Mohan Guruswamy
October 01, 2004

The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh has returned from his first official visit to London and to the UN amidst great optimism that his government is on the verge of achieving what has eluded all previous governments. That is a permanent place on the big table that is the UN Security Council. The other major claimants namely West Germany, Japan and Brazil have spoken in favor of India's claim. And of-course Prime Minster Tony Blair has lent his powerful voice to support India's long cherished desire to be counted among the big boys of world affairs. The Chinese have maintained their usual inscrutable silence, but it seems that they will throw in their support at an opportune time, like the USA, as a part of the linkage diplomacy they like to practice. While the USA has not spoken up as yet, would Tony Blair have spoken without their concurrence? So it would be reasonable to assume that India is almost in.

Only Pakistan has voiced its opposition to India's claim, once again reminding us of the old saying about the leopard not losing its spots. But would Gen. Musharaff voice his opinion without a prod from the Americans? One can only wonder if this is a precondition to applying linkage on India. Linkage can take the form of a settlement on Kashmir, that "takes into account the aspirations" of the people of the Kashmir Valley. Once that is conceded, in American eyes, for what earthly reason would India need nuclear weapons? The Americans see Kashmir as the key to the de-nuclearization of South Asia. But why are we in such a hurry and so overtly anxious to get into the UN Security Council? To understand this we must go back in time.

Even though the UN was fashioned by the victors of WWII, its birth had its origins in the darkest days of that period when leaders of nine occupied countries in Europe - Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia - met with representatives of Britain and Commonwealth nations in London on June 12, 1941 and signed a declaration pledging to work for a free world, where all nations could live in peace and security. This was called the Inter-Allied Declaration and was the first step towards the establishment of the UN. Two months later, US President Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced the Atlantic Charter, not only expressing similar hopes, but also eventual disarmament and full economic co-operation. On January 1, 1942 signed what came to be known as the Declaration of the United Nations, approving the aims of the Atlantic Charter.

More interestingly this was the first time the phrase "United Nations" was used. But the creation of the United Nations organization for preserving world peace had to wait till October 30, 1943 when Britain, China, the Soviet Union and the USA signed the Moscow Declaration on General Security. The signatories to the Moscow Declaration then met continuously from August to October 1944 in Washington DC and fashioned a basic plan for an international peacekeeping organization. The centerpiece of this plan was a Security Council in which the USA, USSR, Britain, China and France would be permanent members. Fifty nations then met in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, twelve days before Germany surrendered and four months before Japan was defeated, to consider this plan. After much deliberation the differences, mostly over the veto power demanded by the Big Three - US, USSR and UK, were papered over and on June 26, 1945 all the fifty nations present signed the charter and the UN formally came into being.

The UN has grown much since then reflecting the changes in the world mostly due to de-colonization, fragmentation of the USSR, and the division of some founder member states like Yugoslavia. The UN now has 191 members and Switzerland was the last to join on September 10, 2002. The world has also changed in other significant ways. But most significant of all was the demise of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. The Cold War and the balance of power between the two super-powers ironically enough served as a guarantor of peace and the security of nations that came under accepted spheres of influence. With the world poised a button push away from Armageddon the UN, and especially the Security Council, became a ready forum to facilitate constant dialogue between the super-powers and it admirably served this purpose.

True it did not prevent regional wars from erupting constantly, but it did prevent a general war of ruinous dimensions. Both super-powers usually heeded the UN because the other was there. The veto powers ensured that one bloc could not override the interests of the other one. The veto thus came to be used 252 times since 1946. It was used the maximum in the first decade of the UN between 1946-55 when it was exercised 83 times and with the USSR alone using it 80 times. This dropped off to 31 and 26 respectively between 1956-65. The West led by the USA came to use the veto more often since 1966 using it 115 times as opposed to 15 by the USSR. Since 1996 Russia has not exercised the veto even once whereas the USA has used it six times and China twice. This presumably reflects the shape of the world order to come?

