New

(Daily Information Capsules for all those who want to fathom learning in all its depths)

Date 4th April11

(To be used by faculty members AND A copy to be kept for students reference in the Library too)

http://www.pteducation.com/drishti.aspx

CONTENTS

The following pages contain

Article: The Logic Behind The Libya Decision G K Questions on World Organisations

Drishti
(1) of (5)

The Logic Behind The Libya Decision Did India do the right thing in abstaining from the vote on UN Resolution 1973 on Libya? It is easy to criticise India for being foolish and cowardly. However, the decision is defensible and may prove to be a sensible one. Those who argue that India should have voted for the no-fly zone and for the authorisation to use all means, short of occupation, to protect the Libyan people base their case on three main contentions. The first is that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is busy killing defenceless people, and India should have supported what is a morally proper move to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The second contention is that since the Arab League and Muslim opinion in many places were behind 1973, India, as a member of the UN Security Council for the next two years, would have earned the understanding, if not gratitude, of these countries by voting for the resolution. The third contention is that India would have done well strategically. New Delhi would have been regarded as a power player, as a constructive member of the global community, and would have built bridges to the US and other western powers (as a responsible stakeholder). This would have strengthened Indias case for permanent membership of the Security Council. This is not a trivial case. Yet, abstaining is defensible on moral, political and strategic grounds (voting against the resolution would have been almost impossible). Morally speaking, the question is: if the world is to intervene against Gaddafi, why not against others who may be as bad or worse? Indian diplomats at the UN argued it would have been proper to get more evidence of the situation in Libya. Clearly, Gaddafis men are killing ordinary unarmed citizens as well as those who might be lightly armed. Yet, there are places in Africa where the situation is harrowing. Is Gaddafis Libya worse? Furthermore, what if rebellions such as Libyas explode into violence in several other places? Will the world rush to defend those peoples as well? This seems unlikely, given the pool of resources to deal with such problems. There is another moral quandary. Will the opposition in Libya be more democratic and respectful of human rights? The groups fighting Gaddafi are, reputedly, drawn from diverse clans and tribes. Will they live in peace with each other and

Drishti
(2) of (5)

other Libyans? No leadership worth the name has emerged, and no party or council with a vision for the future has made its appearance to help us decide these questions. Bad as Gaddafi is, are we even reasonably sure that intervention would leave Libyans happier? Politically, while many Muslims are calling for Gaddafi to be stopped, there are also many others fearful of what an intervention by largely western forces will mean politically. In the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, westerners fighting Muslims and killing them (even if unintentionally in their bombing raids against Gaddafi) could be destabilising for a whole range of governments and worrisome for liberal modernisers in various countries who will be identified as pro-western because of their liberalism. Finally, Indian strategic caution over Libya is not incomprehensible. Libya could become an unending military quagmire and help radicalise many Muslims who will increasingly see intervention as a West-versus-Islam war, if it drags on. India will not be helped by a world in which Islamic extremists gain ground. There is also the ingress of China into Africa and other regions, as Beijing presents itself as a bulwark against bullying western democracies. Voting with the West and allowing China to stand as the champion of the weak in Africa, Asia and Latin America is not a strategic plus for India. Finally, and most crucially, there is Indias insistence on the sanctity of sovereignty. With so many internal dissidents in India, New Delhi unsurprisingly is extremely wary about supporting intervention, even on humanitarian grounds, for fear that this might be turned against India someday. Whether or not India has done right will become clear in the months and years ahead. But to say that New Delhis decision was senseless and base is unfair. G K Questions on World Organisations 1. The office of the UN General Assembly is in (A) Vienna (B) New York (C) Paris (D) Zurich Which is the principal organ of the United Nations that has virtually accomplished its objective? (A) The Security Council (B) The General Assembly (C) The International Court of Justice (D) The Trusteeship Council

2.

Drishti
(3) of (5)

3.

The headquarters of the UNESCO is at (A) Rome (B) Geneva (C) New York (D) Paris Which UN body deals with the population problem? (A) UNFPA (B) UNDP (C) UNICEF (D) UNESCO Besides UK, USA, Germany and Japan, the G-7 countries include (A) Canada, France and Russia (B) Canada, Italy and Netherlands (C) France, Netherlands and Russia (D) Canada, France and Italy The headquarters of World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is located in (A) Paris (B) Madrid (C) New York (D) Geneva SAARC is observing the decade (1991-2000) of which of the following? (A) Girl child (B) Literacy (C) Health services to rural poor (D) Shelter for all The headquarters of Food and Agriculture Organisation is in (A) Washington (B) Paris (C) Madrid (D) Rome Which of the following countries is not a member of Group 15 developing countries? (A) Mexico (B) Malaysia (C) Brazil (D) Bolivia

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Drishti
(4) of (5)

10.

Which one of the following is not related to disarmament? (A) SALT (B) NPT (C) CTBT (D) NATO Answer Key 1.(B) 2.(D) 3.(D) 4.(A) 5.(D) 6.(D) 7.(A) 8.(D) 9.(D) 10.(D)

Drishti
(5) of (5)