INDIA'S ADMISSION AS SUPER PWER IN SECURITY COUNCIL

 

INDIA:SC: VETO

SARASIJ MAJUMDER

In 1939, the outbreak of World War II directly led to the dissolution of the League of Nations. By 1941, American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill were already conceiving of the League’s replacement. They envisioned a global alliance led by, as Roosevelt called them, “the Four Policemen”—the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China—the chief members of the Allied forces in the War. This idea evolved as the war raged on, but in June 1945—just over a month after Victory in Europe Day—the United Nations (UN) Charter was signed. The Charter took effect in October 1945—just over a month after Japan’s formal surrender on the deck of the USS Missouri, finally bringing the War to an end. 

However—FRANCE was included making it 5P, and later White China was replaced by Red China—as they were  was commonly known.

These 5P wield ‘VETO’ power.

In my opinion, however lobbying we may do, Membership in Security Council with VETO power is  not going to materialise soon.

There are FOUR KEY CHALLENGES India must overcome before it secures veto power in the United Nations. There may be some more minor ones. We will discuss only the ‘MAJOR’ ones.

1.0 CHINA'S OPPOSITION:

Among the five permanent security council members all except China - the US, the UK, France, and Russia - have categorically supported India's candidature in the past. This is very vital point. However—India’s position on ‘UKRAINE’ war, may influence this position now.

As a close competitor of India in regional politics and hence as well  in international politics, China - the only Asian country with a security council seat, is enjoying a ‘REGIONAL MONOPOLY’ – are, and will be  completely against to endorse New Delhi's inclusion.

This adds to its power and international prestige and China is unlikely to want to share this space with India. What's more, particularly amid an ongoing border dispute with India, China will resist any attempt by any, or all of the other  four members to change the composition of the UNSC.

China is also uncomfortable with Japan, a close US ally that, like India, is a strong contender for a permanent seat. Japan also has some dispute with China on EEZ in the sea.

China has unofficially dropped hints that it may back India, provided New Delhi doesn't endorse Japan's bid. I have not found any credible evidence to this statement. China knows that New Delhi will not break the unity of the G-4 (comprising Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, are four countries which support each other's bids for permanent seats on the security council) and thus, considers it is a safe bet to pit India against Japan, and escape.

ACTUALLY—JLN’S LOOK FIRST TOWARDS CHINA POLICY, BASED ON THE ADVICE OF A HALF CRIMINAL—HALF COMMUNIST ‘MENON’ COST US DEARLY.

2.0 DISAGREEMENT AMONG MEMBERS ON VETO POWER.

Some parties have raised the prospect of India gaining UNSC membership without veto power.

Groups including Uniting for Consensus (UfC) - a powerful coalition led by Italy, with other members including Canada, Mexico, Spain, Pakistan, South Korea and Turkey - have advocated reinforcing the working of the General Assembly and increasing the number of non-permanent members.

Its argument is that the addition of non-permanent members will make the UN more accountable and representative by accommodating relevant regional voices in the decision-making process. In doing so, the group argues, this solution would mean there are more than a few select chief custodians of the international system.

But there are questions about what happens if India gets a high seat without veto power. Could this be considered a piecemeal approach towards achieving the larger objective?

Some countries say they prefer this kind of arrangement. It is not acceptable to New Delhi.. India's position is --- all new permanent members to the security council must possess a veto.

THUS, IT IS MOST UNLIKELY THERE WILL BE ANY ACCEPTABLE RESOLUTION  ON THIS.

3.0 CONCERNS OF  USA, EU & NATO :

The USA has, in principle, endorsed India gaining a permanent seat on the security council. But not everyone believes USA policymakers will actually support such a reform in practice. USA will find an excuse not to do this.

The USA, and it’s eco system with EU, and NATO don’t consider India as a reliable alley.

Indeed, in the past, P-5 countries have displayed "a habit of being non-committal" when it comes to actual decision-making on veto powers. As former US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said in 2008: "We want to preserve the veto, and we do not want to extend a veto to new permanent members."

Prominent US-based South Asian expert Ashley Tellis recently penned a piece in Foreign Affairs magazine arguing that the US cannot be sure of India's support on significant strategic matters. Ashley later defended this position in an interview, saying "the current war in Ukraine is a good example... India defines its interest in ways that are not always identical to our own".

It is true that India has not always voted with the West in the UN and has maintained an independent position on several critical subjects (e.g., India abstaining on the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Due to this, many Western Diplomats  think India is a fence-sitter and see it as an unreliable partner.

The West, particularly after the Russian-Ukraine war, is more watchful of new geopolitical reality. The understanding that Russia may fail to secure any support in the world for its war has changed.

Despite developing closer strategic ties with the West, India remained non-committal on supporting sanctions on Russia. While China's response was anticipated, for the West, diplomatic neutrality by New Delhi in criticising Russia was no less than a shock.

In these changed circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that the West, particularly the US, will go ahead with a reformed security council where India has veto power.

And The WEST CABALS Don’t Like INDIA Having An Independent Opinion, And Position In International Matters..

 4.0 THE REGIONAL CONUNDRUM

India also faces formidable challenges to its leadership emanating from its own region. India influences the region, but not in absolute terms. Indeed, as instability in the region has increased, so too have New Delhi's troubles.

South Asia has become a battleground of India-China competition.

And while the India-Pakistan rivalry captures most attention, there are major India-related issues that agitate people in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and even in Bhutan. They are not ready to accept India as a ‘BIG BROTHER’.

With its recent change of government, Bangladesh is no longer on the same page. SRI LANKA, and MALDIVES sometimes in, sometimes out. Instability in  India's regional leadership raises questions over its claims to be a global power.

WE HAVE TO BE UNDISPUTED LEADER OF SOUTH-EAST ASIA.

WHAT ARE THE WAYS AHEAD??

There are convincing arguments that the UN is in desperate need of reformation, particularly the Security Council. Expanding the Security Council's membership to include newly developed, and emerging powers like India would benefit the UN and the international community.

However, New Delhi must make more concerted efforts to address convoluted criticisms to further legitimise its demand for permanent membership.

India's geographical, political, and social influence in South East Asia cannot be ignored. Recent solidarity around its increasing religious identity is not liked by USA, and it’s CABALS-- - as well as Mullahs of  Muslim countries. However—there are a few exceptions, and those who opposes, can’t do much..

Opposition parties within INDIA  sends negative signals to the external world. AND THIS IS A  UNIQUE CASE  OF SCORING SAME SIDE GOALS!  USA, and EU  are not comfortable with INDEPENDENT INDIA,  and tries to get associated with the anti-India Brigade!.

CHINA doesn’t like a strong India.

Politicians of neighbouring countries  were always after individual interests, and RANK CORRUPT. They will not think twice before mort gauzing their Country with CHINA.

India's internal conflicts, the issue of economic inequality, and its lack of world-class infrastructure all contribute to the nation's global image, which is ruthlessly exploited by our opponents.

To conclude, —unless there is a GEO-POLITICAL crisis that INDIA can exploit—the membership in SECURITY COUNCIL may not happen soon. We must propose, and fight for, along with others:-

1.0  Pressurise to have P-10, replacing P-5.

2.0  There shouldn’t be any ‘VETO’ power.

3.0  Decision shall be taken ‘Democratically’.

4.0  Selection is for 4 years—Top 10 most economically, and Militarily powerful countries shall occupy the seats. Which shall be vetted every 4 years

Note:- Analysis, and  opinion is made by  the BLOGGER. Information are available in public domain-- scattered. READER IS REQUESTED NOT TO COPY BUT SHARE. 

Image:-- Sourced from Google.