India and UN: better off out or in

[rsingh]

Each and every time I hear the word UN,i hear the word "unjustice" echoing in my mind. A country representing 1/5 of Humanity is treated as par as tribal countries with population less the millions. A civilisations that traces its roots to more then 3000BC is asked to find its place somewhere in the crowds of so called countries. India has been one of the richest country from the begning of history till 1805 AD (when its industry was destroyed systematically. We should not take it any more as status quo. We have right leadership,right economy,right military strength and right demography to make the move. Now. It is now or never. Big five Are never going to give power to other countries voluntarily. Let's not fool ourselves.

Some reference material

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Article 2
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
A joke? UN ensures that sovereignty of big 5 is holier then other countrie
http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/may/18rajeev.htm
A good article

More to come

[Prem]

BIG VICTORY FOR INDIA AS UN ADOPTS TEXT-BASED NEGOTIATIONS ON UNSC REFORMS
http://thenamopatrika.com/big-victory-f ... c-reforms/

United Nations: The UN General Assembly on Monday adopted a negotiating text by consensus for the long- pending Security Council reforms, setting the stage for talks on the issue at its 70th session beginning tomorrow, boosting India’s bid for a permanent seat in the revamped world body.
India termed as “historic” and “path-breaking” the adoption of the document, saying the decision puts the Inter- Governmental Process formally on an “irreversible text-based negotiations path” and changes the “dynamics” of the negotiations on achieving UNSC reforms.“Fact that India stood together with group of countries which was in favor of UNSC reform means now we have broad consensus on way forward,” Swarup added.
There was no voting on the decision to continue text- based UNSC reforms in the 70th session of the General Assembly and it was adopted by consensus.The adoption is a significant step towards beginning talks on the long-stalled reforms process in the 70th session of the Assembly on the basis of a negotiating text, a first in the last seven years of Inter-Governmental Negotiations that have been conducted so far without the basis of any text.India’s Ambassador to the UN Asoke Mukerji said the “most important aspect” of today’s decision is the text circulated by Kutesa in July which “we have agreed will be the guiding basis for our deliberations in the 70th General Assembly session”.“What you have delivered today… To all 193 Member States of the United Nations, is truly historic and path- breaking on several counts,” Mukerji told the Assembly.With the 69th session of the General Assembly concluding tomorrow, Kutesa presented the text for adoption and to be carried forward to the 70th session beginning tomorrow.He had achieved a breakthrough of sorts by circulating the text to UN members that will form the basis for the Inter- Governmental negotiations on the UNSC reforms.
With the adoption, the General Assembly decided to “immediately continue Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Security Council reform in informal plenary of the General Assembly at its 70th session, building on the informal meetings held during its 69th session, as well as the positions and proposals made by member states…”The draft also states that an open-ended Working Group on the negotiating text will be convened during the 70th session “if member states so decide”.Kutesa, in a letter to all UN members in July, had circulated the text containing the positions of countries on Security Council reforms and how the UN body should be expanded in its permanent and non-permanent categories.He also circulated letters containing the positions of groups and member states that indicated they did not wish their proposals to be included in the body of the negotiating text. These countries include the US, Russia and China.Mukerji today said the need for a supportive international peace and security environment is urgent and “if the Security Council continues to be ineffective, the lives of millions of people and the uninterrupted flow of trade, investment and technology, all of which depend on a stable and predictable global political environment will be jeopardised”.He said the decision to carry forward the reforms process is not just a “technical decision, nor is it a rollover but highly substantive”.“This is the first time in the history of the Inter- Governmental Negotiation (IGN) process that a decision on UNSC reform has been adopted through an official formal L Document of the UNGA.“This is the most positive and unique development, as so far, over the last seven years we have only been making statements in the air, or at each other, with easily deniable or disputable summaries, or at times compilation text(s), to register our endeavours,” he said.He said the adoption of such a “substantive decision” on UNSC Reforms “changes the dynamics of the Inter-governmental negotiations” completely.

[SSridhar]

Just to add more to the above, from ToI - By Indrani Bagchi & Sachin Parashar

Excerpts

Amid protests from China, Russia and Pakistan, the UN general assembly on Monday agreed to adopt a negotiating text for security council reforms.

China dismissed the move as "not fair, not transparent", as did Russia and Pakistan, but none of them could muster up the support to oppose the adoption of the text.

The opposition has not gone away — the big powers opposing the negoitations on the UNSC reform may yet resort to a block later on or in the UN security council. But for the foreseeable future, Monday's decision is a historic one, and could change the future of the UN decisively.

