Fwd: Yes, a Security Council seat for India

[Guest guest]

HinduThought, "Ashok Chowgule" <ashokvc@c...>

wrote:

Yes, a Security Council seat for India

Richard Wilcox

IHT Monday, February 10, 2003

http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?

template=articlesearch.tmpl&dt=ar

ticleAuthor&location=RichardWilcox

 

While the debate over authorizing war on Iraq puts the United

Nations center stage, forces are converging offstage to change the UN

Security Council for the better by giving India a permanent seat.

..

In a rare instance of U.S. domestic politics and international

interests coinciding, the Indian-American community is coming of age

politically as America seeks a strategic alliance with India. The

result could be a permanent Security Council seat for the world's

largest democracy, which governs the affairs of one in six human

beings. Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more

representative and democratic - more so than, say, a seat for Japan or

Germany, two of the other perennial candidates. With India as a

member, the council would be a more legitimate and thus more effective

body for American multilateral leadership.

 

That would be a good thing, but good things don't just happen. At the

United Nations they get lost in open-ended working groups on Security

Council reform. It is up to the United States to use its diplomatic

prowess to turn India's just ambition into reality. Both Republicans

and Democrats have come to recognize the value of courting what has

become a politically active, wealthy Indian-American population that

by 2000 had grown to 1.7 million.

 

Indian-Americans have their own political action committees and a

congressional caucus, and Indian-Americans have started running for

office with some success at the state level.

..

Indian-Americans care about Security Council reform the way Polish-,

Czech-and Hungarian-Americans cared about NATO expansion.

..

American foreign policy strategists are recognizing the need to "woo

India," as Thomas Donnelly, a conservative strategist at the American

Enterprise Institute, recently put it.

..

India shares fundamental democratic values with the United States. It

has a sizable and competent military and a rapidly emerging

technological capacity, and it has been willing to share the burden of

peacekeeping in some of the world's most dangerous places.

..

The administration of President Bill Clinton would have been a natural

champion of India's cause. But while Indian-Americans tend to vote

Democratic and Democrats' multilateral inclinations should have made

Security Council reform an obvious cause, the Clinton administration,

despite the president's inclination to come out more strongly in

support of India's bid, failed to seize the issue. One reason was that

the administration was busy trying to persuade Congress simply to pay

the dues that the United States owed the United Nations.

..

Another was that opponents of an Indian seat within the administration

argued that India's pursuit of a nuclear program, including a weapons

test in 1998 that set off U.S. sanctions, disqualified India from

serious consideration for a permanent seat.

..

But while nonproliferation 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 United States. Another counterargument, especially

since the Sept. 11 attacks, has been negative Muslim reaction. But in

truth Muslim opinion seems to care a lot about Israel's behavior

toward Palestinians and hardly at all about India's difficult

relations with its Muslim minority. It could be wonderful if a stable,

democratic, Muslim great power were available to assume a permanent

Security Council seat, but there simply aren't any good candidates.

..

Another potential problem is China, which has no love for India. But

with Washington decisively engaged on India's side, and with fellow

council members Britain, France and Russia already having voiced

backing for an Indian seat, China is likely to come on board as well.

The most serious argument is the risk of alienating a critical U.S.

ally in the war on terrorism, Pakistan. But an India reassured of its

great-power status by a permanent seat on the Security Council could

afford greater moderation toward Pakistan. Those in Pakistan fighting

against terrorism stand to benefit most from Indian moderation.

 

The writer was director of United Nations affairs on President Bill

Clinton's National Security Council in 2000.

--- End forwarded message ---