As an immediate response to a destructive world war, the UN reflected the reality and ethos of that age. Nothing reflected this more than the composition of the permanent members of the Security Council. Four out of the five were "white" nations. Two, China and France, were defeated nations. Two, Britain and France, were colonial powers. The other ten members of the Security Council are elected members from the various regions. These are members are without the veto and with little voice or clout. Their plight is best illustrated by the admission of the Colombian representative, Amb. Jaramillo, that even as President of the Security Council he was "forced to stand outside the chamber where the Permanent Five were meeting and beg for pieces of information as a personal favor from the permanent representatives as they were leaving."

Thus it is very ironical that while the Cold War assured relevance of the UN and masked the basically flawed nature of the Security Council, its end seems to have made the UN increasingly irrelevant. The decision of the USA and UK to bypass the Security Council and unilaterally seek the disarmament of Iraq's phantom nuclear arsenal only underscores this irrelevance. It is even more ironic that the threat of France to use its veto had forced the USA and UK to bypass the Security Council, when it was apparent that the USA had the support of the majority in the Security Council.

Most members of the UN, including long time US hangers on like Australia and New Zealand, would like to see the veto go. On the other hand by doing so and by equating tiny countries like Seychelles (pop. 79,000) with India (pop. 1.03 billion), it will end up making the unequal equal which is as undesirable as making the equal unequal. While the single veto does not reflect a desirable democratization, to have a Security Council of elected equals will only render it more ineffective and irrelevant. The richer countries for one will find themselves even more represented than now. A few years ago Japan defeated India's bid to become an elected member of the Security Council by offering Toyota limousines to Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors of voting countries. Many accepted. Even within the Security Council the ability of some countries to have their way will make it vulnerable to unwise choices. More recently the US Ambassador to the UN snarled over an open mike to the Yemeni Ambassador that his vote just cost that country $100 million. The following week the USA suspended its aid package to Yemen.

Thus while a Security Council of a smaller number of countries is desirable to make the UN effective, it must also reflect world realities and be more representative of its diversity. For instance Africa and Latin America are not represented in the Permanent Five. Likewise the Islamic world does not find a place. India, which has a fifth of the world's population, does not find a place. The biggest economy in Europe, Germany, does not find a place. On the other hand with two members, UK and France, Western Europe is over represented. With Russia added Europe has three members. Clearly this is not a satisfactory arrangement.

Indian diplomacy during the past few years has centered more on securing a permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Partly in response to this and similar pressures from Japan, Brazil and Germany, we now and then hear of a proposal to make some of these larger nations permanent members but without veto powers. It seems that our leaders are so desperate for some international recognition that they are quite willing to accept even a second class Permanent Membership. This would be unfortunate, as rather than making the UN more democratic; it will make it even more stratified. What we need to seek is the reform of the UN, by eliminating single veto's, while at the same time ensuring that the Security Council does not become victim to the tyranny of a simple majority.

The first step would be to make the Security Council more representative by accommodating nations reflecting the economic, geographical and cultural diversity of the United Nations, as well as relative power and size. Thus the major political and economic groupings such as the European Union (EU) or North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) or Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) or South Asian Association of Regional Countries (SAARC) or Organization of American States (OAS) or the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and Asia Pacific Union (APU) or even the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) could each chose its member in the Security Council. Instead of a single veto being able to derail its intentions, a certain minimum threshold, say of three or four members should only thwart the Security Council's majority. This will prevent the vetoing Permanent Five from insisting that world affairs only are shaped to their liking. But before that we need a new Permanent Five. This should be based on population, GNP and military power. The places of the USA, China, India and Russia will be assured using any sensible combination of these criteria. Western Europe can choose one among them, which means that either France or Britain will have to make do with a rotational membership along-with Germany.

The Indian Prime Minister has therefore quite rightly spoken of a greater democratization of the UN. And this is the first time an Indian leader has couched a demand for the recognition of India's rightful place in the world system in these terms. There is more to UN reform than just a seat with the bullies.