Generally
taken as an enhancement of number of permanent members of UNSC, should also be
taken as democratisation of the working and decision making process of the UNO,
especially at UNSC. It means that issue is not only countries like INDIA
getting UNSC permanent membership with veto power but also the way in which and
the issue for which these countries are going to be different from the way in
which the present P5 has used the veto power.
Need
for Security Council reforms:
·
The present situation
reflects the geo political realities of 1945 and not of 2013. In 1945 the UNSC
consisted of 11 members, total UNO membership was 51, about 22%. In 2013 UNSC
consisted of 15 members but total UN membership was more than 190, fewer than
8%.
·
Europe which accounts
for barely 5% of world population still controls 33% of seats in any given
year.
·
Germany and Japan’s
financial contribution to UN budget at 12% and 19%, still out of UN power
structure because they lost the World War II.
·
India and Brazil
contributed substantially in kind and in time by participating in UN
peacekeeping.
·
While taking the size
of country and population India claim is but natural and understandable. India
always staked its international power heaving on multilateral institutions –
the common wealth, NAM, UNO, and in limited extent to WTO.
·
Active participant in
UN system and UN peacekeeping mission donned the mantel of the leader of the
developing world to the multilateral political bodies and voiced for the cause
of ‘have-nots’ of all hues economic to
nuclear.
·
Tended to position
itself some where between the powerful and powerless, the rich and the poor and
between contending ideological groups and that promoted it to up for
non-alignment as a means for achievement of national independence in foreign
policy formulation and relation.
WHICH
WAY INDIA IS CLAMING TO HAVE A PERMANENT SEAT IN UNSC???
· Group of four Brazil,
Germany, Japan and India support each others claim and of ready to accept UN
permanent membership with out veto power.
·
On the claims of
Germany and Japan, Italy counter claims on the ground that these two got
defeated in World War II.
·
China and South Korea
against Japan’s claim for historical reasons.
·
Pakistan against India
due to the rivalry of siblings.
·
Argentina and Mexico
against Brazil’s claim because Portuguese Brazil representing Hispanic Latin
America.
·
Whom to represent
Africa whether Nigeria biggest democracy or largest economy South Africa or
Egypt the oldest civilization???
·
‘Coffee club to uniting
for consensus’ – Canada and Spain are genuine motivated by principles and
consider the existence of permanent membership to be wrong to begin with.
·
Many others like
Pakistan are only openly animated by a spirit of competition or historical
grievance or simple envy. Bonded together in to an effective coalition to
thwart any reform.
DIFFERENT
OPTIONS:
1. New
permanent membership with out veto power.
2. Rotating
permanent membership – rival claimants enjoying shared or semi permanent
membership.
3. Regional
rotation options – rotation of permanent membership at the helm.
PROCEDURAL
DIFFICULTIES:
·
Amendment procedural of
UN charter set rather high, requires 2/3rd majority of the overall
member countries - 129 of 193 countries are the general assembly members.
·
Further have to be
ratified by 2/3rd of the member states usually by parliament
procedure. A country like France it may be calling for a referendum.
Reforms
are inevitable, what look’s anolomous today will seem absurd tomorrow. British
or French veto of resolution of South Asia with India absent from the table???
India
should help USA to practice what USA preaches.Only because of USA, Germany was
brought in to international politics. The USA called for rearming Germany.
French hand is comparatively weak but they play so carefully to see that they
win the play.
POSITION
OF UK AND FRANCE:
·
EU is a normative
power. UNSC single seat for EU. EU should claim and secure UNSC permanent seat/
membership.
·
The present members
France and UK have to make the supreme sacrifice of voluntarily relinquishing
their seats.
·
Germany should not insist on its claim.
·
EU should use its veto
power sensible and for common good (not only of 27 EU members).
·
EU should support
Brazil, India, Japan and South Africa claims. Together they should work unison
in achieving the established goals of UN through ‘effective multilateralism’.
NEED
OF THE HOUR:
·
UNSC must remain true
to its aspiration of creating a new and alternative universality. Should be
clear about what value is stand for in the international system since its
legitimacy will come from its ability to stand for the highest human and
universal values.
·
Should aim not just
being powerful it should set new standards for what the powerful must do.
CONCLUDING
REMARKS:
Only
when UNSC is allowed to take its decisions democratically and on issues
concerning all, the UN will be achieved.
UNO
was not created to take mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell. If
the UNOsucceeds the EU succeeds and the whole world succeeds. UNO NEEDS AND
DESERVES TO SUCCEED.
- DAM HAMMERSKJOLD – UN SECRETARY GENERAL
“It is already becoming clear that a chapter
which had a western beginning will have to have an Indian ending if it is not
to end in the self destruction of the human race. At this supremely dangerous
moment in history, the only way of salvation for mankind is the Indian way”
- Dr. ARNOLD TOYNBEE,
BRITISH HISTORIAN
written by KOLLABATHINI SIDDHARDHA
Posts
Good ba
ReplyDelete