Why it's too soon to give Brazil and India permanent seats on UNSC

Discussion in 'Americas' started by ajtr, Mar 15, 2011.

  1. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    The Trouble With the BRICs

    Why it's too soon to give Brazil and India permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council.

    As the so-called BRIC countries, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, have grown more and more influential in the world economy, their administrators and myriad pundits have inevitably concluded that they and other rising powers should also become more important actors in global politics. The insistence by Brazil and India for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, a similar push by China and Brazil for a greater say on climate change talks and on IMF and World Bank voting shares, and a greater voice for South Africa in all of these arenas are just a few examples of the BRICs' growing boldness.

    But as I noted last year in Foreign Affairs, the emerging powers are not ready for prime time. And never has this been clearer than now, with revolution sweeping the Middle East. It is the traditional powers in the West that will determine the international response to this crisis -- not because they are favored by global institutions, but because their word is backed by military and diplomatic weight. In contrast, the world's rising economies lack the ability -- and the values -- to project their power on the world stage.

    Let's back up a bit. By now, the growing economic clout of the new regional powers is indisputable. Their political strength, however, is less obvious. And more importantly, their entry into the halls of world governance would not necessarily strengthen the developing international legal regime. These new powers lack the same commitment as the older ones to supranational institutions and universal values such as human rights, the collective defense of democracy, a robust climate change framework, nuclear nonproliferation, and so forth. Hence, permanent seats on the Security Council for Brazil, India, and South Africa, coupled with greater participation by China, Pakistan, Indonesia, and even Mexico in international agencies or bodies, might weaken the very foundations of the liberal democratic order -- although in this regard, their entrance would also make international bodies more globally representative.

    But in recent discussions about what should be done in Libya -- as well as in other potential trouble spots in the Arab world -- yet another weakness is laid bare. In addition to generally not wanting to intervene on humanitarian grounds or in defense of democracy or human rights, the "new powers" lack … power. Despite China's and Brazil's military and naval buildup, and India's and Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, they still lack the ability to project power the way that countries such as France and Britain can when NATO or the U.N. Security Council so decide. One can agree with such interventions or oppose them, but at this juncture only countries such as these and the United States have the wherewithal to actually do something in crises such as Libya.

    The BRICs are self-consciously aware of these weaknesses, and they are working hard to change. Despite being former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's handpicked candidate, Brazil's new leader, Dilma Rousseff, has partly reneged on some of Lula's more questionable foreign-policy postures. She has explicitly pulled back from Brazil's futile and incomprehensible venture -- hand in hand with Turkey -- into the nuclear proliferation conflict between Iran and the P5+1 countries. Roussef has committed Brazil to denouncing human rights violations wherever they occur (probably excluding Cuba and Venezuela, but not Iran any longer). More importantly, Brazil, as a nonpermanent member of the Security Council, voted in favor of Resolution 1970, which imposed sanctions on Libya for the wanton killing of civilians in its ongoing civil war. Brazil's stand on a Security Council resolution imposing a no-fly zone over Libya remains ambiguous, but it seems far more forward-looking than traditional Itamaraty "anti-interventionism."

    A similar shift may be occurring with China. Beijing went along with stiffer sanctions against Iran last year and did not veto the Libya resolution. It has apparently opposed a new stance by the Security Council on the no-fly zone, but it appears that the tougher resistance comes from Russia. (One can hardly consider Vladimir Putin's Russia as an emerging power after the Cold War and its full-fledged status as a hegemon, albeit a relatively short-lived one.) Yet even Russia may eventually go along with a tougher U.N. stance than Resolution 1970 and might even approve some form of humanitarian or pro-democracy engagement.

    The real issue, though, remains that only the United States, France, and Britain really count in the Arab world crisis. Only the U.S. military was able to nudge the Egyptian Army into edging Hosni Mubarak out of power (obviously thanks to the popular movement in the street, but Qaddafi has shown that jasmines and chants are not sufficient). Only the French government, after much hesitation and several false starts, was finally able to convince Tunisian ruler Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali to leave, and largely because the military abandoned him. And if a no-fly zone is imposed or a humanitarian intervention does take place in Libya, only the United States and NATO will be able to enforce it.

