A big step forward for India: UN adopts negotiating text for security council reforms

[I_PLAY_BAD]

No, China is not forming its own block, AIIB is competing with ADB not UN. Instead, China has never put up any suggestion to weaken UN



The problem is: this time, you are in the contest against P5. Yes, I know everyone said they support one or another candidate (India is "supported" by all of them). But have you eve seen P5 offering their bless to big 4 together? Russia opposes German, US against Brazil while China refuses Japan, only India get everyone's approve. But India alone can't push the reform.

Whether you agree or not China is forming its own block against the USA.
And I do not oppose it.

 

[sorcerer]

Russia to Back India for UNSC
Thursday, September 17, 2015

Russia will support India’s candidature for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council, if the world body agrees to expand the UNSC in both categories; of permanent and non-permanent members. India called the UN General Assembly’s move to adopt a text for UNSC reform a small but significant step forward.


Russia was quick to allay Indian concerns about its support for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, saying it would back India’s candidature on the Council. On a visit to New Delhi, Gennady Gatilov, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, told Sujata Mehta, Secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), that Russia would back India for a permanent seat at the UNSC, once the world body decides to expand membership to the Council, in both permanent and non-permanent categories.

UN General Assembly President Sam Kutesa convened a plenary meeting in New York last week to take action on the draft decision on the “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”. During the meeting, he also circulated letters containing the positions of key countries, including Russia, the US and China, which refused to contribute to the negotiating text. There was no voting on the decision to continue text- based UNSC reforms in the 70th session of the General Assembly and it was adopted by consensus.

Earlier this week, in a significant decision for UN reform, the UN General Assembly decided to carry forward the text presented by the President of the General Assembly on the issue of Security Council reform. The Indian government welcomed the move saying, “This is a significant development as after more than two decades of discussions, we can now commence text-based negotiations. Adoption of this text by consensus by all UN Member States is reflective of the broad support of the international community to move forward on this issue,” Vikas Swarup, MEA spokesperson said.

Gatilov and Mehta discussed mutual priorities for the UNGA 70th session and stated proximity of approaches of the two countries on many of the issues being discussed within the framework of the UN bodies. In the context of analysing regional crises in the Middle East and the North Africa, special emphasis was given to the task to widely consolidate and coordinate international counter-terrorism efforts on a firm international legal basis under the UN aegis. They discussed common views on the significance of implementation of the Post-2015 Development Agenda and formulation of main parameters to hold the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016.Gatilov clarified Russia’s position on the UN text, stating Moscow’s position was not in any way aimed against India, when he held consultations with Mehta. They discussed a wide range of issues on the agenda of the 70th anniversary session of the United Nations General Assembly, due to begin next week. The officials discussed UNSC reform and exchanged opinions on main aspects of the inter-governmental negotiation process considering the current various options for the increase in the United Nations Security Council membership.

Kutesa and Courtenay Rattray, Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) process, decided to carry forward IGN towards a text-based negotiation process. The draft decision contains a negotiating text which has positions of UN member states on Security Council reforms and how the powerful 15-nation body should be expanded in its permanent and non-permanent categories.
Calling the decision “historic and path-breaking,” Asoke Mukherji, India’s Ambassador to the UN, said, “This decision sets the IGN process formally on an irreversible text-based negotiations path. This is the first time in the history of the Inter-Governmental Negotiation (IGN) process that a decision on UNSC reform has been adopted through an official formal L Document of the UNGA. This is a most positive and unique development, as so far, over the last 7 years we have only been making statements in the air, or at each other.”

“It is our hope that with the adoption of this Decision, we will now move purposefully towards concluding our negotiations during the 70th Session, so that we fulfil the unanimous mandate given by our leaders in the World Summit of 2005 for “early reform” of the Security Council to make it, and I quote “more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thus to further enhance its effectiveness and the legitimacy and implementation of its decisions,” Mukherji said.
Optimistic Indian analysts said India could become a permanent UNSC member in two years.
Mehta, however, was cautious in her appraisal, saying it was “a small but definite move forward. It allows a process to begin.”

