06-09-2005, 12:44 AM
Pioneer
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Vetting the veto power </b>
Rai Singh
India's hopes of securing a permanent UN Security Council seat received a body blow on April 26. It was delivered by none other than UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when he said during his visit to New Delhi, "I believe enlargement without veto is a major step forward. Let us not get too focused on the veto." Meanwhile, India has declared that the membership of the UNSC without veto is "unacceptable".
There are two models of reforms currently under consideration. The first one is looking at six new permanent members in addition to the current five, without mentioning specific names. The other proposal talks of six new non-permanent seats but with a longer mandate than the 10 current rotating seats (two years). Twenty countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UAE, the Arab League, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Ghana, South Korea, and Mauritius are opposed to the so-called "Tokyo-Berlin axis" posed by Germany, Japan, Brazil and India.
The G-4 plans to submit a "framework resolution" for expansion at the UN soon. For a resolution to be passed, the G-4 needs 128 votes of a total of 191. But it has to rule out the support of the countries mentioned above, which regard that the first model will negate their national interests in their respective regional, historical and political contexts-Pakistan with India, China with Japan, Italy with Germany, and Argentina and Mexico with Brazil.
Japan admits that the G-4's task has been compounded by "difficult neighbours". While the UN cannot afford to ignore Tokyo's voice-the second largest donor to the UN after the US-Japan faces with stiff resistance from China. Meanwhile, China's opposition to Japan has implications for India since it cannot hope to make it to the Council if a candidate like Japan does not. Japan, a key member of the G-4 that also includes Germany, India and Brazil, has already indicated its "flexibility" on the issue of veto power.
<b>While Japan has taken a pragmatic view of the expansion of the Security Council, India has been hasty in pronouncing its negative stand. </b>It would be advisable to examine all the aspects together with the pros and cons of the UN reform programme and arrive at a decision in the long-term interests of India.
In the editorial, "Unite to win" (April 30), The Pioneer has rightly stressed that the G-4 should "forge a common strategy and steer a coordinated course of action" to take full advantage of the opportunity presented by the UN reforms programme". This is all the more essential because of the different approaches adopted by the G-4, which "will not only be seized upon by those reluctant to open wide the doors of hallowed Security Council hall, but also those nations that want a slice of pie but do not deserve it".
Today there is no unanimity among the Afro-Asian countries on the UN reforms. It would, therefore, be wise not to act in haste but according to the requirements of national interests of India, irrespective of ideology or political beliefs. The G-5 that already enjoys the power of veto will not like to share this power with others, though they may seem to say so.
The UN, representing 191 countries, is a world organisation, but at the same time it is also divided and subdivided into factions and groups, and it functions less on UN principles and more on realpolitik. One should not forget that the pursuit of power is the name of the game in UN.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Vetting the veto power </b>
Rai Singh
India's hopes of securing a permanent UN Security Council seat received a body blow on April 26. It was delivered by none other than UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when he said during his visit to New Delhi, "I believe enlargement without veto is a major step forward. Let us not get too focused on the veto." Meanwhile, India has declared that the membership of the UNSC without veto is "unacceptable".
There are two models of reforms currently under consideration. The first one is looking at six new permanent members in addition to the current five, without mentioning specific names. The other proposal talks of six new non-permanent seats but with a longer mandate than the 10 current rotating seats (two years). Twenty countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, the UAE, the Arab League, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya, Ghana, South Korea, and Mauritius are opposed to the so-called "Tokyo-Berlin axis" posed by Germany, Japan, Brazil and India.
The G-4 plans to submit a "framework resolution" for expansion at the UN soon. For a resolution to be passed, the G-4 needs 128 votes of a total of 191. But it has to rule out the support of the countries mentioned above, which regard that the first model will negate their national interests in their respective regional, historical and political contexts-Pakistan with India, China with Japan, Italy with Germany, and Argentina and Mexico with Brazil.
Japan admits that the G-4's task has been compounded by "difficult neighbours". While the UN cannot afford to ignore Tokyo's voice-the second largest donor to the UN after the US-Japan faces with stiff resistance from China. Meanwhile, China's opposition to Japan has implications for India since it cannot hope to make it to the Council if a candidate like Japan does not. Japan, a key member of the G-4 that also includes Germany, India and Brazil, has already indicated its "flexibility" on the issue of veto power.
<b>While Japan has taken a pragmatic view of the expansion of the Security Council, India has been hasty in pronouncing its negative stand. </b>It would be advisable to examine all the aspects together with the pros and cons of the UN reform programme and arrive at a decision in the long-term interests of India.
In the editorial, "Unite to win" (April 30), The Pioneer has rightly stressed that the G-4 should "forge a common strategy and steer a coordinated course of action" to take full advantage of the opportunity presented by the UN reforms programme". This is all the more essential because of the different approaches adopted by the G-4, which "will not only be seized upon by those reluctant to open wide the doors of hallowed Security Council hall, but also those nations that want a slice of pie but do not deserve it".
Today there is no unanimity among the Afro-Asian countries on the UN reforms. It would, therefore, be wise not to act in haste but according to the requirements of national interests of India, irrespective of ideology or political beliefs. The G-5 that already enjoys the power of veto will not like to share this power with others, though they may seem to say so.
The UN, representing 191 countries, is a world organisation, but at the same time it is also divided and subdivided into factions and groups, and it functions less on UN principles and more on realpolitik. One should not forget that the pursuit of power is the name of the game in UN.Â
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->