Justified abstention?
India’s decision to abstain from voting in favour of a UNHRC resolution—titled ‘Human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the obligation to ensure accountability and justice’—is seen by many as a diplomatic effort for balancing bilateral ties with the parties in conflict. However, India’s decision should be viewed beyond the lens of balancing diplomatic ties, encompassing certain objective and perceptive realities of present-day global geopolitics.
The UNHRC resolution called for holding Israel accountable for possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip at the end of the 55th Council session. There should be no denial of the fact that what is unfolding in Gaza is a clear violation of human rights. As per official estimates, that are conservative at best, more than 33,091 people have been killed in Gaza since the start of Israel’s retaliatory offensive. The degree of displacement and destruction is outright humongous, with women and children predominantly emerging as the worst sufferers. The scale of atrocities in Gaza strip is as such that the United States, Israel’s staunchest ally, refused to veto a UNSC resolution calling for immediate ceasefire. The decision, of course, attracted the ire of Israel’s top leadership. Quite recently, the death of international aid workers in the Gaza strip forced the United States to issue strong statements against Israel. The Israel defence forces’ apology following the death of seven aid workers represented only a “cold comfort” for bereaved associates of the deceased and human rights advocates. Against such a heartwrenching backdrop, the recent UNHRC resolution was almost an inevitable corollary.
Interestingly, 13 nations, including India, abstained from voting, while six nations—the United States, Germany, Argentina, Paraguay, Bulgaria and Malawi—voted against the resolution. However, it was adopted by the UNHRC as 28 of the 47 members voted in favour.
The abstentions and against votes for such a much-needed resolution can be explained only through two logics. The first is a general theory in circulation that countries’ diplomatic ties and geopolitical interests have influenced their decisions. This fact cannot be discounted as international action of any specific nation is driven by its national interest, predominantly. The second factor that must be understood is the perception of inherent bias of international agencies against certain nations (in the present case, the alleged bias of the UNHRC against Israel). Israel’s UNHRC representative openly alleged such a bias, and his assertion is backed by a relatively high number of resolutions against Israel over the years.
The Israel’s ambassador is learnt to have walked out of the house, citing UNHRC’s failure to condemn Hamas for the killings and abductions of a large number of Israeli citizens in October last year. However, news reports suggest the UNHRC resolution did condemn the Hamas attack this time around.
India’s abstention, thus, appears justified. India’s affirmative votes on three other resolutions reflect a consistent stance on certain aspects of the conflict. These resolutions, which demand an end to Israeli occupation, affirm the Palestinian right to self-determination, and criticise settlement activities, align with India’s historical support for the Palestinian cause. However, India’s protracted approach, choosing to abstain from the ceasefire resolution, can be viewed as an attempt partly to maintain a strategic balance between its principled stance on Palestine and its growing ties with Israel, and partly to find a more justified stance in a domain marred by biases and hidden intentions.
Nevertheless, the need for sustained efforts to put a pause button on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza strip cannot be discounted. A dialogue-based resolution must be reached at the earliest.