Suman responds to the UN post. He misunderstands me when he assumes that by “good deal for itself” I mean “bigger slice of the global economic pie.” Yeah that too, but my point would have been clearer if he had chosen an example that involved some government decision-making rather than a private company deciding to invest in India. By a good deal, I meant the kind of deals that are struck when in return for a vote in the security council India extracts yet another promise from the US to yet again lean on Pakistan to rein in its terrorists.

Then he quotes from the UN charter to claim that I am incorrect in assuming that India wouldn’t be joining the Security Council as a representative of Third World countries or in order to achieve World Peace. But he is confusing the UN as it was meant to be with the UN as it is. This dichotomy is not Suman’s fault. It afflicts all legislative bodies. Law-making is supposed to be a process where people debate rationally and come to a conclusion, all the time keeping the national (or international, as the case may be) interests in mind. In practice, it is a place where representatives bargain, negotiate, blackmail and trade and come to some kind of compromise.

This chasm between theory and practice is the reason why capitalists are suspicious of the democratic process. This is also why we support a constitutional government where the basic law is considered immutable and a judiciary to uphold those laws. The problem with the UN is that it is all legislature and no (effective) judiciary, and more importantly, no (effective) laws. So the UN simply cannot perform the tasks that its charter requires it to. The value of the UN is only as an arena for diplomacy. The word “arena” has been intentionally chosen. The operating procedures of the SC, such as they are, are akin to rules governing a wrestling match. So if India gets into the Security Council, it will play by the rules that have been adopted in practice, not the ones laid out on paper.

Then Suman confounds the confusion.
He objects to my use of the term “superpowers” to indicate China, Russia et al. But he does not addres the substance of my argument. I was answering his concerns that by taking part in UNSC power-plays, India will antagonise one or the other power. He argues that the US is a “hyperpower”. Fair enough. But in the very next sentence, he claims that the world is split into two blocs. Which are the two? He does not say, nor does he clarify in what operational senses he uses superpowers and blocs.

If the US is such a hyperpower as he says, then there is no need to engage the other powers. You might as well hitch yourself to US’ coattails?
He links approvingly to Shekhar Gupta’s article which essentially says the same thing – that the UN is useless and that we should go along with the US.

So which is it? Is the US such a hyperpower that the other countries can be ignored? Or are we in a multi-polar world?

Lest this gets too confusing, let me lay out three competing models of the world and then see which one describes reality:

1. The US not only has hyper powers, it also uses them. What it wants, it gets. It does not talk except to threaten its antagonists with annihilati?n.
   In such a case, the only safe course for a nation to follow is to be beholden to the US. There is no need for the niceties of multilateral institutions.
2. The powers of the world are engaged in a war of attrition. The conflict is debilitating and if it continues, all the combatants will be in a weakened state, if they are remaining at all. (As the hyperpower, the US will be hurt the least, but it too will be hurt).
   In such a case, the only sane course of action is to keep your head low and hope that you aren’t a victim of a stray bullet.
3. The world powers are rational actors. They may fight when it suits them, but they will ensure that they do not burn their bridges while they are at it. Traditional diplomacy is possible and you can actually gain something out of it, as against cutting your losses.

Suman’s worldview alternates between 1 and 2, while I claim that we are in a 3. The US is a military hyperpower and an economic superpower, but the two pull in opposite directions. All this talk that the UN exists only because of the sufferance of the US misses the point that if the US didn’t have the UN as an instrument of diplomacy, it would have to resort to gunboat diplomacy. Can the US ensure compliance from North Korea by giving it a 24-hour notice to choose between compliance and nuclear annihilation? Perhaps. It is a hyperpower after all. But will it do so?
Or will it lean on China to instill some sense into North Korea? More likely? I think so. (Look at this article, for example, where the US seems to be actually reluctant to go it alone and wants to take the multilateral route) As long as diplomacy stays relevant, the Security Council (or another similar institution) will be required.

Suman thinks that staying out of international dogfights is an option. I don’t think so, and I think as we have to fight anyway, we might as well gather the required weapons.

There has been talk of the UN becoming irrelevant. Even if it follows the League of Nations into oblivion, the dispute between Suman and me will stay relevant, suitably rephrased. Suman’s arguments can apply to any attempt by India to play a bigger role in multilateral diplomacy. My rebuttal applies there too.