Left high and dry: India leaves Brics summit with nothing it really wanted

India was left high and dry at the just-concluded seventh Brics summit in Ufa, Russia which failed to mention the crucial UN Security Council resolution 1267 in the Brics Declaration. Significantly, India has cited this resolution at various international platforms and pitched for taking action against Pakistan for releasing the 26/11 mastermind Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi.

Take, for instance, clause 36 of the Brics Declaration which primarily deals with terrorism. Indian interests were ignored in this regard as there is no mention of UN Resolution 1267. This clause mentions other UN Security Council resolutions like 2170, 2178 and 2199 which deal with suppression of financing and other forms of supporting terrorists and also emphasize on principles of respect for the sovereignty of the states.

China had recently blocked Indian efforts to invoke UN resolution 1267 and the 1267 sanctions regime before the 1267 Committee in the case of Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Lakhvi. This particular resolution and all other resolutions which modified and strengthened the 1267 resolution adopted by the UNSC in 1999 do not find a mention in the Brics Declaration.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup had made the following statement after China blocked Indian efforts in the 1267 Committee: “The government had taken up the issue of violation of the 1267 sanctions regime in respect of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi. Our concerns in this matter were conveyed to the Chair of the 1267 Committee. We also raised this bilaterally with the other members of the Committee. In the case of China, this matter has been taken up at the highest level.” (Details of the sanctions regime can be accessed here http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/ )

This document says that the sanctions regime was first established by resolution 1267 (1999) on 15 October 1999 and has been modified and strengthened by subsequent resolutions, including resolutions 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009), 1989 (2011), 2083 (2012) and resolution 2161 (2014) so that the sanctions measures now apply to designated individuals and entities associated with al Qaeda, wherever located.

It stipulates the following three measures:

- freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources of designated individuals and entities [assets freeze>,

- prevent the entry into or transit through their territories by designated individuals [travel ban>, and

- prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale and transfer from their territories or by their nationals outside their territories, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, spare parts, and technical advice, assistance, or training related to military activities, to designated individuals and entities [arms embargo>.

The Brics Declaration pays lip service by disapproving a selective approach to terrorism even as Prime Minister Narendra Modi said there should be no discrimination between the sponsors, groups or targeted nations, in an apparent message to China which recently protected Pakistan over the Lakhvi issue. It uses the routine and inane phrase of “condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.”

This gives rise to the obvious question: What did India get from the just-ended seventh BRICS summit in Russia?

For instance, Russia scored a few diplomatic points by bringing the five-nation grouping on the same page in its running battle with the US-led western world as the bloc opposed Western sanctions against it over the Ukraine conflict.

The Brics Declaration has the following comment which bolsters Russian position in its ongoing spat with the West. “We condemn unilateral military interventions and economic sanctions in violation of international law and universally recognized norms of international relations… Bearing this in mind, we emphasize the unique importance of the indivisible nature of security, and that no State should strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others.”

This position of BRICS can also be seen as the grouping’s support to Iran.

China managed to extract an unambiguous statement from the outfit that the BRICS Bank, known as New Development Bank (NDB), will not compete with China’s pet project , the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB).  All BRICS nations are members of the AIIB, with India as its second largest stakeholder. Brazil and South Africa are to benefit a lot from both NDB as well as AIIB. The two institutions are tipped to work closely and NDB is to approve its inaugural investment projects in the first quarter of 2016 and work closely with AIIB. Both Brazil and South Africa are to get several projects funded by the NDB. Besides, the two will also benefit from  enhanced economic cooperation in fields such as agriculture, manufacturing, technology, services, human resources and sustainable development.

While it is obvious that like all other BRICS member countries India too will stand to benefit from the NDB, proposed trade among member countries in national currencies (a move which is still a long way from implementation), investment projects funded by NDB, other developmental projects in diverse fields and the overall economic cooperation, but the question is whether that’s enough.

India can achieve all that with all other BRICS member countries while dealing with each one of them bilaterally – and India is doing so anyway, like every other country is doing. The importance of a grouping flows from the political successes that accrue from it and the political leverage available to the member countries. This happens only when like-minded nations get together.

But India had to face lot of disappointment on the major political issue of terrorism. China threw a spanner in the works for India in this matter.

The writer, a Consulting Editor with Firstpost, is a strategic analyst who tweets @Kishkindha.