Policy paralysis may cost India UN permanent seat

[arp2041]

The aversion towards risk-taking at the top echelons of the political establishment may take another casualty - India's desire for a permanent seat around the horseshoe table. The dream seems to slip away with New Delhi dithering over a decision to bring a resolution to vote in United Nations General Assembly.

While India's term as non-permanent member of UN security council ends in December, the effort gone into behind-the-scenes discussions and creating the stage to introduce a resolution for a probable vote on UNSC reforms could come to naught, with the current session of GA drawing to a close.

While the session lasts till end of August, the actual period left for any substantive work is much less. "In August, UN becomes empty as most of the PRs go on vacation. So, the decision to go or not to go for a vote has to be taken in July. The window of opportunity is extremely narrow," said a senior MEA official.

The group of four aspiring permanent seat members, called the G-4, had floated a draft short resolution which only called for an expansion in theUNSC's two membership categories. The strategy was that once this resolution sailed through the GA, then there will be a second tier of country-specific resolutions on nominations to the expanded UNSC permanent membership. "This would have helped in getting the votes of those countries, who perhaps had objections to candidature of specific countries".

But, there is a question mark on whether the first resolution will be tabled at all. "Frankly this time, we have not been able to come to a decision. The green light has to come from top and there is no appetite there to take a risk right now," said the official.

The 'risk' is that it's always difficult to predict with total certainty that the resolution will get the requisite two-third majority. "We have more than 80 written supports for the short resolution, with oral commitments from other countries, including a big chunk of African group. So we certainly have the numbers, but will everybody vote as expected... ultimately, we have to call their bluff," he said.

In a way to mitigate the risk, Indian diplomats have been cultivating the L69 group of countries to introduce the resolution, instead of the G4 - so as to deflect some of the opposition. The L69 is a group of 41 developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America, currently coordinated by Jamaica.

This plan had been implemented since last year, and clearly demonstrated by India's assiduous identification with L69 positions during the various meetings of the Intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) which debated the various formulas bing proposed by the various groups from the Coffee club to the S-5.

During these rounds, several countries have already remarked on the similarities of the positions of the L69 and G4, with the only area of contention being the use of veto.

The G4 has proposed that new permanent members will voluntarily suspend the use of veto for a certain period of time, but the L69 wants there to be no difference in powers between the newer and older members of UNSC. The African countries do not want the veto power of new permanent members to be diluted, and have publicly supported the L69 proposals.

The chairman of the IGN has convened another session for July 2 to take stock of the various proposals, and to give his views of the road ahead. "We will certainly be pushing for some concrete action," said a senior MEA official.

Out of the G4, Brazil and India, who are also L69 members, have been a strong proponent to push for a resolution, while Japan and Germany have been recently less keen to move forward, beset with economic difficulties and bouts of national self-doubt.

"If a (G4/L69) resolution is finally to be tabled, it will certainly not be a short resolution, but along the lines of the G4 draft resolution of 2005," he said.

In 2005, G4 had floated a draft resolution, but it was never bought to vote and lapsed in the face of opposition of US and China, as well as the African’s insistence on the right to veto.

defence eXpress: Policy paralysis may cost India UN permanent seat

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

According to the UN Charter, you need unanimous support from ALL of the P5 members, before you can change the charter to allow new Permanent members.

We vetoed the Syrian resolution for far less (despite the entire World warning us not to), and they don't even claim our territory like India does.

Not that we need a veto in this situation anyway. All we have to do is "abstain" and India can never join the P5.

 

[karan21]

According to the UN Charter, you need unanimous support from ALL of the P5 members, before you can change the charter to allow new Permanent members.

We vetoed the Syrian resolution for far less (despite the entire World warning us not to), and they don't even claim our territory like India does.

Not that we need a veto in this situation anyway. All we have to do is "abstain" and India can never join the P5.

i think there will be a restructuring of the entire un at some point. there has to. no matter what. how can u keep away brazil, japan germany and india. while weak countries like britain and france be ther doing jack.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

i think there will be a restructuring of the entire un at some point. there has to. no matter what. how can u keep away brazil, japan germany and india. while weak countries like britain and france be ther doing jack.

Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Brazil, etc. are ALL in the top 10 largest economies.

India is not.

 

[karan21]

Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Brazil, etc. are ALL in the top 10 largest economies.

India is not.

hmm was china there when un was formed, anyways if the ruppee jumps back to 40 indian economy will be over 2.5 trill. ruppe lost 30% and so did indian economy. it will eventually go back. with the speed indian economy is growing it will over take britain and france within 2 yrs from now. it is already bigger than them.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

hmm was china there when un was formed, anyways if the ruppee jumps back to 40 indian economy will be over 2.5 trill. ruppe lost 30% and so did indian economy. it will eventually go back. with the speed indian economy is growing it will over take britain and france within 2 yrs from now. it is already bigger than them.

The condition for being a Permanent member of the UNSC was: To be a major independent country on the winning side of WW2 in 1945.

That's all. Nothing about being technologically advanced, economically strong, or even having done well in the war.

So unless you want to start another World War, then the conditions remain unchanged. And the only way to change the conditions is to get unanimous support from ALL the P5 members, which you won't get as long as you claim Chinese land.

 

[SamranAli]

may be india should resolve its land disputes first so it can get favour from others.

 

[karan21]

The condition for being a Permanent member of the UNSC was: To be a major independent country on the winning side of WW2 in 1945.

That's all. Nothing about being technologically advanced, economically strong, or even having done well in the war.

