Security Council expansion
Source: by S. Nihal Singh: The Tribune
While there are a complex set of factors involved in Saudi Arabia's rejection of the rotating United Nations Security Council seat, it has done a great service to India and other aspirants to a permanent seat. It has, in effect, pointed the way to break the logjam in the composition of a Council that represents the past, rather than the present or the future.
First, we must look at Saudi motives for a move that is both unprecedented and has stunned the world. Riyadh had given increasing signs of its frustration as the Syrian civil war has raged on and the Security Council was paralysed by continuing Russian and Chinese vetoes even as the Saudis were aiding anti-Assad groups. And when the Council did act on a Russian initiative to count and destroy Syrian chemical weapons, the US withdrew its threat to attack Syria with cruise missiles.
Indeed, recent events have been going against Saudi interests. Its main regional rival Iran has been trying to cosy up to the United States and is engaged in serious talks on its nuclear programme with world powers for the first time in years. The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is also along the increasingly dangerous Sunni-Shia fault line.
In rejecting the UN seat, Saudi Arabia charged the UN with practising double standards and faulted its work methods that prevent it from properly shouldering its responsibilities. Apart from the UN's inaction on Syria, Riyadh charged the organisation with failure in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and inability to free the Middle East of means of mass destruction. The last was a swipe at Israel, the only nuclear power in the region.
The surprise, of course, was that the Saudi ambassador to the UN had welcomed his country's success in winning a seat after three years of hard lobbying. Obviously, the rejection decision was taken at the very top in Riyadh amidst reported impending changes in the country's foreign policy hierarchy.
Inadvertently, the Saudi enunciation of its dissatisfaction with the UN opens the door for India to make its own dissatisfaction with the status quo in the Security Council plain more dramatically than by issuing demarches. The nub of the problem is that despite support from powerful countries, the ‘have’ powers are content to let matters rest as they are, with a European-majority permanent membership enjoying veto powers. The only concession made thus far is to count Germany as an informal permanent member under the 'P 5 plus one' formula.
As long as countries like India and other deserving nations to the rotating Security Council seats based on regional caucuses are content to lobby and compete for these seats, the permanent five countries are happy. While expressing lip service for enlarging the permanent slots, they maintain the status quo.
The reactions of some of the permanent members are revealing. Russia reacted with barely concealed anger, recognising that the Saudis threaten to open a Pandora's box in challenging the right of veto for the permanent members. Realising that part of the anger is aimed at Washington on its reluctance to act militarily on Syria and President Obama's peace overtures to Iran, the US has sought to shrug off the Saudi move.
The French, always original in their contribution to world affairs, have supported the Saudi move for reform of the Security Council, suggesting that there should be no veto on issues involving ‘mass crime’. The UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, has refrained from making substantive comments while waiting for an official notification of the Saudi move, with perhaps a faint hope that Riyadh might relent. Among the regional powers, Turkey, which has been strident in its anti-Assad policy, said through its President Abdullah Gul that that the Saudi move should be treated with respect and that he shared Riyadh's perceptions on UN inaction on Syria.
India can make its own substantive move to jog the process of a speedier reform of an outdated Security Council by declaring that it would forswear contesting a rotating seat in its regional caucus as a mark of protest against the immobility in effecting substantive reforms in the Security Council. India would, of course, remain an active member of the world organisation in other respects.
Of the countries that had banded together for an expansion of the Council's permanent membership, Germany is perhaps satisfied with the half a loaf it has received as an honorary member of the ‘P 5’. But New Delhi should consult Japan and Brazil and other countries in forming a joint front in forswearing contesting rotating seats in their regional caucuses. It would then send out a signal to the ‘have’powers to end their delaying tactic in reforming a key institution of war and peace in the world organisation.
If the Saudis persevere in their rejection of the rotating seat, what comes next? It is an unprecedented situation, UN officials privately acknowledge. The Afro-Asian caucus will presumably have to go back to the drawing board to pick a new member for the tenth rotating seat. That will be the time for India to declare that it would forthwith decline to seek a rotating seat in solidarity with Saudi Arabia's justified complaints about the anachronistic nature of the Security Council.
There has been one grudging reform of the Security Council in terms of expanding its membership, but the permanent five — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — have retained their privileges unaltered. China remains the sole permanent member from Asia and has a vested interest in warding off the addition of two other major powers, India and Japan.
There are any number of other spoilers such as Italy and Pakistan, countries aware of their own limitations in making the grade. Thus it comes about that many vested interests combine to frustrate matching the key organisation with today's and tomorrow's world. The point is simple: How long will New Delhi tolerate a distorted membership of the Security Council merely chanting the need for reform?
