INDIA
& UNO
(seat in security council)
The United Nations Security Council is the most influential organ of the United Nations. It charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. While other organs of the UN make only recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the authority to take decisions, which the member governments must carry out under the United Nations Charter. The resolutions of the Council are known as UN Security Council Resolutions.
The Security Council today has the same worldwide power structure as it had in 1945, though the Council adopted four additional members in 1965, bringing the total number to 15. The five World War II victors, the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China [P-5] retain their honored "permanent" status.
They enjoy the prohibition supremacy and, often, prohibition extensively certified resolutions to promote their own interests. The arrangement renders the Council autocratic and inefficacious.
The powerful P-5 dominates the UN policy and decisions. The geographical demonstration of the other ten selected members has made no structural difference to the Security Council, which remains demanding in favor of the industrialized North.
After decades of debates on Security Council alteration, the UN-appointed High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed two models of enlargement in December 2004. Both models predict the Council expanding to 24 members.
Model A recommends six additional new permanent seats, with no prohibit, and three new two-year term elected seats. Model B creates a new category of eight seats, renewable every four years, and one new two-year nonrenewable seat.
Neither the Panel's document, nor the Secretary General's March 2005 report titled "Enlarging Freedom" express preference for either model. Member- states are currently debating the UN Security Council Reforms in the 2005 General Assembly Session.
The foregoing context explains the coming together of India, Japan, Brazil and Germany for staking their individual claims collectively to permanent seats of the United Nations Security Council. Geographical dissimilarities apart, there are other discrepancies among this odd Group of Four [G-4].
A most glaring common feature being the antagonism they face from their geographic peers and neighbors. Pakistan fiercely opposes India's claim and has launched a diplomatic offensive to debunk it. China and Korea are aggressively campaigning against Japan.
United Nations officials have received more than 41 million signatures seeking to block Japan's bid for a permanent UNSC seat. Italy is opposing Germany as a prospective permanent member.
Mexico is countering Brazil's moves to enter the Security Council. Perhaps this pattern of opposition is the logic behind the formation of G-4 for making a common bid to become permanent members of the most powerful Organ of the United Nations, with or without the Veto power.
On July 7, 2005, the G-4 with 23 co-sponsors, introduced the first part of their "framework resolution" for staking their claims. Earlier, they had reached an understanding with the 15-member Caribbean Community [Caricom] and are negotiating support of the 54-members African Union [AU] amidst opposition from the USA, China, Russia and other countries.
India says that "The G-4 framework resolution will offer the member states a window of opportunity to express individual decisions in reforming the UN", but Pakistan views it as "inequitable and unfair".
Eighteen countries, calling themselves 'Coffee Club' or "Uniting For Consensus "[UFC], determinedly oppose the UN Security Council expansion and G-4 claims. Italy, Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea, Mexico, its leading members, have China's support. Indian media have been splashing news of visiting dignitaries promising support to India's claim but France is the only P-5 that has officially supported the G-4 Framework resolution.
India and the G-4 face two basic challenges. The first is the challenge of securing 2/3rd majority support of the UN General Assembly. The second involves the unanimity among the veto-wielding permanent members or P-5 to accept UNSC expansion and G-4 candidature.
The USA has announced its support to Japan and possible endorsement of one developing country, keeping India, Egypt, South Africa guessing! G-4 are agape, looking covetously to the Yankee sphinx and divisively at one another! The USA has not changed its stand despite the much-hyped Indian PM's Washington visit.
Russia and China are simply opposed to any expansion move. Russia sees it as lessening its importance as an exclusive UNSC member, a vestige of the lost Soviet might. For China, UNSC Veto is a symbol of its rising power.
Great Britain eyes India as a big buyer of its arms yet has backed out from co- sponsoring the G-4 resolution in the face of the US ambivalence. France, hoping to sell aircrafts and submarines to India, is the only P-5 country to co- sponsor G-4 resolution.
India lacks in real politic skills and tactics. Its standing as the UNO's "moralizer" is gone with the non-aligned movement. Its increasing economic potential and stature are the main consideration for the P-5 to lend their very reluctant "future" support.
Nonetheless, India has taken an unprecedented ambitious stance in forming the G-4 and displaying a rare resolve to force a vote on the UNSC expansion amidst pervasive opposition. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization accorded India observer status but rebuffed the G-4 resolution.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to G-8 summit proved lackluster. His Washington visits July [18-20], though bilaterally significant, failed to get President Bush's nod for India's UNSC claim. As it is, the Vote on G-4 framework resolution hangs fire.
