What is required is the expansion of the UNSC and revisions in the UN charter to make it a more credible organisation
China has played a major role in promoting authoritarianism in India's immediate neighbourhood. After the People's Republic of China assumed the seat previously held by the Republic of China on October 25, 1971, it vetoed 16 draft resolutions on various non-procedural decisions of the UNSC. Its veto has been used in favour of Syria, North Korea, Myanmar and Pakistan. China has actively used its veto in South Asia against Indian interests.
In the case of Bangladesh, Beijing tried to create diplomatic awkwardness for India and Bangladesh when it tried to defer the UN membership of the newborn nation during 1972-74. Following the line of Pakistan, it vehemently opposed the creation of Bangladesh.
Similarly, its veto on the Myanmar issue is no different. In 2007, the Buddhist monks and the people of Myanmar took to the streets to protest decades of dictatorial rule and economic mismanagement by Burma's Junta (military generals). In the process of suppression, there were widespread human rights violations, and the issue was taken up at the UNSC. The US could do little owing to the Chinese veto.
China cited the developments and stated that it concerns an “internal affair of a sovereign State. The current domestic situation in Myanmar does not constitute a threat to international or regional peace and security.” Because of its economic aid and weapons sales to both the Junta and the armed ethnic groups in Myanmar, China vetoed the resolution.
Although the absence of democracy isolated the country, it had regional repercussions geopolitically. In order to bring the country in its grip and further isolate it, China became its most significant supplier of military aides with a total of $440 million during 2014-16. Even in 2021, when the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi was ousted, China again blocked the UNSC resolution to highlight political suppression in Myanmar.
Indian interests have been compromised. For instance, the continued tactical Chinese support to the Arakan Army (A.A.) has security implications for India. In 2017, the construction of a road worth $220 million was given to a Delhi-based contractor, C&C Constructions. During the tenure of the Project, A.A. abducted the Indian workers and damaged the building material. The crossover of drugs and small arms from Myanmar has been the cause of concern for the securities agencies in Delhi.
Apart from the Coco Islands, military installations near Yangon, Moulmein and Manaung and a listening facility at Ramree Islands (in Rakhine Province) only display the larger plan of China against India. The presence of fully functional comprehensive signals intelligence (SIGINT) collecting facility at all these Islands has been a cause of concern for India. Hence, Beijing has used the situation in Myanmar to establish its military presence in India's vicinity. All these developments took place while Myanmar was diplomatically isolated while being shielded by China.
Recently, China blocked a bid by India and the U.S. to designate Abdul Rauf Asghar as a global terrorist in the UN Security Council 1267 Sanctions Committee. He is one of the masterminds of the IC 814 hijacking, attack on Parliament (2001), and attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot (2016). Had he been listed as a global terrorist, it would have helped India and the U.S. to subject him to various restrictions such as travel ban and assets freeze, bringing regional peace and security. Geopolitically, our neighbours did not wish so, and China has the objective to keep India engaged with Pakistan, while simultaneously trying to play a regional hegemon terrorizing democratic countries like Taiwan and Japan. The objective is clear: do not let democratic countries come together on common joint issues. It fears their undivided attention on China might be a hurdle in its sinister intentions in the region and beyond. Thus, Beijing places its faith and gambles on “spoiler states” like Pakistan to keep the balance of power in its favour. Thus, it would be right to assert that China has encouraged authoritarian regimes surrounding India, and the Chinese debt trap policies and a collaborative Sino-Pak threat complicates the current South Asian security scenario.
What then remains a solution for India and the U.S. in the case of Asghar? Can Article 51 of the UN Charter be used to resolve the issues of Pakistan-based terror groups that get shielded by countries like China? Article 51 asserts, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security”. The UNSC renders itself ineffective. Further, today, what constitutes an armed attack against a nation cannot be reflected by a charter signed more than 75 years back. For instance, do the role of proxy wars, the funding, and the arming of terrorist organisations as done by Pakistan against India not constitutes an ‘armed attack’? The role of a nation's armed forces in collaborating with terrorist organisations should be considered an ‘armed attack’.
In the above background, UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX), 1976 stated that “the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State” should also constitute an armed attack. It was later re-asserted by the ICJ as international customary law in the Nicaragua case (1986), which spoke of a State's right to self-defence in an armed attack. Nevertheless, after defining an armed attack, the next question is what constitutes self-defence and to what extent can an individual or a group of countries go for its practice? If the war is ‘different’, the responses must also be ‘different’.
The choice ranges from pinpointed strikes against the mercenaries to increasing Pakistan's financial squeeze by blacklisting it through FATF. Further, the charter and the discussions on revisions should reflect hybrid warfare, malicious use of artificial intelligence and cyber-attacks.
Thus, the UN Charter does not reflect the contemporary geopolitical realities. The UNSC is the body of the five nations that won the Second World War. Today, China's hegemonic intentions have been acknowledged by almost all democratic countries. Further, what is required is the expansion of the UNSC and revisions in the UN charter itself to make it a more credible organisation. Including countries like India, Japan and Germany might make the world more peaceful. India is moving fast to be the third largest economy by 2030 and has played an essential role during the Corona pandemic. The country has been an ardent supporter of democracy, peace and military restraint.
Moreover, the “enemy state” clauses are attributed to Germany and Japan through Art 53 (in part) and Art 107 do not serve the larger objective of peace in the Indo-Pacific region. Germany and Japan are now firmly embedded into the U.S.-led security architecture and do not threaten international peace and security. Germany is a full-fledged member of NATO, and Japan is referred to as one of the “partners across the Globe” by NATO. Japan is further under the US nuclear security umbrella.
One wonders why the “enemy state clauses” are still relevant. Finally, the three countries deserve full veto power and not just a “modest expansion” as proclaimed by a few countries in order to pacify the three.
(The author is Assistant Professor, Central University of Punjab.)
