NationStates Jolt Archive

So what do y'all think?

I believe it is time that UNSC reflected changing geopolitics. It should no longer be a WW II victor's club.

UN will become increasingly irrelevant if reforms like UNSC expansion are not carried out.

Abolish this discriminating Security Council!! Why are there more important countries than others? Canada and Germany, for instance, are better than France!

Well no, every country should be equal.

Oh, I'm such a geek I thought that by "G4" you meant the TV channel dedicated to video games.

Only if we get to haze them. :)

Lol.

In an ideal state, there should be no country holding "veto" over another country. But until we reach that stage of universal brotherhood, we need the UNSC.

Also, there is no way the present P5 will give up their vetoes. If you want "equality" etc, you have to take it one step at a time ...first by having better representation.

India has more than a Billion people and is currently the third largest economy in Asia and short of major catastrophes, India is poised to become the third largest economy after US and China. Brazil is also picking up.

Demographics too favor India and Brazil. UK + France from Europe also have a combined population that is 2.5% of the world's population, while India alone represents 16%.

Economics favor Japan and Germany, both leading economies and heavy donors. Although both are "greying" and is expected to decline, hence this is somewhat their "last chance". If Japan and Germany don't get in now, they can kiss their hope Goodbye in the future.

Currently, this is the position.

China opposes both Japan and India, but would'nt say anything openly. It uses the "spontaneous" protests to send its message. Haven't said anything about Germany and Brazil's cadidacy too.

US supports Japan , but has not endorsed India and Brazil and Germany. Definitely opposes Brazil, can't have another veto from the Americas.

UK has endorsed India and is against Germany. Probably supports Japan too.

France has supported all of the G4 and Russia has also too, I think.


Apart from the P5, there are some other countries which have formed a coffee club to oppose the G4. Italy opposes Germany, Pakistan opposes India, Argentina opposes Brazil. These countries along with some other countries have formed an informal bloc to oppose the joint candidacy of G4.


G4 themselves have stood firm in their "one for all, all for one" posture.

some background and developments

http://english.sina.com/china/1/2005/0622/35678.html
China vows to vote against UNSC expansion plan
2005-06-22 03:06:15 Xinhua English

UNITED NATIONS, June 21 (Xinhuanet) -- China reiterated on Tuesday that it would vote against any highly contentious Security Council expansion formula which could split the United Nations membership if such proposal was put to a vote in the UN General Assembly.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1268&storyid=3332717
Top table UN role for Japan

By GILES HEWITT

June 24, 2005

NEW YORK: America has formally laid out its proposals for UN reform, including a limited expansion of the Security Council with "two or so" new permanent seats, one of them for Japan.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200506242201.htm

UN seat: 'India meets criteria laid down by US'

New Delhi, June 24. (PTI): Sounding positive for India's bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, the US today said it had a "perfect right" and met the criteria for inclusion of new members but maintained that a decision on the issue will be taken by President George W Bush.

http://www.hindu.com/2005/06/25/stories/2005062513491200.htm
Singapore backs India's bid

P. S. Suryanarayana

It is a major country making significant international contributions: Lee

# "Increasing vetoes will undermine U.N. credibility"
# It wants Japan also included in Security Council

SINGAPORE: Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has expressed support for India's bid to become a new permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

http://www.inform.kz/showarticle.php?lang=eng&id=128640
24.06 / 08:16 India a 'good candidate' for UNSC: Hungary
BUDAPEST. June 24. KAZINFORM. - Describing India as a "good candidate," Hungary on Thursday extended full support to its candidature for a permanent seat in the expanded UN Security Council, Kazinform has learnt from PTI.

from Daily Pioneer, [link pointing to another story]


Japan, Germany put a spanner in Uncle Sam's UNSC design---- The United States' brazen attempt to break the G-4's solidarity encountered a stunning rejection on Friday from Japan, which, despite American support to its candidature for a permanent Security Council seat, is unwilling to sacrifice the interests of the other G-4 members - India, Brazil and Germany.

In a stern note from the only country that actually enjoys America's unequivocal support for a UNSC seat, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Japan "cannot go along with this idea".

"It's quite difficult to hear such a suggestion from the US," Mr Koizumi said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/06/14/international/i113443D49.DTL
Nations Lobby for Security Council Seats

For an issue that isn't even on the agenda, the lobbying is intense. Little Benin found itself courted by India and Japan in the morning, and Brazil and Germany in the afternoon. Those big countries are using a summit of smaller, developing nations to garner votes in the U.N. General Assembly for permanent seats on the Security Council.

