Indo-Asian News Service
Washington, June 20, 2005
There is something in the diplomatic atmospherics in Washington that
suggests India's aspirations to permanent membership of the UN Security
Council may get some dramatic endorsement, perhaps from President
George W Bush himself, during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's first
official visit next month.
As grand gestures go, nothing could be bigger at this juncture of
bilateral relations than Washington seconding New Delhi's long and so
far fruitless quest for a seat on the Security Council.
The rhetoric within the US foreign policy establishment has already
changed from one of steadfast rejection of any new members to open
acceptance of at least two new ones.
Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, in a clear
departure from his own boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's
assertions to the contrary, spoke of the possibility of two new
members, including Japan and one from the developing world.
On the day Rice reiterated the US position of not disengaging the
Security Council reform from the larger question of the UN reform,
Burns presented a far more flexible approach.
"We are not prepared to have Security Council reform sprint out ahead
of the other extremely important reforms that have to take place.
Management reform, secretariat reform, peace building, issues about
non-proliferation, issues about how we build a democracy fund.
These are core to what the UN is, and we are determined that this is
going to go forward in a way that draws people's attention and people's
commitment to those reform measures, too. We simply will not let
Security Council reform sprint out ahead of other reforms," Rice said
on the afternoon of June 16.
A few hours before her Burns was offering an approach, quite obviously
cleared by Rice herself, far more nuanced and inclusive. The criteria
the US had in mind for new permanent members, he said, were,
"Certainly, the size of a country's economy is important; the size of
its population; its military capacity, its potential to contribute
militarily to United Nations peacekeeping missions; its contributions
to peacekeeping; its commitment to democracy and human rights; its
financial contributions to the United Nations system; its record and
commitment on counter terrorism; its record and commitment on
non-proliferation; and we have to look, of course, at the geographic
balance, overall, of how the Security Council is constituted."
That perspective sounded so much like what India's External Affairs
Minister K Natwar Singh had spoken about during his March visit to
Washington. Those were precisely the points that Singh had cited as
qualifying India for a seat.
What has apparently cracked the US resistance is the new draft offered
by the Group of Four (G-4) - India, Germany, Japan and Brazil - under
which the veto would be frozen for 15 years for new members.
The biggest inhibiting factor against an expanded Security Council has
been whether to grant the veto to new members. In varying degrees all
the current five members, the US, Britain, Russia, France and China
have been opposed to granting them the veto. The G-4 draft offers a
possible way out.
Of the four aspirants for the membership, Japan has explicit US
support, Germany has been almost categorically turned down because that
would mean too much representation from Europe and Brazil, although
important, is not in the same league as India in terms of its global
influence. That leaves India a great opening.
Indian diplomats, including Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, have
frequently said the US remains open to India's membership despite its
posturing to the contrary.
While their contentions have been rejected by a sceptical media as
being too optimistic, there are chances that behind the scenes the two
countries are working on a deal.
Against this backdrop it seems plausible that the Bush administration
is quietly working towards expression of formal support for India's
permanent membership. Since timing is of the essence, it could well
choose the occasion of the Indian Prime Minister's visit to make the
announcement.
A membership of the Council has an emotional content to it as far as
the people of India are concerned. In that sense many of them believe
that quite like possessing nuclear weapons a seat on the Council is
India's sovereign right. Whether both those perspectives are of any
real consequence is an open question.
----------------
Jai Hind!
Carlos
