Global Policy Forum

By J. Sri Raman*

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will address the United Nations General Assembly on September 23. If we believe the media, the event may prove a prelude to India soon grabbing a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. How would this much-anticipated achievement of New Delhi affect Kashmir and nuclear weapons, two issues of crucial importance for peace in South Asia?

New Delhi no longer acts diplomatically discreet about its bid. Saying goodbye to his colleagues before boarding the flight for London (en route to New York), Singh promised that he would present at the world forum "our case for India's candidature" for permanent membership of the Security Council. The country is receiving far from tacit support from others, too, for its claim.

On September 17, High Commissioner in India Michael Arthur voiced Britain's "strong support" for a Security Council seat for the country. The meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Singh in London two days later has confirmed this. Russia, France and Germany have also pledged support that India's foreign office considers worth flaunting. The support comes in many shades, but of that a bit later.

The decisively crucial stand of the USA on the subject stays delightfully vague. Singh is expected to bring up the issue in his meetings with President George Bush on September 21 and 24. As Indian officials put it, Washington (which would not have earlier countenanced the idea) now remains "non-committal," though the officials see "increasing understanding" in the US Administration for India's position. They also see a distinct decline of long-pretended concern over the implications of the issue for proliferation.

"Our case" makes this amply clear. The Indian media have presented the case over and over again for the past few days. Reports on the Singh mission stress that he will press India's claim on the ground of not only its population and the size of its economy, but also of its status as a "responsible" nuclear-weapon state. The qualification in quotes is a very recent addition to the version of the case as pressed after India proclaimed itself such a state in 1998.

New Delhi stated its case more clearly before the utterly hypocritical Washington hunt for weapons of mass destruction and its war on Iraq. A sample from an article on the case, obviously based on official briefing, in a leading New Delhi daily last year: "And when this (proposed) enlargement (of the UN Security Council) happens, will it be possible to ignore India - the second most populous nation in the world, which also happens to be world's largest democracy? Also one of the top ten economies in the globe, with the potential to become the third largest in the next thirty years? Not to forget the fact that this country also has one of the largest armies in the world, and is a nuclear power, to boot."

India had been campaigning for about 12 years, but pleaded a very different case before 1998. Another Indian Prime Minister, Inder Gujral, at a non-UN meeting in New York in 1997, said: "India's claim to a permanent Security Council seat is based on the strength and the global reach of our foreign policy, our commitment to the UN processes, including peace-keeping operations, and on the strength of our conviction in the democratic functioning of multilateral arrangements."

Gujral also cited India's anti-nuclear credentials in the context: "Our peaceful nuclear experiment in 1974 has not been followed by any subsequent test. We have scrupulously refrained from weaponization. This voluntary restraint is unique in the nuclear age." How the times have changed!

President Bill Clinton's Administration denied support to the claim after India's nuclear-weapon tests the next year. The India media, officially briefed again, have now made much play of a recent article in the International Herald Tribune by Richard Wilcox, director of UN affairs in Clinton's National Security Council. Pitching strongly for a permanent Security Council seat for India, Wilcox says: "While non-proliferation is a worthy goal, it is more realistic for the United States to focus on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to unstable regimes. India's nuclear program simply is not a priority concern for the USA." How the times have changed, again!

India plans to cast its lot with three other nations Japan, Germany, and Brazil in seeking a larger, 15-member Security Council. Singh's team will join talk with the fellow-aspirants on the sidelines of the General Assembly session. India is the odd country out in the group, as the only nuclear-weapon state. Yet, Wilcox presses its claim ahead of the others', especially Japan's.

This poses a practical conundrum for progressives the world over. To the nuclear have-nots of the world, the US crusade for non-proliferation is a fraudulent cover for a ploy to preserve nuclear monopoly. To the peace movement of India and South Asia, however, New Delhi's campaign for a place in the Security Council is the same as its candidature for membership in the 'nuclear club'. The unstated case of India is that, currently, the members of the council are the same as those of the 'club'!

But what is their case? The case of the Western supporters of India's demand? Kashmir comes in here. It is an open secret in India's mandarin circles that the West is dangling a Security Council seat before India as a possible reward for a willingness to compromise on Kashmir. Publicists of the 'alliance against global terror' can possibly peddle this as a peace move. They are not letting on, however, about the reward they are offering Pakistan, a more crucial member of the 'alliance', for similar concessions. And that can make all the difference between an advance towards peace and an aggravation of South Asian strains.

Most of the Western countries, meanwhile, shade their support for India's UN claim. Most of them do not want to vest any new entrants in the Security Council, including India, with the same veto power as the permanent members now enjoy and exercise too often for the good of the UN or the world. The Security Council and the General Assembly already represent two different classes in the UN. The council can do without a second-class permanent membership of its own.

About the Author: A freelance journalist and a peace activist of India, J. Sri Raman is the author of Flashpoint (Common Courage Press, USA). He is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.