Germany and Japan are not members of the Group of 77 summit that meets here this week. But they, and India and Brazil, have formed the so-called Group of Four with the aim of obtaining four of the six permanent seats on the Security Council when the body's expansion goes to the vote, probably in July.

Benin Foreign Minister Rogatien Biaou said India and Japan had courted him Monday morning and he met Brazilian and German envoys in the afternoon. Biaou said he told them it was "too early" to declare a position on their Security Council aspirations as he had not consulted his African neighbors.

There is broad support among U.N. member states for expanding the Security Council, whose current five members are seen as a post-World War II anachronism. The chairman of the G-77, Jamaican U.N. Ambassador Stafford Neil, said: "A lot of diplomatic capital is being sunk into this issue, both for and against."

Germany, Japan, Brazil and India have found themselves in the unrewarding position of contributing more to the U.N. budget than the five permanent Security Council members. But their lack of a permanent seat means they have less diplomatic clout than such countries as France and Britain, who are on the council.

Views on how to expand the Security Council are contentious.

Under the Group of Four's draft resolution, the council's membership would jump from 15 to 25 states, with permanent members rising from five to 11. The G-4 wants to capture four of the new permanent seats. Two others would be reserved for African countries. South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt are said to be vying for them.

The expansion needs the approval of two-thirds of the U.N. member states. Tougher is the necessary vote to change the U.N. Charter, which requires a two-thirds vote and Security Council approval.

The vote is far from clear. At least a third of U.N. members have yet to decide whether to approve the plan, Neil said.

Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar declared support Monday for Germany and Japan, but most diplomats here are reluctant to publicize their positions.

Plenty of countries oppose the Group of Four plan, perhaps none more vehemently than China, which has sent a delegation to Doha to lobby against it, mainly because it fears an ascendant Japanese rival.

"China is the toughest nut," said Nirupam Sen, India's U.N. ambassador. "They're adamantly opposed to Japan and that means adamant opposition to the expansion resolution."

Chinese diplomats at the summit did not respond to requests for comment. But Beijing has urged Security Council members not to approve the G-4 plan, complaining Japan never properly atoned for its World War II abuses.

The Group of Four sees July as the best opportunity in a decade to expand the council, and they are lobbying hard at this conference in a Doha hotel. They have made concessions — offering not to wield a permanent member's veto for at least 15 years.

The hotel-lined seafront of this tidy city was in a virtual lockdown Tuesday as dozens of heads of state arrived for the second-ever G-77, also known as the South Summit. Helicopters and patrol boats covered the sea approaches, as motorcades took leaders to their hotels.

Among those presidents expected were Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, Lebanon's Emile Lahoud, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Nigeria's Olusegun Obasanjo and Sudan's Omar al-Bashir. Also expected were the kings of Bahrain, Morocco, Nepal and Swaziland and the leaders of Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050609/ts_afp/usgermanyunreform_050609080213
US rebuffs German bid for UN Security Council seat

Thu Jun 9, 4:02 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States has again rebuffed Germany's bid to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council, arguing that the expansion of the council is not its top UN reform priority, The New York Times said.

So what do y'all think?

I believe it is time that UNSC reflected changing geopolitics. It should no longer be a WW II victor's club.

UN will become increasingly irrelevant if reforms like UNSC expansion are not carried out.
Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but the UN is already irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but the UN is already irrelevant. :rolleyes:

But it shouldn't be. Maybe expanding the UNSC will help reverse the process. Maybe it won't. But a worldwide political body (not necessarily a world government) would be a good thing. Even something as simple as a mutual defense pact could be effective if most of the world joined.

Eh. I don't know. Maybe it's doomed.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but the UN is already irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Then ask the US govt to withdraw from the "irrelevant" UN. What are you guys still doing there holding the veto and all.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but the UN is already irrelevant. :rolleyes:
I think that's the point, trying to make it relevant again.

I would support the elimination of two of the UK, France or Russia from the UNSC and the introduction of Australia, Brazil and South Africa. This would result in one member from each major continent. (Sorry Antarctica :( ) Each member with a veto.

If Japan or India wish to enter then China would have to leave.

@above, Australia has never expressed any interest in UNSC. Anywayz there are already two vetoes ,US and UK, for the four anglo-speaking countries of US, UK, AUS and NZ.

Apart from the actual results, what makes this more interesting is how nations regard each other.

Although investment from Japan has been a prime mover in Chinese economic growth, China is still loath to normalise relations with Japan.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/04/10/china.japan.protest/index.html

Japan protection call over protests

Protesters wave anti-Japan slogans and wave Chinese flags in Shenzhen.