Source: by S. Nihal Singh: The Tribune
While there are a complex set of factors involved in Saudi Arabia's rejection of the rotating United Nations Security Council seat, it has done a great service to India and other aspirants to a permanent seat. It has, in effect, pointed the way to break the logjam in the composition of a Council that represents the past, rather than the present or the future.
First, we must look at Saudi motives for a move that is both unprecedented and has stunned the world. Riyadh had given increasing signs of its frustration as the Syrian civil war has raged on and the Security Council was paralysed by continuing Russian and Chinese vetoes even as the Saudis were aiding anti-Assad groups. And when the Council did act on a Russian initiative to count and destroy Syrian chemical weapons, the US withdrew its threat to attack Syria with cruise missiles.
Indeed, recent events have been going against Saudi interests. Its main regional rival Iran has been trying to cosy up to the United States and is engaged in serious talks on its nuclear programme with world powers for the first time in years. The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran is also along the increasingly dangerous Sunni-Shia fault line.
In rejecting the UN seat, Saudi Arabia charged the UN with practising double standards and faulted its work methods that prevent it from properly shouldering its responsibilities. Apart from the UN's inaction on Syria, Riyadh charged the organisation with failure in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and inability to free the Middle East of means of mass destruction. The last was a swipe at Israel, the only nuclear power in the region.
The surprise, of course, was that the Saudi ambassador to the UN had welcomed his country's success in winning a seat after three years of hard lobbying. Obviously, the rejection decision was taken at the very top in Riyadh amidst reported impending changes in the country's foreign policy hierarchy.
Inadvertently, the Saudi enunciation of its dissatisfaction with the UN opens the door for India to make its own dissatisfaction with the status quo in the Security Council plain more dramatically than by issuing demarches. The nub of the problem is that despite support from powerful countries, the ‘have’ powers are content to let matters rest as they are, with a European-majority permanent membership enjoying veto powers. The only concession made thus far is to count Germany as an informal permanent member under the 'P 5 plus one' formula.
As long as countries like India and other deserving nations to the rotating Security Council seats based on regional caucuses are content to lobby and compete for these seats, the permanent five countries are happy. While expressing lip service for enlarging the permanent slots, they maintain the status quo.
The reactions of some of the permanent members are revealing. Russia reacted with barely concealed anger, recognising that the Saudis threaten to open a Pandora's box in challenging the right of veto for the permanent members. Realising that part of the anger is aimed at Washington on its reluctance to act militarily on Syria and President Obama's peace overtures to Iran, the US has sought to shrug off the Saudi move.
The French, always original in their contribution to world affairs, have supported the Saudi move for reform of the Security Council, suggesting that there should be no veto on issues involving ‘mass crime’. The UN Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-Moon, has refrained from making substantive comments while waiting for an official notification of the Saudi move, with perhaps a faint hope that Riyadh might relent. Among the regional powers, Turkey, which has been strident in its anti-Assad policy, said through its President Abdullah Gul that that the Saudi move should be treated with respect and that he shared Riyadh's perceptions on UN inaction on Syria.
India can make its own substantive move to jog the process of a speedier reform of an outdated Security Council by declaring that it would forswear contesting a rotating seat in its regional caucus as a mark of protest against the immobility in effecting substantive reforms in the Security Council. India would, of course, remain an active member of the world organisation in other respects.
Of the countries that had banded together for an expansion of the Council's permanent membership, Germany is perhaps satisfied with the half a loaf it has received as an honorary member of the ‘P 5’. But New Delhi should consult Japan and Brazil and other countries in forming a joint front in forswearing contesting rotating seats in their regional caucuses. It would then send out a signal to the ‘have’powers to end their delaying tactic in reforming a key institution of war and peace in the world organisation.
If the Saudis persevere in their rejection of the rotating seat, what comes next? It is an unprecedented situation, UN officials privately acknowledge. The Afro-Asian caucus will presumably have to go back to the drawing board to pick a new member for the tenth rotating seat. That will be the time for India to declare that it would forthwith decline to seek a rotating seat in solidarity with Saudi Arabia's justified complaints about the anachronistic nature of the Security Council.
There has been one grudging reform of the Security Council in terms of expanding its membership, but the permanent five — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France — have retained their privileges unaltered. China remains the sole permanent member from Asia and has a vested interest in warding off the addition of two other major powers, India and Japan.
There are any number of other spoilers such as Italy and Pakistan, countries aware of their own limitations in making the grade. Thus it comes about that many vested interests combine to frustrate matching the key organisation with today's and tomorrow's world. The point is simple: How long will New Delhi tolerate a distorted membership of the Security Council merely chanting the need for reform?
No comments:
Post a Comment