UN Security Council Reforms

[nandu]

Hillary hints support for India's UNSC bid

WASHINGTON: A seat at the UN high table to reflect India's growing stature, the security situation in AfPak and regional stability, and cooperation on a raft of bilateral and global issues are being discussed as the United States and India kicked off their first ever strategic dialogue on a warm, steamy morning here.

India's External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton buckled down for talks with their respective delegations in an effort to upgrade ties that seemed to have plateaued despite their five other previous engagements and at least three meetings between President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

In remarks ahead of the talks at the US State Department, Clinton, perhaps anticipating New Delhi's pitch for US support for a UNSC bid, said suo motu that "India's rise will be a factor in any future consideration of reform of the Security Council," indicating some forward thinking on the subject.

The UNSC issue is quickly turning out to be the bellwether for US' professed goal of helping India's global rise.

President Obama is to drive down to the State Department later in the day to deliver closing remarks at a post-dialogue reception Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is hosting for External Affairs Minister to underscore his reinvigorated commitment to building deep and lasting ties with India even as Washington is losing traction with other allies and friends.

Obama is expected to visit India in the second week of November, an event that has now been penciled into the diplomatic calendars in both countries, and for which the strategic dialogue appears to be a stage-setter.
Although the visit is still five months away, both sides want to iron out wrinkles and ramp up ties at a time U.S relationship with China is turning sour.

On Wednesday, China scrubbed a proposed visit later this week by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a sign of continued friction in relations between the two sides over American arms sales to Taiwan and disagreement over the Korean spat.

Although none of these developments presage an immediate fundamental change in U.S priorities, there is a general recognition in Washington now that ties with China and India will be the two most important challenges in the 21st century. President Obama has said India is going to be one of the indispensable partners of the United States in the 21st century and US officials think it's very much in Washington own strategic interests "to help advance the growth of India on the world stage."

Against this backdrop, India has begun pressing for active US support for its bid for a permanent UN Security Council seat even as the General Assembly has begun text-based negotiations on reforming the body. Krishna is expected to raise the issue with Hillary Clinton, who will brief Obama at the Oval Office about her talks before returning for the reception.

It is being suggested from the Indian side that the time has come for Washington to go beyond platitudes, and an explicit gesture of US support ahead of President Obama's New Delhi visit will electrify ties in the same way as President Bush energized it with the big-ticket nuclear deal.

The two sides will also tackle a host of prickly matters on which they don't exactly see eye-to-eye, including Iran and broader trade issues, although none of them have assumed crisis proportions. The Obama Administration -- and more so trade bodies such as the US-India Business Council -- is a tad impatient that the UPA government has been sluggish on getting the nuclear liability bill through Parliament after sealing the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. The political stand-off in New Delhi over the bill is stopping American companies from capitalizing on business from India after they pulled their weight in getting the bill through US Congress.

On Wednesday evening, Obama, still deeply troubled by the BP oil spill, spent a rare relaxed moment listening to the Beatle Sir Paul McCartney and other entertainers performing in the White House East Room. But not even a star-cast of Sir Paul, Stevie Wonder, Elvis Costello and Faith Hill, among others, kept a score of Washington mandarins, including three former National Security Advisers, from attending a reception for Krishna hosted by Ambassador Meera Shankar around the same time.

Earlier in the day, Krishna, staying at the Four Seasons close to his old digs (he was a Fulbright scholar at the nearby George Washington Law School in the 60s) drove to the U.S Chamber of Commerce to tell American businesses that the time had come for the two countries "to set our sights on new milestones."

Krishna also said India was committed to getting the Nuclear Liability Bill passed in Parliament, speaking to one of Washington's major concerns. "We are well within the agreed timelines, of course. The Government is committed to put in place a nuclear liability regime. We look forward to US companies investing in India," he told a meeting of the U.S-India Business Council.

But it is Obama's remarks at the evening reception that is being awaited for signs of how far he will reach out to India to offset the impression that it has not been a priority for him, a reading that is disputed by US officials.

Krishna, who is of older vintage than Hillary Clinton or Obama, will remind the gathering that the latter is first US President of some Asian heritage and also invoke the President's mother's work in microfinance in Asia.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...t-for-Indias-UNSC-bid/articleshow/6008692.cms

 

[nandu]

U.S. 'definitely committed' to considering India for SC membership

U.S. today said it was "definitely committed" to consider India for a permanent membership in an expanded UN Security Council but rued that there was no international consensus yet on the reforms of the world body.

Addressing a joint press conference with External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna after the inaugural session of the Indo-U.S. Strategic Dialogue, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the U.S. was committed to consider India for the membership.

"We don't have any way forward yet on the United Nations Security Council reforms but we are obviously very committed to considering India. At this point, as you probably know, there is no consensus over all," Ms. Clinton said in a response to a query what is stopping the US from endorsing India for a permanent membership in an expanded UNSC.

She said in multilateral forums things move slowly and that there was no consensus yet on the issue of the reforms of the world body. "...but we are definitely committed to the consideration of India," she said.

Earlier, in her opening remarks at the Dialogue, Ms. Clinton said India's rise would "certainly be a factor in any future consideration of the reforms" of the United Nations.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article446183.ece

 

[nandu]

US won't back India's UN bid to please China

United States President Barack Obama's administration has gone further than any previous US administration in expressing support for India's bid for a permanent seat in the United Nation's Security Council.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , after co-chairing the dialogue with External Affairs Minister S M Krishna [ Images ], said India "is an indispensable partner and a trusted friend."