BEIJING, China (CNN) -- Japan's ambassador has called on the Chinese government to take stronger measures to protect its citizens as thousands of protesters demand a boycott of Japanese products and shout anti-Japanese slogans.

The protests are aimed at Japan's bid to become a permanent U.N. Security Council member and have been made more emotional by Chinese objections to how Japanese school textbooks recount Japan's 20th century military campaigns.

Although India and US have announced NSSP ( Next step in strategic partnership) and a statement by US that " We will help India become a major power" just before the decision to sell F-16s to pakistan, US has still not endorsed the candidacy of India , despite India being the largest democracy and second largest population (16% of total world pop) and poised to become a greater economic power.

an oldish news.
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/apr/01un2.htm
India shows there is support for UN reform

Suman Guha Mozumder in New York | April 01, 2005 16:17 IST

In a clear indication of interest in the reform of the United Nations, over 150 member states of the world body attended a meeting in New York on Thursday evening convened by the Group of Four to discuss the reform and expansion of the UN Security Council.

G-4 comprises Germany, Japan, Brazil and India.

The meeting, the first attended by more than two-thirds of the UN member states since the publication of the high-level recommendations on the reform of the world body in December last year, saw attendance by states like Singapore, Argentina and New Zealand, members of the so called Coffee Club that opposes expansion of the Council with new permanent members.

"The presence of more than two-thirds of member states showed that there is a certain measure of support of the reform process," Nirupam Sen, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, told rediff.com after the two-hour, closed-door meeting at the UN Millennium Plaza Hotel overlooking the United Nations headquarters.

At the meeting, which was addressed by the ambassadors of Germany, Japan and Brazil besides India, all of whom support the candidature of each other for permanent membership of the UN Security Council, India made a pitch for its inclusion in the expanded Council as a permanent member with veto power.

The meeting set at rest speculation in some quarters that New Delhi might settle for permanent membership of the Council without veto power. "There is no mention of the word veto in the UN Charter which for certain kinds of decisions by the Security Council says that 'these shall be made by an affirmative vote of 9 members including the concurring votes of the permanent members'," Sen said.

"It would be inappropriate to amend it to say that there would be concurring votes of some, but not of other permanent members," he said.

"This would be somewhat ridiculous. In any case we cannot accept any discrimination between permanent members,"
he added.

Sen said that even Pakistan, a core member of the Coffee Club has supported veto power for permanent members when it said during the last debate on the High Level Panel and Millennium Project reports that new permanent members without veto cannot withstand the weight of old permanent members with veto.

"What it means is that Pakistan believes new members have to be armed with veto and that is what I told the distinguished gathering," Sen said. "Without the veto the new permanent members cannot fulfill the mandate of the UNGA on ensuring new working methods marked by inclusiveness and transparency," he said.

Although some of the Coffee Club members attended the meeting, neither Pakistan Ambassador Munir Akram, nor his deputy attended the meeting.

The Italian Ambassador was also absent, although the G-4 said invitations to attend the meeting was sent to all member states.

At the meeting, New Zealand wanted to know if the veto power could be abolished. The response of the G-4 was that it has northing against the abolition. "But certainly the abolition has to be universal and we cannot have a situation where some have the so called veto and other do not," Sen said.

In a joint statement, the G-4 countries said that in the present 59th session of the UNGA, 166 countries have explicitly stressed the need for reform, some 120 of which have supported the expansion both in terms of permanent and non-permanent categories.

It also noted that an overwhelming majority also favours an improvement in the working methods of the council to make them more transparent and inclusive. "This platform provides the basis for reaching decisions with the broadest possible agreement among members states," the statement said.

Thursday's meeting is expected to pave the way for the preparation of the first resolution to be discussed, debated and voted by the member states on the main elements of the reform. This will be followed by selection of candidates in both permanent and non-permanent categories which too will be subjected to debate and voting. Once these resolutions are adopted by two thirds majority of the member states, the third resolution would be introduced to amend UN Charter.

Although all the three resolutions are required to be passed before the beginning of the next UNGA plenary in September, one of the feisty issues is expected to come during the second stage when names of countries for inclusion as members to the council come up.

"At that stage there could be voting on a package or individual voting if a consensus cannot be reached on a shortlist of names. It will all depend on the situation at that time." Sen said.

While Russia, France and UK have expressed support for India's inclusion in the Council, the US and China still seem non-committal.

http://www.un.int/india/india_and_the_un_devt.html
India is one of the largest contributors to the core resources of UNDP and a significant contributor to those of UNFPA and UNICEF. India is also a major contributor to the core resources of and the World Food Programme. India's contribution to these funds is higher than that of many OECD countries. We hope that the developed countries will also increase their contributions to untied and apolitical resources for development.