“The need for a supportive international peace and security environment is urgent, as our leaders meet in this Hall a few days from now to adopt Agenda 2030. If the Security Council continues to be ineffective, the lives of millions of people and the uninterrupted flow of trade, investment and technology, all of which depend on a stable and predictable global political environment will be jeopardized,” Mukherji said.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in New York next week, when both visit New York for the 70th session of the UNGA. Both leaders will almost be neighbours, as both are scheduled to stay at the famous Waldorf-Astoria hotel, now owned by a Chinese conglomerate.

http://in.rbth.com/world/2015/09/16/rusia-to-back-india-for-unsc_397253

 

[no smoking]

There is no absurdity. India and china have an active border dispute. Will China support its enemy ?
That is all we ask. Give a straight forward answer.

Yes, China DOES support India's bid as much as USA does.
At the meantime, Chinese will kill any reform plan offering the UNSEC permanent seat to Japan while US will reject the plan for the cause of Brazil and Russia will do the same to German. India will get through as long as India delink herself to the other 3.
What? India can't get enough votes on her own? Too bad, that is your own problem, not P5's.
Now do you understand what trick P5 is playing here?

 

[Screambowl]

whether they give or not...
India remains influential .. and we need not to beg for this.

 

[pmaitra]

Guys, unsc reforms will go through despite veto from any of the P5 if it had 2/3 support in GA. The question is, do the GA have 2/3 support for it? If the P5 does not veto, a simple majority is sufficient for reforms.

UNGA resolutions are non-binding.

Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution

An ideal response to a member like you is as follows:

Wow. The non sense in this post is damning.

 

[I_PLAY_BAD]

Yes, China DOES support India's bid as much as USA does.
At the meantime, Chinese will kill any reform plan offering the UNSEC permanent seat to Japan while US will reject the plan for the cause of Brazil and Russia will do the same to German. India will get through as long as India delink herself to the other 3.
What? India can't get enough votes on her own? Too bad, that is your own problem, not P5's.
Now do you understand what trick P5 is playing here?

Second part of your answer was irrelevant to my question.

Even if India gets sufficient support from UNGA regarding a 'permanent seat with veto' it can be thwarted by a veto wielding power. That is what I mentioned. Will China use it's veto to stop India becoming a permanent member with veto ? you said yes. Fine ! What you say may be true or even false. You do not know your Government's original stand. It is the case with any ordinary citizen.

As far as support for India is concerned, we think we are in an excellent position. Name countries with which we have strained relations currently except for Pakistan, China and Italy. Apart from these three nations no other country has reasons to oppose India's membership. There may be some nations which could still vote against us but that count is a mere handful.

Lets wait and see what really happens.

 

[no smoking]

Second part of your answer was irrelevant to my question.

If you think the second part of my answer is irrelevant, then good, you start to dance now.

http://in.chineseembassy.org/eng/ssygd/zygx/t191495.htm

Even if India gets sufficient support from UNGA regarding a 'permanent seat with veto' it can be thwarted by a veto wielding power. That is what I mentioned. Will China use it's veto to stop India becoming a permanent member with veto ? you said yes. Fine ! What you say may be true or even false. You do not know your Government's original stand. It is the case with any ordinary citizen.

First, none of P5 has the veto to overthrow the decision of UN general meeting;
Second, I may not know the truth, but Chinese primer knew his government's original stand.

As far as support for India is concerned, we think we are in an excellent position. Name countries with which we have strained relations currently except for Pakistan, China and Italy. Apart from these three nations no other country has reasons to oppose India's membership. There may be some nations which could still vote against us but that count is a mere handful.
Lets wait and see what really happens.

First, not voting against you doesn't mean they will vote in your favour;
Second, there may be few nations vote against you, but there will be lots of nations (including P5) vote against your buddy--Japan, German and Brazil;
But anyway, it is irrelevant, right.

 

[Mad Indian]

UNGA resolutions are non-binding.

Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution

An ideal response to a member like you is as follows:

Its only non binding if its done by less than 2/3 majority. It was specifically created to circumvent the veto. Get your facts straight

 

[Yumdoot]

Being a votary of 'its useless' side, the next most important question for me to deal with is - why the hell have our babus kicked up such a storm on this UNSC-VETO thingie?

Modi is to meet both Obama and Putin. Obama is now lame-duck but by law, he is still the correspondent, for the American deep state. Putin is the deep state .So Obama and Putin are equal. At least for me no confusion there.

One possibility that I could think off is to remove pretenses in Indian foreign relations. Now everytime our people go to these two guys (or for that matter to other capitals) people will hold out multiple promises like UNSC reforms etc. that they 'can offer'. And then everybody goes on to charge a stiff fee on the real deals. What are the chances that Modi is trying to remove the pretense in specifically these two capitals to see what they really 'offer'? After all Modi has already met both these leaders what would more such meetings accomplish, by themselves.

Second possibility is that I am wrong and the UNSC seat will do a lot of good for India. For that however I will need to see some progress out of all this noise.

What could be the third possibility?

The fourth possibility could be that Modi sees this as some sort of scoring points with a sub-set of his supporters. Some of Modi's supporters are based outside the country and they would love to have India as a globalized nation.

 

[Nicky G]

While at the surface, these developments seem to be a victory for India and in some ways it is, the behind the scenes play seem to be troubling with regards to the US, China and most importantly Russia, who claims to support us.

Ditched by US and betrayed by Russia, but India still tore down Chinese wall - The Times of India

Bloodied but unbowed, China and Russia, say sources, now plan to take the battle one step further. They have been working on the Jamaican government to remove Courtney Rattray, the prime brain behind the UNSC reform text, so he cannot head the negotiations on the text and it can be given to someone unfamiliar with the history of the text. That would deal a blow to India.​

Very interesting if true. Russia is indeed going the China way sooner than thought. These negotiations are going to be sabotaged sooner or later before it every gets to a final vote.

More importantly, if we lose Russia, there is no reliable protection in the UNSC for us.

At the end of day while we must try and get into the UNSC, Doval is indeed right, we need to keep growing at a fast clip and rest will take care of itself, though these

 

[Mad Indian]

UNGA resolutions are non-binding.

the non binding part is for internal matters of the member states and not for the functioning of the UNO. For example, if UNGA gives a resolution that India should give up capital punishment, it is not binding on India.

But if the resolution is to expand /modify how UNO operates/functions ,it is binding.

What were you saying about nonsense munchkin ?

 

[pmaitra]

the non binding part is for internal matters of the member states and not for the functioning of the UNO. For example, if UNGA gives a resolution that India should give up capital punishment, it is not binding on India.

But if the resolution is to expand /modify how UNO operates/functions ,it is binding.

What were you saying about nonsense munchkin ?

Pffft. More drivel.

UNGA can vote on how UNGA operates, not how every organ of UNO operates.

If 2/3 majority in UNGA can get one permanent membership in the UNSC, then all members would vote themselves into it. Use common sense instead of gut feeling.

 

[sabari]

This...

And this...


China will ultimately be the thorn in India's bid to UNSC seat with veto power. Can't understand Russian objection to this particular step though.

Yes its possible .if India will be rejected then are rejecting 1 seventh of world population. India should leave un which will make council loss 1 sevent population now this will show the point to entire world and nessacity for India to get in permanent membership

 

[Neo]

India’s UN hyperbole is a joke

Hyperbole is an art form that is as ancient as Aristotle’s discussion of the alazon. It is a rhetorical device of immense use to governments to amplify achievements and bolster self-esteem in front of the domestic audience. The South Block just took it out of the armory. South Block has projected the ‘UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] decision on Security Council reform’ with a shot of hyperbole. The government just stopped of claiming credit for it but hinted at its expectation that India would be home and dry as a permanent member of the UN Security Council by the time the 70th Session of the UNGA gets over.

