M A I N   N E W S

Futuristic mood at UN
Permanent seat: India’s chances bright
From Hari Jaisingh

NEW YORK, Sept 11 — There is good news. The UN is not going to die yet, as is often feared. This is clear from the enthusiasm for the just concluded three-day UN Millennium Summit. Almost all the world leaders were there — over 150 of them, including 100 presidents or other Heads of State, 47 government leaders, princes and a few vice-presidents.

The mood at the summit was futuristic, and that is how one could hear the nice-to-hear calls for a new vision based on common values and goals. And the goals include demands for universal democracy, human rights, the rule of law, better deal for poor countries, better living standards, increased share for the developing countries and more benefits from the new mantra of globalisation.

Rhetoric? Well, pious declarations cannot eliminate poverty, illiteracy and diseases from the earth. Only sincere and concerted efforts can make a difference. But where is the action to give the poor and the have nots a better deal?

It was the vision of an utopia that conjured up the lofty words of the UN Charter. But it bore no relation to the world of realpolitik.

Yet, there is a blend of ethics and ideals in the UN’s work. Which is why people have faith in the UN. But the great powers often give the impression of having lost interest in the world body. What they wanted was a pliant UN to carry out their orders. This has, however, become increasingly impossible as the UN membership has grown tremendously.

The UN Charter envisaged a multipolar world. What we got was a bi-polar world — a world of two rival systems. Now it has become a unipolar world, although there is little support for it in the world.

Not long ago, the demand was for a new world order. Today, apart from the maintenance of peace, the UN’s attention is devoted to securing human rights. Other problems are ecology, climate change, the environment, population, pollution, women, children, etc. Most other crucial issues have been marginalised because they are not convenient to the powers that be.

The UN and its charter were not based on democratic principles. The provision of veto powers to the Security Council’s permanent members creates an elite group. Most of the UN decisions are, therefore, based on the secret parleys among the elite group’s members like the USA, the UK, France, Germany and Japan. It was hoped that the end of the Cold War would bring in democracy. But the elite group is trying to preserve its privileges and powers.

Talk of the UN reforms has been in the air for some years. There is a recommendation to raise the permanent membership of the Security Council from five to 10. It is endorsed by the USA. Germany and Japan are the favoured two. Three more will be added — one each from the continents of Asia, Africa and Latin America. In addition, there are to be 14 non-permanent members.

Obviously, the seat distribution is unfair. For, Europe with 9 per cent of the world population will have four seats (Russia, Germany, France and Britain) whereas Asia with 60 per cent of the world population will have only three seats (China, Japan and India/Indonesia). Even in terms of economic weightage, Asia is far more important than Europe.

India wants to develop the membership criteria before the reforms are taken up. Its own preferences are population, democratic tradition, commitment to the UN Charter and contribution to the UN activities. India qualifies for a permanent seat in the Security Council under this test.

India is the second most populous country. In terms of the GNP, economic potential, military power and the role played by India in the UN, including peace-keeping operations, it is eminently qualified.

India has the support of Russia, Britain and France, three permanent members of the Security Council, as also of a number of important powers. It should not be a problem to muster the necessary votes. Much, however, will depend on the attitude the USA and China adopt on India’s permanent membership.

Interestingly, the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, has said that India will be a “natural” contender for a permanent seat.

In 1945, the total strength of the UN was only 52. Today it has a membership of 189. Thus the demand for an enlarged Security Council is fully justified.

It has been proposed that the new permanent members will not have the veto power. So, we will have three types of members: members with the veto power, those without the veto power and non-permanent members. This is undemocratic and a clear case of discrimination.

There is no justification for the veto power today. Perhaps during the Cold War it was necessary. But no more. There is only one extra seat for Asia both India and Indonesia can lay claim to it. This may create tension within the developing world.

Over the years the UN has been facing problems. The most important of them are resource crunch, redundancy and inefficiency. It has been unfortunate that even a country like the USA has not been paying UN dues in time.

There is the impression that the developed countries bear much of the financial burden. This is a myth. For, much of the UN budget is spent in the advanced countries, above all in the USA. It is estimated that for every dollar contributed by the USA, the UN spends within America about 30 cents.

Today as we stand on the threshold of the third millennium, we are more divided and confused than ever before. That is the reason why there is need for the global body to provide people with proper guidance.

Only a reformed UN can play that role effectively. Equally vital is the translation of the Millennium Summit declaration into a solid plan of action.

Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee can play an important role. He is an elder statesman, and the leader of a new India — an India which is a global player, a nuclear power and potentially the fourth largest economic power.