India has contributed US $ 100,000 to the UNCTAD Trust Fund for the least Developed countries. It has also been contributing US $ 50,000 per annum to the ITC Global Trust Fund since its inception in 1996. It also makes substantial voluntary contributions to UNEP, Habitat, UN Drug Control Programme, UNRWA, UNIFEM UN Volunteers etc.


http://www.un.int/india/india_and_the_un_pkeeping.html
Presently, India is ranked as one of the largest troop contributors to the UN. India has also offered one brigade of troops to the UN Standby Arrangements. Over 55,000 Indian Military and Police personnel have served under the UN flag in 35 UN peace keeping operations in all the continents of the globe.
..
..
Over 100 Indian soldiers and officers have sacrificed their lives while serving in UN peacekeeping operations.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D1FF7385A0C778DDDAD0894DD404482
Germany Steps Up to the Plate

(NYT) Editorial 518 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 26 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Editorial praises Prime Min Tony Blair of Britain for his leadership in promoting Marshall Plan for Africa; notes Japan says it would double its aid to Africa and now Germany says it would meet United Nations target of increasing foreign aid to 0.7 percent of gross national product by 2015; says US donates just 0.18 percent of its GDP and has said nothing about increasing that

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=47879
United Nations, June 3: China on Thursday called the plan to enlarge the elite UN Security Council favored by Japan, Germany, Brazil and India "a dangerous move" :rolleyes: which Beijing would oppose when it came to a vote.

an interesting poll

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/BBCworldpoll/032005/Report03_20_05.pdf

23-Country Poll Finds Strong Support for Dramatic Changes at UN, and for Increased UN Power

Citizens of All Countries Favor Adding New Permanent Members to UN Security Council, With Most Favoring Germany, Japan, India, Brazil

Most Favor Giving Security Council the Power to Override Permanent Member Veto

Even in the US, Britain and China; Russians, French Divided

A BBC World Service poll that surveyed 23 countries finds nearly universal support for dramatic reforms in the United Nations in parallel with a desire for increased UN power in the world. Majorities throughout the world favor adding permanent new members to the UN Security Council, with most favoring adding Germany, India, Japan, and Brazil. Most favor giving the UN Security Council the power to override the veto power of the permanent members, including majorities in three of the permanent member states: the US, Britain, and China: in France and Russia citizens are divided.

The poll of 23,518 people was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The 23-nation fieldwork was coordinated by GlobeScan and completed during December 2004 in most countries.

The poll reveals that expanding the UN Security Council to include new permanent members is supported by a majority in 22 of the 23 countries. These include majorities in four of the current permanent members, the United States (70%), Britain (74%), France (67%), and China (54%). Russia is the only country polled for which support is a plurality (44% in favor), though opposition is quite low (28%). On average for all countries, 69 percent favor expanding the permanent membership. Majorities in favor are especially robust in Italy (86%), Canada (84%), Germany and Australia (both 81%), and Spain (80%). Besides Russia, support for expanding the permanent membership is relatively modest in Mexico (52%), Chile (55%), and South Korea (56%).

Of five countries that are widely discussed as candidates for permanent membership, Germany and Japan are especially popular. Germany is favored in 21 countries (14 majorities, 7 pluralities) with an average of 56 percent across all countries. In the two remaining countries, China and South Korea, opposition is mostly to expanding Council membership in general—not focused on Germany. Japan is favored by 20 countries (16 majorities, 4 pluralities). However, Japan lacks support from three close neighbors, two of which are on the Security Council: Russia is divided (41% in favor, 10% opposed to Japan specifically and 28% opposed to expansion in general), China has a majority (51%) opposing Japan, and in South Korea 32% were opposed to Japan and 40% to expansion in general. On average 54 percent favor Japan’s membership. For both Germany and Japan, developed countries are a bit more enthusiastic than developing countries.

A majority of countries also favor India and Brazil, but in each case the average is not a majority. Sixteen countries favor adding India (9 majorities, 7 pluralities), with two countries divided and 5 opposed to India specifically or to expansion in general (3 majorities: China, Germany, and South Korea, and 2 pluralities: the Philippines and Turkey). On average 47 percent favored India with 19 percent opposed, and another 17 percent opposed to any expansion of the Security Council. Attitudes toward Brazil are remarkably similar, with 16 countries in favor (10 majorities, 6 pluralities) and 47 percent overall in favor (18% opposed to Brazil and 17% to all expansion). Four countries are opposed to Brazil specifically or to expansion in general: majorities in South Korea, and pluralities in China, Russia, and Turkey. Indonesia, France, and Germany are divided.

