New Delhi
21 February 2011
The pace of negotiations on a leaner, five-page operational text of the United
Nations Security Council reforms, which are set to begin in New York in March, will be as
much a concern for India as its outcome.
According to diplomatic sources, China is one of two P-5 (Permanent Five) countries that
is not comfortable with forcing the pace of the negotiations. The other is Russia, which
has reservations also on the issue of veto to the new aspirants for a permanent seat
around the horseshoe table.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is bullish on the reforms, having spoken about
arriving at a decision as early as this year, but India's hopes would have been tempered
by China's balking at taking a position just yet.
The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson has said that "presetting results for the
reform or forcing premature reform plans" might be harmful.
Zahir Tanin, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United Nations and chairman of
intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, is not unduly perturbed by
the divergence of opinion as he points out that over the last two years the UN members
have shown flexibility and political will to arrive at a text for further negotiations.
Speaking to journalists in New Delhi, Mr Tanin said that the widest possible consensus
should be explored in pushing for the reforms -- a sentiment shared by New Delhi. At the
same time, he hastened to add, the success or failure of the text-based negotiations is
not tied to consensus.
India's position is similar to the US' to the extent that they prefer a criteria-based modest
expansion of the UNSC, although New Delhi would have liked the operational text to
spell out upfront that the expansion of the UNSC would extend to both permanent and
non-permanent categories. Instead, the text merely says that about 100 countries are in
favour of expansion in both the categories.
The sources said that India and the other G-4 (Group of Four) countries -- Germany,
Brazil and Japan -- would not have a problem with deferred veto power, meaning that the
new members can exercise the veto after 15 years of becoming a permanent member,
but being treated like a "second-class" citizen without the veto power would not be
"acceptable".
No comments:
Post a Comment