In the wake of Saudi Arabia’s refusal to accept a non-permanent seat at the UNSC, it is imperative for India to mobilise world opinions, particularly from West Asian, latin American and African countries, to push for UN reform
Saudi Arabia’s rejection of the non-permanent seat on the UNSC has raised questions about the working style of the UNSC, but the moot point is its elusive reform, as the Security Council has become the fiefdom of the powerful veto-wielding P5, who exploit the highest global office solely for their own interests. The debates generated against the backdrop of the Saudi decision have, till now, focused on the ‘immediate cause of such an unprecedented step in the history of the UN.”
There is consensus about the Syria’s Assad being the most prominent reason — the reluctance of the world community, the UNSC and particularly the Saudi Arabia’s six-decade long closest ally, the US, to act on Syria’s iron man has disenchanted Saudi Arabia. However, opinions differ on the Kingdom’s apprehension of its threat from Shia Crescent, which poses the potential to diminish the King Abdullah’s influence on the Muslim world, particularly among Arab nations, even as they have already witnessed Assad going scot-free and Iran being let off the hook on the nuclear crisis.
Surprisingly, the rejection of the UNSC seat didn’t stir reactions from around the world, except the equivocating Arab nations making some noises about the West’s treatment of issues of grave concerns and the need for urgent reform of the UNSC. But more astonishing is the silence of the G4 claimants to the permanent seats at the Security Council. The Saudi decision brings to the fore two vital points — first, choosing a covert foreign policy can be more yielding then sitting duck at the UNSC as Security Council members cast votes in a highly visible forum with the full glare of international publicity, and second, the disappointment points the finger at the high expectation from the UN Security Council.
Regional imbalance and bitterness
It is almost seven decades since the birth of the UN that the composition of the Security Council has remained unchanged, save Russia replacing the erstwhile USSR and the Peoples’ Republic of China taking over the Republic of China. The regional imbalance gives undue weight to Europe, which accounts for merely 6 per cent of the world’s population.
The UNSC has become a fiefdom of the veto-wielding five permanent members. The US has used its veto power maximum number of times, while China has done the minimum times. Moreover, the level of UNSC involvement and the kind of treatment to a country in crisis depend on the nation’s ability to reciprocate in cash and kind. Therefore, there is one set of laws for oil-producing Kuwait and another for poverty-stricken Nigeria.
There is no representation in the UNSC from latin America and the African continent. With China’s covert foreign policy and its habit of shying away from using Veto button, except for Russia there are no savior for India, or rather Asia, at the UNSC.
More strikingly, as per the UN charter, each member nation contains just one vote irrespective of its stature as economic, military and regional power. Therefore, the world’s second largest country, India, is equal in importance to a country 100 times smaller than it.
Where does India standIJ
The world’s largest democracy and third-largest economy (in terms of purchasing power) and one of three largest contributors to UN peacekeeping operations entered the UNSC for its seventh term as a non-permanent member on January 1, 2011. During its two-year stint at the Security Council, India, unlike other non-permanent member, influenced the outcomes of UNSC decisions on variety of issues.
Although, on home front in the South Asia, some experts criticise its unproductive roles in Nepal, Maldives and Bangladesh, it is not a balanced assessment. India successfully utilised the highest office at the UNSC to curb international intervention in Nepal and Maldives. It is well known that on India’s insistence, the UN mission concluded its review during Nepal’s political transition within a month. However, due to lack of wisdom of our leadership, we lost some goodwill by taking partisan position in Nepal.
Even in Maldives, any role of the UN was curtailed by the concerted efforts of India. However, when India’s term at the UNSC is over, the international community’s intervention in Maldives has increased.
On the Af-Pak front, India, through its good offices at the UNSC, ensured the UN resolutions 1988, 1999 were not diluted to rein in terrorism emanating from the western boundary by active connivance of Pakistan’s ISI and Taliban. Much to its credit, the UNSC introduced Counter Terrorism Committee to nip terrorism in the bud.
Removing hurdles
India’s has the backing of four of the five major players — France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States — and several countries in Europe, Asia, and latin America and Africa for its stake to the permanent seat on the UNSC. The change of attitude of the US and France is much due to India’s growing economic power and its strategic location vis-à-vis China and the troubled West Asia.
Obama’s open support to India’s claim to the UNSC may seem surprising for the uninitiated. India-US interaction at the UN needed high level of diplomacy, as debates and decisions concerning West Asia and North Africa region generally hogged the UN resolutions. During several of such resolutions, India and the US were on diametrically opposite points. But at the same time, India used diplomacy to escape embarrassing situations on the several issues. For example, on libya, India abstained along with 4 other members on a resolution calling for a no-fly zone, and the resolution was passed by the remaining 10 votes in the UNSC.
The case of Syria required more manoeuvering. India, being at that time the UNSC president, averted a resolution and the resultant voting. But its support to Palestine for UN membership put India against the US. Nevertheless, by commiting for the welfare of Palestinians, India has earned fame in the West Asia.
Despite all these differences with the US, India has managed to bag the US support to its claim to the UNSC. Therefore, the ultimate hurdle, China, which has recently shown some warmth towards India’s quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council, can be influenced if India makes concerted effort to improve the bilateral relations and assuages the Dragon’s fears of economic rivalry. If China is tackled, India’s endeavour for the highest seat of all powerful global body will not remain a pipe dream.
Conclusion
In its latest term at the UNSC as a non-permanent member, India faced a formidable challenge on the West Asian crisis. India was on test to prove its efficacy in negotiating three most dangerous issues on Syria, Iran and North Korea. Now as India has proved its mettle and respect from all quarters, it is imperative for India to mobilise world opinions, particularly from West Asian, latin American and African countries, to push for UN reform.
The membership to the UNSC, particularly for a developing country, carries some costs — as friends and foes dealt at an open global forum — but achieving recognition as an international power outweighs the disadvantage. And veto-wielding India can solve much of its energy, economic and strategic concerns, particularly on its west.
(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)