South Africa receives less support, with 10 countries in favor (5 majorities, 5 pluralities); 7 countries divided and 6 countries with opposition—to South Africa or to expansion in general—by a plurality (China, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey) or a majority (South Korea). On average, 43 percent favor South Africa and 21 percent are opposed (plus 17% opposed to all expansion).

In all countries but two, more people favor than oppose the idea of giving the UN Security Council the power to override the veto of a permanent member. Respondents were asked about the right, held by each of the five permanent Security Council members, to block any resolution with a veto, and were told: “Some people have proposed that this should be changed so that if a decision was supported by all the other members, no one member could veto the decision.” Respondents in the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China were reminded in the question that their own country would lose the veto: for instance, Americans heard that “if a decision was supported by all the other members, no one member, not even the United States, could veto the decision.” In the US, 57 percent favor giving up the absolute veto (34% opposed), Britain is similar at 56 percent (35% opposed) and in China a 48 percent plurality is in favor (36% opposed). Overall, citizens in 21 countries favor ending the absolute veto (16 majorities, 5 pluralities), with an average of 58 percent in favor and just 24 percent opposed. However, two permanent members are divided: France and Russia (France, 44% in favor, 43% opposed; Russia, 25% in favor, 29% opposed, with 46% not answering).

There is an extraordinary degree of consensus in favor of the UN becoming “significantly more powerful in world affairs.” This prospect is seen as “mainly positive” in every country (21 majorities, 2 pluralities) and by an average of 64 percent. A mere 19 percent on average sees this prospect as mainly negative. Especially enthusiastic are Germany (87%), Spain (78%), Indonesia (77%), and the Philippines (77%). Six in ten Americans (59%) favored it, with only 37 percent opposed. The only two countries to have just a plurality in favor are Turkey (40% to 24%) and Argentina (44% to 22%).

Steven Kull, director of PIPA comments, “Very large majorities all around the world are calling for the UN to become more powerful in world affairs. Consistent with this sentiment there is broad support for making the UN Security Council more representative by adding new members, and making it less unwieldy by giving the UN Security Council the power to override the veto of a permanent member. Most striking, even citizens in three of the five permanent member states are willing to give up their absolute veto power, and the other two are divided. The readiness for dramatic change is very palpable.”

Doug Miller, President of GlobeScan says, “Results suggest that the tight control of the United Nations by a few countries may soon be history. There is strong popular support for the democratization of the UN system.”

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73270&headline=India~is~perfectly~eligible,~says~Burns
NEW DELHI, JUNE 24: Charting a comprehensive agenda to cement Indo-US ties, visiting US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R Nicholas Burns today said that India was perfectly eligible in its application for a permanent seat on an expanded UN Security Council.

Though the US has come closer to endorsing India’s candidature, discussions on civilian nuclear energy cooperation remained inconclusive today and will continue.

Burns, who had a three-hour meeting with Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran, hinted that India fulfilled virtually all criteria the US State Department had set out last week.

‘‘We introduced a new element last week. We feel any new permanent member (of ‘‘We introduced a new element last week. We feel any new permanent member (of UNSC) should be supremely well qualified. We support Japan, and we could support two or so more countries for permanent seats. It is an evolutionary debate,’’ Burns said.

‘‘We respect the Indian view and are open to expansion of the Council with possibly two more permanent members and two-three more non-permanent members. We place great importance on countries of this region.’’

Emphasising that any expansion of the UNSC had to make it more efficient, Burns denied that the US was trying to introduce faultlines in the G-4 group. :rolleyes:

‘‘We are trying to unite the G-4 proposals with the others we have received. We recognise the ambitions of the developing world. We could never exclude the possibility of having a developed country as a permanent member on the UNSC,’’ he said.

I'm afraid I've never heard of G4

If the UN wants to become relivant, why don't they have the GA resolutions become law, instead of suggestions? Or better yet, how about NOT making it harder for resolutions to be passed..or here is an insane idea

Actually talk about the problems??? WOW WHAT AN IDEA!!!

All the GA talks about is budget budget budget. If they don't want to become a joke, then start doing something worth doing, instead of pretending they are an international government the way they are!

Well no, every country should be equal.

Saudi Arabia is equal to Canada? Sudan is equal to Ireland? North Korea is equal to Sweden?

Adding more permanent members means too many vetoes. Talk about hard to pass resolutions now, just wait for an extra set of vetoes. I think the current five represent a conglomerate of differentiating, yet forward minded countries, which work for the greater good of things. Obviously, there is some corruption in the UN, but few places are corruption free, and adding more permanent members wont solve it.