These are sad times when nothing much is happening in India’s foreign policy to brag about – except, perhaps, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Madison Square Garden-style banga banga parties abroad. (Another one is due in Silicon Valley in California.)

The gap between illusion and reality cannot be any bigger. The Security Council reform is a long haul and may not become reality for a foreseeable future. The established veto-holding members have no interest in sharing their prerogative to sit at the high table and decide on issues affecting international security. The claimants are far too many and a common acceptable yardstick seems virtually impossible to evolve.

And, to cap it, the United States recently put it in writing that it not only disfavors the new inductees being given veto power (in addition to the 5 already holding it) but is also opposed to the concept of regional representation and will weigh each claimant on merit – plainly speaking, it will decide who is eligible to join an expanded Security Council (and who is not) in terms of the utility of that country to America’s global diplomacy and strategies. It is improbable that in the current climate of big-power politics a consensus built around the superpower’s insistence can be reached.

However, the government has come under compulsion to indulge in some outlandish hyperbole, by projecting a vastly exaggerated notion that it is hopeful of ‘securing concrete outcomes’ on the issue in the UN GA session that began yesterday. If media reports are to be believed, our prime minister will be in New York but won’t address the UNGA. Now, do you think our prime minister is the sort of politician who will miss India’s moment, if there is really one coming round the corner?

The prime minister is not known to be someone who shares power and the glory. Yet, he will attend the Sustainable Development Summit 2015 in New York (September-25-27) but will apparently skip the UN GA session and leave it to the external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj to represent India.

But then, what is the government’s compulsion to indulge in such antics to exaggerate the dynamics of the UN Security Council reform? From all indications, this is a cover-up operation aimed at putting a gloss over the embarrassing diplomatic setback that India may have suffered to its hopes of putting its hat in the ring for the election to the ‘Asian seat’ in the UN Security Council that is falling vacant in 2016.

There are already two contestants for the Asian seat – Kazakhstan and Thailand. India’s best hope probably would have been to persuade Kazakhstan (which Modi visited recently) to stand down and to give way for India’s candidacy. But Kazakhstan sees no reason to sacrifice its national interests, since its campaign has already picked momentum. It is assured of support from Russia and China and other countries on the Eurasian landmass. The 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference has announced its support for Kazakhstan’s candidature. The robust backing by Saudi Arabia has lined up the GCC support as well.

Unsurprisingly, the international community may regard Kazakhstan’s credentials to be more impressive than India’s. True Kazakhstan’s population may be just about 20 million (as against India’s 1200 million) but it is a very active player in the regional and global arena. Read the Kazakh foreign ministry website, here, detailing the country’s strong claim to be represented in the UN Security Council. It will put South Block to shame.

Isn’t the Modi government wasting the talent and potential of Indian diplomacy by directing the South Block to focus on the propagation of Hindi language and yoga as the priority areas of our foreign policy? The time has come to ask some hard questions as to what are the gains of the present government’s foreign policies so far. To the uninitiated, our prime minister’s frequent travels abroad may seem synonymous with an active foreign policy. But in reality they turn out to be ‘sound and fury signifying nothing’.

The saddest part is that our government doesn’t even realize that India’s future membership of the UN Security Council is very much linked to the climate of its relations with its two major neighbors – Pakistan and China. Yet, only last week, Pakistan National Command Authority met to review operational readiness to use the “country’s strategic assets” (read nuclear weapons) in a war with India.

The Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times alleged only two days ago that the Indian military establishment and the media “have formed an information chain” to vitiate the climate of Sino-Indian relations. Now, it is common sense that the highly professional Indian military will never act like a rogue elephant. (Wouldn’t the Chinese also know it?) So, what is happening?

The Modi government seems incapable of realizing that India needs the goodwill of all countries – especially two major nuclear powers in the Asian region such as China and Pakistan – to advance its case for the UN Security Council membership. China and Pakistan’s goodwill would strengthen India’s case, while their passivity or opposition could work as ‘spoiler’.

