India and UN Security Council

The issue of reform of the United Nations Security Council came into lime light again recently when leaders of major economic powers met in L’aquila (Italy) for the G-8 meeting. The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines raised this issue on the ground of principles. But it gave only some hope that India’s claim for the permanent seat in-the Security Council has not died down. Not surprisingly it found a weak echo in the joint statement of the G-8 leaders which simply mentioned : “we are committed to advance reform proces­ses in international organisations, including the UN, to reflect contem­porary reality and challenges thus enhancing their relevance, legitimacy and efficiency.”

In line with the G-8 spirit the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called upon during her 5-day visit of India in the third week of July that it should play a bigger role in inter­national affairs. But when it came to extend support for India’s claim for permanent membership in the Security Council, the US did not do it while the G-4 (India, Japan, Brazil and Germany) along with thirty other countries jointly made a frantic effort for it in 2005. The US came out in support of Japan only. It looks the desire of the US to reform the Security Council which had become intense after the 9/11 terrorist attack on its soil has now subsided and the new momentum is not easy to build up though many world leaders keep on repeating that the current Security Council is not in tune with the current global realities.

The Security Council today is a body which has France as a perma­nent member, but not Germany; Britain but not Japan; China but not India-and no representation from Africa and Latin America at all. Can it be called a legitimate body in modern times ? In fact this body should be reformed to take care of the impera-

fives of the 21st Century which are quite different from those of 1945 when it was constituted.

India’s own policy is amazingly inconsistent in this regard. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did utilize the occasion to raise this issue in L’aquila, when the G-8 and leaders of other emerging powers assembled and talked of relprming international organisations, but the recent decision of the Government of India to contest for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council falling vacant for 2011-12 is an indication that it is now not serious enough or has lost all hopes of getting a permanent seat in near future.

A few events of the recent history need to be recollected to gauge India’s chances. India had to face a crushing defeat from Japan during a contest for a non-permanent seat in the Security Council in 1996. India lost by a huge margin of 100 votes. Since this humiliating defeat India has not been putting forward its candidature for a non-permanent seat declaring that it wants now a per­manent seat only and it would be a waste of energy to contest for a non-permanent seat. India by 1992 had served seven times as a non-perma­nent member for a two-year term each. But during last 17 years it had no representation.

India being the fifth largest economy in terms of purchase power parity in the world and the second largest population of 117 crore, a functional democracy and a nuclear power with acknowledged record of non-proliferation has a rightful claim for a permanent member in the Security Council. Without India it is a peculiar anomaly for a body which works for international peace and security. In fact India in association with Japan, Germany and Brazil made good diplomatic efforts by forming a group called G-4 to seek permanent membership, but national interests of countries sabotaged an international necessity. The world diiring this effort saw the cryptic diplomacy of China and the US, the strong open, opposition by Pakistan, Italy, Algeria and Canada and the high flying stand of the African Union, a group of 52 countries.

The attitude of China especially hurt Indians. In 1955 Jawahar Lai Nehru conceded an offer for a permanent seat to China. Now when India wants to put its claim for this position, Chinese leaders just exp­ress : “we understand the aspiration of India.” They occasionally give a hint that they will not oppose India’s claim but whenever an occasion arises, they oppose unfailingly. In fact Chinese objections are now being seen as part of a new hostility by it which was manifest when India wanted international nuclear trade related restrictions on it removed in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a powerful group of 45 countries. Later in May, 2008 when the foreign mini­sters of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) met in Russia, the sug­gestion to include support for India’s claim for the permanent membership was a gain opposed by China.

The United Nations had only 51 countries as its members in 1945. Most of the countries in the world were then under colonial rule. Now 192 countries are its members. As the membership increased the demand to reform the UN and its Security Council gained momentum. The first major reform in the Security Council was effected in 1963 when its mem­bership was increased to 15. Initially the Security Council had 11 members, five permanent and six non-perma­nent. Non-permanent members used to be elected for a period of 2 years by members of the United Nations. Five Permanent members till today remain the same-the USA, Russia, China, France and the UK.

Another wave of reform ensued after terrorist attack on the US in 2001 and by 2003 a “High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change” was constituted. Its recommendations culminated in adoption of a resolu­tion in 2C05 in the General Assembly of the United Nations. The High Level Panel had recommended two models for change in the Security Council. The first model suggested that the strength of the Security Council be increased to 24 from the existing 15. Out of the new 9 mem­bers, six were to be permanent and 3 non-permanent. Panel also recom­mended that there should be no veto power to the new permanent mem­bers. The second model also recom­mended the increase in membership by nine, but out of these 8 were to be elected for a 4-year renewable term and one for a 2-year non-renewable term.

As a quick next move India, Germany, Brazil and Japan, the four major aspirants came together and formed G-4 to garner support for their move. They put forth a draft proposal in June, 2005 which was a successful move in that 35 countries were co-sponsors of this

including

France, the permanent member of the

Security Council. This proposal was very much on the lines of the First Model of the High Level Panel except that it wanted veto powers in principle, but only to use it following the nex^ General Assembly review after 15 years.

Thus, they wanted an increase of six seats in the permanent category and four in the non-permanent cate­gory. It assured two permanent mem­berships to African countries. Thus, Europe would have got four seats : Britain, France, Germany and Russia, Asia three seats : China, Japan and India, Latin America one seat: Brazil and Africa two seats. Africa indeed had four aspirants, among*whom South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt had strongest claims. Other interested countries were Libya, Kenya and Senegal. ‘The strategy was that South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt and G-4 would curry favour with P-5 (US, China, Russia, Britain and France). The support of P-5 was must. Even if the proposal would have got two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, which it would certainly have got, had the African Union not taken an unexpectedly different stand, it could still not have gone ahead without the support of P-5. Since China  had already made it clear that it would veto Japan’s case, it could be any­body’s guess about the ultimate fate of the G-4 resolution. The truth behind all the intense and cryptic diplomacy is that the P-5 members did not want their authority diluted in any way. Overtly the G-4 proposal could not succeed because of the African stand.

Africans had been insisting that new permanent members should’ have the same rights and obligations which the existing permanent mem­bers had. They wanted veto powers to the new permanent members. But their stand had been abetted diplo­matically by a group called ‘Uniting for Consensus’ which was being led by Pakistan and Italy. This group nicknamed as ‘Coffee Club’ did not want any new permanent member and thus seemed to be working on the lines of the second model sugges­ted by the High Level Panel. It was actually ensuring no expansion of the Security Council. They pleaded that the huge expansion in the non-per­manent membership will give most of the 192 members a chance to serve on the elite group of decision makers. The fact is that because of such politi­cking there are more than seventy countries in the world who could never get elected as non-permanent members during last 64 years.

At one time when it appeared that the African Union might veer round to the view of G-4, the com­petition within the African countries abetted by big powers like China and the US became intense as there were more claimants for the permanent membership than the available two seats. Finally in order to maintain unity of their 52-member organisa­tion, they adopted their an indepen­dent proposal. The resolution tabled by the African Union sought two seats in permanent category and two in non-permanent category for Africans. It also demanded veto power for new permanent members. In total it wanted 6 new permanent members and five non-permanent members to take the strength of the Security Council to 26 members