South Asia
Beijing boosts Delhi's bid for UN council seat
By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - India's quest for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has for the first time been endorsed by China, a signal that Beijing's foreign policy has shifted significantly - from one of distrust dating from a brief border war with India in 1962 to one that now recognizes India's importance and seeks to engage with the major South Asian power.
China expressed its support for India's council bid last week during the visit of Chinese state councilor Tang Jiaxuan, China's first foreign minister from 1998-2003 and who plays an influential and authoritative role in Beijing's foreign policy today. Tang's visit marks the highest-level contact between India and China since the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance government led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assumed office earlier this year. Chinese foreign minister Li Zhaoxing and representatives dealing with border issues, including national security advisor Dai Bingguo, already have visited India to interact with representatives of the new government.
[China has made it clear, however, that it opposes a permanent seat on the Security Council for Japan, which also has made a quest of a permanent council seat. Though the two nations are close economic partners, they are at political odds over Japanese aggression in China in World War II and what China sees as rising militarism.]
During his visit, Tang said, "The Chinese government is supportive of a reasonable and necessary reform of the UN Security Council, believing that the reform should take into account the interest of all parties, the developing countries in particular, follow the principle of equitable distribution, and give priority to increased representation of the developing countries. The Chinese government values India's influence and role in international and regional affairs and is willing to see a greater Indian role in the international arena, the United Nations included."
"We hope to see India playing a larger and constructive role in the Security Council for world peace and development," Tang said in response to questions by journalists. "China fully understands and endorses your country's interest in playing a bigger role in international affairs," he said.
Tang's support for India's quest follows similar backing by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "India is a country of 1.2 billion people. For India not to be represented on the Security Council is, I think, something that is not in tune with the modern times in which we live," Blair told a news conference.
China is the fourth of the five permanent members of the Security Council to support India's claim to a permanent seat in the Security Council. The US is now the only one opposed to India's candidacy. Washington's opposition to India's bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council is due to its Indo-Pakistan centric South Asia policy, with Pakistan seen as Washington's key ally in its "war against terrorism". The US does not want to upset Pakistan, which opposes India's entry to the council. The five permanent members, all with veto power, on the 15-member council are Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The 10 other members are chosen by regional groups and serve two-year terms. India has served on the council as a regular member in the past.
However, momentum in favor of India is increasing. Last week, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke, on a visit to India, supported New Delhi's claim for a permanent seat, saying the Security Council must reflect the new world order. "It is hard to believe that India will not be playing a greater role in the reforms of the Security Council," which she said "must change as it [still] reflects the world order of 1945 and not 2004".
A permanent seat on the Security Council is extremely prestigious and improves a country's standing in the world, since permanent members with veto power members have the power to block any UN resolution. [Plans for expansion and reform of the council are being considered, some of them would provide permanent seats, quite possibly without veto power, to major countries, such as India, Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, Germany, among others. A permanent seat without veto power - veto power being still held by the Big Five - on an enlarged council is still appealing but not hardly as prestigious or as potent as veto-wielding membership. Britain, China, France, Russia and the US are not likely to invite countries from the developing world into their club and give them veto power; they can veto any new member.]
However, it remains a complex issue, as each aspiring country faces strong opposition from within its own continent. Argentina opposes Brazil's bid, Italy that of Germany, South Korea points to Japan's occupation of its territory in World War II, while India has had to contend with Pakistan, which insists that the Jammu and Kashmir issue be resolved first. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has set up a committee to examine the aspirations of many countries in a new global order.
India has been zealously pursuing its place on the council, as part of Manmohan's priority agenda. Last month, Manmohan addressed the UN General Assembly and lobbied for a Security Council seat for India. New Delhi now has reciprocal arrangements with other nations seeking a permanent seat. Brazil, Germany and Japan are also pressing to join the veto-wielding members of the council. India and Japan have agreed to back each other, rather than contest each other's efforts, thus increasing each others' chances. India claims it deserves a seat on the basis of its huge population, growing economy and contribution to many UN activities.
The support from China comes as a major fillip, but has not come as a surprise to some observers. The reasoning behind Beijing's policy shift is being partially attributed to the change in leadership in China, with President Hu Jintao, who superceded Jiang Zemin, considered to be a technocrat with a better grasp of the nuances of international relations.
Tang himself reflected on some of the rationale that swayed Beijing, an indication of the realpolitik that is beginning to govern relations between the two countries that went to war four decades ago, from October to November 1962, and have long been at odds over both border and territory issues. Tang described India as a "major" Asian nation with a large population and one of the fastest growing economies. It was clear from Tang's visit that he had arrived with a definite message - Beijing wants to engage India as an emergent power and the world's fourth largest economy and he wants the two countries to be on the same side rather than opposed to each other.
The galloping trade between India and China has crossed US$5 billion annually. It is no surprise that the US has in the past voiced support for Germany and Japan (both among its largest trading partners and close allies) for a permanent seat. India is positioning itself as a voice for South Asian countries on the Security Council.
In terms of strategic relationships in the region, China no longer wants to be seen as ganging up with Pakistan, which would only push India towards the US. Further, China has for long been opposed to Japan gaining leverage in the Asian region and would prefer to live with India in the security council, should an expansion take place.
A 16-member UN reform panel is expected to submit its recommendations to Annan by December concerning the expansion of the Security Council, adding nine more members, five of which will be new permanent members. The veto issue has not been resolved.
Indeed, while the final shape of a restructured UNSC remains unclear, there is enormous international pressure to revamp the body in the face of the unilateral decision of the US to declare war on Iraq, bypassing the UN. The US move, without UN endorsement. has seen various nations close ranks, which clearly is an attempt to set themselves apart from the hegemony of one country.
If US supports India there will be no need of China. It has been proved in IAEA and NSG's India specific exceptions. US still the only hyperpower on earth. Others are merely regional.