Hyperbole is no substitute for hard work. But, for Indian diplomats to work hard and deliver, they need political guidance. And for that to happen, a visionary leadership is needed.

Posted in Diplomacy.

Tagged with India-China, Kashmir problem, UN reform.

By M K Bhadrakumar – September 16, 2015

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/09/16/indias-un-hyperbole-is-a-joke/

 

[Ancient Indian]

India’s UN hyperbole is a joke

Hyperbole is an art form that is as ancient as Aristotle’s discussion of the alazon. It is a rhetorical device of immense use to governments to amplify achievements and bolster self-esteem in front of the domestic audience. The South Block just took it out of the armory. South Block has projected the ‘UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] decision on Security Council reform’ with a shot of hyperbole. The government just stopped of claiming credit for it but hinted at its expectation that India would be home and dry as a permanent member of the UN Security Council by the time the 70th Session of the UNGA gets over.

These are sad times when nothing much is happening in India’s foreign policy to brag about – except, perhaps, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Madison Square Garden-style banga banga parties abroad. (Another one is due in Silicon Valley in California.)

The gap between illusion and reality cannot be any bigger. The Security Council reform is a long haul and may not become reality for a foreseeable future. The established veto-holding members have no interest in sharing their prerogative to sit at the high table and decide on issues affecting international security. The claimants are far too many and a common acceptable yardstick seems virtually impossible to evolve.

And, to cap it, the United States recently put it in writing that it not only disfavors the new inductees being given veto power (in addition to the 5 already holding it) but is also opposed to the concept of regional representation and will weigh each claimant on merit – plainly speaking, it will decide who is eligible to join an expanded Security Council (and who is not) in terms of the utility of that country to America’s global diplomacy and strategies. It is improbable that in the current climate of big-power politics a consensus built around the superpower’s insistence can be reached.

However, the government has come under compulsion to indulge in some outlandish hyperbole, by projecting a vastly exaggerated notion that it is hopeful of ‘securing concrete outcomes’ on the issue in the UN GA session that began yesterday. If media reports are to be believed, our prime minister will be in New York but won’t address the UNGA. Now, do you think our prime minister is the sort of politician who will miss India’s moment, if there is really one coming round the corner?

The prime minister is not known to be someone who shares power and the glory. Yet, he will attend the Sustainable Development Summit 2015 in New York (September-25-27) but will apparently skip the UN GA session and leave it to the external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj to represent India.

But then, what is the government’s compulsion to indulge in such antics to exaggerate the dynamics of the UN Security Council reform? From all indications, this is a cover-up operation aimed at putting a gloss over the embarrassing diplomatic setback that India may have suffered to its hopes of putting its hat in the ring for the election to the ‘Asian seat’ in the UN Security Council that is falling vacant in 2016.

There are already two contestants for the Asian seat – Kazakhstan and Thailand. India’s best hope probably would have been to persuade Kazakhstan (which Modi visited recently) to stand down and to give way for India’s candidacy. But Kazakhstan sees no reason to sacrifice its national interests, since its campaign has already picked momentum. It is assured of support from Russia and China and other countries on the Eurasian landmass. The 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference has announced its support for Kazakhstan’s candidature. The robust backing by Saudi Arabia has lined up the GCC support as well.

Unsurprisingly, the international community may regard Kazakhstan’s credentials to be more impressive than India’s. True Kazakhstan’s population may be just about 20 million (as against India’s 1200 million) but it is a very active player in the regional and global arena. Read the Kazakh foreign ministry website, here, detailing the country’s strong claim to be represented in the UN Security Council. It will put South Block to shame.

Isn’t the Modi government wasting the talent and potential of Indian diplomacy by directing the South Block to focus on the propagation of Hindi language and yoga as the priority areas of our foreign policy? The time has come to ask some hard questions as to what are the gains of the present government’s foreign policies so far. To the uninitiated, our prime minister’s frequent travels abroad may seem synonymous with an active foreign policy. But in reality they turn out to be ‘sound and fury signifying nothing’.

