By Rupa Subramanya Dehejia
Contrast the following two statements.
First, here is Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on global governance and, in particular, reform of the International Monetary Fund:
"I do recognize the struggle for the transformation of global institutions is a long process in which all developing countries will have to stand united."
Now, here is Anand Sharma, India's commerce minister, in the lead-up to the next round of ministerial meetings of the World Trade Organization concerning global trade talks known as the Doha Development Round.
"We are also opposed to any kind of rush to complete the Doha multilateral negotiating round.…India views such an attempt to shift goal posts as unacceptable and as a violation of the mandate."
What accounts for the marked difference in positioning and tone concerning two multilateral institutions?
As I noted in my last column, India has taken a surprisingly muted approach to the issue of who should succeed Dominique Strauss-Kahn as the new chief of the IMF, while other big emerging countries have either put forward their own candidates or aggressively argued the case that it's time for someone from the developing world to take over.
The most that India has been able to muster is the PM's benign statement urging developing country unity. This sounds almost Nehruvian in its rhetorical quality coupled with an absence of specifics.
By contrast, in the floundering Doha round of the WTO, India has played hardball and is seen by many Western countries as one of the chief culprits for blocking a final agreement.
In part, this reflects the different modes of governance of the two institutions and the influence they allow India to exert. The WTO is arguably the most democratic of any major international organization, operating as it does on the principles of consensus and one country, one vote. This allows I [...]
Posts