"We believe that a rising India is good for the United States and good for the world," she said.

Two days before Clinton and Krishna sat down in the Benjamin Franklin Room on the eighth floor of the State Department, Under Secretary of State William Burns in a major treatise on 'India's Rise and the Promise of US-India Partnership' had, when relentlessly peppered with questions if the US would endorse India's candidacy for a permanent seat on the UNSC, stopped only just short of publicly declaring Washington's endorsement.

"India's evolving role underscores the fact that it's going to have a very important part to play in any consideration of reform at the UN Security Council," he said. "It's obvious that the Security Council, as has been the case with other parts of international architecture over the last few years, is an issue that needs to be addressed so that it reflects the realities of 2010."

Burns argued, "Now, obviously, we want to try to do that in a way which is going to preserve the effectiveness of the Security Council, but this administration has made clear not only its openness to reform and some expansion of permanent membership in the Security Council, but we've also underscored the importance we attached to India's role."

"So, I think India's going to be a central part of the consideration that is bound to come of Security Council reform," he reiterated, and added, "I do very much understand the significance of Security Council reform. I think it's an important issue for the United States to address and I think India's going to be very much a part of that process."

When he was pressed continuously, Burns said while the Security Council reform was an issue that the administration considers imperative, "We want to go about it in a way that is going to preserve the effectiveness of the Security Council, but we also recognize that that means that the realities of 1945 don't apply today."

"And that means that for countries like India, and for other countries, we need very much to consider how their increasing role in global affairs is matched by the responsibilities that they can discharge in the most important parts of the international architecture."

Clinton, questioned as to how the US can hold back from endorsing India as a permanent member of the UNSC after showering kudos that India "is an indispensable partner" and a "trusted friend," reminded that in her opening remarks she had noted that "we don't have any way forward yet on Security Council reform."

"But we are obviously very committed to considering India," she said, but again threw in the caveat that "at this point, as you probably know, there is no consensus in the world that is the challenge of dealing with multilateral organisations."

However, Clinton re-emphasised that "we are definitely committed to the consideration of India."

But do these unprecedented declarations of support an endorsement make? Can India expect Washington to start shouting from rooftops that it is rooting for India as a permanent member of the UNSC and that all others should follow suit? After all, though a US endorsement wouldn't be the be-all and end-all in terms of making India's candidacy a done deal, there's no denying that a US endorsement would sure darn well help -- and help in a big way.

However, such an endorsement is highly unlikely -- at least in the short and medium term. Senior administration officials, including those from the National Security Council and the Pentagon [ Images ], told rediff.com that Washington's reticence in terms of an endorsement was not so much to do with 'Pakistan's sensitivity', particularly at a time when Islamabad [ Images ] is once again a strategic partner in President George W Bush's so-called war on terror in Afghanistan, now owned by Obama.

The officials said the main reason for the US running shy of a full-fledged unambiguous, unequivocal endorsement of India was China.

The US does not want to get in the weeds with Beijing at a time when it is so important in terms of US-led diplomacy against the likes of North Korea, Iran, among others, not to mention that China holds US's debt.

The officials predicted that China's anticipated opposition would be intense, and according to a senior Pentagon source, "The last thing we want now is China as a 'peer competitor.'"

They noted that China had done some major behind-the-scenes lobbying to torpedo the US-India nuclear deal at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, although ultimately seeing the writing on the wall, had acquiesced. "But that would be nothing and a speck in terms of the opposition we could expect," if US were to publicly campaign for India, they said.

Diplomatic observers pointed out that there were also the "perennial whiners" in parts of the entrenched bureaucracy in various agencies who also argued about the utility value of endorsing India. The argument extended to dire predictions that once the US offered such an endorsement and if ultimately India did get a permanent seat, that would not ensure unconditional support when it came to US-led efforts, considering India's voting record in the United Nations with regard to such efforts.

These observers spoke of officials within the administration warning of India wielding its veto power against the US, when it came to issues sanctioning the likes of Iran, Myanmar and others, even though New Delhi has voted for various censures of Teheran at the International Atomic Energy Agency and has pledged to go along with any UNSC resolutions, despite making it clear that it strongly objects to punitive sanctions and would much rather prefer sustained diplomacy and dialogue.

So, President Obama may also have declared that India is "a rising power and a responsible global power" and there's no argument with that in any quarter. But the US batting for India on this issue and hitting a few home runs to bolster India's bid, they said, would be for the moment akin to Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot!

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/...bout-indias-bid-for-a-permanent-unsc-seat.htm

 

[SHASH2K2]

UN Security Council outdated, needs new members: Brazil

VIENNA: The UN Security Council is outdated and needs to bring in new blood, Brazil's foreign minister Celso Amorim said here on Monday, complaining that non-permanent members were not being taken seriously.

"The Security Council no longer reflects the political reality" but rather a reality "that was true 65 years ago," Amorim told journalists during a visit to Vienna where he met with his Austrian counterpart Michael Spindelegger.

Instead, the Council should look to the G20 group of industrialised and emerging economies, he said, and bring in countries like Brazil, India and South Africa as permanent members alongside the five current veto-wielding powers - the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France.

