India has agreed to become a permanent member without the right to exercise a veto for the first 15 years. Even after 15 years, there is no guarantee that the commitment not to exercise the veto right will be eliminated
The announcement by President Obama at the joint session of Parliament in October 2010 that he will support India’s quest for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council was understandably greeted by the Government of India and the Opposition with much fanfare. It was symbolic of the long-standing understanding of the ministry of external affairs that without US support there is no hope for India of becoming a permanent member.
France, Russia and UK, with other members of the five permanent members of the UNSC (the P-5), had already conveyed their support to India earlier and their leaders reiterated their support during their respective visits to India in the last half of 2010. The Chinese leader was predictably ambivalent on that issue.
However, in a recent interview published in The Asian Age on 9 February, the Permanent Representative of India to the UN, Mr H S Puri, made it clear that he “can state with reasonable degree of confidence that China will not be an obstacle to India becoming a permanent UNSC member”.
Whatever one’s view on China’s support for permanent membership of India and Japan, the confidence expressed by our Permanent Representative regarding China’s support needs to be noted.
The question on everybody’s mind is not whether India can become a permanent member; it is whether the P-5 will support India’s permanent membership in the UNSC with veto rights, in exactly the same manner as the P-5 now enjoy.
Mr Puri has said in the same interview that, “First, the new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations (not rights) as the current permanent members. Second, that the new permanent members will not exercise the right of veto until the question of extension of the right of veto to new permanent members (India) has been decided upon in the framework of the review mandated 15 years after the entry into force of the Security Council reform”.
What this effectively means is that India has agreed to become a permanent member without the right to exercise a veto for the first 15 years. For a layman, there is not much difference between not having the right to veto, and having the right but agreeing not to exercise it. Even after 15 years, there is no guarantee that the commitment not to exercise the veto right will be eliminated for India, as nobody can visualise the outcome of the so-called review after 15 years with any certainty. Indeed, this interpretation of India’s current position is supported by the fact that not a single P-5 member has officially supported India’s claim to permanent membership with a veto right.
How would the UN implement this new Indian/G4 demand? Article 27 of the UN Charter, dealing with voting in the Security Council, says, “Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters (matters other than procedural) shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members….” It is this article which confers veto rights on the P-5.
Clearly, if the “concurring votes” of the new permanent members are to be held in abeyance for 15 years at least, and will not be required to pass substantive resolutions in the Security Council, then Article 27 would have to be imaginatively amended. It would be interesting to see what changes India and the G3 propose, to amend Article 27 to segregate the full right of “concurring” votes of the present permanent members from the diluted right of “non-concurring” votes of the new permanent members.
Meanwhile, India’s vote will not be counted among “the concurring votes of permanent members” as essential to pass resolutions in the Council. Regardless of its “permanent” member status, India’s vote will be treated as equivalent to a non-permanent member’s vote, no less and no more.
Would it not be more honest and straightforward for the Government of India to tell the public that our policy has changed and we are willing to accept permanent membership of the UN Security Council without veto rights, at least for the first 15 years?
Should the government not be candid with the Indian people and tell them the truth, rather than indulging in verbal casuistry to the effect that India, Japan, Germany and Brazil will have veto rights, when in reality they have already committed to give up their right to veto for 15 years and more, in return for UN support for getting the diluted status to permanent membership in the Security Council now?
The people must also know that even during this period of 15 years without the right to exercise veto rights, India will have to accept all “responsibilities and obligations” of permanent membership, including much higher financial payments and contributions than a non-permanent member.
The author is India’s former permanent representative to the UN and was special envoy of the UN secretary general for Iraq
