Policy paralysis may cost India UN permanent seat

By Devirupa Mitra

 

The aversion towards risk-taking at the top echelons of the political establishment may take another casualty - India's desire for a permanent seat around the horseshoe table. The dream seems to slip away with New Delhi dithering over a decision to bring a resolution to vote in United Nations General Assembly. 

While India's term as non-permanent member of UN security council ends in December, the effort gone into behind-the-scenes discussions and creating the stage to introduce a resolution for a probable vote on UNSC reforms could come to naught, with the current session of GA drawing to a close.

While the session lasts till end of August, the actual period left for any substantive work is much less. "In August, UN becomes empty as most of the PRs go on vacation. So, the decision to go or not to go for a vote has to be taken in July. The window of opportunity is extremely narrow," said a senior MEA official.

The group of four aspiring permanent seat members, called the G-4, had floated a draft short resolution which only called for an expansion in theUNSC's two membership categories. The strategy was that once this resolution sailed through the GA, then there will be a second tier of country-specific resolutions on nominations to the expanded UNSC permanent membership. "This would have helped in getting the votes of those countries, who perhaps had objections to candidature of specific countries".

But, there is a question mark on whether the first resolution will be tabled at all. "Frankly this time, we have not been able to come to a decision. The green light has to come from top and there is no appetite there to take a risk right now," said the official.

The 'risk' is that it's always difficult to predict with total certainty that the resolution will get the requisite two-third majority. "We have more than 80 written supports for the short resolution, with oral commitments from other countries, including a big chunk of African group. So we certainly have the numbers, but will everybody vote as expected... ultimately, we have to call their bluff," he said.

In a way to mitigate the risk, Indian diplomats have been cultivating the L69 group of countries to introduce the resolution, instead of the G4 - so as to deflect some of the opposition. The L69 is a group of 41 developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America, currently coordinated by Jamaica.

This plan had been implemented since last year, and clearly demonstrated by India's assiduous identification with L69 positions during the various meetings of the Intergovernmental negotiations  (IGN) which debated the various formulas bing proposed by the various groups from the Coffee club to the S-5.

During these rounds, several countries have already remarked on the similarities of the positions of the L69 and G4, with the only area of contention being the use of veto.

The G4 has proposed that new permanent members will voluntarily suspend the use of veto for a certain period of time, but the L69 wants there to be no difference in powers between the newer and older members of UNSC. The African countries do not want the veto power of new permanent members to be diluted, and have publicly supported the L69 proposals.

The chairman of the IGN has convened another session for July 2 to take stock of the various proposals, and to give his views of the road ahead. "We will certainly be pushing for some concrete action," said a senior MEA official.

Out of the G4, Brazil and India, who are also L69 members, have been a strong proponent to push for a resolution, while Japan and Germany have been recently less keen to move forward, beset with economic difficulties and bouts of national self-doubt.

"If a (G4/L69) resolution is finally to be tabled, it will certainly not be a short resolution, but along the lines of the G4 draft resolution of 2005," he said.

In 2005, G4 had floated a draft resolution, but it was never bought to vote and lapsed in the face of opposition of US and China, as well as the African’s insistence on the right to veto.