[Vayutuvan]

How can something in black and white (i.e. written record entered into UN records) be "not fair, not transparent"? Lot of cl@p flom oul neighbols nolth east of himarayas.

[Skanda]

Er, What is Russia's problem?

Right now, in the current setup more countries are aligned against Russia (US, UK, France) than for it. By expanding the council, this equation will get diluted, so what are they worried about.

[Kashi]

As per some reports PM is likely to skip UN General Assembly's debate and let Sushma Swaraj fill in for him.

http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... -indian-pm

Sign of things to come vis-a-vis Indian perspective on UN?

[rsingh]

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... s-interest

The most discussed proposal is sponsored by Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil-the so-called Group of Four (G-4) nations aspiring to perma­nent membership on the Security Council. This plan would expand the Security Council from 15 to 25 members by adding six permanent mem­bers without veto power (one for each of the G-4 nations and two for Africa) and four non-perma­nent seats elected for two-year terms. [2] The G-4 plan is supported by the U.K. and France, but strongly opposed by China.
The second proposal is from the 53-nation Afri­can Union (AU) and calls for a 26-member Secu­rity Council. As with the G-4 plan, the AU plan would add six new permanent members, includ­ing two permanent seats for Africa. It differs from the G-4 plan in that it calls for an additional five non-permanent seats instead of four and insists that new permanent members possess the veto.
A third proposal, advanced by the Uniting for Con­sensus (UFC) group, calls for adding 10 non-per­manent members to the Security Council, who can be re-elected. Argentina, Canada, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey are the most prominent supporters of this plan.

China is not ready even for non-vito permanent seat for India. For us it has to be vito power or nothing. i have feeling that nothing will change unless few powerful (but non veto) countries take some radical steps.

[Supratik]

Without veto power it is not of much use. Also it remains to be seen if it helps or harms India's capability to act in isolation against its enemies.

[Chandragupta]

Is it true that Nehru passed over the UNSC slot to 'big brother' China?

[RoyG]

Is it true that Nehru passed over the UNSC slot to 'big brother' China?

Yes.

Not much is going to come of this. Adding one more player to this mix at this point will add to the complexity of shadow war between all the major players. I think it may be another decade or two before we get it.

[Viv S]

Not at the Cost of China: India and the United Nations Security Council, 1950 - Wilson Center

A peculiar atmosphere of rumor surrounds India’s history as a possible permanent member of the Security Council. An online search will lead one to heated debates on the existence, or not, of an early offer to India of a permanent seat on that august body. In 2005, “This Day That Age,” a column in The Hindu, featured a reprint of a 1955 story on Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s denial in Parliament of the rumors of a recent offer of a UN Security Council seat by the Soviet Union, showing both the interest in the topic in 1955 and 2005.[1] Despite Nehru’s denial then, and online debates now, the 1955 offer from the Soviets is in fact well-documented, although perhaps not widely known. The angst over these rumors merges history and contemporary politics, with those arguing that such offers existed, and were refused, keen to ram what they consider to be another nail into the coffin of Jawaharlal Nehru’s reputation, India’s sometime socialist and avowedly secular first Prime Minister, who it is argued, in his idealism, failed to secure India’s national interest.[2]

That the 1955 incident was publicly discussed in 2002 in print by AG Noorani, a major scholar of modern Indian history and politics, has not ended the rumor-mongering.[3] However, new evidence of an even earlier offer—by the US in August 1950—to assist India in assuming a permanent seat at the UN Security Council has recently emerged, adding substantially to what Noorani earlier wrote. Nehru’s rejection of the US offer underlined the consistency of his conviction that the PRC’s legitimate interests must be acknowledged in order to reduce international tensions. Integrating the PRC into the international community by conceding its right to the Chinese seat at the Security Council was in fact a central pillar of Nehru’s foreign policy. Nehru’s skepticism about accepting this offer, and thereby disrupting the dynamics of the UN, revealed the reverence he had for the international organization, despite its flaws. Furthermore, his principled rejection of the US’s suggestion indicates Indian agency in its difficult relations with the US at this time. Finally, Nehru’s sense that India deserved recognition as a great country was made plain, although this was qualified by his refusal to compromise core principles to gain such recognition. That the US made such an approach to India also suggests that the traditional emphasis on the US’s early attempt to pursue an even-handed approach to the subcontinent’s major powers and defer to the UK’s greater experience in the region ought to be reconsidered. Furthermore, this episode enriches our understanding of the US government’s internal wrangling over how to bend the UN to its interests in this early stage of the Cold War.