    All of which brings us back to square one. The emerging economies may catch up with the older, more developed ones sooner than expected. And they are certainly insistent on conquering the political equivalent of their economic surge. But for the moment, they lack the necessary commitments to the liberal order as well as the ability to project their rising power. Are the new powers willing to fully accept and contribute to the evolving international legal regime on issues such as human rights, collective defense of democracy, trade, climate change, or nonproliferation? Are they committed -- even if Washington is not -- to the International Criminal Court, the Doha round of trade talks, the U.N. Human Rights Council, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and new, more enlightened stances by the IMF and World Bank? Can they eventually begin to assume their responsibilities in U.N. peacekeeping operations (Brazil and India have; South Africa and China are beginning)?

    Given the progress that has been made in recent months, scant as it may be, it would seem that a virtuous, non-Faustian pact may be struck with the emerging powers: a seat at the table in exchange for a full-fledged commitment to the agreements, covenants, and deals cut before they arrived, regardless of recurrent noncompliance with all of these structures by the countries that originally created them. The more China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Pakistan, and others meet these standards, the more welcome they should be to the inner councils of world governance. Next year, Mexico will chair the G-20 for six months: This will be a fine opportunity to see whether the emerging powers are finally coming of age.
     
  2.  
  3. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    Not Ready for Prime Time



    Why Including Emerging Powers at the Helm Would Hurt Global Governance


    Summary: The world’s leading international institutions may be outmoded, but Brazil, China, India, and South Africa are not ready to join the helm. Their shaky commitment to democracy, human rights, nuclear nonproliferation, and environmental protection would only weaken the international system’s core values.
    JORGE G. CASTAÑEDA was Mexico's Foreign Minister in 2000–2003. He teaches at New York University and is a member of the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch and a Fellow at the New America Foundation.

    Few matters generate as much consensus in international affairs today as the need to rebuild the world geopolitical order. Everyone seems to agree, at least in their rhetoric, that the makeup of the United Nations Security Council is obsolete and that the G-8 no longer includes all the world's most important economies. Belgium still has more voting power in the leading financial institutions than either China or India. New actors need to be brought in. But which ones? And what will be the likely results? If there is no doubt that a retooled international order would be far more representative of the distribution of power in the world today, it is not clear whether it would be better.

    The major emerging powers, Brazil, Russia, India, and China, catchily labeled the BRICs by Goldman Sachs, are the main contenders for inclusion. There are other groupings, too: the G-5, the G-20, and the P-4; the last -- Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan -- are the wannabes that hope to join the UN Security Council and are named after the P-5, the council's permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Up for the G-8 are Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. The G-8 invited representatives of those five states to its 2003 summit in Evian, France, and from 2005 through 2008, this so-called G-5 attended its own special sessions on the sidelines of the G-8's.
     
  4. Tolaha

    Tolaha Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    The title put up by the poster doesnt exactly match with the contents presented in the original article!

    Going by the gist of this article, even China must be removed from UNSC!!
     
  5. Oracle

    Oracle New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    1,541
    Location:
    Bangalore, India
    This is what is called hacking yellow journalism.

    Btw, when was China in need of a permanent seat, it already has one. Talk about Summary :pound:
     
  6. jatkshatriya

    jatkshatriya Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    243
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    India
    @AJTR.......not being able to project power and unnecessarily and wrongly projecting power and killing innocent millions,,,,,,well neither shud be accepted.....the writer of the post deems fit the nations that have subdued and annhilated civilisations as the champions of the free world whereas the civilisation that has never invaded any other in its thusand of years of existence as unfit.....Hell who needs UNO.....India Russia and China shud team up and bring other poor and weak nations under their partnership and launch a new organisation parallel to UNO....
     