Amorim also criticised the Council for failing to take seriously a joint Brazil-Turkey bid last month to curb Iran's nuclear programme.

Brasilia and Ankara, both non-permanent members of the Council, brokered a nuclear swap deal with Iran in an attempt to avoid new sanctions against Tehran. But the deal was dismissed by the United States and other UN powers.

"That casts doubt over (our) credibility. Yet, Turkey and Brazil are unblemished emerging countries who approached Tehran with good intentions," Amorim insisted.

The Brazilian also complained of "zero transparency at the technical level," noting that non-permanent Council members only learned of the new draft on sanctions against Iran via media reports.

Brazil and Austria are among the ten non-permanent members of the Council who rotate every two years.

 

[samarsingh]

its remarkable that most foreign ministers and head of states come out quite openly with their views..
Indian ministers will do all the mudslinging, blame game stuff against fellow politicians but when as far as international affairs are concerned they show unusual restraint. probably it is a part of diplomacy
coming back to the thread...Turkey and Brazil have utilised the whole Iran nuclear thing quite well for their advantage. This would help make case their case stronger for a permanent seat in UNSC, it also shows maturity in internationl affairs. Turkey has always been an ally of US...in fact US argues for its inclusion in EU...so America would not mind bringing it in UNSC, as it would have a member toeing its line.....Brazil and South Africa are not on bad terms with US either...I deont know where it leaves us in all this... I read somewhere that India , Brazil and Germany support each others candidature, it would help us if we lobby together... if any of the members know anything about the proposed seize of future UNSC then please share...thanks

 

[AkhandBharat]

its remarkable that most foreign ministers and head of states come out quite openly with their views..
Indian ministers will do all the mudslinging, blame game stuff against fellow politicians but when as far as international affairs are concerned they show unusual restraint. probably it is a part of diplomacy
coming back to the thread...Turkey and Brazil have utilised the whole Iran nuclear thing quite well for their advantage. This would help make case their case stronger for a permanent seat in UNSC, it also shows maturity in internationl affairs. Turkey has always been an ally of US...in fact US argues for its inclusion in EU...so America would not mind bringing it in UNSC, as it would have a member toeing its line.....Brazil and South Africa are not on bad terms with US either...I deont know where it leaves us in all this... I read somewhere that India , Brazil and Germany support each others candidature, it would help us if we lobby together... if any of the members know anything about the proposed seize of future UNSC then please share...thanks

If anything, Turkey has distanced itself so much from other NATO members that they are now wondering if it was a right idea to let Turkey join NATO in the first place. Turkey is nowhere in the equation of UNSC expansion. Brazil is, however, its covert actions against US interests will damage its UNSC candidacy rather than bolster it.

 

[Neil]

Britain, France support India's bid for UNSC membership

TORONTO: Britain and France have voiced their support for India's case for permanent membership of the UN Security Council and favoured deepening of bilateral ties between them.

The backing from countries came during a bilateral meeting the new British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy had with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh late last night ahead of the G20 Summit.

This was the first meeting Singh had with Cameron after his election as British Prime Minister and congratulated him on his victory.

Singh extended to him an invitation to visit India which he accepted and would be coming in July.

Cameron had visited India in 2006 as a leader of opposition.

Prime Minister Singh told him that he was looking forward to Cameron's visit to India.

India and Britain had raised their bilateral relationship to a strategic partnership level in 2006 and both the leaders agreed that there was huge potential to expand relationship in trade and human resource development.

Trade between the two countries is estimated at USD 13 billion and UK is the fourth largest single investor in India.

India also has considerable investment in Britain. The British Prime Minister said that he would welcome more Indian students to come to Britain for studies.

The two leaders shared the views on the G20 Summit. Singh told him that concerted efforts were needed by all countries to see that global recovery was consolidated as at the moment it was seen to be tentative.

The British Prime Minister underlined the need for reforms of the international financial institutions and the UN.

"The British Prime Minister supported India's case for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council," an external affairs ministry spokesman told reporters.

Prime Minister Singh also had a warm meeting with French President Sarkozy recalling his visit to India in January 2008.

He extended a fresh invitation to him and his wife Carla Bruni to visit India again.

President Sarkozy recalled Prime Minister's visit to France in July last year where he was the guest of honour on the occasion of French national day.

French President had made a special gesture of inviting 400 personnel of Indian Armed Forces to take part in the parade on the occasion.

During the meeting Sarkozy said he wanted India to play a critical role in world affairs and not just in G20. He supported India's case for permanent membership of UNSC and its role in counterterrorism.

 

[EagleOne]

India for compromise solution on Veto power in UNSC reforms

United Nations: Pressing for UN Security Council reforms, India has suggested a compromise solution on the tricky issue of what kind of Veto power the new permanent members should hold.

The G-4 — Brazil, Germany, India and Japan — hold the view that the new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members the US, the UK, Russia, France and China.

However, the new permanent members will hold off wielding the Veto power for fifteen years after the reforms come into place.

"The new permanent members shall not exercise the right of Veto until the question of the extension of the right of Veto to new permanent members has been decided upon in the framework of the review mandated fifteen years after the entry into force of the Council reform," said Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN.

Speaking at the ongoing discussion on the reforms this week, Puri said that this compromise would "ensure that the veto does not veto Council reform."

At this stage only a small number of countries want the Veto to be abolished altogether but a large majority would prefer some restrictions on the use of Veto especially in under certain circumstances like genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law; war crimes, ethnic cleansing and terrorism.

