An Insecurity Complex

In fact, the US is understood to be keen on negotiating an agreement as soon as this fall on the basic structure of a reformed council, so that it can be taken up during the General Assembly session. "The message we are sending is that we want to be players on the Security Council reform and that we are ready to admit three developing countries to shake up this languishing process," Richardson said.

Expectedly, the news cheered emerging regional powers such as India, Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa and Brazil; disappointed their regional rivals such as Pakistan and Argentina; and confused many other nations. Pakistan is fiercely opposed to including any developing country on the council and has consistently used debates on human rights and CTBT to discredit India and set back its chances of playing a stronger role in the UN.

But a pragmatic US administration—probably advised by Germany and Japan—now believes that bringing in developing countries is the only way to garner the support it needs to legitimise the entry of its rich friends. It would also serve the purpose of reducing Washington’s financial commitment to the world body to a fifth of its total budget.

For its part, India has been more than a bit blase about Richardson’s bombshell. "We have been principled spokesmen for giving developing countries a place on the council and for equal treatment of all permanent members on the council," intones India’s envoy to the UN, Prakash Shah. "We have stated that there can be no expansion without developing countries and we have been talking to other developing and industrialised countries about it. Finally, the US has accepted it."

The US statement comes after almost four months of discussions on a paper presented in March by Razali Ismail, Malaysia’s envoy to the UN who is president of the general assembly. Ismail is in favour of five new permanent members and four new non-permanent members. But the US insists on restricting the expansion to five new permanent members and at the most one new non-permanent member.

The council already has five permanent members—the US, Russia, China, Great Britain and France—and 10 non-permanent members (who are chosen for a period of two years). The paper had suggested that the general assembly should decide the new permanent members by February 28, 1998. Aspirants would need a two-third majority to be elected to the council. As for veto power, the paper says the five original permanent members be discouraged from using the veto, and the five new members be denied it altogether. This runs contrary to India’s stand. Says Shah: "India’s position is that there should be no discrimination—not between old and new permanent members and not among new members themselves. "

The Ismail paper also allows for review and change of the council structure over 10 years. It recommends that "a review conference be convened in 10 years after the entry into force of the amendment".

Meanwhile, it is clear that securing a council berth is not going to be a cakewalk. UN watchers in New Delhi believe that India should be ready to enter into tough negotiations if it wants a permanent seat. Having displeased the US with its refusal to sign the CTBT and NPT and with its dissensions on the FMCT, it needs another ploy. "India should oppose the power of veto, which some say has been abused, and should insist that all new additions to the council should also give it up," says associate professor C.S.R. Murthy of the School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The move, he notes, would prove popular with many UN member states. The veto has hardly been used in the last five years and indicates the "inability of any permanent member to cast a negative vote and prevent adoption of a resolution".

Significantly, the US has left the method of selection of new members to the respective regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This is likely to deepen divisions within Asia rather than help achieve any consensus. And the big problem facing India will be to convince developing countries of the worthiness of its candidature over that of others. "Pakistan will try its best to spoil India’s chances, because it knows that it will never qualify," points out a senior government official. Murthy believes Pakistan will use coalition resistance to block India: "Indonesia, a competitor for a seat on the Security Council, might decide to side with Pakistan. China will be playing its own cards in collusion with Pakistan. Malaysia, which presently opposes expansion of the council, is also likely to be lobbied by Pakistan." Besides intensive lobbying within the region, India will also have to approach the five permanent members themselves.

Hence, sources stress that it may be to India’s advantage to delay the expansion of the Security Council as it might put the country in a better position to make the grade. "We don’t want a decision to be taken now because there is no consensus," says an official. In fact, India has reportedly opposed all piecemeal approaches to expansion of the council, thus slowing down the process anyway. Shah echoes this approach when he says: "We believe that there should be no artificial time-frame for reform. That is why we believe that at this stage we cannot decide on a framework agreement this fall." If time is on India’s side, it may yet achieve what many still see as little more than a pipedream.