Voice for Veto

India is willing to compromise on the veto power for a permanent seat in the UNSC stating that it is more important to make itself heard on issues of international security

Priyalina Basu

For a country, a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is to declare that it has ‘arrived’. But the elite club that controls world politics, especially its permanent members, the P5 (Britain, the US, France, Russia and China), is far from rolling out the red carpet for the arriveste powers like India and Brazil or for that matter even Germany and Japan.

The emerging powers, rather than push their way in with a bang, are willing to go slow and steady and compromise on the distinguishing feature of the power seat – the right of veto.

Hardeep Singh Puri, India’s envoy to the UN said, “The new permanent members shall not exercise the right of veto until the question of the extension of the right of veto to new permanent members has been decided upon in the framework of the review mandated fifteen years after the entry into force of the Council reform.”

Anachronistic Approach

At a time when other multilateral set-ups like the IMF (International Monitory Fund) or the World Bank are going through reforms to be in touch with the new realities and shifting power-dynamics of the world, the UNSC prefers to be frozen in the past. This despite there being constant calls for its reform.

In 2004, a team of advisers came up with recommendations for reforming the UNSC. The G4 nations issued a joint statement to back each other’s claims for permanent membership. In 2006, India decided to run for a Security Council seat and has been canvassing for the spot since then. Nineteen countries including Nepal, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Bangladesh spoke in favour of giving Indian a seat on the Security Council table starting January 2011 at a meeting in New York.

Most of the permanent members do realise that the time has come to accept that the emerging powers cannot be kept waiting or away from key decisions that affect them. According to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, “A UNSC without India as a permanent member is an anachronism. An IMF or a World Bank without a proper role for India will no longer do, India will demand and India will receive the position due to one of the world’s major powers.”

William Burns, the US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, favoured India’s bid by saying, “India’s expanding global role will naturally make it an important part of any future consideration of reform of the United Nations Security Council.”

But in all the support, there has been no mention of India’s veto right. So it is assumed that the new permanent members shall be deprived of this power.

Necessity or Not?

Now the question is: Do we really need to have a veto power? Yes. Being an UNSC permanent member without the veto is like fighting without a weapon. It gives an edge during negotiations.

According to the UN charter, each of the per-manent members enjoys certain powers

· Investigate any situation threatening international peace.

· Recommend procedures for peaceful resolution of a dispute.

· Call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic relations.

· Enforce its decisions militarily or by any means necessary.

· Oversee workings of the Counter Terrorism Committee (sets the benchmarks of counter terrorism practices at the global level) and the Military Staff Committee (that plans UN military missions and assists in the regulation of armaments)

However, all these are useless without the veto. Any of the UNSC’s permanent members can prevent the adoption of any (non-‘procedural’) UNSC draft resolution they dislike by using the veto. Even the mere threat of a veto may lead to changes in the text of a resolution, or it being withheld altogether (the so-called ‘pocket veto’). Therefore, it is probable that India’s initiative on these issues would be rejected if it goes against the interest of the P5, especially of China.

Moreover, it goes against the democratic set-up of the Security Council. Each of the permanent members of the Council should have the same power. Only five members having exclusive veto power sometimes goes against the interest of the members of other countries. On the other hand, it is argued that if too many powers have the veto then UNSC resolutions will be few and far between. The core issue then becomes whether there should be a veto or a vote by majority only.

But as the veto is not likely to be given up by the P5, a more realistic approach would suit India, especially when sharing the table with powers like China with whom it has some major disputes. It is felt that if the new entrant to the UNSC will compromise from the beginning, it will start from a weak position and will always be at a disadvantage. But with hardly any progress on the UNSC reform front, weariness has set in. India prefers being a partner in discussions on issues of global concern rather than wait for the diplomatic trump card of overturning decisions contrary to its position.