UN reform not a live issue
By Hari Jaisingh

NEW YORK, Sept 26 - Are UN reforms on the cards? Not in the least, going by the mood and the tenor of speeches of several world leaders who use the General Assembly forum to air their views on burning and not-so-burning issues.

A close monitoring of the goings-on here shows that restructuring of the United Nations is no longer a live issue. From the Indian viewpoint, this means Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s call for induction of fresh blood to the Security Council so as to make it more "representative of the membership of the United Nations" remains a non-starter for all practical purposes. Not that there is no sympathy for India. But in the post-Pokhran setting even the core NAM group support for New Delhi’s claim to permanent membership on the Security Council is somewhat diluted for the present.

Mr Vajpayee’s declaration at the UN Assembly was categorical. He said that the presence of some developing countries as "permanent members is inescapable for effectively discharging the responsibilities of the Security Council particularly when we see that the Council acts almost exclusively in the development world. It is only natural that on decisions affecting the developing world these countries have a say on equal terms".

The Prime Minister made a passionate plea that some developing countries should be made permanent members "on par with the present members". Only this "will make the Council an effective instrument for the international community in dealing with current and future challenges".

Mr Vajpayee touched upon the Indian claim for a permanent seat at the UN Council in a low-key but dignified manner. To quote him, "the new permanent members must of course have the ability to discharge the responsibilities that come with permanent membership. India believes it can, and, as we had said before from this rostrum, we are prepared to accept the responsibilities of permanent membership, and believe we are qualified for it".

There is, of course, a lot of appreciation for India’s peace-keeping role. Even the UN Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan, said so during his meeting with the Indian Prime Minister. But on the question of giving India a permanent seat in the Security Council, he is both cool and non-committal. Apparently he knows that the only voice that matters in the world today is that of the USA, the sole superpower. Ironically, the USA has its way despite its default on payment of dues to the UN! But then this is how the world goes. The USA continues to rely on its own strength to get what it wants from the world today.

It may be recalled that India had rejected "temporary" reform of the Security Council by admitting two developed countries — Japan and Germany — as permanent members and deferring the decision to incorporate developing countries. India is opposed to this ad hoc approach.

It has been suggested that an "objective criterion" for the expansion of the Security Council membership should be arrived at. On its part, India has suggested the following criteria: population, practice of democracy, commitment to the UN Charter and contribution to various UN activities over the past 50 years or so.

India has rejected the idea of a semi-permanent membership of the Security Council to be rotated between major continental powers. NAM members are in favour of increasing membership of both categories — permanent and non-permanent. NAM wants more representation for developing countries. So does India, as spelt out by Mr Vajpayee in his UN speech.

The non-aligned have actually put up a comprehensive proposal to restructure the UN. India believes that to truly reflect the expanded membership of the UN, developing countries must be included as permanent members. If this criterion is applied, India’s case for permanent membership cannot be challenged. But then India’s case has become part of America’s global politics.

In fact, New Delhi has reasons to feel concerned over US efforts to separate development issues from the UN purview and bring them under IBRD and IMF or WTO. Although there is no weighted voting in WTO, there are sanctions. The rich nations want the WTO to be taken out of the UN system and be linked to Bretton Woods-linked institutions. This will give them greater power over the direction of the global economy.

It is also no secret that the USA wants to have nothing to do with what it considers "superfluous" UN organisations like UNIDO and UNCTAD. Their relegation will be a major blow to the initiative of the developing countries to act as a pressure group.

UNIDO has served well in the field of technology transfer, investment promotion, upgradation of standards of production. As for UNCTAD, it has been the only forum where many innovative ideas such as GSP, Common Fund, the integrated programme of commodities, were mooted and discussed.

These are vital issues for developing countries. Hence their opposition to winding up of UNCTAD and other organisations which cater to the poorer countries. "The inequality within the global community is so great that there is no way but to safeguard these institutions", a diplomat from a Third World country told me.

Interestingly, there is even talk of a UN Security Council for economic affairs. The idea here is, again, to gain control over the developing countries. Amidst this complex scenario, India’s quest for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council looks like a non-starter for the present.