Will PM Modi succeed in getting India a permanent seat in the UNSC ?
It has been almost a decade since India has been eying a permanent seat
for itself in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and the urge
reached at its peak when Narendra Modi became the Prime Minister of
India in 2014. Since the past year, PM Modi has been gathering support
from countries around the world like Mongolia and the UAE, and pitching
for a permanent membership of the UNSC for India.
Why is India not a permanent member of the UNSC? Well, the UNSC started in 1945, and India was not even a free country then. India became independent in 1947, and very soon a golden opportunity came India's way of bagging a permanent UNSC membership, when Nehru was the PM. It was in 1955, with the Cold War at its peak. But Nehru declined and China came in.
The UNSC at the moment has five permanent member countries, namely US, UK, France, China and Russia. All these five members have the power to veto, which means that they have the power to prevent adoption of any "substantive" resolution, and also the power to decided which issues fall under the "substantive" category. Which means that these member countries have the power to impose sanctions, start peacekeeping missions and take military action against states who violate human rights or engage in a civil war.
In simple words, if India gets a permanent membership in the UNSC, India's authority in the international community will increase, and Pakistan is most likely to get worried. This probably is one of the reasons, Mr Sharif has been ranting `Kashmir' at the UN recently, to create hurdles in India's path and some how stop it from becoming a permanent member.
But, will PM Modi succeed, is a question which only time will tell. On merits and the fact that I am an Indian myself, I say that India should be a natural permanent member of the UNSC, as we are the world's largest democracy, where 1/6th of the world's population resides.
There is another very valid argument which goes in India's favour, when it demands a permanent membership of the UNSC, which is India being the prime contributor of troops to the UN peacekeeping missions. Since 1950, India has sent 1,80,000 troops to UN peacekeeping missions and has suffered the most war casualties as well. As per figures released by UN in August, 2014, India lost 157 men in UN peacekeeping missions, followed by Nigeria (142), Pakistan (136), Ghana (133), Canada (121), Bangladesh (119), France (111) and UK (103).
But unfortunately, in the 21st century having a large population does not matter much, but being a larger economic power does. As of now, India's GDP is around $2 trillion, and barring Russia ($1.8 trillion), the other four members USA ($17.4 trillion), China ($10.3 trillion), UK ($2.9 trillion) and France ($2.8 trillion) are bigger economic powers than India. (Source: World Bank, 2014).
India also does not feature in the top 10 contributors, when its comes to funding UN peacekeeping missions. As per the website of UN, the top ten fund contributors for the period 20013-15 have been US (28.38%), Japan (10.83%), France (7.22%), Germany (7.14%), United Kingdom (6.68%), China (6.64%), Italy (4.45%), Russia (3.15%), Canada (2.98%) and Spain (2.97%). Here also India lags behind to stake a strong claim.
The UN Security Council began with four members in 1945, namely US, UK, Russia and France. All these four members were allies who had won the second World War, in which India had contributed with money as well as troops, and perhaps much more than China had. It is believed that the United States, under President Eisenhower in 1955 wanted to keep Mao's China out of the UNSC, offered Nehru the oppertunity, while Russia being the only communist country in the UNSC was more comfortable with China coming in. It is believed that owing to India and Nehru's cordial relations with the Russians, India backed out then, besides Nehru always had a soft and faulty foreign policy on China with his Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai diplomacy.
But the problem is that although India's staking a claim for a permanent membership is legitimate and valid, it is practically achieving it which seems difficult. Japan and Germany are two countries which are already waiting for a permanent membership, and the five permanent members won't let them in. Japan being the 3rd largest economy in the world and Germany being the largest economy in Europe, and also a bigger economy than UK, which is a permanent member.
Although China's opposition to India is obvious, US, Russia, France and UK are no less culprits for keeping India out of the UN Security Council. Publicly they support India's candidature, as India is a major market for arms and ammunition manufactured by them, but otherwise, they have been promising more and delivering little. The US had earlier teamed up with Russia and China to oppose negotiations on reforms, which could pave India's way to make an entry. All five permanent members are also reluctant to allow the new 6th member to have the veto power, and without it, there is no point in becoming a permanent member.
So, in the light of these basic facts, I can conclude that PM Modi will have to wait for a while and continue with his diplomacy, if he wants to see India as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Maybe if PM Modi gets re-elected in 2019, he might be able to fulfill his dream. But one thing is for sure, that PM Modi looks most committed to the cause and the only Indian Prime Minister in recent times, who is making a genuine effort towards the same.