What does G-4 framework resolution spell? Most importantly, it commits the G-4 -India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan- to seeking six new UNSC permanent seats, increasing the Council's size from 15 to 25. The six new permanent members will be two each from Asia and Africa, one from Latin America/ Caribbean, one from West Europe and other states.
It seeks an increase of four to the present 10 non- permanent members, that is, one each from Africa, Asia, Latin America and East Europe. Germany, hoping to win the support of 20-odd East European states, suggested an additional seat from East Europe.
The G-4 proposal differs in two respects from afore mentioned Model A and Model B as contained in UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's In Larger Freedom. Both models look for increase of UNSC from 15 to 24. G-4 resolution seeks UNSC strength of 25 members.
More important is the G-4 call for the right to block resolutions. Under the sub-head Veto', it states, "the new members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members." India's choice of "shall" substituted by Japanese preference for "should".
Perhaps, Japan had inkling from the USA that seeking VETO could hamper its chances. Now G-4 has toned down their earlier stand and is willing to be just permanent members "with or without the veto".
Japan is very 'flexible' on Veto and for Germany Veto "should not be an obstruction to Security Council reform". The G-4 draft reduces the affirmative UNSC vote from 9 out of 15 to 14 out of 25 or from 60% to 56% with a view to appease the USA who fears losing its capacity to carry the "expanded" UNSC on issues like its Invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The G-4 has prepared a tricky and clever two-stage- voting scheme. First, the G-4 resolution must be passed by2/3rd majority or 128 countries. Following which, the interested parties will "submit their candidatures to the President of the UNGA". Later, all 191 member- states will elect six states as permanent members by secret ballot.
According to the framework, "all ballots shall be restricted to candidates [already registered] until six states obtain the required majority to occupy the six seats". This ingenious procedure obviates competition among the G-4 and [ii] emergence of a regional dark horse in case one or more of G-4 fail to win two-thirds majority even after repeated rounds of balloting.
Only on achievement of the above procedure, UNGA will consider the comprehensive Charter-amending resolution, incorporating already voted changes, in accord with Article 108 of the UN Charter, requiring acceptance and ratification by 2/3rd majority of UN member-states, including the P-5.
G-4 framework proposes to alter articles 27[2], 27[3], 109[1] but is quiet about Article 23 that lists the names of the five permanent members. By this procedure, the G-4 plan to present the P-5 with a fait accompli that they must, either accept or reject in Toto.
Therefore, USA will not be able to implement its preference for Japan, nor will China its veto against Japan, unless they wish to provoke the rejected one as well as the five newly elected permanent members.
The G-4 got the clue for this procedure from what happened in 1963 when China became a Permanent member replacing Taiwan and the UNSC was expanded from 11 to 15 members. Then, only China [whose seat was held by Taiwan then] among the P-5 voted in favor of the UNGA resolution calling for expansion. France and Soviet Union voted against the expansion, Britain and USA abstained but all the five, finally, ratified the amendment for expansion.
Will the G-4 get the 128 member-state support? This is a big question with no clue. At the outset, Italy and Pakistan are lobbying hard that the G-4 resolution be first ratified by P-5. How the UNGA can elect six permanent members to six seats that legally do not exist, they argue.
Even if the UNGA President allows G-4 procedure, winning a 128-majority appears insurmountable. African Union of 53 members could vote as a solid bloc but most other votes are doubtful. At this stage, 60 are the maximum analysts are prepared to comply with the G-4 claim.
Whether Germany or USA will prevails over 20 East Europeans remains uncertain. Latin Americans are wary of the G-4 resolution. Japan's influence in Asia is almost nil. Japan is perceived as a vassal state of the USA and resented among developing countries. The voting shall be open.
Indian campaign has been lackadaisical. India is either too hopeful of the last minute US support or expects to win the UN permanent seat by default. From the weakest, India has surely emerged as the strongest G-4 candidate. Bush needs Japan and India to counter China's influence over Asia.
The belief that the 21st century belongs to Asia is gaining ground in the West. The USA wants to wean away India from Russia and China who, along with France, want to challenge the US superpowers.
Nevertheless, US-support is never without cost. India will have to be subservient like UK, Australia and Japan to become a non-veto-wielding member of UNSC, if it wants US backing. A price too heavy.
New York, seat of the UNO, will remain rife with international conspiracy and political maneuver. Interested parties will wine, dine and confabulate on the UNSC expansion until the Voting Day
No comments:
Post a Comment