The deliberations on the Veto are part of the growing momentum to achieve concrete progress on UNSC reforms.

This year the discussion was kicked off with the chairperson of security reform process Zahir Tanin, who is also Afghanistan's permanent representative to the UN, asking member-states to submit proposals that can be worked into a negotiating text, which will be the basis for future discussions.

In 2009, member-states of the UN finally abandoned the 'Open Ended Working Group' (OEWG) that had dragged on for 15 years without yielding any substantive results.

In March last year, the old talks were replaced by the new "inter-governmental negotiations".

Speaking to PTI earlier, Puri even expressed confidence that current negotiations will lead to tangible action in 2010 and could probably yield results in 2011.

At the same time, Pakistan is not in favour of an expansion in the permanent category.

Opponents of the expansion fear that more members will further cripple the SC, which is often divided and fails to reach effective decisions on peace and security matters.

These countries also argue that assigning more powerful countries permanent positions in the Security Council will not break the power dynamics of the past.

The Uniting for Consensus group of about 40 nations, led by Pakistan and Italy, are trying to block attempts by G-4 to expand the number of permanent seats in the Council.

Reacting to Pakistan's previous objections to the negotiating text, Tanin said in March, "Pakistan has views and reservations about how the text is going to be produced but Pakistan was not against the text being produced."

The G-4 favour expansion to six more permanent seats and four non-permanent seats. Two each of the new permanent members would be from Asia and Africa, and one each from Latin America and Europe.

Most countries in the GA also favour expansion in both categories, according to a report on recent negotiations.

"My distinguished colleague from Pakistan seems to believe that having more permanent members would make the Council more opaque and elitist," Puri had said earlier.

"The issue is not whether a Council with five permanent members and ten elected ones is more efficient than one with 25 members with a few more permanent members. We should go into the causes for the Council being ineffective, as composed today, which is why we are having these negotiations," he added

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/repor...olution-on-veto-power-in-unsc-reforms_1407339

 

[EagleOne]

UN's Ban plans meeting to end nuclear disarmament deadlock
N Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is inviting nations to a high-level meeting in September on how to revive stalled international disarmament talks, said UN diplomats and officials.
The meeting, scheduled for September 24 during the annual General Assembly gathering of world leaders in New York, follows 12 years of inaction at the world's sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum in Geneva.

The 65-nation UN-backed Conference on Disarmament (CD), created in 1978, negotiated biological and chemical weapons conventions but has been unable to carry out substantive work since 1998 because members could not agree on priorities, reports Reuters.

A key proposed task has been to negotiate a halt to production of nuclear bomb-making fissile material but that has been blocked by Pakistan, which says it would put it at a permanent disadvantage to rival India.

To try to break the deadlock, invitations were going out this week to all 192 UN member states to send delegates at ministerial or higher level, said a UN official involved in the planning. He said the meeting was "seen as an opportunity to generate the political will to register some progress."

The official, who asked not to be identified, said the meeting would last only three hours. Ban would chair it and read out a summary of conclusions at the end but the exact outcome of the meeting was still under discussion, he said.

A senior Western diplomat specializing in disarmament said one possibility was that experts would be asked to draft a resolution for the General Assembly to adopt to reform the UN disarmament machinery.

The diplomat, briefing reporters on condition he was not named, said the cost of the CD was put at some US $500,000 a year in interpretation and other administrative costs.

"Each year you have the hope that it's going to be back on track but after 12 years you have to admit that there's something in the system that doesn't work, that you have to reform something," the diplomat said.

Ban first floated the idea of a special meeting in a speech to a nuclear non-proliferation conference at the United Nations in May. When the conference ended, it recommended that he go ahead with the special meeting.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.p...eadlock&catid=49:National Security&Itemid=115

 

[Tshering22]

^^ US will never accept another independent, sovereign power as India in the Permanent place in UNSC. And in the past unlike other countries, India has said no to a lot of things that US or its NATO allies have proposed. A permanent seat to such a country would mean that a lot of resolutions may be halted or postponed. China rarely interferes in UNSC despite being a member unless it is about its new slave Pakistan or its sovereignty and claims. That doesn't effect USA much. But a country that has an independent "NO" for an answer, has " leanings" towards the Bear, has an independent state policy rather than that of a devotee of West... UNSC might seem as a permanent dream.

Besides, we aren't ready for the seat as of yet. First get rid of all terrorism in the country and then start asking for such things. Remember; the current 5 powers don't have terrorism grown on their soil. We have separatist jihadi terrorists in Kashmir that is now rooting in Kashmiri muslims, Naxalites who're increasingly violent and ULFA that is asking for a separate nation. We cannot allow this.

 

[Sridhar]

Rising India should get UNSC seat: Carnegie to ObamaAhead of President Barack Obama's landmark India visit, an influential US think-tank has asked him to endorse New Delhi's quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.


"The White House should endorse India's quest for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council," said the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.



"This bold move would reassure Indians of America's dedication to the relationship," it said in its latest report 'Obama in India Building a Global Partnership: Challenges, Risks, Opportunities', released here on Thursday.
Such a recommendation from Carnegie comes a day after the Obama Administration appeared to be inching closer to it.
"Given India's rise and its significance, we believe that India will be a central part of any consideration of a reformed Security Council," Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Bill Burns, said at a special White House news conference on India ahead of Obama's November 6-9 visit to Mumbai and New Delhi.



