02
Oct
India has once again made a strong bid for the permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC). We have also revived the G4 to pursue our case in the company of Germany, Japan and Brazil.
The UNSC is the highest body in the UN responsible for war and peace. Of late, however, it has lost much of its relevance. In case after case, the single superpower of the day, the US, has acted unilaterally or with a cobbled-up coalition of the willing. The UNSC was forced to either keep quiet or endorse the US action. In other areas, the UN is nothing more than a talking shop. The UN is a post-World War 2 creation with the faults and limitations of all such organisations. Reform of the UN, especially of the UNSC, has, therefore, been a constant theme.
In recent days, it gathered some steam because the UN General Assembly president, Sam Kutesa, succeeded in circulating a text to the members that could form the basis of negotiations among them.
Is it a draft for negotiation? Clearly not. Because it is nothing more than a compilation of the written views of the various members. Those who refused to contribute to the main text have written letters to the president in which they have explained their position on some of the issues. The circulation of the text and the letters led to much jubilation and celebration in India. India, and now the G4, has demanded that the negotiations for the reform of the UNSC should be completed by September 2016.
The reform of the UNSC, an euphemism for its expansion, raises many issues. The first is the timeline. The second is its size. The third is the grant of veto power to its new permanent members. The fourth is the determination of the individual member states that will join the UNSC. The fifth is evolving a consensus for all this and maintaining the unity of the UN.
There is also no doubt that the present permanent members of the UNSC will play an overwhelmingly decisive role in the decisionmaking process.
Only two members out of the P5, namely, France and Britain, have openly supported the case of the G4 for permanent membership along with one African nation, not yet named.
Two other countries, Kazakhstan and Romania, have taken a similar position. The US, China, and Russia have opined on the question of reforms in their letters. The US has clearly opposed veto for the new permanent members. China insists on a package solution and consensus. The most surprising, however, is the position taken by Russia, the original ally of India. Russia has clearly said that the prerogatives of the current permanent members, including the use of veto, should remain intact.
It has also insisted that the intergovernmental negotiations should proceed in a calm, transparent and inclusive atmosphere, free from artificial deadlines. The Indian and Russian positions are, thus, clearly at variance.
India and now the G4 insist that the reform process cannot be an exercise ad infinitum. India has also said, “Those who ask for not imposing artificial timelines may be advised to desist from inflicting artificial delays.” Strong words, indeed. There is, thus, confusion galore. Then there are the spoilers who are opposed to the reforms because they are opposed to the elevation of individual member countries, especially from their region. Thus, Pakistan is opposed to India, Italy to Germany, China to Japan, Argentina and Mexico and some others from South America to Brazil.
The African nations have not yet made up their mind. I was not thrilled, therefore, when during the first year of the UPA regime, India joined hands with the other three to form the G4.
I was critical even then because I felt that by joining the other three, we were automatically assuming their baggage also. I felt then, as I feel now, that there is merit in India pursuing its case solo.
There is no doubt that India deserves to be a permanent member of the UNSC. India’s absence from UNSC is not India’s loss as much as it is of the UN. Instead of our seeking a place in the UNSC, we should be invited to join it. In the meanwhile, there is nothing that prevents India from playing a larger role in global political and security affairs. The ISIS threat is waiting for India to take the lead.
Source: http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/g4-summit-will-india-utilize-the-groups-strengths-or-pick-up-others-baggage/