UK's defeat humiliating blow: Media

London: Justice Dalveer Bhandari’s victory over Britain’s candidate in the UN’s international court is a “humiliating blow” for the UK, the British media said on Tuesday, even as India asserted that the hard-fought race will not impact bilateral ties.

India’s acting high commissioner to the UK Dinesh Patnaik reiterated that diplomats of both countries had been in touch from the very start, and that the “whole process has been very cordial and it will not impact the bilateral relationship in any way”.

But almost unanimously, the UK media lamented what this defeat at the UN meant for the UK — a significant diplomatic setback and a symbol of Britain’s reduced status on the world stage. A British Tory MP, in fact, accused UK’s foreign secretary Boris Johnson of a “major failure of diplomacy” after Britain lost its seat on the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the first time in its 71-year history.

Robert Jenrick, an aide to home secretary Amber Rudd, condemned the failure of Britain to secure a second nine-year term for judge Christopher Greenwood at The Hague. He said: “There is no hiding that the loss of a British judge on the ICJ is a major failure for British diplomacy. What lessons will the Foreign Office learn to ensure this will not happen again?” Mr Johnson replied that he did not agree with the “construction” of Mr Jenrick’s remarks and offered his congratulations to Mr Bhandari.

Matthew Rycroft, UK’s permanent representative to the UN, however said, “We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates… If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead.”

Just minutes after an 11th round of voting was scheduled to begin in New York on Monday, a letter was released by the UK mission to the UN announcing that Sir Christopher Greenwood would accept defeat and allow his Indian rival to fill the vacancy in the UN’s principal legal body based in The Hague.

The UK media has branded the “acrimonious” vote as a sign of Britain’s eroding stature on the world stage, “The UK will not have a judge on the bench of the International Court of Justice for the first time in its 71-year history,” the Guardian reported in dismay. “The decision to bow to mounting opposition within the UN General Assembly is a humiliating blow to British international prestige and an acceptance of a diminished status in international affairs,” it noted.

Political observers believe the UK had no choice but to back off as it cannot be seen to continue to use its position in the UN Security Council to muscle its way in on important global affairs. It is also reflective of a wider chain of events triggered by the vote for Brexit in last year’s European Union referendum, which has already lost London two prestigious EU institutions — the European Banking Authority to Paris and the European Medicines Agency to Amsterdam.

The ICJ blow hits harder as the UK is one of the founding members of the United Nations and has had a representative on the ICJ bench since its inception in 1946. The UN court settles legal disputes submitted to it by members states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorised international branches, agencies.

The ICJ is distinct from the International Criminal Court (ICC), which also sits at The Hague, which deals genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

“The UK’s failure to guarantee a place on the court of an organisation it helped to found has been interpreted as a sign of its increasingly irrelevance on the world stage following the decision to leave the European Union,” noted the Independent newspaper.

“In contrast India, with its status as the world’s biggest democracy and with a growing economy, is seen as in the ascendancy,” it added.

Many attributed Britain’s decision to remove itself from the race to the potential impact an intensified battle would have on the economic relationship between India and the UK.

But there is no doubt that when Sir Christopher steps down at the end of his term early next year, it will reflect a shift in the balance of power at the UN away from the Security Council.

“The so-called Group of 77 — which represents a coalition of mostly developing nations — has long been pushing for greater influence. The victory of India over the UK will be seen as a huge success for the G77 in pushing back against the traditional northern powers on the Security Council,” the BBC said.