Today’s Topic of Discussion: INDIA MUST HAVE A PERMANENT SEAT IN UN SECURITY COUNCIL
INDIA MUST HAVE A PERMANENT SEAT IN UN SECURITY COUNCIL
Since 17 January 1946 when the Security Council of the United Nations held its first session at Church House in London, it continues to be the most important and powerful organ of the world body. The UN Charter charges the Security Council with the responsibility for the maintenance of global peace and security and its decisions are binding on all Member States.
The Council consisting of five permanent members and ten elected members is practically dominated by the veto wielding permanent members. The democratic and regional deficit in the constitution and working of Security is all too obvious leading to demands to make the world body more democratic and relevant to the times in which we are living.
The question of the reforms of the security is now being debated for last fifteen years. It is surprising that since its inception the proceedings of the Security Council are conducted under ‘provisional rules’ consequently weakening the institutional development, precedent-setting and organized institutional memory.
The monthly rotation of the presidency adds to the confusion. The proceedings are conducted more in an informal manner away from scrutiny and accountability without a record of the minutes that can be referenced to by future members. The history of the resolutions adopted in the past and the lopsided enforcement has often given rise to criticism on the ground of double standards.
The permanent members armed with veto power rule the roost while the elected members are made to feel like short-term tenants. It can be said that in its existing mode the Security Council remains oligarchic and inflexible leaving much to be desired.
Today, our world is torn by terrorism and violence and it requires a more democratic and effective Security Council to promote peace and security and defend international law. Most of the member states agree on the deficiencies and shortcomings and have been pressing for necessary reforms and solutions.
In fact, the Security Council as it exists today reflects the outdated geopolitical realities and thinking shaped by the events of World War II. The arrangement was relevant and served the purpose during the Cold War period but now the privileges associated with the veto-wielding permanent members are resented and viewed as undemocratic by most member states.
But it is equally true that despite all round agreement on the existing deficits in the composition and working methods of the Security Council, the world community has failed to agree on the recipe and formulae to reform it.
In 1990, after the episodes of Iraq and Rwanda and new awareness about the increased role of the United Nations and the Security Council in the post-Cold War period, calls were given to reform the Council. The demand was directed to make the Council more representative, accountable, effective, transparent and even handed.
Consequently, the United Nations took up the question of reformation that has been under discussion in open-ended groups constituted for the purpose since last many years. The overwhelming view is that expansion on the basis of new geopolitical realities will remedy the democratic and regional representation deficit from which the Council suffers.
The new candidates who enjoy majority support for inclusion in the Council as permanent members are Brazil, India, Japan and Germany have come to be known in the UN parlance as G4. The African Union has also staked its claim for permanent African representation in the Council as at present there is none from the region and the members resent the hegemony of northern industrialised nations in the powerful UN organ.
It is important to remember that in 1946 when the Security Council was constituted the five permanent members were drawn from the victorious powers of World War II. India’s contribution in the war did not deserve to be ignored as more than 2.5 million men from the Indian army had participated in the war and made tremendous sacrifices. But, the fact remains that in 1946, India was still under the yoke of British rule and hence in no position to claim the credit it deserved.
But during last six decades after Independence, India has established firmly its credibility as the largest liberal democracy in the world. The institutions that India has built to ensure rule of law and its rich diverse and pluralistic society in religious, racial and social terms, has been acknowledged and admired by the world community. Therefore, now it is most appropriate that India should get a permanent seat on the Security Council as part of the United Nations adaptation to newly emerging global realities.
Of the five permanent members (P-5) with powers to veto any resolution, three-Britain, France and Russia-have openly supported India’s case, and some African and West Asian nations have endorsed India’s candidacy. China has announced in 2005 to support India for a permanent seat but without a veto and with the USA, India has already entered into a strategic partnership leading to signing of nuclear treaty and growing economic relationship. The only country that has been actively lobbying against India’s claim is its neighbour Pakistan.
It is worth a mention that at the time of constitution of Security Council, the USSR and the UK had opposed the inclusion of China as a permanent member. The then President of the USA Franklin D. Roosevelt however felt that although China was not a superpower in terms of military or technology but as a country of four hundred million people it cannot be ignored. He preferred ‘a rising friend rather than a rising enemy in the future and hoped that this would make the Council more universal.
For many years after 1946, it was the Republic of China that occupied the seat but in 1971, taking into consideration the new realities the world body awarded the seat to the People’s Republic of China. Likewise, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the seat earlier occupied by it was allocated to the Russian Federation as demanded by the new geopolitical realities. These changes were carried out without amending Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The other important point is that the five permanent members of the Security Council are the only countries recognized as nuclear weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India is among those nuclear states who have not signed the NPT It is true that after the nuclear tests, India faced sanctions and protests, but the fact remains that its record in ensuring non-proliferation through institutional arrangements and a regime of self-discipline has won the admiration of the world community, most prominently reflected in the nuclear deal that it concluded with the United States last year.
On the economic front Indian performance has obviously impressed the international economic policy community. If we go by the predictions of the Goldman Sachs BRIC study, then during the next three decades India is expected to emerge as the third largest economy in the world, behind only those the USA and China. A food deficit country till two decades back, now India is an exporter of agricultural products.
The Indian software industry has grown at an annual rate of 40-50 percent for more than a decade. In terms of numbers and buying capacity India, today has the largest middle class of the world. With the successful launching of Chandrayan India has established itself as a country with advanced space technology capabilities.
India with its historical background as leader in intellectual pursuits is now emerging as the new knowledge destination. The country had missed the bus during the industrial revolution started in 1860 but played a lead role in the ‘information era’ leading to accusations that India was stealing white collar jobs from the developed countries and the leading science magazine ‘New Scientist’ describing India as the next knowledge super power. The Indian Institutes of Technology and Management are producing world class engineers and managers.
The most crucial and onerous responsibility of the United Nations is the deployment of peace-keeping troops in troubled areas for which it depends on the contribution of member states. Today, India ranks as one of the largest contributors of troops to the United Nations serving in four continents under most trying and difficult circumstances. So far, more than 55,000 Indian Military and Police personnel have served in various peace keeping operations. India has risked the lives of its soldiers in the service of international peace and security and to make the UN missions a success.
India with its billion plus population, a thriving liberal democracy, pluralistic society, surging economy, knowledge resources and one of the highest troop contributions to United Nations peacekeeping missions deserves to be accorded its rightful place in the comity of nations. Permanent Membership of the Security Council for India will make the UN appear more equitably representative and tuned to the newly emerging geopolitical realities. Last but not the least, it will help promote the values of democracy, pluralism and liberalism as ideologies and way of life integral to new world order.
A perusal of the record of the proceedings of the UN gives rise to feeling that the question of permanent membership of the Security Council has not been pursued by the Government of India as earnestly and forcefully as it deserved, particularly after signing a nuclear deal with the USA. The permanent mission of India at the UN has been lobbying and canvassing support for the move, but the required political push is missing. There is no doubt that the ‘time is on our side’ but that does not mean to keep waiting endlessly. Instead, the government must mobilise all resources political and diplomatic to attain for India what rightfully belongs to it.
See more:
