India in UNSC

In the past few days, there has been a lot of discussion in India regarding a permanent seat in the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) .... most of the websites have been abuzz with people pointing out the 'coming of age' of India by a public endorsement of Mr. Barak Obama of India's candidacy to the Permanent Position, on his recent visit to India in November 2010. Some people have taken it as the proof that 'India has finally risen pheonix-like from it's deep slumber', others have questioned the euphoria behind the event and how it would make any difference to the overall picture.... Still others have pointed out, that India was offered permanency in 1955 (55 years ago) and Pt. Nehru had declined the offer, passing it on to a China which, turned out to be belligerent rather than gracious....

So what do I think about it? Actually, a lot .... but before I get down to my thoughts on the subject, a brief understanding of the UNSC is of primary importance....

The UNSC is the executive arm of the UNO and as such, presence in the UN is a matter of great importance to any and every country.... Since the inception of the UNO, the Big 5 (USA, Russia (first at Soviet Union), UK, France and China) have been the permanent members of the UNSC - the most important parameter of their power is the power of 'veto' i.e. the power to reject any proposal that may be counter-productive to their national interest under Article 27 of the United States Charter.

Let's have a look at Article 27, before we go into in-depth analysis of the current scenario:

Article 27 states:

•  Each member of the Security Council shall have only one vote.

• Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.

• Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

Though the 'power of veto' is not explicitly mentioned herein, it can be observed that the clause makes effective space for the same by declaring that any 'substantive' decisions by the UNSC require "the concurring votes of the permanent members." In simpler terms, it means that any of the permanent members of the UNSC can prevent the adoption, by the Council, of any draft resolutions on matter, that may be termed 'substantive'. Due to this reason, Critics of the 'power of veto' is also referred to the same, as the Principle of Great Power Unanimity.

Pt. Nehru, it has been alleged turned down the offer of being a permanent part of the UNSC in 1955, as we have noted earlier, in favour of China. This seat, however, the detractors, may note, was not an additional 6th seat but had fallen vacant due to questions raised on the authenticity of PRC (People's Republic of China), occupying the seat that was the seat of ROC (Republic of China), prior to the Red Revolution of 1949.

Indeed, Pt, Nehru on issues of realpolitik can be considered to have made a fatal error; however, in the past 55 years, there has not been a single instance wherein India's absence in the pantheon has lead to major impacts on India as a nation - of course, the Kashmir dispute could have been sidelined, but then that would hardly be an hindrance since India has, by and large, despite occasional utterances of US in the past and China recently, managed to keep the issue off the burner. Ethically, though, Pt. Nehru may be deemed to be correct.

In my opinion, a permanent status in the UN, though a matter of great prestige and honour, can not be the standard, by which India's rise can be measured. Not all permanent embers of the UNSC are members of the G5 or the G7 - which includes the most industrialized and developed nations of the world..... If India has arrived, it has to take it's place among the G-3; the high-table to the biggest economies of the world... When Economics rules, politics has to rule as well.... because as Chanakya in India, Sun Tzu in China and Machiavelli in Florence pointed out, a powerful state is one, that has a surplus of Treasury.

Secondly, what is the need for euphoria? Do you think, China would vote in favour or abstain to allow India a place in the Pantheon? India's biggest threat is China and China's biggest threat is India .... why would China allow India to sit on the high table? It has been obvious that since 1970s China has been using our own brother and now mortal enemy, Pakistan as it's advance force - why would China support us on the high table, thus allowing us to kill it with one stroke?

Thirdly, it's important to note that all the five permanent members of the UNSC are among the most powerful nations on Earth - they have repeatedly used te power of veto to safeguard their interests .... what is the guarantee that Article 27 would not be restructured in such a way, so as to not allow the new permanent members, the power of veto? And mind you, without the power of veto, a place at the high table is not a substantial position to be in ..... What's the use of a tiger or a lion, that's in a cage, at the mercy of the raw food thrown in by the jailors?

Also, an important parameter that needs to be understood is that the reforms would take a minimum of 10 years at the least - and we are not the only ones that would stand to benefit by these reforms.... Brazil, Germany and Japan have already been sounded off as other beneficiaries of the reforms.... also there is a talk of having an African nation on the high table and another Arab country ....

It's foolish to think the Big 5 would allow another 7 to whittle away their power of the veto... the most sensible approach would then be to delink the veto from the permanency... and as I have said, that would destroy the very purpose why this is being sought....


Hence, in the current scenario, wherein there is a lot of concerns on the reforms of the UNO, I think we need to wait and see, what would be the right step to take, these steps have to be very cautious but deliberate... WE need to understand and understand well, that India's position depends not on the largesse shown by the Big 5, but on the cooperation and support of the other major claimants - Brazil, Germany, Japan, South Africa and the one other Arab state that may join in..... for left to the Big 5, it will be nothing but a farce and we definitely do not need another farce.....

As Kavi Pradeep said once:

Duniya Ke Daanv-Pech Se Rakhna Naa Waasta,
Manzil Bahot Hai Door Aur Mushqil Hai Raasta,
Bhatka Na De, Koi Kahin Dhokey Mein Daal Ke......