So unless you want to start another World War, then the conditions remain unchanged. And the only way to change the conditions is to get unanimous support from ALL the P5 members, which you won't get as long as you claim Chinese land.

lol we dont claim chinese land china claims our land. anyways un is a failure, india doesnt need more than un needs india.

 

[faithfulguy]

lol we dont claim chinese land china claims our land. anyways un is a failure, india doesnt need more than un needs india.

Sour grape. India is one of the countries begging for UN permanent membership. Instead of begging, India should do all it can to gain an invitation from the P5. This would only happen if security council cannot function without India. UNSC functions fine without India today, and in the forseeable future. So don't hold your breath.

 

[newdelhinsa]

Usual self appointed Chinese spokes person from ministry of chest thumping and self righteousness at work.

India will see how things are going to shape, no compromise will be done to serve Chinese wet dreams. China and Chinese can roll their vote like a pipe and ..........., i.e. in a safe place.

 

[The|slander]

i think there will be a restructuring of the entire un at some point. there has to. no matter what. how can u keep away brazil, japan germany and india. while weak countries like britain and france be ther doing jack.

Britain and France weaker than India!?

U MAD BRO!?!?

hmm was china there when un was formed, anyways if the ruppee jumps back to 40 indian economy will be over 2.5 trill. ruppe lost 30% and so did indian economy. it will eventually go back. with the speed indian economy is growing it will over take britain and france within 2 yrs from now. it is already bigger than them.

At best, the UN can be expanded to include India, Japan and Brazil. Replacing existing members will not be happening.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Britain and France weaker than India!?

U MAD BRO!?!?

Pretty funny, right?

Both Britain and France have larger economies AND larger Defence budgets than India does. By a significant margin.

So how is India stronger than either Britain or France? And the above is just "hard power" alone, clearly the Western countries are miles ahead in terms of soft power than any Asian country.

 

[CarbonD]

Its funny why is India wanting to be in UNSC I dont get it. India cannot be a member since it cant take swift actions in almost anything. Recent example is economic reforms.
Its current foreign policy is also other UNSC members hate, as it will create as there will be sides chosen on that level.
Eg US UK fra etc vs china russia.
Where will India stand. Up there is either yes or no. Third option is just not there. And even if they exercise third option of non alignment people will think twice for letting you in. In the end all countries look in their own favour and not others.
Doubt India will get a seat in this decade or even next. Maybe after 2040s they might but looking at the lethargic way of doing things in India it is highly unlikely.

 

[arp2041]

According to the UN Charter, you need unanimous support from ALL of the P5 members, before you can change the charter to allow new Permanent members.

We vetoed the Syrian resolution for far less (despite the entire World warning us not to), and they don't even claim our territory like India does.

Not that we need a veto in this situation anyway. All we have to do is "abstain" and India can never join the P5.

you cannot veto a resolution which includes India as a permanent member, Syrian case was different, India is a major power, you also abstained from NSG voting (could not vote against Indian waver even though you din't wanted a waiver). It can create a major diplomatic row & can end relations between India & China, if & when China veto's Indian inclusion.

Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Brazil, etc. are ALL in the top 10 largest economies.

India is not.

India is at 9th place in GDP (nominal) - 1.8 trillion economy, India has 4th largest Air force, 3rd largest army & 5th largest navy, India is 3rd largest economy in GDP (PPP), India was the original member of UN, A de-facto nuclear power, a missile & space power, second largest population & world's largest democracy, enjoys support of US,UK,France & Russia for UNSC permanent seat, will China oppose the will of these powers & around >100 nation supporting it's candidature??

The condition for being a Permanent member of the UNSC was: To be a major independent country on the winning side of WW2 in 1945.

That's all. Nothing about being technologically advanced, economically strong, or even having done well in the war.

So unless you want to start another World War, then the conditions remain unchanged. And the only way to change the conditions is to get unanimous support from ALL the P5 members, which you won't get as long as you claim Chinese land.

who said that there was a condition for UNSC permanent seat?? I never heard of it, mate, India was also offered UNSC permanent seat by the US when Nehru was PM & can't believe he rejected the offer.

Pretty funny, right?

Both Britain and France have larger economies AND larger Defence budgets than India does. By a significant margin.

So how is India stronger than either Britain or France? And the above is just "hard power" alone, clearly the Western countries are miles ahead in terms of soft power than any Asian country.

It's a fact, that today Britain & France are no longer a power they once were, Britain & France both have saturated there economies, they need Indian arms contract as oxygen for survival (both sarkozy & cameron came running to India for mmrca deal), they no longer have military advantage over India, they need support of US in everything, can't veto a resolution in UNSC which is supported by US, even to the extent that when in the late 90s UK offered it's mediator ship for Kashmir despute one of our ministers (foreign minister, not sure though) called it a second rate power this is the harsh reality of 21st century world.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

you cannot veto a resolution which includes India as a permanent member, Syrian case was different, India is a major power, you also abstained from NSG voting (could not vote against Indian waver even though you din't wanted a waiver). It can create a major diplomatic row & can end relations between India & China, if & when China veto's Indian inclusion.

You didn't break relations with us during the Sino-Indian War, you didn't break relations with us even after we helped Pakistan to acquire nuclear weapons.

Even your own Defence minister was saying that China violated the Indian border 500 times in the past two years.

Regarding the veto: The ENTIRE world was warning us not to veto the Syria resolution. Not only the USA and NATO, but also our oil suppliers in the Arab world as well. But we vetoed it anyway.