By Prof. Bharat H Desai
Apart from the claim of India and others, the question of veto remains the bone of contention. Will the P5 allow the future inductees the privileged of wielding a veto? In all probability, the question of sharing this privilege would remain non-negotiable for P5.
The high-level segment of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) concluded on September 26, addressed by 190 speakers included 76 Heads of State, 50 Heads of Government and 48 Ministers. They resorted to posturing and airing their grievances against the global order, the UN system, global flashpoints and other states.
Interestingly, the US President Joe Biden’s September 21 address brought the spotlight back on the long pending discourse for expansion of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the Indian claim for a permanent seat therein. “I also believe the time has come for this institution to become more inclusive so that it can better respond to the needs of today’s world. That is also why the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council”, Biden said. Biden did not spell out the countries that the US would support in both the categories.
The Indian External Affairs Minister, Dr. S. Jaishankar while attending a flurry of meetings in New York, addressed the UNGA plenary session on September 25 (A Watershed Moment: Transformative Solutions to Interlocking Challenges), contributed to the 32 countries’ joint statement of September 23 for comprehensive reforms for a “legitimate Security Council” and held a meeting of G4 countries on September 22 – Brazil, India, Germany and Japan – jointly seeking a permanent seat. Each one has challengers to their claims in respective regions.
Veto and Inequality
The advent of the UN, on the ashes of the League of Nations, was an audacious project to “to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Preamble, UN Charter). In his address on adoption of the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, the US President Harry Truman prophesized that “If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it--millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die”.
The special provision for the “concurring votes of the permanent members” (Article 27), known as veto, proved most contentious at the outset since many of the original 51 founding members expressed reservations about making the P5 countries – China, France, USSR, UK and USA (Article 23) – more equal than the others. However, with the collapse of the League, the war-ravaged world was left with no option but to accept the imperfect general political organization that the victorious powers pushed down their throat. It was taking it or leave it situation. That legacy continued even after expansion of the non-permanent membership from 11 to 15 by a December 17, 1963 amendment to Article 23. Since then, the world has been greatly transformed in the last six decades including the UN membership of 193 states.
The UN has been a human construct and not a perfect solution for the outlawry of war. It was not “to take mankind to paradise, but rather to save humanity from hell”, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on September 24. As a corollary, the instrument of veto was not inserted “in a fit of absent-mindedness”. It was a “deliberate decision to render the Security council incapable of undertaking enforcement action against, or against the will of, any of the Big Five” [Inis Claude, Jr., International Conciliation 532 (1961) 329]. On numerous occasions, the P5 have proved this prophecy correct.
The Indian Bid
The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a call for “comprehensive UN reforms” in his address of September 25, 2021 at the 76th UNGA. “We cannot fight today’s challenges with outdated structures”, the Prime Minster said. His priority list included climate change, poverty alleviation, situation in Afghanistan and the Security Council reforms.
Apart from the claim of India and others, the question of veto remains the bone of contention. Will the P5 allow the future inductees the privileged of wielding a veto? In all probability, the question of sharing this privilege would remain non-negotiable for P5. Hence, the prospective bidders shall have to take a realistic position. Some improvisions are now discernible from President Biden’s when he suggested that the P5 need to “refrain from the use of the veto, except in rare, extraordinary situations”. Similarly, in the use of Russian veto in the aftermath of the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, the UNGA adopted an unprecedented resolution 76/262 on April 26, 2022 for a “standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. It has suggested that “President of the General Assembly shall convene a formal meeting of the General Assembly within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent members of the Security Council, to hold a debate on the situation as to which the veto was cast.” This extraordinary step shows the future pathway to blunt the edges of use of veto by P5. In turn, it may render veto less attractive for the future expansion of the UNSC. That would open the doors for the third category of permanent membership without veto. It would be a pragmatic pathway for India and G4 to avail a permanent seat on the UNSC’s horse-shoe table.
Time as the Answer
It is feared that the UNSC expansion would open up a Pandora’s box since the whole Charter may be subject to review. Many member states strongly feel that the UN Charter does not reflect realities of the 21st century world. In a futuristic scenario, if consensus would emerge among the states, it will necessitate an amendment of the Charter under Article 108. It would require approval by a two-thirds of the UNGA members as well as concurrence of P5 of the UNSC. A review conference under Article 109 can be convened by a two-thirds vote in the UNGA and a vote of any nine UNSC members. Any alteration of the Charter proposed at a review conference cannot take effect without the consent of the P5. If the UNSC expansion comes up on the agenda, can the revival and repurpose of the UN Trusteeship Council (UNTC), lying dormant since November 10, 1994, be far behind? This author has suggested (The Tribune, December 2, 2020) for the repurposed UNTC (EPL 52 (2022) 223–235) to exercise trusteeship of the planet through global supervision of environment and the commons. The idea for “trusteeship of the planet” was flagged in Prime Minister Modi’s address of November 21, 2020 to the G20 Riyadh Summit.
In order to earn a rightful place on the high-table of the UNSC and become a global solution provider, India needs to have cutting-edge futuristic ideas by timely investment in the study of international affairs by institutionalizing knowledge-driven architecture in the mainstream university sector. This author has earnestly envisioned the role of a ‘think tank’ for his alma mater, through Making SIS Visible initiative (2008-2013), for the pioneering School of International Studies. Cumulatively, the solution oriented scholarly works of global relevance would pave the way for the UNSC seat to follow India rather than vice versa. When will that materialize? Time is the answer.
Professor Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies of SIS, JNU. He served as a member of the official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008) as well as coordinated the Making SIS Visible initiative (2008-2013) and Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020). He is the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam).
Comments