PERMANENT SEAT IN UNSC
AMMENDMENT IS REQUIRED
SARASIJ MAJUMDER
ONCE POSSIBLE TO GET RATHER EASILY, HOW INDIA HAVE LOST IT
“…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 rumours 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. 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 rumours 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.
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….”
-----Ref. " cwihp_working_paper_76_not_at_the_cost_of_china."
Indian External Affairs Minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar,
has expressed confidence in India's eventual ascension to a permanent seat on
the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
Mr. Jaishankar's statement understates the complexity of the
process and the various challenges India faces in its pursuit of a permanent
UNSC seat, for the last 5 years. One of the major hurdles is the need for reform within the UN
itself. The current composition of the UNSC reflects the geopolitical realities
of the post-World War II era, with permanent seats held by the United States,
Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom.
Many countries, including India,
argue that this composition does not adequately represent the contemporary
global balance of power.
However, India's bid faces opposition from certain quarters,
including some of the current permanent members who are reluctant to see the
expansion of the council. This opposition adds another layer of complexity to
India's quest for a UNSC seat.
Despite these challenges, Jaishankar's statement reflects
India's determination and confidence in its ability to eventually secure a
permanent seat on the UNSC. India's growing influence in global affairs,
coupled with its economic and military strength, makes it a candidate already qualified for permanent membership, with VITO power.
However, I don't think it is ever achievable without major amendment in UNSC.
What may be way out:-
1.0 Members
with VITO shall be with First Five, most powerful Countries-- economically, and militarily. Democracy is
preferred, in case of TIE.
2.0
They shall be selected for 5 years. Then revalidated, based on Global position. New, powerful may replace the weakest one.
3.0
Next additional members shall be selected by respective six Continents, excluding Antarctic and Australia.
They will not have Vito power. Australia will have one representative.
Antarctica will be represented by first five with Vito, and Australian representative. If Australia comes
under first Five, no more candidate from Australia. No Continent shall have
more than two members, including members
selected in First Five.
There
should be a lower TIER of 50 members—the selection procedure shall be such that
each zone is adequately represented.
Ref:- HT,TOI
Image:-- Google
Comments
Post a Comment