[rsingh]

Is it possible to find docs (concerning this blunder) in archive? What is GOI's policy about declassifying old files. Is it possible to file a RTI request?

[SSridhar]

Reform eludes UN Security Council - Amb. TP Sreenivasan, The Hindu

The adoption by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) of a consensus resolution for beginning discussions at the Intergovernmental Negotiations Group (ING) on the basis of a framework document has been hailed as historic and path-breaking, but, in actual fact, the UN has not moved anywhere closer to an agreement on reform. The proposal should have been routinely adopted, coming as it did from the president of the General Assembly. Sam Kutesa, the outgoing President of the General Assembly had circulated the framework document at the end of July 2015 after extensive consultations, to serve as a sound basis for the next stage of consultations at the next session. He claimed that it was developed through an “inclusive and transparent process”, which included written submissions.

Trouble arose when some powerful states and groups made submissions, but insisted that their proposals not be included in the framework document. As a result, the president had to prepare his text in two parts, one containing collated views of a number of member states and another reproducing the letters of others.

The document revealed, not for the first time, that the positions of member states remained as wide apart as before and that there was not an iota of hope that a meeting point could be found during the 70th anniversary and beyond.

Opposition to expanison

Many countries, particularly small and middle powers, submitted detailed opinions on each of the specific points on which ideas were sought, such as categories of membership, veto, regional representation, size of the enlarged Council and its working methods and the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. France and the U.K. made their submissions and their views were reflected in the document.

The setback to the whole exercise came from China, Russia, the U.S. and some others, including the Uniting for Consensus Group (opponents of expansion) when they expressed their opinions in vague, but negative terms and kept out of the framework document. This meant that they would prefer the negotiations to continue in the Intergovernmental Negotiations Group without a text at a snail’s pace.

The substance of the positions of China, Russia and the U.S. came as a shock to India and others, who had believed that they had the support of these countries in one form or another. China declared that the time had not come for any serious negotiations, but it would support necessary and reasonable reform, with greater representation for developing countries. Russia was equally vague and supported “any reasonable option of expanding the Council”, but without any change in the veto. The U.S. favoured a “modest expansion”, without supporting any formula under consideration and no alteration or expansion of the veto. {Modest expansion is no problem and that is what it should be but 'no veto' is unacceptable to India} Unlike France and the U.K., these countries made no mention of their support to India as a permanent member. Although the U.S. and Russia later said that there was no change in their position of support to India, their written submissions revealed that their support had no practical value.

Among the permanent members, France was the closest to the Indian position, favouring the inclusion of India, Brazil, Japan and Germany (G-4) and an African representative as permanent members and expansion of the non-permanent category of members. France even expressed no objection to the veto power being extended to the new permanent members. The U.K. supported G-4 as the new permanent members, but without veto.

The positions of China, Russia and the U.S. cast a gloom on the G-4, which proposed a draft resolution to remit the framework document to the ING, under its new chairman, Ambassador Courtenay Rattray of Jamaica. China spread a rumour that it would seek amendments to the draft and even press for a vote. But in the end, China decided to join the consensus to commence text-based discussions, even though it had made clear that the time was not ripe for specific formulations.

The latest decision of the 69th session of the General Assembly did not amount to any change in the impasse on reform of the Security Council, but brought some clarity as to who was on which side. It also became clear that any plan to introduce a substantial draft resolution in the 70th session would be futile. The G-4 or any other group does not have the votes to get a resolution adopted by the General Assembly even to pressurise the Security Council to consider a concrete proposal. The compiled views in the framework document did not show any convergence even within the various groups outside the P-5. A G-4 diplomat told me in New York that the framework document was not likely to add any momentum to the negotiations. It would only ensure that the debate would go on for many more years without any result. The numerous paragraphs within brackets will remain in the text for long. The apparent progress in moving to text based negotiations is illusory. It is the lack of political will that has inhibited progress, not the lack of drafting skills.

India and the G-4 have exhausted all the arguments in favour of expansion and they have to be more and more inventive in promoting their proposals. They have already made a compromise on the veto, the claim to which would be suspended for fifteen years or so. The next step will be to accept anything less than permanent membership, such as extended non-permanent terms, subject to re-election every five years or more. The only achievement that they can boast of is the support of France and U.K., but it can melt away as part of a P-5 consensus at very short notice.

G-4 has so far maintained a façade of unity, but each of them may be amenable to bilateral deals if any one of them becomes a liability for the other three. Germany has already toned down its demand for permanent membership because of over representation of Europe. This may well be the motive for France and U.K. also to support G-4.