Adding more permanent members means too many vetoes. Talk about hard to pass resolutions now, just wait for an extra set of vetoes. I think the current five represent a conglomerate of differentiating, yet forward minded countries, which work for the greater good of things. Obviously, there is some corruption in the UN, but few places are corruption free, and adding more permanent members wont solve it.

One veto is too many then.

If we can live with some nations holding veto over others why can't we live with more nations holding veto ?

What is so special about UK and France that they should be holding veto when they have a combined population of about 2.5 % whilst India alone has 16 % of world's population.

I think the current five represent a conglomerate of differentiating, yet forward minded countries, which work for the greater good of things.

Then what is China doing there with its "forward minded" commie governmentt and its proliferation of nukes in Asia.

Corruption in UN has got nothing to do with UNSC and its current unfair composition.

I saw UNSC and I thought of Halo, I saw G4 and thought of the television channel. I want a videogame thread!

Basically keep it as it is, BUT remove the veto power from all those who have it. That way at least the so-called "super-powers" can't always get their own way with things.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10332349

Gwynne Dyer: US in dangerous game over India

24.06.05

A curious thing happened in Tokyo last week. United States Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns gave a speech there saying that the US backed a limited expansion of the United Nations Security Council from 15 to 20 members.

Only "two or so" of the five new seats should be permanent members with full veto rights, however - and Japan should be one.

Now, here's the funny thing. How did it happen that they mulled all this over at the State Department, and decided there must be only two new permanent members, and agreed Japan should be one - then dropped the subject? Maybe it was too nice out and they all decided to go golfing.

Call me cynical, but I think they know who they want the other permanent member to be. They just want something in return before they say so.

India should have had a permanent seat on the Security Council from the start, but the United Nations was set up in 1945 and India didn't get its independence from Britain until 1947. For 58 years the second-most populous country has been frozen out of the world's highest council.

Of course it must be India - but in that case, why not say so? Is it possible that the Bush Administration wants something from India? Yes, it does. It wants India to become the South Asian anchor of its strategy for "containing" China militarily.

The neo-conservatives who control defence and foreign policy under President Bush were demanding a huge rise in US military spending even before September 11 "to cope with the rise of China to great-power status". They want to encircle China with a ring of American allies in a reprise of the US containment strategy against the Soviet Union in the 50s and 60s.

In this strategy India is the main prize, and the Bush Administration is trying to woo New Delhi into a close military and strategic relationship. It is offering India first-line F-16 fighters now, and access to the next generation of US combat aircraft when it becomes available. It is offering Patriot and Arrow missiles, access to American civil nuclear technology, and high-tech co-operation in the domain of satellites and launch vehicles. Above all, it is offering India the leading role in its emerging Asian alliance structure.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Government is clearly nervous about this, but also flattered. As his media spokesman Sanjaya Baru put it: "India is an ancient civilisation and has a mind of its own, but our views are moving in parallel with the US and Anglo-Saxon world."

Although no date has yet been officially confirmed, President Bush has several times said he hopes to visit India before the end of this year.

There are two main obstacles to this strategic match. One is the fact (which even bothers members of Manmohan Singh's Cabinet) that this sort of alliance would be a betrayal of everything India has stood for since independence, and that it might be preferable not to spend the first half of the 21st century mired in a military confrontation with India's giant neighbour across the Himalayas.

The other is the Indian Communists, who hold almost 70 seats in the Lok Sabha (parliament), crucial to the survival of Singh's minority coalition Government. They are dead set against what would amount to a military alliance with the US (though it would never be called that), and so Singh's Government wavers, unsure which way to jump. Meanwhile, China has started making counter-offers on free trade, the settlement of old border disputes and the like.

So the United States has produced another carrot: a permanent seat for India on the Security Council. Except that Washington will only throw its weight behind the idea publicly if and when India signs up for the containment strategy.

It is a dangerous and needless strategy that will alarm China and lead to prolonged military confrontation in Asia. Indians should not be seduced by it. China is not their enemy. For that matter, it is not America's enemy, either.


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-06/25/content_3132949.htm

Schroeder to press Bush for permanent UN seat
www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-25 01:19:08

BERLIN, June 24 (Xinhuanet) -- German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder will lobby for his country a permanent seat in the UN Security Council in talks with US President George W. Bush in Washington next Monday, government sources said here on Friday.

Schroeder is still optimistic about Germany's chances of acceptance in the Council, the sources said.