Separately, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication, Ben Rhodes, said: "We've, through the G20, through our focus on the G20 and some other bodies, already sought to give India a greater voice in global architecture -- for instance, saying that the G8 can't deal with global economic issues as effectively as the G20."
The Carnegie report authored by Ashley J Tellis said that Obama has a unique opportunity to cement a global partnership with a rapidly emerging power and India has the potential to be America's most important strategic partner.
A strong bilateral relationship with New Delhi will help Washington manage China's rise, promote democracy globally and protect broader American interests, it said.
"By reaffirming the US commitment to aid India's growth in power and emphasising America's fellowship with India, Obama can help bring the two countries together on shared interests and move their relationship forward significantly," Tellis wrote in the report released by the Washington-based think tank.
"While Obama has understandably focused on competing priorities, including the troubled US economy and ongoing wars abroad, Washington must devote more resources to its relations with New Delhi. India plays a critical role in Afghanistan, international economic recovery and preserving a stable Asian order -- all priority issues for the United States," the report said.
The civil nuclear agreement between the US and India was the first step in bringing India out of its nuclear isolation.
"Washington should broaden its efforts to involve everything from aiding the expansion of nuclear power in India to improving collaboration on nuclear security," it said.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rising-india-should-get-unsc-seat-carnegie-to-obama/704374/0

 

[nrj]

Kashmir is India's 'internal' issue: US envoy

NEW DELHI: With Kashmir reportedly being excluded from the UN list of unresolved disputes, the US today said it was an "internal issue" of India and should be resolved bilaterally through negotiations with Pakistan.

"This is an internal issue for India. It is a bilateral issue between Pakistan and India, to discuss term, scope, character and pace," US Ambassador Timothy Roemer said.

He was asked to comment on UN excluding Kashmir from list of unresolved international issues.

"The (US) President ( Barack Obama), I think was very articulate on this issue of Kashmir. This is an internal issue for India," he said on the sidelines of a function here.

Roemer noted that during his visit, Obama had said that he encouraged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and people of India to engage with the government and people of Pakistan.

He underlined that whenever India and Pakistan talk, it will be at the "pace and character" of the two countries.

On Obama announcing support for India's bid for permanent UNSC membership, he said the US will now work to realise the promise.

"We are very proud about President's announcement that he is unequivocally and fervently in favour of India having a permanent seat in a reformed United Nations. It was one of the many highlights of (his) visit to India..We will be working to see that happen," Roemer said.

 

[ajtr]

US throws water over India's hopes for UNSC seat -

WASHINGTON/ NEW YORK: The US has cautioned against expecting any breakthrough "anytime soon" on the UN Security Council reforms, dampening India's hopes for a permanent seat just a week after President Barack Obama backed its quest for this prestigious slot.

A top US official also clarified that Obama's endorsement of India for permanent membership in the UNSC during his visit to New Delhi was not a last minute decision, but had been well thought out. It was kept hush-hush, since the endorsement was a big news item, he said.

"I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon," assistant secretary of state Robert Blake told journalists in New York and Washington during a digital video press conference.

"I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we're committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats," he said.


The official said the only "real change" Obama announced was US support to India's permanent seat in the 15-membered wing of the UN, but "we have always been clear that this is going to be a long-term and very complicated process."

Blake, however, asserted that no condition has been imposed on India in lieu of the support for the Security Council berth. "No, there's not conditionality."

He also answered questions on a range of issues including terrorism, Pakistan and China.

Blake said it is in interest of Pakistan to crack down on terrorist groups operating inside the country.

"The President (Obama) was very clear that Pakistan itself has been the chief victim of international terrorism. And so it's very much in its own interest to crack down on these groups, which increasingly are operating as a syndicate and it's very difficult to really distinguish between them," he said.

Blake also said Obama's enthusiasm for a stronger Indo-US relationship is not to "counterbalance" China's growing influence over Asia.

"I don't think you heard anybody say that in the course of the President's three-day visit (to India), we're looking to counterbalance China in any way," he added.

On nuclear issues, Blake said US said it considered India as a partner in its global non-proliferation efforts.

"One of the criticisms in the past has been that US sometimes regarded India more as a target than a partner in non-proliferation, I think the steps President (Obama) announced in the course of this visit showed definitely that we now see India as a partner in the global non-proliferation space

"Not only in terms of the actions, but also in terms of our growing efforts in the nuclear area," he added.

Elaborating on UNSC reforms, he said there are many contenders for permanent seats as India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and Germany.

"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats," he added.

Read more: US throws water over India's hopes for UNSC seat - The Times of India US throws water over India's hopes for UNSC seat - The Times of India

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ Sensationalist headline. Everyone already knows it would not be a quick process and there are challenges to overcome.

It was just a big step towards a long journey.

 

[ajtr]

India must demonstrate it can lead​

November 18, 2010 2:34:22 AM

Rajesh Singh

Any revamp of the UN Security Council will reflect the shifting axis of influence. While not requiring the US's stamp of approval, it is for India to project its rising global stature in order to don the leadership mantle

The euphoria over Mr Barack Obama's statements during his recent visit to India will remain for some more days to come, as experts gush over his acknowledgement of India's growing international stature. Sooner than later it will have to be replaced by ground realities that will not generate similarly naïve optimism. It is not that the President of the United States of America has delivered fake promises or has no desire of honouring his assurances; it's simply that certain things are easier said than done for a variety of reasons. We shall save ourselves future fits of despair if we appreciate the intention behind his remarks and work in the direction that will assist us achieve what he — and we ourselves as a nation — desire.

