Veto Power

WASHINGTON

The great sage Ramakrishna Paramhansa said you have to use a thorn to takeout one. If the veto power of the five permanent members of the United NationsSecurity Council is a thorn, shouldn’t it be balanced by giving the same powerto new permanent members in an expanded body? The report of a blue ribbon panelon UN reforms recommended expansion of the Security Council with new permanentmembers but refused to wrap the gift. It said a big "No" to the veto for anynew entrants.

"We recommend that under any reform proposal, there should be no expansionof the veto," was the categorical conclusion.

There is distinct disappointment in the developing world eager for a voice inan age of preemptive wars, diminishing sovereignty and disregard for the GenevaConventions. It wants representation at the table which means more than agallery entrance to watch. The overarching use of the threat of terrorism hasled to new definitions of age-old laws, reinterpretations and alarmingdeclarations from the Bush Administration that provisions of the GenevaConventions are rendered "quaint" in these times.

While respect for international law and institutions hasn’t beenWashington’s strong suit under President George Bush, the open contempt forthe UN process (use-and-abuse-when-necessary) on his watch has spawned alarminglevels of anti-US feelings. A consensus is building among African, Caribbean andAsian countries that if the United Nations is to be relevant, ground rules forexercise of power must change.

And the use of the veto is key in that exercise. A large majority of the UNGeneral Assembly -- 191 strong today -- wants new permanent members to have theveto even if it is under certain guidelines. At least the new members could thenexert some "peer pressure" to modify veto use by the Big Five over time.

One favoured option is that two countries must use the veto for it to bevalid. Another idea is total abolition of the veto, a noble but utterlyimpractical goal. The report on reforms is a good "first step" but not onewhich provides complete answers. The road ahead will be bumpy as members thrashout issues raised by the report -- from protecting the environment to preventingterrorism, from scenarios for intervention to plugging proliferation. Time is ofthe essence and momentum is gathering to start real work in the new year so thatthe General Assembly can vote on reforms next September.

India has a huge stake in the process since its coming out party for apermanent seat along with Japan, Germany and Brazil. It wants a seat with theveto. As an aspiring global power, India needs to watch carefully and actdecisively to achieve its goals. Much rests on the able shoulders of Nirupam Sen,India’s permanent representative to the United Nations, who has to buildsupport for India without letting the campaign acquire an anti-western hue.

Sen has already delivered a big one -- India’s election to the UN Economicand Social Council last month by a whopping 176 votes was a measure of hisfocused diplomacy. China came second with 157 votes, Thailand got 154 andPakistani 152 votes. He went about it systematically, doing good old shoeleather work, meeting and greeting aplenty. Fortunately, he is as comfortablequoting T.S. Eliot as devising strategy, producing a good blend of persuasivediplomacy in the end.

But now Sen not only has to contend with the Pakistan-led "coffee club"whose main objective is to oppose Security Council expansion but also move thecurrent veto club towards meaningful change. No easy job but he is more than upto the task of walking the fine line and avoiding the diplomatic minefields. Thepermanent five will do everything to maintain the status quo, their most potentweapon being inaction. They will also try to break the consensus by shaving awaymember countries with threats, bribes and sweetened trade deals. For the record,Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was the first to be confronted with thequestion in New Delhi, supports India’s membership with veto powers as heclarified after some confusion over his comments.

Interestingly, the veto has been used relatively rarely in the post-Cold Warera -- a mere 13 times since 1996. The United States used it the most (10 times)mostly to thwart resolutions against Israel, China wielded it twice and Russiaonce. Available records show that France and Britain didn’t use their vetobetween 1996 and 2004. But to the former Soviet Union must go the dubious creditof inflicting its veto the most since 1946 -- it has used it 122 times untilnow, mostly in the first two decades of the UN’s existence. The Americans arein second place with a formidable 80 vetoes.

The Americans haven’t yet spoken on India’s case for permanentmembership, nor shown any movement through back channels. Reasons for theoracular silence are many -- a superpower doesn’t act when it needn’t, ageneral disrespect for the United Nations and its agenda within the USestablishment, no driving compulsion to support India’s case, and finally thelaundry list of Pakistani objections against India’s inclusion. The Americans coulduse their considerable influence on Pakistan to shed its negative agenda andencourage it to look beyond the manoeuvring at the UN. But given Bush’ssurging appreciation for Gen. Musharraf’s role in the war on terror, suchsagacity is not in the realm of the possible.

Fortunately, the momentum is in India’s favour. Although prediction is arisky business, chances of success are high given the significant support withinthe General Assembly for its candidacy. Pakistan would gain more by hitching itswagon to the winner than by carping from the sidelines. By supporting India’scase, the Americans too would cover the deep crevice of mistrust that continuesto dog relations. But the question is: will they?