Let us be realistic about the UNSC 

Let us be realistic about the UNSC 

Context

If a permanent Security Council seat is unavailable, India must not spurn other proposals on the table

Author’s contention

Author states that the recent victory at International Court of Justice (ICJ) should not be interpreted in a way as to raise hopes of a permanent seat in the Security Council

Two important organs of UN

The two most prestigious organs of the United Nations are

• The Security Council
  • 15 member states
  • Election to the UNSC is conducted only in the General Assembly and requires two-thirds majority to get elected
  • It deals with questions of peace and security as well as terrorism and has developed a tendency to widen its ambit into other fields, including human rights and eventually environment
  • In addition to the Kashmir issue, which Pakistan forever tries to raise, there are other matters in which India would be interested such as the list of terrorists — Hafeez Saeed for example. Since it is in permanent session, we have to try to be its member as often as possible
• International Court of Justice (ICJ)
  • It has 15 judges
  • Election to the ICJ is held concurrently in the UNGA and UNSC and requires absolute majority of the total membership in each organ
  • Veto does not apply for election to the ICJ
  • The ICJ is required to represent the principal civilisations and legal systems of the world
  • Impartial judges: The judges sitting on ICJ are expected to act impartially, not as representatives of the countries of their origin. That is why they are nominated, not by their governments but by their national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague
  • Indian judge at ICJ doesn’t mean a win every time: To have an Indian judge at the ICJ, when we have an active case on its agenda regarding our national in illegal custody of Pakistan might be of some advantage, though it would be wrong to assume that the final judgment will go in our favour simply because an Indian is on the bench. He will surely act in an objective manner. We will win because we have an excellent legal case and are ably represented by an eminent lawyer

India has lost elections to both these organs in the past

Another important bodies to be represented at

• ACABQ (Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions)
  • It consists of 16 members elected by the UNGA on the recommendation of the Fifth Committee of the UNGA dealing with the budget of the UN
  • Usually, the members are officers of the permanent missions serving on the Fifth Committee. Most often, they are of the rank of first secretary or counsellor; Ambassadors rarely offer their candidatures
• The Committee on Contributions
  • The Committee on Contributions recommends the scale of assessments to the budget and the share of each member
  • This is a very important function, since the share decided by the UNGA applies to all the specialised agencies, etc. Even a 0.1 % change can make a difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars
• Human Rights Council: There is also the Human Rights Council; we have had almost continuous representation on it. The U.S. lost the election to it a few years ago; there is widespread resentment against the P-5’s presumption to a permanent seat on all bodies
• P5 – Permanent members of UNSC

Question of Veto

Primarily at India’s initiative, the question of Security Council reform (expansion), has been under consideration since 1970s

• Unanimous support for non-permanent seats increase: There is near unanimous support for increasing the number of non-permanent seats
• Controversy over increase of permanent seats: The controversial question is about the increase in the category of permanent seats. The rationale for expansion has been accepted in-principle by nearly all, but the difficulty arises when the actual numbers and their rights are discussed

Demands of various countries

• India, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, has proposed an increase of six additional permanent seats, the other two being for Africa
• The African group is demanding two permanent seats, recognised as reasonable by every member, but there are at least three and perhaps more claimants for the two seats

Controversy of rights of additional members

Then there is the question of the rights of the additional members

• G4’s position: The G-4’s initial position was for the same rights as the present permanent members, essentially the veto right. Over the years, they have become more realistic and would be willing to forego the veto right
• Africans’ position: The firm position of the Africans is that the new members must have the same rights as the existing ones. This is a non-starter
• The P-5 will never agree to give up their veto right, nor will they agree to accord this right to any other country
• France supports veto for additional permanent members
• Also, the general membership of the UN wants to eliminate the existing veto; they will never agree to new veto-wielding powers
• Variants of Veto: Variants of the veto provision have been suggested, such as the requirement of double veto, i.e. at least two permanent members must exercise veto for it to be valid

Who is opposing our proposal?

Many member-states have been pledging support for our aspiration for permanent membership. This is welcome and should be appreciated; it would come in useful if the question ever comes up for a vote in the UNGA. Several P-5 countries have also announced support. The principal P-5 member opposing us is China

India cannot elected alone to UNSC

• Author states that there is no way that India alone, by itself, can be elected as permanent member. It will have to be a package deal in which the demands of all the geographical groups, including the Latin America and Caribbean group which, like Africa, does not have a single permanent member, will have to be accommodated
• Even if the Americans are sincere in their support for us, they will simply not lobby for India alone; it will be unthinkable for them to try to get India in without at the same time getting Japan also in. It is equally unthinkable, for a long time to come, for China to support Japan’s candidature. The P-5 will play the game among themselves but will stand by one another, as was evident recently at the time of election to the ICJ

Way forward: Other proposals on the table

We should be realistic. If a permanent seat is not available, there are other proposals on the table

• One proposal is for the creation of ‘semi-permanent’ seats, according to which members would be elected for six-eight years and would be eligible for immediate re-election

Conclusion

Given India’s growing prestige and respect, it should not be difficult for us to successfully bid for one of these seats; it might be a better alternative than to unrealistically hope for a permanent seat.