They may feel that a limited expansion by way of some additions now may be better for Europe than confronting a proposal for a thorough reorganisation of the Security Council later. Japan is clearly a liability because of the open opposition by China. India and Brazil too have opposition from their regions, but nothing serious to block their entry in the event of a settlement.

India’s claim to membership

India has upgraded its claim to “right” and remained the leader of G-4. But there is a section of opinion that India’s position on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its border “disputes” with Pakistan and China might be impediments to its permanent membership. The India-U.S. nuclear deal was expected to give de facto recognition to India’s nuclear status, but its non-NPT status came in the way of its entering the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). No amount of extra effort by India can resolve the NPT, Pakistan and China issues in a hurry. But the expansion of the Security Council is not contingent on any action of omission or commission on the part of India and so there is no particular pressure on India to relent on these issues.

More than 34 years of struggle with the issue of “equitable representation” in the Security Council has not brought us any closer to an expansion of the Council. An Indian Foreign Secretary had once remarked that India had the choice of either acquiring real power through the manufacture of nuclear weapons or pursuing illusory power by seeking to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Having acquired real power, India could as well give up the pursuit of illusory power, he had said. But in keeping with the present Government’s “power push”, our quest for permanent membership will continue. But the best we can get, if at all, may be a semi-permanent status, requiring us to get elected every few years.

As for the UN itself, reform of the Security Council is an existential requirement for the organisation. If it resists all proposals for change in the years to come, there is a real risk of the UN being sidelined or rival organisations taking over its agenda. Therefore, it is likely that some changes would be accommodated on the basis of one of the two alternatives proposed by Kofi Annan in his report, ‘In Larger Freedom’ in March 2005. According to this plan, there would be no new permanent seats, but a new category of eight four-year renewable term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat to be divided among the various regional groups. The plan would continue to be unacceptable to India and some others, but it might well be the lowest common denominator to be tried out. But what the UN requires is not a fix like that, but a fundamental change to reflect the realities of the present century.

(T.P. Sreenivasan, who was a counsellor (1980-83) and the Deputy Permenent Representative (1992-95) in the Indian Mission to the UN, New York, was at the UN recently for a conference.)

[UPrabhu]

We need to make it clear to UN, that it is becoming more and more difficult for Democratic India to justify apartheid called UNSC. Indian people never gave mandate to GoI to hand over its sovereignty to some body (UNSC p5) in the form of resolutions which we become party to without having an equal say.

[JE Menon]

The UN has never been anything more than an instrument of power, first wielded by five powers at a time when two of them (UK/France) had something to say, and more importantly some things to say it with; that situation gradually eroded to a point where only two others (US/USSR) had anything to say that would be listened to, while the fifth (China) without much to say, and then not much to say it with stayed below the radar for the most part.

Eventually, in the era post-bipolarity, there has been only one power (the US) which could say anything that the others would eventually toe the line to. Meanwhile the relative power of the UK/France declined along with that of Russia, while that of China increased. This leaves an uneasy trilateral (US/China/Russia) with few interests convergent, and not much in the way of bargain room as ideological holds have weakened on all sides. And with a veto-wielding spoilsport role still possible, UK/France flit about in the background. But now, even the US is barely in a position to use the P5 to its true material advantage. Which is why the P5 is barely used for anything of real consequence to any of the major powers. The UN is merely a fig leaf for bi, tri and multi-lateralising.

In short the organisation is fraying and becoming redundant (though it has its tactical and sometimes supplementary uses). India is pushing for membership of the Permanent Security Council because it must, on the off chance that it may morph into something useful, but it will never stand in the way of its disintegration or I believe, miss a chance when it can aid its disintegration without tangible or intangible cost.

[SSridhar]

UNSC reform: Ditched by US and betrayed by Russia, but India still tore down Chinese wall - Indrani Bagchi, Economic Times

There was diplomatic blood on the floor in the tension-filled days before the UNGA decision on Monday to begin text-based negotiations to reform the UN Security Council. Once again, China and Russia led the move to sabotage the process.

A few days before the UNGA session, Chinese and Russian diplomats, in a stealth operation, attempted to insert a couple of paragraphs into the text. If they had succeeded, it would have diluted the entire negotiations on unnecessary technicalities which would have meant the UN would be negotiating UNSC reform for years and years without a decision in sight.

Led by India, a number of countries joined the battle against the Chinese move, even launching a protest at UNGA president, Sam Kutesa's residence over the weekend. Kutesa agreed to remove the offending paragraphs.

China wasn't giving up without a bigger fight. They reached out to a number of national capitals to get the text amended before it reached the floor on Monday. Some countries agreed, but ultimately China failed to get the numbers that India had. In all of this diplomatic warfare, the US stayed strangely silent - either to see whether India could win on its own, or because they are keeping their powder dry to kill the process later, or because they silently supported the Sino-Russian move.

India was not surprised by the Chinese action. And in those last frenzied moments in the UN, it became clear this would be an India-China battle.

But to see Russia on China's side, after supposedly supporting India's case for almost half a century, was a tough one. This week, Russia sent its deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov to meet Sujata Mehta in the MEA, after their performance in the UN. A statement from the Russian embassy said, the two "exchanged opinions on the main aspects of intergovernmental negotiation process considering the current various options for the increase in the United Nations Security Council membership. The Russian Side reaffirmed the readiness to support the Indian candidature the United Nations Security Council." But India has taken the Russian betrayal hard.

Bloodied but unbowed, China and Russia, say sources, now plan to take the battle one step further. They have been working on the Jamaican government to remove Courtney Rattray, the prime brain behind the UNSC reform text, so he cannot head the negotiations on the text and it can be given to someone unfamiliar with the history of the text. That would deal a blow to India.

The UNGA decision to negotiate UNSC reform succeeded on two counts. First, after 23 years there is a text on which the UN can negotiate a reform agenda. Second, in a fair fight, the 13-country group led by China and including Pakistan and Italy called United for Consensus could not drum up enough support for stalling the process.

[SSridhar]

Though the US and Russia betrayed India in the UN, IMO, it will be Chinese who we will have to defeat in order to secure our legitimate and rightful place in the UN.

Let us recall the Chinese stance so far on Indian participation in many world bodies including the UNSC. The following is prior to the latest developments.

After US announced unambiguously its support for a permanent seat in the UNSC, China remained the only P-5 member that did not support India’s candidature. Similarly, after the US said that it will push for India’s membership to Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), MTCR and Wassenaar Arrangement, even by amending rules of membership regarding the NPT, China remains the only country that says “countries, under [the] precondition of respecting international obligations of non proliferation, have the right to make peaceful use of nuclear energy and conduct international cooperation.” Among the P-5, China is the only country that till todate does not recognize us as a nuclear weapons state and refuses to engage with CBMs on this issue. While addressing a gathering at the Siri Fort Auditoriun on Jan 27, 2015, Pres. Obama said, “. . . I support a reformed United Nation Security Council that includes India as a permanent member” After a long and warm personal and delegate-level discussion, Indian PM Modi announced, with US President Barack Obama by his side in a joint Press meeting on Jan 26, 2015 that President Obama has assured him of strong US efforts in support of India's full membership of the four international export control regimes at the earliest. This followed the breakthrough agreement in the operationalization of the civil nuclear deal after six years of tortuous negotiations. The Chinese recation to these developments was predictably negative. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said, “We believe that such (an) inclusion should be conducive to the integrity and effectiveness of the regime and decision should be made on consensus. We notice India’s commitment to relevant issues. We support the group to include new members and we support India to take further measures to meet the requirements for the inclusion in the group.” The reference to the decision having to be consensual means that China would have to be involved and it had its own reservations on the issue. Also, the reference to India having “to take further measures to meet the requirements for the inclusion in the group “ meant that in China’s judgement India did not meet the standards set for admission into NSG. Th reference to “new members” indicated that China would bat for Pakistan in the NSG.,

[TSJones]

It would also be nice if India would talk to the US before it presents a proposal that counts on US support. The US will not automatically support something we haven't looked at previously and agreed to. Things like including Brazil on a permanent seat to the security council. That's not gonna work for us and we never promised it in the first place.

[Arjun]

Also, the reference to India having “to take further measures to meet the requirements for the inclusion in the group “ meant that in China’s judgement India did not meet the standards set for admission into NSG. Th reference to “new members” indicated that China would bat for Pakistan in the NSG.,

And this is the country Indian consumers absolutely love to an extent of a $50 Bn trade deficit! Indians are seriously naive...though it is also the government's responsibility to educate citizens better regarding China's behaviour

Wonder which retard gave them UN veto power and P-5 status in the first place and why? India was actually the better economy in the 50s and had probably contributed more towards winning WW2.

[JE Menon]

We are playing with the big boys. And we're just beginning to play. Its OK. We'll be alright. We are not getting weaker. And we are not too bad at this sort of thing.

[SSridhar]

We are playing with the big boys. And we're just beginning to play. Its OK. We'll be alright. We are not getting weaker. And we are not too bad at this sort of thing.

Absolutely. In fact, we underrate ourselves in diplomacy. There have been quite stunning successes.

[SSridhar]

UNSC reforms must be implemented within fixed timeframe: PM Modi - PTI

Describing the Security Council as a product of "circumstances of a bygone era", Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told UN chief Ban Ki-moon that the Council must include India to make it more representative and the reforms must be implemented within a fixed timeframe.

"...whatever we seek to do as the United Nations, from dealing with the transformed security environment to ensuring the effective implementation of the post-2015 Development Agenda, our relevance and effectiveness will depend in large measure on the internal reform of the United Nations, especially its Security Council," Modi said in a letter to the UN Secretary General.

"This is one of the most urgent and important, even if difficult tasks before us," Modi said in the letter dated July 4.

The letter was made available by India's Permanent Mission to the UN during a press briefing here [Washington] yesterday.

Modi arrives at the world body's headquarters in about a week to address the high-level Sustainable Development Summit on September 25.

The Indian leader said that the Security Council, as constituted currently, is the product of circumstances of a "bygone era".

"It must now reflect the realities and needs of the 21st century. A Security Council that includes the world's largest democracy, major locomotives of the global economy, and voices from all the major continents, will carry greater credibility and legitimacy and will be more representative and effective," he wrote.

As the UN commemorates its 70th anniversary this year, Modi said that "we are at a moment when we must close the endless debates of the past two and a half decades, and agree in a democratic manner in the United Nations General Assembly to set into motion the long needed reforms in the United Nations Security Council to be implemented with the broadest possible support and within a fixed timeframe."

[Vipul]

UNSC reform: Ditched by US and betrayed by Russia, but India still tore down Chinese wall.

There was diplomatic blood on the floor in the tension-filled days before the UNGA decision on Monday to begin text-based negotiations to reform the UN Security Council. Once again, China and Russia led the move to sabotage the process.

A few days before the UNGA session, Chinese and Russian diplomats(Bloody Ruskies) , in a stealth operation, attempted to insert a couple of paragraphs into the text. If they had succeeded, it would have diluted the entire negotiations on unnecessary technicalities which would have meant the UN would be negotiating UNSC reform for years and years without a decision in sight.

Led by India, a number of countries joined the battle against the Chinese move, even launching a protest at UNGA president, Sam Kutesa's residence over the weekend. Kutesa agreed to remove the offending paragraphs.

China wasn't giving up without a bigger fight. They reached out to a number of national capitals to get the text amended before it reached the floor on Monday. Some countries agreed, but ultimately China failed to get the numbers that India had. In all of this diplomatic warfare, the US stayed strangely silent - either to see whether India could win on its own, or because they are keeping their powder dry to kill the process later, or because they silently supported the Sino-Russian move.

India was not surprised by the Chinese action. And in those last frenzied moments in the UN, it became clear this would be an India-China battle.

But to see Russia on China's side, after supposedly supporting India's case for almost half a century, was a tough one. This week, Russia sent its deputy foreign minister, Gennady Gatilov to meet Sujata Mehta in the MEA, after their performance in the UN. A statement from the Russian embassy said, the two "exchanged opinions on the main aspects of intergovernmental negotiation process considering the current various options for the increase in the United Nations Security Council membership. The Russian Side reaffirmed the readiness to support the Indian candidature for the United Nations Security Council. (Back stabbing B*stards) " But India has taken the Russian betrayal hard.

Bloodied but unbowed, China and Russia, say sources, now plan to take the battle one step further. They have been working on the Jamaican government to remove Courtney Rattray, the prime brain behind the UNSC reform text, so he cannot head the negotiations on the text and it can be given to someone unfamiliar with the history of the text. That would deal a blow to India.

The UNGA decision to negotiate UNSC reform succeeded on two counts. First, after 23 years there is a text on which the UN can negotiate a reform agenda. Second, in a fair fight, the 13-country group led by China and including Pakistan and Italy called United for Consensus could not drum up enough support for stalling the process.

[Supratik]

What problem does Russia have? Is it Germany?

[vishvak]

What problem does Itally have? Is it due to the 2 Italian Marines case that is collapsing or is it coming out openly - opening the front - before other good Europeans join in. USA is silent and not coming out clean is more part of problem then part of solution.

[Supratik]

Italy is due to Germany being included but not Italy. That is already known. But why Russia?

[Suraj]

What problem does Russia have? Is it Germany?

Dilution of their own power by the entry of new permanent members. They are a country with a moderately large economy, vast territory and a bad demographic trend, besieged by constant sniping from the west. They don't trust anyone to have their back. After screwing us over in various ways, they don't expect us to hve their back, regardless of what we might assure them. They want to have the power to control their destiny themselves, and any UNSC expansion is a dilution of their power.