  7. smartindian

    smartindian Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    52
    Location:
    Mysore, Karnataka, India
    in environment sense american are the biggest offend , if whole world follow us , and dream to live a american way of life. 5.4 earth is required to fulfill the energy demand for today's population .

    core value and democracy ? american follow Hippocracy , different rules for different countries.

    human right, american has no right to talk about after killing innocent afgani's for game (by us solider )

    all together it is a totally bulls it artical
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2011
  8. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    422
    The problem is not when brazil or india should get the permanent seat with veto power. Instead, the problem is how much you want to pay for this. Currently I don't see that you have the ability to satisfy the Big 5.
     
  9. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,410
    Likes Received:
    971
    It's not about paying, not <necessarily, or immediately> about power, not <always> about friends, or commitments, or global structures, or support from existing P5 powers. It is about trends; and/or potential power: evaluated as a composite of demographics, economics, the military and politics.

    The UNSC P5 seat, today, is fundamentally a matter of presitge. It affords no real executive power. We've all seen how the UNSC performed during the world's worst diplomatic crises. It passed no resolutions at all on most major Cold War conflicts, including the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. India moves a resolution against Pakistan; and China blocks it; China moves a resolution against India, and the United States blocks it. and on, and on...

    There is only one way diplomatically that I see for India to launch itself into the P5 process, other than the long and arduous process of negotiation, and that is by execution of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. At the adoption of the resolution in 1950, it was made clear by the UN Member States that according to the UN Charter the P5 cannot prevent the UN General Assembly from taking any action necessary to restore international peace and security, in cases where the UNSC has failed to exercise the "primary responsibility" for maintaining peace. Various high-level reports make explicit reference to the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, drawn most notably by the United States during the Suez canal crisis, as providing the necessary mechanism for the UNGA to overrule any vetoes in the UNSC. But the drawing of the resolution in the General Assembly requires a strong country, a leader of sorts, and India's economy, its population, its army and its growing clout, as well as its erstwhile role as leader of the Non Aligned movement, afford it that. A country- not quite there; but still big enough to influence international decisions at a level approximating the P5. That will throw India into the spotlight, and the more correctly it uses this process, the more it will necessitate accommodation.
     
  10. no smoking

    no smoking Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,173
    Likes Received:
    422
    The reason that big 5 is P5 is that they have their supporters in the general assembly. In order to get these supporting, big 5 paid a high price: from financial aid to discount weapons. China alone spent billions dolloars on those small countries EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Nobody gives a shit about india's economy, population or army. The only way you have your say in this world is to pay the money or beat everyone down.

    Unless india can outmatch big 5 in money, that would be a remote dream for india to be a leader of general assemble.
     
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,549
    Likes Received:
    6,551
    Does China belong in the big 5, it is the only third world country there??China's GDP/PPP is not even 5,000 per person all the other nations are 7-10 times more except Russia which is 3 times more, China is the only country representing the third world in the p5.[​IMG]

    Blue first world -orange third world
     
  12. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,410
    Likes Received:
    971
    Tell me, what nations is China giving 'billions' of dollars in weapons to? Giving not selling.

    You are aware, that India, not only 'gives', it is directly responsible for the defense of several satellite states: Bhutan, Maldives and Qatar come to mind.
     
  13. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,523
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    curiously are Brazil or Argentina in the 1st world (blue)? only by GDP or PPP criteria?
     
  14. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,549
    Likes Received:
    6,551
  15. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    The BRIC Wall

    Posted By Joshua Keating Thursday, March 17, 2011 - 7:43 PM Share
    We'll have much more on the implications of what just transpired on the security council, but it's worth taking note right now of the countries that abstained from voting for a no-fly zone consist of the so-called BRIC countries, as well as longtime security council aspirant Germany.