The saddest part is that our government doesn’t even realize that India’s future membership of the UN Security Council is very much linked to the climate of its relations with its two major neighbors – Pakistan and China. Yet, only last week, Pakistan National Command Authority met to review operational readiness to use the “country’s strategic assets” (read nuclear weapons) in a war with India.

The Chinese Communist Party tabloid Global Times alleged only two days ago that the Indian military establishment and the media “have formed an information chain” to vitiate the climate of Sino-Indian relations. Now, it is common sense that the highly professional Indian military will never act like a rogue elephant. (Wouldn’t the Chinese also know it?) So, what is happening?

The Modi government seems incapable of realizing that India needs the goodwill of all countries – especially two major nuclear powers in the Asian region such as China and Pakistan – to advance its case for the UN Security Council membership. China and Pakistan’s goodwill would strengthen India’s case, while their passivity or opposition could work as ‘spoiler’.

Hyperbole is no substitute for hard work. But, for Indian diplomats to work hard and deliver, they need political guidance. And for that to happen, a visionary leadership is needed.

Posted in Diplomacy.

Tagged with India-China, Kashmir problem, UN reform.

By M K Bhadrakumar – September 16, 2015

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/09/16/indias-un-hyperbole-is-a-joke/

Arey Babu, don't you have anything to do?

Always trying to cuddle with India. Remove India from your mind and learn some skill and do a job.

And more importantly, GET SOME LIFE.

 

[Yumdoot]

Arey Babu, don't you have anything to do?

Always trying to cuddle with India. Remove India from your mind and learn some skill and do a job.

And more importantly, GET SOME LIFE.

A Paki is what paki does. The idiot saw M.K. Bhadrakumar trying to derogate India and posted it here without even reading about what the hell it really is.

When the gem of a piece by M.K. Bhadrakumar carries quotes like the one below, it shows the truth of the statement 'Pakis is what Paki does'.

India needs the goodwill of all countries – especially two major nuclear powers in the Asian region such as China and Pakistan – to advance its case for the UN Security Council membership.

And what do we need the support of the Major Nuclear Power Pakistan for. For advancing our case for the UN Security Council membership .

 

[no smoking]

Yes its possible .if India will be rejected then are rejecting 1 seventh of world population. India should leave un which will make council loss 1 sevent population now this will show the point to entire world and nessacity for India to get in permanent membership

Name me something that will hurt the world badly if India walk out of UN.

 

[pmaitra]

Name me something that will hurt the world badly if India walk out of UN.

India can simply issue a unilateral declaration that any UNGA or UNSC resolution that does not take into account the position if 1.2 billion people shall have no binding on what India does.

 

[no smoking]

India can simply issue a unilateral declaration that any UNGA or UNSC resolution that does not take into account the position if 1.2 billion people shall have no binding on what India does.

Yes, that is very bad for PR of UN, but that is all.
When Chinese decided to ignore UN's resolution on Korea issue, UN armies were stopped by them;
When the whole world condemn US on Iraq, their army still marched into Baghdad;
When Russia provided protection to Syria, there is no UN resolution at all;

Tell me, on which issue, how UN will become useless if India is not part of deal.

 

[Mad Indian]

When Chinese decided to ignore UN's resolution on Korea issue, UN armies were stopped by them;
When the whole world condemn US on Iraq, their army still marched into Baghdad;
When Russia provided protection to Syria, there is no UN resolution at all;

Tell me, on which issue, how UN will become useless if India is not part of deal.


.

Only nincompoops can come up with this sort of post. So you first claim uno is useless and then ask why it will become useless?

Anyway, legitimacy of UN will be under question. Besides, exit of India might pave way for many more exits in the future, including that of Japan and in due course other countries which feel the same way, which might include African Union too.

In short , Either the UN will become another league of nations, or it will get reformed with the p5 begging India to come back. The failure of league of nations is due to its failure in having the great powers of that time within it. I don't think every one in the UN including the PRC is that stupid to allow that to happen