Obama Backs Permanent Seat for India on UN Security Council

On his visit to Asia, President Obama started in India, a nation that has not always been America's best friend in the region. During the Cold War, India leaned a bit towards Moscow to balance the influence of its rival China. As a result, America tilted toward Pakistan to balance India's local influence. With the Cold War over, the world's biggest democracy and its most powerful democracy have discovered that their relationship needs to be better, and it has improved in recent years. While in India, Mr. Obama has stated clearly that the US will support a permanent seat for India on the UN Security Council. It is a good move for US policy as it recognizes Indian power and places the US on the right side of history.

When the victorious powers set up the UN structure in 1945, they apportioned the power of the organization in accordance with the power of the various member states at the time. Thus, every nation that had made war on the Axis won admission to the General Assembly. Those great powers (the US, UK, France, Soviet Union and China) that had been on the winning side got permanent membership on the Security Council, which comes with a veto. The other 10 seats on the Security Council are elected positions with set-asides for each region of the world. In order for the UNSC to act, 9 votes out of 15 must be positive, and a single "no" from a permanent member means the measure is defeated.

For those who believe that the UN's greatest accomplishment is a decent Christmas card for charity, adding India to the UNSC as a permanent member is pointless. However, a quick review of history shows that the UNSC does have some power. When the Soviet Union boycotted the UNSC in 1950, the UN wound up backing the South Korean government during the Korean War because there was no veto. The US uses its veto mainly to protect Israel. The UK and France both vetoed resolutions aimed at the Suez Crisis in 1956. China (both as the Nationalists in Taipei until 1971 and as the Communists in Beijing since then) has used its veto sparingly but did keep Mongolia out of the UN for years because many in China maintain Mongolia is part of China.

The veto recognizes that the world community is not going to be able to act in direct opposition to the interests of a great power, and therefore, it is hard to argue that the veto should go. However, it is equally difficult to argue that Britain and France should wield that power when India, Japan and Germany do not. Reform is necessary if the UN is to retain what legitimacy it has; the power must be reapportioned to reflect 21st century realities.

No nation gives up power voluntarily unless long-term benefits clearly outweigh the short-term problems. It is unlikely that France will surrender its veto, and Russia and China may not like India gaining a permanent seat, thus diluting their own influence. So, reform is a long way off. Nevertheless, American-Indian relations benefit from the US supporting India's bid because even if India doesn't get the seat for quite some time, the Indian Foreign Ministry keeps close watch on which side of the question the great powers choose. Inevitably, a UN with a reformed Security Council is likely to perform well, while one that doesn't reform is probably doomed to irrelevance. The US, in either case, gains Indian goodwill by backing reform.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home