Many argue that PM Modi is chasing a mirage and the chances of India to become a permanent member are bleak, but I would say that his efforts will not go waste, and one day India will become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
Why is India not a permanent member of the UNSC? Well, the UNSC started in 1945, and India was not even a free country then. India became independent in 1947, and very soon a golden opportunity came India's way of bagging a permanent UNSC membership, when Nehru was the PM. It was in 1955, with the Cold War at its peak. But Nehru declined and China came in.
The UNSC at the moment has five permanent member countries, namely US, UK, France, China and Russia. All these five members have the power to veto, which means that they have the power to prevent adoption of any "substantive" resolution, and also the power to decided which issues fall under the "substantive" category. Which means that these member countries have the power to impose sanctions, start peacekeeping missions and take military action against states who violate human rights or engage in a civil war.
In simple words, if India gets a permanent membership in the UNSC, India's authority in the international community will increase, and Pakistan is most likely to get worried. This probably is one of the reasons, Mr Sharif has been ranting `Kashmir' at the UN recently, to create hurdles in India's path and some how stop it from becoming a permanent member.
But, will PM Modi succeed, is a question which only time will tell. On merits and the fact that I am an Indian myself, I say that India should be a natural permanent member of the UNSC, as we are the world's largest democracy, where 1/6th of the world's population resides.
There is another very valid argument which goes in India's favour, when it demands a permanent membership of the UNSC, which is India being the prime contributor of troops to the UN peacekeeping missions. Since 1950, India has sent 1,80,000 troops to UN peacekeeping missions and has suffered the most war casualties as well. As per figures released by UN in August, 2014, India lost 157 men in UN peacekeeping missions, followed by Nigeria (142), Pakistan (136), Ghana (133), Canada (121), Bangladesh (119), France (111) and UK (103).
But unfortunately, in the 21st century having a large population does not matter much, but being a larger economic power does. As of now, India's GDP is around $2 trillion, and barring Russia ($1.8 trillion), the other four members USA ($17.4 trillion), China ($10.3 trillion), UK ($2.9 trillion) and France ($2.8 trillion) are bigger economic powers than India. (Source: World Bank, 2014).
India also does not feature in the top 10 contributors, when its comes to funding UN peacekeeping missions. As per the website of UN, the top ten fund contributors for the period 20013-15 have been US (28.38%), Japan (10.83%), France (7.22%), Germany (7.14%), United Kingdom (6.68%), China (6.64%), Italy (4.45%), Russia (3.15%), Canada (2.98%) and Spain (2.97%). Here also India lags behind to stake a strong claim.
The UN Security Council began with four members in 1945, namely US, UK, Russia and France. All these four members were allies who had won the second World War, in which India had contributed with money as well as troops, and perhaps much more than China had. It is believed that the United States, under President Eisenhower in 1955 wanted to keep Mao's China out of the UNSC, offered Nehru the oppertunity, while Russia being the only communist country in the UNSC was more comfortable with China coming in. It is believed that owing to India and Nehru's cordial relations with the Russians, India backed out then, besides Nehru always had a soft and faulty foreign policy on China with his Hindi-Chini-Bhai-Bhai diplomacy.
But the problem is that although India's staking a claim for a permanent membership is legitimate and valid, it is practically achieving it which seems difficult. Japan and Germany are two countries which are already waiting for a permanent membership, and the five permanent members won't let them in. Japan being the 3rd largest economy in the world and Germany being the largest economy in Europe, and also a bigger economy than UK, which is a permanent member.
Although China's opposition to India is obvious, US, Russia, France and UK are no less culprits for keeping India out of the UN Security Council. Publicly they support India's candidature, as India is a major market for arms and ammunition manufactured by them, but otherwise, they have been promising more and delivering little. The US had earlier teamed up with Russia and China to oppose negotiations on reforms, which could pave India's way to make an entry. All five permanent members are also reluctant to allow the new 6th member to have the veto power, and without it, there is no point in becoming a permanent member.
So, in the light of these basic facts, I can conclude that PM Modi will have to wait for a while and continue with his diplomacy, if he wants to see India as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Maybe if PM Modi gets re-elected in 2019, he might be able to fulfill his dream. But one thing is for sure, that PM Modi looks most committed to the cause and the only Indian Prime Minister in recent times, who is making a genuine effort towards the same.
Many argue that PM Modi is chasing a mirage and the chances of India to become a permanent member are bleak, but I would say that his efforts will not go waste, and one day India will become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment