There are two paths.Klaus wrote:IMHO, to change the system, first you need to be in the system. Or to win a match, you need to be in the match.
The problem that desh has in the UN is the complex about playing by the rules, we can only alter the status-quo if we start sabotaging all attempts made against our national interest, it is very much a tactical move-by-move game with respect to the UNSC. In every such move, India will find some allies and some opposition (latter always > former) but we have to remember that these allies are only tactical, not strategic.
Let's say UN is a hierarchy. In this hierarchy where the upper tier doesn't want to either let go of power nor wants to share it if not forced to, the chances of promotion for India or anybody else are little. If the people up there want to let somebody in, they will not take so many years to do it. If they do not want it, then it is stupid to expect they will do it later on. Where is the pressure for them to do it. Other than that they have got their minions in the lower tiers, the Coffee Club, who would grab your legs and not let you move up, all in the name of "no consensus on reform"!
So even if there is progress here
- India would get only some very watered down power - only permanent membership, but no veto
- India would have to wait for many many years before she can exercise a veto.
- India would get only half a veto.
The other path is that of the outsider.
When India was not part of N-5, it took some time, and some realignment in power equations in the world, but the international community felt that it was important for India to be part of the system and not be outside so the rules were changed. New rules were made to accommodate India. Similar rules were not made for Pakistan or North Korea. Why not? Because India is special - due it its strength, it billion plus population, its democracy and the legitimacy that its gives, and its moral standing. It was considered best to have India in the tent pissing out than have India outside pissing in.
We have to know what India gives to the UN. Beside all the UN peacekeeping forces and our contributions to building of rules for the world structures, and looking after the rights of the developing countries, what we give is legitimacy of 1/6 of the world's population through a democratically elected government. That is more legitimacy than a single country can give to the world body.
What is keeping all those countries - from Papua New Guinea to Guinea to Suriname in UN. It is the feeling that it represents the world. If India leaves and starts condemning the abuse of power of the P5, all that charade, the whole facade would come crumbling down. When the P5 pass resolutions and exercise their vetoes, they are using India's legitimization of their actions.
If a couple more countries like Brazil, Iran leave UN, UN is dead, meaning UNSC is buried, meaning P5 are stripped naked of their powers.
We must ask ourselves, would the P5 really want that?
Countries like UK and France would be forgotten as powers within a couple of years should this happen. No wonder they are very much in favor of this reform. Considering how much influence the West and China has divided up amongst themselves in the world, in view of a shrunk economy, organizational collapse and its oligarchical rebirth, a seat in the UNSC gives Russia much needed bargaining power. Much of the post WW-II world structures were built by the West, USA in particular. Would the USA want to lose much of its power, when it is a superpower that derives much of its superpower status from the fact, that these world structures are rigged in its favor, and that too in times of a relative loss of power to China which has no moral inhibitions in its dealings with other countries? Would PRC like to lose its standing as a country in the top tier of the hierarchy ruling the world? Would not PRC lose the bargaining power of its veto, which it sells at a high price to USA gaining many concessions?
So should there be a choice between having India as part of the PX or having the UNO break up, the P5 would choose the former.
But India does not put this choice in front of the P5. India gives the P5 legitimacy free of cost.
If the UN is forced to accommodate an 'outsider' like India, chances are India would be accommodated in the PX. As an insider India would be forced to eat the crumbs.
All India needs to do is after some inconclusive meeting of the UN to decide the question of reform, stand on a podium with Brazil and together announce, that India and Brazil are leaving the UN, because we think it is broken and does not adequately represent the current situation in the world.Klaus wrote:Another thing which I noticed is that India leaving UN would be a tactical move, it is upto us to decide whether and how it would enable us to achieve a strategic goal. This needs to be gamed, I believe it might have been done already but a second attempt could never hurt.
Another issue is, how do we decide the timing of such a tactical move. How do we decide that the line has been crossed and we need to follow the exit route? As you very well know, timing is crucial in tactical decision making.
I am talking about timing as the current status-quo in UN has been around for a long time, what more must additionally happen for India to actually resign?
Of course, USA would be told much before that, what would happen if it fails to get the world body to reform.
We should let them know, "No more feet dragging. No more Coffee Club proxies".