One statement of his drew loud applause in Parliament when he addressed its members on November 8: The endorsement of India's bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. From New Delhi's perspective the remark was solid enough, coming as it did from the US President, and demonstrated Washington's support to India's cause and appreciation of its increasing stature. The question, however, is not what the US will do next to follow up on these statements, but what will we do after being reinforced by Mr Obama's remarks.

Let's take his 'welcoming' of India's place in the Security Council. While the US is a dominant player in the UN, it alone cannot ensure the entry of a new country to the exclusive club. There are others who will need to back New Delhi. While we can expect Russia, France and Great Britain to throw in their lot with us, we still do not know for sure whether they will do so when push comes to shove. China certainly will put its foot down, and the absence of a consensus could kill India's dreams. It will be difficult for the West to ignore China, especially now when the European Union and the US are battling an economic recession and looking to the huge Chinese market to deliver them out of the crisis.

If any indication of that is needed, consider the just-concluded G20 summit in Seoul, where the West could do little to persuade Beijing to restructure its currency (Yuan), whose artificially low value has supposedly helped China's exporters and discouraged importers like the US. In fact, such is China's clout that it can today get away with stinging remarks that would have invited strong retribution from the US-led West 10 years ago. For instance, when pushed to reconsider valuing the Yuan higher by heeding to market demands, the Chinese Commerce Minister sniggered that the "patient must not tell others to take medicine". In other words, Beijing told the West that, since the latter had invited the disease it should also find a cure. There was no way it would oblige in a manner that could hurt its own revenue flow.

But it's not just the current members that could be obstacles; aspirants like Japan or Germany are bound to ask: 'Why not me'? and complicate matters. The last thing India needs in its quest for a permanent membership is an open war with nations that it shares a comfortable relationship. So, it will have to tread carefully and not ruffle feathers of friendly birds.

Then, there is the tricky matter of Pakistan, who will surely up the ante through its friends like China and pressure other members of the UN not to concede India's desire. In normal situations, Islamabad's voice may not have carried much international weight — at least as compared to New Delhi's — but things are not normal. Pakistan is an important partner of the United States in the Afghanistan war, and holds the key to the elimination, or at least decapitation, of extremist forces working out of Afghanistan and within Pakistan. Islamabad could exploit this geopolitical situation to obstruct India's bid in the United Nations. As it is, Islamabad is unhappy with the non-permanent membership that New Delhi gets early 2011 by virtue of rotation.

The revamp of the Security Council is supported by all, members and others. There is no disputing the fact that the Council must get a new shape to meet the aspirations of growing nations. It must also represent more correctly the new equations, where the axis of influence is shifting, if it has not altogether shifted, away from the West. Countries like India and Brazil have muscled in with their economic might, and have begun seeking a greater role on the global stage. And, it's not economics alone that is playing its part — although it is the dominant cause for now. The end of the Cold War, collapse of the Iron Curtain and the demolition of the Berlin Wall have had a profound impact on the political realignment of nations worldwide. A unified Germany can lay a strong claim, so can Japan as an ideological bulwark against nuclear non-proliferation. Thus, for the managers of the UN, while fundamentally restructuring the Security Council is a necessity, arriving at a majority consensus on who should be in, will prove to be a thankless task.

So, in the midst of all these complexities, what can India do? India needs to demonstrate leadership skills on issues that it has hedged on for long. A fence-sitter cannot be an effective leader. The leader has to take a clear call on contentious issues and energise his team to back him. Mr Obama may have been a trifle undiplomatic when he suggested that New Delhi should raise its voice against the dictatorial regime of Burma. — whom we are actively engaging given its importance in helping us maintain peace in the North-East — but the fact is that India has been far too diplomatic in avoiding confrontation under the garb of non-alignment. We have been silent on Iran in the fear that any adverse remark could imperil the proposed Iran-India-Pakistan gas pipeline. Never mind if the pipeline still remains a pipe dream, and that Islamabad will always have an upper hand in relations with Tehran. We continue to tie ourselves up in knots when confronted by reports of China's increasing belligerence, balancing to such extremes that we threaten to topple over!

These are not the signs of a leader. When a sports icon was once commended for conducting himself like the world champion that he was, he responded, "It's not as if I am behaving like a world champion because I am one. I became a world champion because I always behaved like one." It's this kind of belief in oneself, marked by clarity of thought and action that will make us a Security Council permanent member. No amount of US propping will help if we are determined to remain slumped.

Finally, there is the 'small matter' of our pathetic social indicators that reflect how 'prepared' we are to don the leadership mantle. According to a recent report of the Registrar General of India, nearly 14 lakh infants in the country died of five preventable medical conditions in India during 2005, due to want medical intervention. The study estimated that these infants died of pneumonia, diarrhoea, premature birth and low birth weight, delivery infections and trauma and suffocation during the delivery process. As with health, so is the case with education and sanitation, largely in rural areas. There cannot be a better beginning to preparations for the UNSC than abolishing these dark spots.

 

[ejazr]

Is UN helpful in furthering Indian interests?