The United States had said that it would support adding Japan and one other nation as permanent members of the Security Council, but strongly indicating that a pan-European seat might be preferable to one for Germany alone.

Germany favors a plan that would enlarge the council to 25 seats, including six new permanent and four rotating seats. Japan,Brazil, India and Germany formed a lobbying group in New York aimed at helping each other gain permanent seats on the Security Council.

Schroeder is said to be confident that international support inthe 59th UN General Assembly for the German proposal is increasing.The assembly requires a two-thirds majority to change the UN ground rules.

During the three-hour talks with Bush at the White House, the German chancellor will also brief Bush on the European Union budget crisis, the sources said. Preparations for G8 summit in Scotland on July 6-8 is also on the agenda of their talks.

The Brussels EU summit last week, aimed at striking a deal on the 2007-2013 budget for the 25-nation bloc, ended with no result,throwing the union into another crisis shortly after it saw a political one when France and the Netherlands vetoed the EU constitution in referenda

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050621/asp/nation/story_4895568.asp

Africa adds muscle to UN seat fight
K.P. NAYAR

New York, June 20: The Group of Four seeking expansion of the Security Council may become the Group of Six as the diplomatic chess game at the UN is poised to once again pit America against the majority of the international community.

Two more countries, this time from the African continent, will join the G4 after an African summit in Sirte, Libya, on July 4 and 5 to discuss UN reform, adding muscle to India and others seeking permanent seats at the UN high table.

Africa has 53 votes in the General Assembly, slightly less than a third of the UN membership.

The continent’s support will be a big boost for the G4 as it faces its biggest crisis since it was formed last year to pursue a joint, and hitherto successful, strategy on Security Council reform.

With the Bush administration deciding on Friday that it would only support countries which it can hope to manipulate to be its cat’s paw as permanent members of the Security Council, UN diplomacy is once again heading for a replay of the drama that preceded similar American efforts to bend the world body to its wishes on attacking Iraq in 2003.

As in 2003, when the Americans did their very best to get New Delhi’s support for the war in Iraq, India is once again at the centre of US moves at the UN.

This was clear from a number of fast-paced developments during the weekend across the globe, creating a dilemma for the Indian government.

National security adviser M.K. Narayanan, who is in Washington for extensive talks with the Bush administration, will now return home only on Wednesday.

When his trip was originally worked out in South Block, he was to stay in the US only till Monday.

Full details of the US position on the Security Council expansion will be known on Tuesday, when the US representative to the UN, Anne Patterson, will speak in the General Assembly on the issue.

Nicholas Burns, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs, will arrive in New Delhi the same day, hoping to wean South Block away from the G4, although Bush administration sources said Burns will underplay UN reforms and stress the positive in Indo-US relations in his public pronouncements.

The G4 meeting of foreign ministers in Brussels on Wednesday has come at Tokyo’s initiative after US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice pleaded with Japanese foreign minister Nobutaka Machimura to at least study Patterson’s statement before tabling the G4 resolution in the General Assembly.

African diplomats here said their two representatives may join the expanded G4 even prior to the Sirte summit if African countries are able to informally agree in advance of the meeting on African representation in the expanded Security Council.

The G4 draft resolution provides for two permanent seats for Africa in an expanded Council, but it is for the Africans to decide on who will fill those slots.

Ahead of their Brussels meeting, the view within the G4 is that tabling their resolution should be delayed until after the African summit so that the group can demonstrate its strength of numbers. “America”, one G4 diplomat here said, “may be the most powerful nation on earth, but at the UN, fortunately, it has only one vote like everybody else.”

Pakistan, continuing its drive to put a spanner in the efforts to expand the Security Council, is asking the Organisation of Islamic Countries to demand a permanent seat for Muslims in the Council. OIC foreign ministers, meeting in Yemen from June 28, are expected to discuss the issue.

Arab diplomats here said Saudi Arabia is being prodded by Pakistan to put the issue of the OIC agenda. Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud al Faisal said in Riyadh during the weekend that Islamic nations have a right to get one permanent seat in the UN.

But G4 diplomats said the matter could be easily resolved if the African summit nominates Egypt or another Muslim-majority state in Africa as one of its two candidates.

some updates.

http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=84541
Ghana pledges support for Brazil on UN Reforms
Accra, June 27, GNA - Ghana on Monday pledged her support to Brazil on the reforms in the United Nations.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/9b67f380-e743-11d9-a721-00000e2511c8.html
Schröder attempts to sway US on claim for UN seat

By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin and Ted Alden in Washington
Published: June 27 2005 20:43 | Last updated: June 27 2005 20:43

United NationsGerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, on Monday reaffirmed his country's bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in a last-ditch attempt to overcome US opposition to the move.

