, India lost the battle and, because it had been so vocal about the effort, some face as well. Speak softly, and carry a big stick, US President Teddy Roosevelt said decades ago. Even though that adage has come to be seen as an endorsement of bellicosity in America, Roosevelt actually meant it as a call for careful diplomacy that will be much more fruitful. The difference of outcomes in the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Suppliers Group battles should inspire India’s foreign policy corps to consider Roosevelt’s advice.