Curing India's UNSC hangover

Many Indians are ecstatic about US President Barack Obama's support for India as a permanent member of an expanded United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It is indeed a significant endorsement of India's growing economic power and global aspirations. But what does it mean in real terms, beyond the rhetoric of a leader trying to please his audience by saying what they most wanted to hear?

The euphoria in India today is symptomatic of the obsession of the Indian political elite with the UN. Even as the multilateral body's failures have become self-evident over the years, India has continued to view it as an almost indispensable actor in global politics. While this fascination with a moribund institution may not have had any cost in the past when India was on the periphery of global politics, the rising India of today cannot afford to cling on to that same old worldview. Yet India continues to expend its precious diplomatic capital on pursuing the permanent membership of UNSC. More astonishingly, it even decided to contest the elections for the post of UN secretary general.

India's experience with the UN has historically been underwhelming. National interests have suffered whenever the nation has looked to the UN for support. As Nehruvian idealism has gradually been replaced by a more confident assertion of national interests, it is time for India to make a more forceful dissociation from the perfunctory modalities of the UN.

Indian interests today are global and expanding. The government should have the self-confidence to declare that these interests will be protected and enhanced, irrespective of the priorities of other external actors. The government is the only constitutional authority that can legitimately decide when and how to use the country's instruments of power. And there is only one criterion that it should use: preservation of vital Indian interests.

The UN was established in the aftermath of World War II and reflects the distribution of power of that era. The Security Council, where the real power lies, has five permanent members with veto powers, which use the organization to further their own interests. The General Assembly, for all its pretensions, remains a mere talking shop. Apart from some of its technical bodies, the rest of the organization is a farce. The UN Human Rights Council has members such as Sudan, Zimbabwe, China and Saudi Arabia: all with stellar human rights credentials. No wonder former Czech Republic president Vaclav Havel, in a 2009 New York Times article, called it "A Table for Tyrants".

Why should India take such an organization seriously and make it "a platform for establishing India's place in the world?" More importantly, why should it give the UN veto power over its vital national interests? The most important issue in this context involves decisions on where and when to deploy its military assets. So far, Indian policymakers have been playing safe by making foreign deployments of Indian military contingents part of UN missions. This was tenable when Indian interests were limited in scope. Today, such a policy does not hold water -- it just gives the government a shield from allegations of abdicating its primary responsibility of protecting Indian interests.

When India decided to send its naval warships to the Gulf of Aden in 2008, one hoped that the political and military leadership would finally be forced to evolve a coherent policy towards the use of force in securing Indian economic and strategic interests. But it continues to remain unclear under what conditions India would be willing to use force in defending its interests.

This question needs immediate answers, and the civilian and military leadership has been disappointing in its lack of a vision for the use of military assets. If some suggestions have been made, they verge on being facile. For example, ruling out sending troops to Afghanistan, then Indian Army chief had suggested: "India takes part only in UN-approved/sanctioned military operations and the UN has not mandated this action in Afghanistan so there is no question of India participating in it."

India's leadership continues to give the impression that the role it sees for the country in global security is not shaped by its own assessment of its interests and values, but by the judgements of global institutions such as the UN. No major power takes the UN peacekeeping operations seriously. Yet India continues to be one of the largest contributors to these contingents. Indian forces working for the UN have suffered more casualties than any other nation's contingents. Yet policymakers argue that this is being done not for any strategic gain, but in the service of global ideals—"strengthening the world body, and international peace and security". Why should global peace and security be a priority for the Indian government, a government that has continued to fail miserably in establishing domestic order and security?

There has been a belief in policymaking circles that being a leader in UN peacekeeping would help India in its drive towards the permanent membership of UNSC. But what has India really achieved? Despite its involvement in numerous peacekeeping operations in Africa, African states have refused to support India's candidature. Given China's growing economic and military hold over that continent, these states were merely pursuing their own interests. India's candidature will be taken seriously only when the country becomes an economic and military power of global reckoning, able to protect and enhance its interests unilaterally. Until then, Obama's recent announcement in New Delhi will have little meaning.

Harsh V Pant teaches at King's College, London

 

[nrj]

Resolution introduced in US Congress backs India's UNSC bid

WASHINGTON: Lauding India's commitment to global peace and development of the South Asian region, a resolution introduced in the US House of Representatives has appealed to the United Nations to take necessary steps to make New Delhi a permanent member of the Security Council.

The resolution by Congressman Gus Bilirakis gives the sense of the House of Representatives that the UN should forthwith take the procedural actions necessary to amend Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations to establish India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The resolution, which has been sent to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs for necessary action, noted that India is the largest democratic country in the world in which all political views are freely expressed and respected.

India is the world's second most populous country, with over one billion citizens residing within its borders and is one of the largest contributors of troops to UN-mandated peacekeeping missions, it said.

The resolution also said that India has demonstrated a strong commitment to global peace and promotion of the peaceful development of the South Asian region.

"... it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations should forthwith take the procedural actions necessary to amend Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations to establish India as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council ," it said.

 

[Patriot]

Time for India to Press UN Case

India has a powerful claim to permanent UN Security Council membership. The next two years are its best chance to prove it.

In his speech to the Indian Parliament earlier this month, US President Barack Obama held out the tantalizing possibility of India eventually joining the United Nations Security Council as a permanent member. Since that dramatic announcement, there's been fevered commentary, especially within India, about the prospects for such a move and the terms under which the country might be allowed to enter this hallowed realm.

