US President Barack Obama's endorsement of India for a permanent seat on the reformed UN Security Council has led to speculation about when real change will happen since the reform process has been cranking on for nearly two decades.
India, which enters the Security Council as a non-permanent member on January 1, 2011, will be pushing to speed up the reform process during its two-year term. "We are entering the council after 19 years. We have no intentions of leaving the council," said India's envoy to the UN Hardeep Singh Puri. "In other words, before we complete our two-year term we will be a permanent member. This is not going to take as long as people think; it will be done more quickly," he told PTI.
Noting that India would be a permanent member of a reformed Security Council, a top US diplomat said that the process in New York is slow. "It is complicated by the fact that there are very different views among member states and so the reality is that this will continue to be a complex and potentially lengthy negotiations," said Susan Rice, US envoy to the UN.
"It is hard to conceive of a reformed Security Council that includes new permanent members that wouldn't include India as a permanent member. That is the significance of the President's statement and reflects the United States view," she added.
Despite Obama endorsing India's bid, most analysts have reflected that real change in the UN security council could still be years away. Describing Puri's remarks as "ambitious", Teresita C Schaffer, head of the South Asia programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, described the endorsement as "an act of faith on part of President Obama".
"I can practically guarantee you that the people in the US government who work in the UN were not in favour of this," Schaffer said at the Asia Society on Wednesday. She also pointed out the challenges the US and India would face working together at the UN.
"Our relationship with India at the UN has actually been very difficult," she added, pointing out that being a Security Council member would be a challenge for India.
"They will be repeatedly asked to vote on an issue where any vote is going to annoy someone they care about. This is an uncomfortable position and one they haven't faced in 20 years," Schaffer said, referring to the last time India was on the council as a non-permanent member.
Negotiations have shifted from the so called "open ended working group" of the nineties to text-based negotiations, but basic questions still need to be resolved including how many new seats should be added and should the new permanent members have veto power. Analysts have pointed out that Obama did not commit to the India getting veto power.
There are currently five permanent -- Britain, China, France, Russia, United States -- with veto power and 10 non-permanent members that are elected for a two-year term.
Responding to whether UN Scretary General Ban Ki-moon would push for expeditious reform, his spokesperson Farhan Haq underlined that ultimately all the decisions had to be made by the member-states of the UN. "We do want all member states to see it in their own interest to have a security council that can be viewed as broadly representative," he said. "But again how they do it, the formula to achieve this type of reform is up to them." Another hurdle is presented by current permanent members who would not like to lose their monopoly over global affairs. The US has also endorsed the candidacy of Japan on the council, which China has opposed. Although Beijing isn't happy with the new endorsement of India, it has conceded some ground.
Schaffer suggested that China may not totally oppose India's presence on the Council. "China does not like to be the only country to veto something," she said, noting that while Beijing lobbied against the civil nuclear deal with the US, it did not block the waiver for India during the voting of the nuclear suppliers group in 2008 in Vienna.
Pakistan, which is also against India entering the security council, can also be expected to raise the issue of Kashmir to drum up opposition against its neighbour. While there is little chance of Islamabad being able to block India's place on the council, experts pointed out that New Delhi would have more clout on the international scene if a peaceful solution could be found for Kashmir.
"India has to figure out a better way of handling Kashmir," said Ashutosh Varshney, who teaches political science at Brown University.