    David Bosco notes:

    Moreover, this is a debate in which the Western powers are actually pushing for a system under which it is far less likely that their vision of global governance will hold sway. President Obama has already voiced support for permanent membership for India and will face calls to do the same for Brazil when he travels there next week.

    Britain has been one of the most enthusiastic backers of this resolution, but when I asked Foreign Minister William Hague what he saw as the ideal Security Council in November, he told me, "We favor the inclusion of India, Brazil, Germany and Japan and African representation in an expanded security council." India, Brazil, and Germany, as we've just seen, are highly skeptical of intervention. Pacifist Japan probably falls in that category too. An as-yet undefined African membership is more of a wildcard, but it's easy to imagine, say, Jacob Zuma or Mwai Kibaki signing up enthusiastically for membership in the sovereignty bloc.

    So while Obama and Cameron may have backed intervention today, they're ultimately making it less likely that there will be more of these resolutions in the future.
     
  16. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613
    30 years ago, it was UN that credited China.
    Nowdays, It is China that credits UN.

    even if CHina were to be removed from UN,so what?

    China could easily make troubles to UN in N.Korea, Iran, Sudan,Lybia,Afghanistan,Iraq...etc..and disable UN ,because CHina has considerable leverages in almost all hot areas all over the earth.


    Furthermore, China even might organize its clients states and friendly states to set up another international organizaiton called "new league of Nations" or something else and marginalize UN,Just as China marginalize world bank and IMF in Africa and Latin American ,by providing more cheap loose loans than world bank and IMF.
     
  17. badguy2000

    badguy2000 Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    4,957
    Likes Received:
    613


    well, the real life quality of most east Europe countries is in fact quite close to that of CHina,whether measured by per capital household appliance ,per capital medical service,per capital eletric consumption or average life span,liferacy rate ...etc,although CHinese per capital nominal GDP is only 1/2 of 1/3 of most east Europe countries.

    And it is misleading to put Latin America into the same league of East Europe ,although both has similar "per capital nomonal GDP".......Under the current social system,most Latin America countries such as Mexico and Brazil has no chance to become real developed countries, whether measured with economy structure or social structure,however high their per capital nominal GDP looks like...

    To tell the truth...the Latin America today is just the future of India.....it has a per capital nominal GDP of 10 time of indian today,but the slums are still rampant there....the abject poverty are still rampant there....the rule of mafia are rampant.....its industry chains are still undeveloped.....it still has to import finished products by exporting raw resource.....
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2011
  18. amoy

    amoy Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,523
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    BRIC is a fiction. That's how life looks like in a 1st world country >>


     
  19. niharjhatn

    niharjhatn Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2010
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    388
    LOL @ such a statement coming from a Chinese poster. China was hardly the dominant force it is today 40 or so years ago. You yourself have experienced coming from the gutter to take limelight on the economic stage - why can't other nations do the same?

    India has much stronger and better industries to hang its coat on than many of these South American nations!
     
  20. Rage

    Rage DFI TEAM Stars and Ambassadors

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,410
    Likes Received:
    971
    That is a jealous statement ....surprising, since India's per-capita income and GDP is the same as China's was in 2001. I bet you were not so pessimistic about the future of China in 2001, were you?

    Considering India's exports <material, alone> have more than doubled in the last five years, have actually exceeded their growth targets in the last two, and are projected to double again in the next three, all the while while services exports continue to grow at a steady, then accelerating rate, the future path for India does not look too dim.

    Our industry chains are mal-developed and incomplete, it is true, but they are far advanced to what your outdated knowledge has to describe. The obsolescence of your knowledge has been proved time and time again, and I'm sure, having spent the last few years on this forum, you've realized things about India that even you hadn't realized before. Just as my opinions of the level of political freedoms Chinese netizens and citizens enjoy, has changed considerably in the last year.
     
  21. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    The reason why China economy grew so much over the last decade is due to capital appreciation, correct?

    Is it possible for a similar thing to happen to India, in regards to the INR? I do not fully understand the economics concepts.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2011

Share This Page