[vishvak]

So Italy is behaving like Pakistan and collaborating with Pakis for stalling negotiations. Interesting 'international' facets at the United Nations! No one could say that UN will have Italy and Pakistan collaborating with straight face.

[KrishnaK]

Either India gets the economic heft to persuade other countries to let her in alone, or we will stay out. No one wants 4 more countries in the Security Council. No reason for us to associate ourselves with Japan, Germany, Brazil..

[kit]

changing geopolitics ..Russia needs china more than India now ..sharing interests between countries not friendships matter !

[arshyam]

^^ It could also be Chinese pressure on Russia, will need to observe how that plays out with Modi's visit in Dec.

Anyway, it only shows that India, again, is an exceptional nation and is on her own. The P-5 will never give room to us, and that will be the case for a very long time. Even the French and UK's position are to be seen in context: considering that the big 3 were going to oppose India's entry, they perhaps thought of playing some deft diplomacy and signalling support to India knowing full well nothing will really change? But they can score diplomatic brownie points with us, if we want to give them.

India should keep the conversation alive in the UN, but not spend too much energy in it going forward, or analysing these set backs. We definitely should not settle for seats of limited duration, or ones without veto, not even in our dreams. These setbacks will keep happening for another 20 years, if not more, so our approach should be more on principle, paying the price for a certain folly in the fifties . By keeping our position on permanent membership, we can reserve the right to revisit it at a future date when it is convenient. Till then, just ignore the UN where possible. Just focus on growing our economy, military and trade, and build multi-lateral relationships with regional blocks. For example, I don't see why we should bother with UN peacekeeping in Africa (taking just one example) - just work with the AU and help where needed. Likewise, engage with WTO, but focus on building our own equivalents of TPP, that will be anchored by India and to SAARC - P. The upcoming Africa summit in India will be a good place to start this initiative. Identify the African nations that are also passionate about UN reform and work with them on the common approach of forcing the UN's hand. Such networks can be built on preferential trade access, and knowledge sharing on common issues like energy security, technology, engineering know-how, IT, pharmaceutics and health, etc. After Africa, deal with Latin America on a separate block. The US will try to scuttle that move, but we can get Brazil on the boat (they again, have the common goal of UN reform) on this and then drive it together.

If the above is done right, it will pay dividends in the long term - as we can work with 2 large continents to trade and mutually benefit, and build our own WW network. It will also benefit us in that we don't need to compete with a China on a smaller western pie (EU+NA) as China has already established its export prowess there. Whereas in Africa, we can focus on a 'make in Africa' initiative (along with Make in India, of course) to build local capacity and grow with Indian investment. This will address Africa's resentment towards China dumping their wares there (India has been regarded as a better partner due to our nature of using local labour and resources).

In 20-30 years, the UN might be looking for relevance sitting in its cosy club of nuke powers, while India would have achieved most of its aims of being a global force to reckon with on her own terms and initiative. Then let's order some popcorn on BRF, and watch how the P-5 run after us, offerring a cushy seat

Fantasy? Sure. Possible? Sure. Take your pick.

[Viv S]

The UN has never been anything more than an instrument of power, first wielded by five powers at a time when two of them (UK/France) had something to say, and more importantly some things to say it with; that situation gradually eroded to a point where only two others (US/USSR) had anything to say that would be listened to, while the fifth (China) without much to say, and then not much to say it with stayed below the radar for the most part.

Eventually, in the era post-bipolarity, there has been only one power (the US) which could say anything that the others would eventually toe the line to. Meanwhile the relative power of the UK/France declined along with that of Russia, while that of China increased. This leaves an uneasy trilateral (US/China/Russia) with few interests convergent, and not much in the way of bargain room as ideological holds have weakened on all sides. And with a veto-wielding spoilsport role still possible, UK/France flit about in the background. But now, even the US is barely in a position to use the P5 to its true material advantage. Which is why the P5 is barely used for anything of real consequence to any of the major powers. The UN is merely a fig leaf for bi, tri and multi-lateralising.

In short the organisation is fraying and becoming redundant (though it has its tactical and sometimes supplementary uses). India is pushing for membership of the Permanent Security Council because it must, on the off chance that it may morph into something useful, but it will never stand in the way of its disintegration or I believe, miss a chance when it can aid its disintegration without tangible or intangible cost.

A very astute analysis. +1.

