In the first concrete step towards negotiations for India’s hopes of an expanded U.N. Security Council (UNSC), the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution on Monday to use a text as the basis for discussions on the issue over the next year.
“All of us are celebrating the fact that we can talk about U.N. reform with an actual piece of paper on the table,” India’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Asoke Mukerji told The Hindu over the telephone from New York.
While the U.N.’s Inter-governmental negotiations (IGN) have been under way since 2008, this is the first time that a “negotiating text” is being accepted to begin talks, as opposed to just statements and speeches.
Officials say the passing of the resolution on “equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” doesn’t mean that India’s dreams of a seat at the high table of the U.N. are going to be realised immediately, but it is a significant step forward from years of ambiguity.
Speaking exclusively to The Hindu shortly after the resolution was adopted, Ambassador Mukerji revealed that there had been several attempts to “dilute or cancel the resolution” tabled by outgoing UNGA President Sam Kutesa until the last minute, and officials had to work “through the weekend to defeat the attempts.”
He didn’t name the countries who tried to change the resolution, which would have effectively scuttled India’s efforts had they been successful.
But it is clear that Mr. Kutesa has faced opposition to his efforts to discuss U.N. reform from P-5 countries like China, USA and Russia, as well as from countries opposed to India, Japan, Germany and Brazil being contendors for a seat at the security council.
A 13-member group known as Uniting for Consensus, led by Italy, Pakistan and South Korea had openly campaigned against the text-based negotiation. However none of those objections were aired in the UNGA on Monday, and the resolution India has been pushing hard for was passed “by consensus”.
MEA’s reactionWelcoming the resolution, the Ministry of External Affairs said the government looks “forward to early commencement of text-based negotiations with a view to securing concrete outcomes during the 70th Session of the UNGA.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to raise the issue during his address at the special session on September 25 in New York as will External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj when she addresses the General Assembly a few days later.
The text put forward by Mr. Kutesa is based on his letter on July 31 where he listed five key areas of negotiations on UNSC expansion, including the critical issue of giving new entrants “the veto” power. He also included in his document the written submissions of several countries including the U.S., Russia and China.
The letters have been uploaded (http://thne.ws/unreform) for public reading, the first time countries have put their official positions on paper. While the Chinese Ambassador wrote that China wants “small and medium-sized countries” to “take turns to serve in the Security Council,” the Russian Ambassador made it clear that none of the current members’ powers would change, saying: “The prerogatives of the current Permanent Members of the Security Council, including the use of veto, should remain intact under any variant of the council reform.”
U.S. Ambassador Samantha Powers too has said that the U.S. “remains opposed to any alteration or expansion of the veto,” without referring to any support for India’s candidature, which had caused considerable disappointment in India.
When asked by The Hindu , Ambassador Mukerji said that while India demands a UNSC seat with all its privileges, it was “much too early” to discuss whether India could consider compromising on the veto.
On the question of the process ahead, Mr. Mukerji said that much will depend on whether the incoming UNGA President Mogens Lykketoft, who visited India earlier this month, will retain Jamaican ambassador Courtenay Rattray as the chief of the negotiating team. Mr. Rattray’s efforts had brought the U.N. reform process substantively forward in the past few months. “If they choose someone else, the process may not move as quickly.”