Mr Schröder, in Washington on a one-day US trip to meet President George W. Bush, told the American Chamber of Commerce that US misgivings about Germany's claim were “without grounds”.

“It is not the numbers [of its members], but such criteria as representativity and the readiness of its members to take on responsibilities that will determine the efficiency and the legitimacy of the Security Council,” he said.

Questioned by reporters following the two leaders' meeting in the White House, Mr Bush would only say that “we oppose no country”.

The US officially favours adding “two or so” permanent seats to the Security Council and two to three non-permanent seats, and has openly backed Japan for one of the new permanent seats.

Germany, Japan, India and Brazil the so-called G4 have advocated a permanent seat for each of them as well as two African states, plus six more non-permanent members.

The Security Council currently has five permanent members, each with veto power, and 10 rotating members.

Mr Schröder's hope of crowning his second term in office with a high-profile foreign policy victory in the shape of a permanent Security Council seat has faded in recent weeks.

According to diplomats in Washington and at the United Nations, the Bush administration is opposed to Germany because of Mr Schröder's vocal campaign against the US-led war in Iraq three years ago.

The issue is unlikely to be resolved before Germany's early election scheduled for September 18, when Mr Schröder is expected to be swept out of power by a conservative landslide.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1413106,00050003.htm
No veto powers for India in UNSC: Straw

Indo-Asian News Service

London, June 27, 2005

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on Monday reiterated Britain's support for India's bid to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but said New Delhi would not have veto powers.

"We will continue to support India's bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council. I reaffirm that today," Straw said at the opening of a two-day conference on "India: the next decade" at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London.

"We want to see India take on global responsibilities commensurate with its size and stature," he added.

Later, at a press conference after meeting visiting Indian External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh, Straw clarified that Britain did not see India enjoying the veto rights in an expanded Security Council.


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050627f2.htm
German ambassador confident of UNSC success

By KANAKO TAKAHARA
Staff writer

Strong backing from developing countries is likely to be enough to get the "Group of Four" nations over the top in their effort to expand the U.N. Security Council, according to Germany's ambassador to Japan, Henrik Schmiegelow.

German Ambassador Henrik Schmiegelow speaks Saturday at Aoyama Gakuin University during a lecture cosponsored by The Japan Times.

Tension is increasing at U.N. Headquarters in New York as Japan, Germany, India and Brazil -- all aspiring to become permanent members of the Security Council -- look for the right time to submit their revised resolution to the General Assembly.

"An increasing number of developing countries have begun to realize how the G-4 resolution would give them an epoch-making opportunity," Schmiegelow said in a lecture Saturday at Aoyama Gakuin University cosponsored by The Japan Times.

"When the resolution is put to a vote in July, I am confident it will gain two-thirds of the necessary votes" in the General Assembly, he said through an interpreter.

The revised G-4 resolution would add six new permanent seats and four new rotating members on the Security Council. The Group of Four nations each hope to gain a permanent seat with the remaining two allocated to African nations.

The so-called "Consensus Group," which includes Italy, South Korea and Pakistan, are campaigning against this move.

Schmiegelow criticized a proposal drafted by the Consensus Group that would only increase the number of nonpermanent seats on the council, saying it is merely aimed at blocking the Group of Four from gaining permanent seats.

"The most important message of its proposal is to take more time," and it does not sufficiently address the issue of U.N. reform, Schmiegelow said.

He also stressed the need to reorganize the U.N. so it will have more power to resolve conflicts among nations.

Germany and France were the two major nations that clashed with the U.S. when it was trying to drum up support in the Security Council for invading Iraq.

"The crisis over the war on Iraq brought (U.N. impotence) into sharp relief," he said. "What we need is an effective multilateral framework with the U.N. at the center."

And as the world increasingly faces problems that transcend borders, such as poverty, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, even the United States -- the lone superpower -- will not be able to deal with them without the support of other nations, Schmiegelow said.

This just in.

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=21425&name=US+does+not+'oppose'+any+UN%3CBR%3ESecurity+Council+bid%3A+Bush

US does not 'oppose' any UN Security Council bid: Bush


27 June 2005

BERLIN - U.S. President George W. Bush, after meeting with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, said the United States does not oppose any country's bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

"We oppose no country," Bush told reporters.

Schroeder said that during their discussions he was glad to hear that Bush was not against a German seat on the powerful body.

"I was very pleased, indeed, to hear that there was no opposition, - vis-a-vis Germany as such - from the president," Schroeder said.

:confused: