Relevance of UN reforms

The United Nations is the central pillar of global governance. It is critical

that its organs constantly ensure its principal importance, relevance and
legitimacy in the international community.
The General Assembly today requires serious revitalization so that it
actually plays its role as the chief deliberative and policy making body of
the United Nations. It must also reclaim its place in taking the most
important of administrative decisions in the United Nations. This is critical
so that all 192 member-states have a full sense of participation in the
United Nations and believe that their voice has impact.
The structure of the Security Council continues to reflect post Second
World War and not contemporary realities. This detracts severely from its
legitimacy. It also does not allow it to harness the benefits from the shifts
in the global power balance in the last sixty-five years.
Security Council reform has been on the UNs agenda for nearly two
decades. Much of this time was spent in an endless open ended working
group. However, the text based inter-governmental negotiations, that
started last year, have now brought us to a turning point where we can
move things forward with real negotiations on Council reform.
An overwhelming majority of UN member-states have repeatedly
expressed themselves in favour of expansion of the Security Council in
both its permanent and non-permanent categories and an improvement in
its working methods. It is imperative that all the countries of Asia and
Europe solidly support an expansion in both categories and collectively
push for real reform of the Security Council.

The time for this reform has not only come, it is imperative that we brook
no delay as that will only be at the expense of the United Nations, which is
not in the interest of any of us, individually or collectively.

Indias bid for permanent SC seat

G-4

G-4 is a group of four countries bidding for a permanent membership of

the UNSC. The countries are: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany.
The support each others bid for the permanent seat
Countries that strongly oppose an expansion of UNSC have formed the
United for Consensus movement (aka Coffee club) that comprises of
over 40 countries.
o The leaders of this movement are Italy, Pakistan, Argentina, Mexico
and South Korea

Recent Developments

India elected as a non-permanent member of SC for 2011-12.

Through this India has the opportunity to strengthen its role as a global
player in political issues
India will have to take position on important issues affecting the world
Indias problems in Kashmir ill serves its aspirations to join the league of
permanent members.
With regard to the SC reforms, all P-5, except China have voiced an
unequivocal support for inclusion of India in the reformed SC
As for India being a nuclear weapon state, it is increasingly being accepted
in the statements by the leaders of the countries. In the 2010 visit of
Sarkozy, Obama and Medvedev the joint statement referred to states with
nuclear weapons. Only China didnt include this in the joint statement.
Till now as the NP member in 2011, India has
o Become the chair of the counter terrorism committee
o Chair of working group 1566 which deals with threats to
international peace and stability by terrorist acts
o

G-20

In 2010, G-20 ministers decided to provide a larger share of quota to

developing countries through reforms in the IMF.

India poised to become the eighth largest holder of quotas after the IMF
reforms.

List of UNSC non-permanent members (2011)

East Europe
o Bosnia-Herzegovina
West Europe
o Germany
o Portugal
Asia
o India
o Lebanon
Africa
o Gabon
o South Africa
o Nigeria
Latin America
o Columbia
o Brazil

Africa in UN

Ezulwini Consensus of AU calls for African countries being represented in

the UNSC

http://www.hindu.com/2010/12/22/stories/2010122257061400.htm

When India sits at the horseshoe table

Chinmaya R. Gharekhan
We must not treat our non-permanent membership of the Security Council over the next two
years as a probationary period for our aspirations for permanent membership.
On January 1, 2011, India will take its seat at the Horseshoe Table in the temporary structure
of the United Nations building in New York; the original building is undergoing massive
renovation which will last another 3-4 years. It has been 20 long years since this writer had
the privilege of taking his colleagues in the permanent mission to the Security Council to
represent India. We all felt proud, as should the present permanent representative and his
team. Twenty years sounds like, and is, a long time, considering that there was never a gap of
more than six years for India to be returned to the Council. Successive governments in Delhi
hesitated to contest for a seat on the Council after Japan thrashed us in the election for a nonpermanent seat in 1996 142 votes for Japan, 40 for India! (No, this writer was not the PR at
the time.) This time, only five countries did not vote for us and Pakistan was not one of them.
In the meanwhile, other aspirants for permanent membership have had at least two 2-year
terms on the Council, not that it means much insofar as a country's case for permanent
membership is concerned.