[Supratik]

I see only two motives why we would want to be part of SC. Arrive as one of the big boys and prevent any resolution against us if we take on Pak. I think going forward the tool they are going to use against India are economic sanctions. Economic might coupled with military prowess will render the SC seat not that important. We can even take action unilaterally.

[svinayak]

Though the US and Russia betrayed India in the UN, IMO, it will be Chinese who we will have to defeat in order to secure our legitimate and rightful place in the UN.

Let us recall the Chinese stance so far on Indian participation in many world bodies including the UNSC. The following is prior to the latest developments.

After US announced unambiguously its support for a permanent seat in the UNSC, China remained the only P-5 member that did not support India’s candidature.

The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization to promote international co-operation. A replacement for the ineffective League of Nations, the organization was established on 24 October 1945 after World War II in order to prevent another such conflict.

The original reason for the UN was to take disputes of small princely states of India when India was asking for independence. Kashmir was the first experiment of UN. UN was created for India and smaller states.
When Union of India was formed and India became a republic in 1951 the need for UN vanished.

Now 70 years later in 2015 the PRC/China has become a rogue nation and is threatening the order in east asia. The mercantile powers in the west including the anglo mercantile power wants a stable order in Asia since this region is the region of next prosperity. West need help in putting boots in the ground. West/US need large armies in Asia to keep order. The pivot to Asia is the initiative to keep order. India and Japan have the crisis nearby and are coming together in an alliance to counter the China hegemony.

US by keeping away from the reform of the UNSC txt US is paving the way for change. This change in UNSC will help in reducing the influence of China in Asia. Russia under sanction does not want change. Russia and China partnership is needed by each other to counter US dominance. But China has upper hand and is acting independently.

Mercantile power of the west will want India to increase its influence and UNSC is one of the ways to do it. It will balance the independent acting China in Asia. India has to keep working on UNSC even if it takes a long time since it diminishes the influence of China globally. China will falter and India will be able to secure the rightful place.

If they manage to create war between India and China when Russia is under sanction then India will be in a weak spot. Russia will support China. India will get international support including from US and other Asean nations

If India avoids a war with China then the west will seek help from Russia to contain PRC/China. A rogue China is danger to the mercantile western powers as well as Russia.

[Suraj]

India does not gain much by independently seeking 'assurances' from individual powers. These are not worth the paper they're printed on, because during complex negotiations, they'll simply conveniently backpedal. It's far more effective to openly start playing powers against each other regarding our efforts to force our way in. It'll make them address the topic in different ways from 'we support India's candidature' followed by doing quite the opposite, as is the case now. If the UNGA meeting showed anything, it is that no matter what, it's our job to force others to compromise as an act of letting us do something. It's not going to come on a platter from anyone. Not Russia, not France, not the remaining 3. Openly stating different countries' positions would cause some messy public interactions, but that's well worth it for the goal of shaking things up. So far, the chipmunks - France and UK - are happy to hold on to their 'power', which really rests in the hands of US, Russia and increasingly China today, with those two simply being historic ancillaries of insufficient importance today and in future. In fact, I think it would benefit us more to openly question their presence in UNSC and make them lash out and therefore demonstrate their impotence.

[vera_k]

I think we should let some of our ethnic states seek UN membership. None of them are going to ally with Pakistan or China, but it will allow them to gain more visibility and serve as a pressure relief valve. For example, Thackerays, Lalu and Jayalalitha can spread Marathi, Bhojpuri and Tamil in New York and local malcontents can be pacified by giving them UN postings. Pretty much use the European model in reverse so to say. I mean if a castrated Greece can be an UN member, why not?

[Vayutuvan]

vera_k: Are you proposing India should balkanize itself? Under what constitution, ethnic groups can seek UN membership? I am sure it cannot be under the constitution of Republic of India.

[vera_k]

No. But delegate enough powers to states so they can seek UN membership. Can be done in some cases.

[JE Menon]

>>I think we should let some of our ethnic states seek UN membership.

Membership as what? And what would be the precise objective?

You have mentioned "gain more visibility and serve as a pressure valve"... Are you suggesting that states are not getting sufficient visibility (and visibility in relation to whom?), and that a non-Indian body will be the valve modulating the pressure? On what basis are you confident it will only release pressure?

[Vayutuvan]

Vera_k garu: The consequences of anything like that are nothing short of catastrophic for Indian Union. Palestine's flying their own flag or Taiwan getting kicked out in preference to PRC. We're two such events for Israel and Taiwan. Granted they are much smaller than India. Something like this could be the unraveling of India the west had been waiting for for the past 65+ years but never came about and would not come about unless termites weaken India from inside.