POLITICS: India May Pay Price for Security Council Club Class

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis by Praful Bidwai

NEW DELHI, Jul 8 2005 (IPS) - Within striking distance of gaining permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, India is now making moves to stay ahead of other countries in the Group of Four (G-4) that have called for expanding the council’s permanent membership from the present five to 11, say observers.

With the G-4 , that includes Germany, Japan and Brazil, formally tabling a resolution in the General Assembly asking for the proposed expansion voting on it could take place as early as next week.

”The critical factor in the decision will be the success or failure of the G-4’s negotiations with the African Union”, K.P. Fabian, former ambassador and career Indian diplomat, who closely follows the issue of UN reform, told IPS in an interview.

Diplomats of the G-4 must also feel confident enough that they can muster the support of two-thirds (128) of the UN’s 191 member-states, Fabian added.

With this, the prolonged effort of the G-4 states to gain more recognition and power for themselves enters the last lap but India and Japan have the highest stake in the expansion of the Council because they are seen as the most favoured candidates.

But should the G-4 break up then India will stand the best chance said Qamar Agha, well-known foreign policy analyst and member of the New Delhi-based, rights group and think- tank ‘PEACE’.

The African Union (AU) at its Summit of July 4-5 in Libya voted for Security Council expansion by 11 seats, including six permanent ones, of which two, it said, should go to Africa. This is compatible with the G- 4’s proposal which also calls for six new permanent members, including two from Africa (in addition to themselves).

However, the AU and the G-4 also have differences. The AU wants two non- permanent (rotating) members from Africa, while the G-4 proposes only one. Besides, the AU demands veto power for the two African members who join the Security Council as permanent members.

”This veto demand is just a bargaining tactic,” said Fabian. ”If the G- 4 can manoeuvre to reconcile their differences with the AU on the non- permanent membership issue, there is a good chance that they will be able to gather the numbers needed to push their resolution through. Without the AU’s 53 states, the numbers just won’t add up”.

The AU, for its part, has formed a 15-member committee headed by Nigeria and Ghana, to lobby General Assembly members. Some African states would like the G-4 to postpone the vote. ”The vote they [G-4] were hoping to get in Africa won’t be there”, an Algerian diplomat was quoted as saying after the Libya summit.

However, it is not certain that the G-4 bid will succeed even if the AU backs it on the basis of a compromise. There is stiff resistance from powerful P-5 states (today’s permanent five, comprising the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China) to the entry of some individual members of the G-4 into the Security Council.

For instance, China strongly opposes Japan. It says it has no objection to India’s entry, but is non-committal on the other two. The US sponsors Japan’s bid, and has said it would like one more permanent member, preferably from the Third World.

Washington has dropped enough hints that its preference is India and said it would oppose Germany while being lukewarm about Brazil.

Besides, other fairly powerful and articulate member-states including Italy, Canada, South Korea, Mexico and Pakistan, who formed what is informally called the ‘Coffee Club’ in the UN, oppose the G-4, largely for region-specific reasons.

The latest reservation about the G-4 comes from the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the group largely encompassing Central Asian states, dominated by Russia and China. It has warned the G-4 against attempts to ”to set a deadline for UN reform or to impose voting on draft proposals on which major differences exist”.

All these states could vote against or abstain from the G-4 resolution. Domestically, the G-4 governments have staked a lot on permanent membership of the Council.

India, for instance, has been trying since 1994 to generate support for this ‘prestigious’ position as an acknowledgement, even if symbolic, of its emergence as a major, ‘responsible’ power.

Citing ‘democratisation’ of the UN, the G-4 originally demanded the ‘same responsibilities and obligations’ as the P-5, meaning the veto. But when the major powers, especially the US, signalled their opposition to this, the G-4 pledged not to use the veto for 15 years.

The resolution tabled in the General Assembly on Wednesday will not clinch the issue of Security Council expansion with new members. It is only one of three resolutions on the cards. If passed, it will pave the way for the election of new members by secret ballot within 12 weeks.

”It is at this stage that one can expect real conflicts to break out”, said Agha. ”Various states will then start bargaining and jockeying and the G-4 could break up – so far, the Four have resisted attempts to divide them, but this may not last,” he added.

India is widely expected to receive the backing of the US, Russia, France, and the UK. In that case, China too will not oppose India, but may treat it separately from the G-4.

The crucial role then will be Washington’s which has shown inclination to back India’s candiadature said Fabian adding that there will however be a ”price to pay for backing by the US for India’s bid”.

”India will have to assure Washington that it will act as its ally and friend. This means sacrificing independence in foreign policy-making and autonomy in international affairs, something that Indians have always been proud of,” Fabian said.

”Besides, he added, ” the US has an eye on India’s vast human resources potential, including its military manpower, which could be drafted into so-called joint operations led by the US”.

Distinct hints have been recently dropped about what the US expects from India. A senior US official on a visit to New Delhi said India would be expected to back an amendment to the United Nations Charter, which would allow a state to use military force ”in anticipatory self-defence”.

This goes against the spirit of the Charter, and would allow, say, the US to invade Iraq without specific Security Council authorisation.

”Already, on June 28, the US and India signed a highly controversial defence cooperation agreement, which erodes New Delhi’s policy independence and permits all manner of joint operations” pointed out Agha.

”The deal extends even to matters like Ballistic Missile Defence, which India’s stated position opposes. That apart, the agreement is highly skewed in favour of the US and bypasses any reference to the need for UN sanction for joint ‘multinational’ operations of the kind undertaken in Iraq”.

The fact that India’s Parliament passed a resolution condemning the invasion of Iraq clearly shows that there is little popular support in this country for military adventurism and there already are complaints there has been no public discussion on defence cooperation with the US.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is due to meet President George W. Bush in the US on July 18 and issues relating to a quid pro quo for US support are expected to be discussed.

But it is already clear to most observers that India is finding its scope for independent policy shrinking, rather than expanding as it moves closer to the Security Council’s exclusive club.