The uninitiated might be curious about the functioning of the Security Council, perceived to
be the most important organ of the United Nations charged with the awesome responsibility
of maintaining peace and security in the world. How do 15 countries discharge the nearly
impossible task of preventing a breach of peace or of punishing those found guilty of
committing aggression against another country? (The crucial word is found'.) The answer is:
they do not always manage to do justice to their mandate, or, rather, they manage to do that
less often than not. It cannot be emphasised enough that the Security Council is not a court of
law, it does not take its decisions on the basis of merits of a case or complaint; its decisions
are almost always the result of hard negotiations among its members, or, to give the process
its proper description, horse-trading around the horseshoe table, especially among the
permanent members. Sometimes, the act of aggression is so blatant that unanimity is reached
without even having to discuss the issue, as was the case with Iraq in 1990 when Saddam
Hussein attempted to swallow Kuwait. But when India complained about Pakistan's
aggression in December 1947, our case got tangled in what was still the incipient stage of the
Cold War. We never got satisfaction, or justice, from the Council. We ought to realise by now
that the Council is not about justice in any legal or moral sense; it is and will always be a
political body, which tries its best to clothe its judgments in a legalistic and moral language.
However, once we recognise this as we must everything will fall in place and we ought
to be prepared to play by the rules, mostly unwritten, which guide the work of the Council.
A few words about the modus operandi of the Council might be useful. After more than six
decades, the Council still does not have definitive rules of procedure; it functions on the basis
of provisional rules which nobody wants to tamper with. The presidency of the Council
rotates among its members every month according to the English alphabetical order. Thus,
India will become President in August 2011. Normally, a non-permanent member gets to
serve as President twice during its term. The President calls other members for informal
consultations in the first week to decide on the organisation of work' for the month. This is
done on the basis of the agenda of the Council and other factors. The only slight discretion
the President has is about the timing of convening the meeting. The written rule is that the
President must call the meeting when a member of the Council asks for it but even this
requirement is not always respected, most often by one or more permanent members. All
substantive decisions are held in informal meetings held in a small room next to the main
chamber and all compromises and concessions are worked out in bilateral or more-lateral
conclaves outside the Council, often even outside the U.N. building and in capitals around the
world. There is no requirement for a quorum, but the firm practice is for all 15 members to be
present before the President calls the meeting to order. The then Soviet Union boycotted the
meeting of the Council in the early 1950s to protest against China being represented by the
Kuomintang regime based in Taiwan instead of the new PRC and regretted it forever; in its
absence, the Council branded North Korea the aggressor and authorised military operations;
the American troops based in South Korea are still technically blue helmets serving under the
U.N. flag.
The Charter of the United Nations, which is its Constitution, is truly a remarkable document.
It is amazing how the countries participating in the San Francisco conference in 1945 reached
agreement during the brief period of three months on the text of the Charter. The article
containing the famous veto took the longest time to agree upon. What it says is that any
decision on a substantive matter needs the concurring votes of the permanent members. Over
time, concurring' has come to be accepted as meaning no negative' vote of a permanent
member. Thus a permanent member may abstain or even not cast its vote on a particular
resolution so as to not block its adoption. The politics of this is that when a permanent

member abstains, it is in effect voting in favour whereas when a non-permanent member

abstains, it is usually meant to indicate its unhappiness with the resolution but is unwilling,
always for a political reason, to actually vote against.
Some members of the strategic' community in our country have convinced themselves that it
is not in India's interest to serve on the Council since it will compel us to speak up, take
positions on issues which it would be politic for us to avoid. However, the same experts are
anxious for us to play a major or big power role on international stage. We cannot have it
both ways; we must not shy away from taking position'; that would not suggest prudence but
lack of confidence in ourselves. At times, we will invariably make one or more countries
unhappy with our stance but that comes with the turf. Besides, there is also the bright side;
we can use our membership to oblige some countries.
When India came aboard the Council in 1991, this writer was convinced that we must utilise
our membership to undo the damage that had been caused to our interests and moral authority
by prevaricating on the question of Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. Our refusal to
condemn' Saddam Hussein's action for misguided reasons cost us dear in diplomacy. It was
not a question of doing the right thing; it was above all a question of taking a position which
would have been completely in our national interest, besides having the added advantage of
being right'. The fact that we were isolated in NAM was not bothersome; after all, we were
isolated on the question of NPT. This writer remembers a meeting between Indian and
Kuwaiti Foreign Ministers in the U.N. building. The Indian Minister, who knew Kuwait was
not happy with India, assured his Kuwaiti colleague that India was 100 per cent, even 110
per cent with Kuwait. The Kuwaiti said: Excellency, we would be satisfied with 100 per
cent, all we want is that India should condemn Iraq's aggression'. Even then, we refused to
use the word condemn'. We effectively used our membership in the Council to repair the
damage caused by our short-sighted approach by voting in favour of resolutions, or by
abstaining on resolutions which were not to our great liking; we contented ourselves by
making strong statements in explanation of our votes.
We must not treat our non-permanent membership over the next two years as a probationary
period for our aspirations for permanent membership. That would be a huge mistake. We
must deal with issues, including what might appear to be difficult ones, by the yardstick of
our national interests, and not by how our vote will please or displease some members. This
might be easier said than done. We will come under pressure from others. After all, no
country follows a truly independent line. But if we justify our vote by the criterion of our
interests, others will understand. More importantly, the people of India will understand. The
government must take the citizens of our country into confidence and must be more proactive
in explaining its decisions to the people.
The Security Council has become more assertive in expanding its jurisdiction in dealing with
issues which might not fall within the rubric of security'; it has tended to interpret its
mandate more broadly. It is only a matter of time before it decides to discuss environment
and other such issues. It is in India's interest to be associated with a body which might draft
new rules of international behaviour. While it would be wonderful to have the right of veto, it
is simply not going to happen. Permanent membership without veto, if and when it happens,
will be of immense importance for us. If that were not the case, why would some countries so
vehemently oppose it?