Much of the discussion and debate has centred around the time horizon this might occur, on whether or not India would be granted the coveted veto and on the likely objections from India's principal long-term adversary, China. These exchanges are entirely apposite and topical. However, they frustratingly overlook one key point: India's claim to permanent membership is already as good—if not significantly better—than China's.

India was a founding member of the United Nations even though it hadn't yet obtained its independence from the United Kingdom. Subsequently, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proved to be an ardent supporter of the organization and its activities. To that end, India played a vital role in the International Control Commission along with Poland and Canada in Indo-China, it played a mediatory role in the Korean War and was one of the original contributors to the UN peacekeeping contingent in the former Belgian Congo. Later, India played a vital part in supporting a host of peacekeeping missions across the world. Even today, close to 10,000 Indian troops are involved in UN peacekeeping operations globally.

China, of course, initially enjoyed a seat at the United Nations but not on the Security Council—it obtained that only when the US derecognized Taiwan in 1979. Yet despite this dramatic shift in US policy in its favour, China's record of co-operation with the United States at the UN during the remainder of the Cold War was no better than that of India, and arguably, considerably worse. Since the Cold War ended, it hasn't gotten any better.

But despite this record, and Obama's public (albeit qualified) endorsement of India's cause, there are influential commentators and analysts in the United States who remain steadfastly opposed to making India a permanent Security Council member. Indeed, it might be the US experience with China that has made some so reluctant to take a chance with India.
Such foot dragging is especially galling for Indian policymakers when they see China's scant regard for a host of emergent global norms and regimes. Though advocates of non-proliferation never fail to berate India for conducting five nuclear tests in 1998, they maintain an almost stunning silence about China's abysmal record in this arena. It has fecklessly shared nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology, allied itself to a host of dubious regimes from Sudan to North Korea and was intransigent toward NATO during the Bosnian crisis when ethnic cleansing was rampant in the Balkans. Meanwhile, its current position remains one of the principal impediments to the imposition of tighter UN sanctions against Iran, despite that country's clandestine quest for nuclear weapons.

Sadly, China's extraordinary economic clout and its growing military prowess make most states wary of crossing its path. In addition, given its neuralgic hostility toward India, it's almost certain that it won't allow its long-term rival in Asia an easy entry into this charmed circle.

Given this reality, how can India fashion a plan that might enhance its chances of securing this long-sought prize?

Fortunately, India is just about to assume a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. During these two years, the country can demonstrate that it's capable of wise decision making, that it won't adopt needlessly contrarian positions on issues of concern to the United States and that it can help bolster the smooth functioning of that body. Simultaneously, it should ramp up its public diplomacy capabilities and activities to highlight its credentials as a responsible stakeholder in a host of existing multilateral bodies. Such en effort will require imagination, concerted action and, above all, persistence.

India's foreign policy establishment demonstrated considerable dexterity at the end of the Cold War in adjusting to a vastly changed global political and strategic order. Its policymakers should therefore now be able to marshal their energies to ensure that they make the most compelling case for including India in this vital UN body.

In short, the next two years offer India a chance to make sure it can meet another key challenge that Obama spelled out in his parliamentary speech: recognizing that with 'increased power comes increased responsibility'.





http://the-diplomat.com/2010/11/25/time-for-india-to-press-un-case/

 

[SHASH2K2]

UAE to support India's UNSC bid
​

India's relations with the UAE touched a new high this year after the Emirates came out in strong support for New Delhi's quest for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. The pledge came during the maiden visit of President Pratibha Patil to the Emirates, home to 1.75 million Indians.


The visit came at a time when UAE has emerged as India's largest trading partner in terms of total trade exchange in the first half of 2010, with USD 43 billion bilateral trade, and oil imports by India accounting for USD five billion. Indian and UAE trade exchange has multiplied 13 times over the past 10 years with non oil sectors slowly gaining a predominant share.

President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan stated that UAE would certainly support India, which had the right to be a permanent member of a reformed UN Security Council.

The two sides also agreed on regional security as an area of enhanced cooperation and to address issues relating to counter terrorism and maritime security. India has invited UAE's Interior Minister to New Delhi for the signing an agreement on the issue.

India and the UAE agreed to enhance the strategic relationship by focusing on areas such as education, science and technology, regional security and many other areas where there is a potential for cooperation. India and the UAE politically share common perceptions on major international issues which became more evident during the visit of the President, said M K Lokesh, India's ambassador to the UAE.

During her visit, President Patil also launched a 24 hour helpline and counselling service dedicated to help Indian workers in distress in the UAE.

A striking display of India's growing soft power footprint in the Gulf region was the launch, on May 24 this year, of the international version of CBSE curriculum in Dubai. Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal had described the CBSE as an "internationally benchmarked curriculum" with 30 Indian schools in nine countries using it from the current academic year. The curriculum's global format is aimed at attracting schools catering to the large expatriate Indian population as well as non Indian students planning to pursue higher studies in India.

Meanwhile, the fate of 17 Indians sentenced to death for killing a Pakistani man in January, 2009 is to be decided by a Sharjah appeals court on December 30.

 

[Tshering22]

Guess times are changing huh? Once GCC would demand stuff from us from UNSC. Now it is our turn xD.