India's Entry to International Groups.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tarun
  • Start date Start date
T

Tarun

The New Anti-China 'Quadrilateral Security Dialogue'
Saturday, December 02, 2017
By: SPUTNIK News



The Australian government has recently released a foreign policy white paper providing a basis for the country’s foreign policies over the next decade. It suggests broadening and deepening Australia’s military alliance with the US through ANZEC, but introduces new Indo-Pacific features and policies with China being seen as the main threat. Why?

Jeff Schubert, an Australian visiting professor at Moscow's Higher School of Economics discusses this topic.

"The White paper discusses the stationing of more US military personal in America, and a lot of the language in the document is concerned with containing China," Jeff explains. "China is becoming economically and militarily strong, it is becoming a threat to the rules based international order….That means the order of maritime security, and various institutions, which were established in the post-War period under the guidance of the US. So all this is about making sure that the prime position of the US in political and military terms is maintained in the face of what is sees as Chinese cavalier expansion."

All of this is somewhat difficult to understand because one of the reasons that Australia is doing relatively well these days is because China is next door. Jeff points out that China has sea routes in the South China Sea which it needs to protect, but some Australians, Jeff says, "particularly those in the security and defense establishments get emotional about this and say that we have to get America to stop China, and they are trying to bring in other countries including India."

This is reflected in the proposal of what is called the ‘Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD).' Jeff explains: "The Chinese feel that their greatest problem is the threatening of the supply of energy imports, most of which pass through the Malacca Straights….China needs security in the Indian Ocean as well as the South China Sea to import energy….Exports can be replaced by demand from the internal market, but energy imports are crucial. Various policy makers in Australia the US and Japan have been pushing the idea that policy should not just about the Pacific but about the Indo-Pacific…."

Jeff suggests that India would be better off trying to come to some kind of security and trade understanding with China that such an approach could lead to lessening of international tensions in the area. The border disputes between the two countries is perhaps symptomatic of this. "I see India has a particularly strong bargaining tool here. India can dominate the Indian Ocean, which is crucial for Chinese imports." Jeff says. In geopolitical terms, India has become an extremely important country now, and host John Harrison asks if America is getting annoyed at Russia's continuing good relations with India. Jeff says: "I don't think that QUAD is related to Russia, it's definitely related to China. Australia, Japan and the US are looking at China. They do not necessarily understand the relationship between India and Russia and they do not necessarily understand how Eurasian countries see international relations. I am not a big fan of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) but at least there are signs that these countries wish to talk to each other."

QUAD is another sign that the East in general is not becoming the new center of international politics.

The New Anti-China 'Quadrilateral Security Dialogue'
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD, Aravind, AbRaj and 3 others
India accidental catalyst for UN rebellion: Lessons from ICJ elections
United Nations, India became the accidental catalyst for a successful UN rebellion against the hegemony of the permanent members (P5) of the Security Council by facing off Britain with overwhelming support of the rest of the countries in the General Assembly and getting Dalveer Bhandari re-elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) -- despite an initial humbling loss to Lebanon.
When Britain withdrew its candidate, Christopher Greenwood, after a prolonged standoff backed by the P5, it was the first time the non-P5, represented by the Assembly, really prevailed over the Council. In the previous instances, when candidates with Council majorities stepped aside, none of them had been from the P5 and it was never a challenge to the P5's claim of a right to representation on the ICJ bench. This was an ominous defeat for the entire P5.

There is symbolism in India defeating Britain. India is not the colony it was in 1945 nor is Britain a globe-spanning imperial power. Whether it is military might, purchasing power parity GDP, population, growth prospects or an expansive world outlook, India has outstripped the United Kingdom. Yet, Britain holds on to its veto-wielding permanency on the Council, while India is shut out.

India's role in the rebellion was not one that New Delhi had sought, but was thrust on it by fortuitous circumstances that also saved face for India, which initially lost the Asian seat. Now the question before India -- and the UN's proletariat, the rest of the non-P5 nations -- is how to harness the groundswell of opposition to the Council's overlordship and change the power structure of the UN starting with a reform of the Council to make it more representative of the world of the 21st century.
The permanent seats on the Council were the spoils of World War II taken by the victors but the 1945 scenario has no relevance to 2017.

The Council alone has a broad role to "maintain international peace and security" through its authority to determine aggression, impose sanctions, and launch military action -- which the P5 can individually block or allow through their individual vetoes.

For long, the simmering resentment of the P5's hold over the Council has been building, especially given that its mandates are now focused on regions like Africa and the Middle East that are under-represented in a body with six Europeans, in addition to having no permanent members.

The reform initiative for the Council has been stalled for more than two decades and the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), as the reform process currently under way is known, has been unable to move forward mainly because of the opposition of a small group known as Uniting for Consensus (UfC) led by Italy, with Pakistan as an important member. Their opposition to a negotiating text -- or an accepted agenda framework -- has put the process mandated in 2008 in a Catch-22 trap: Discussions cannot take place meaningfully without a negotiating text leading to a consensus or a decision, while those opposed to reforms blocked it saying there couldn't be such a document unless there was a consensus first.

The revolt of the non-permanent members could increase the pressures for the hold-outs to get on board when the stalled IGN discussions begin again, especially if the African and Arab nations push for reforms.

For some background to the election, India had sought to keep the Asian seat on the ICJ that Dalveer Bhandari had won in 2012, but lost to Lebanon's Permanent Representative at the UN, Nawaf Salam, a lawyer-turned-diplomat.

Under the rules for election to the ICJ, a candidate has to get a majority in both the Council and the Assembly. Salam was elected in the fourth round of balloting in the Council and the fifth round in the Assembly, along with ICJ President Ronny Abraham, Vice President Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia and Judge Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade of Brazil, on November 9.

But while Bhandari got a majority in the Assembly, he lost in the Council to another sitting judge, Britain's Christopher Greenwood. The geographic allocation of ICJ judgeships and the P5's representation were by tradition rather than by statute, allowing Bhandari and Greenwood to contest the remaining seat. The deadlock persisted through the next six rounds of the run-offs between them that continued on Nov 13, with Bhandari getting close to a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and Greenwood in the Council.

The P5 put aside their ideological and geopolitical battles to close ranks around Britain as its loss could threaten their own privilege of having a judge from each of their countries on the ICJ.

Greenwood's supporters stooped to dirty tricks with the third election meeting set for Nov 20. To create disarray in the ranks of the non-P5, rumours were floated that Bhandari would withdraw or that India would agree to a joint conference made up of three each from the two chambers to pick a candidate. But the support for India only got stronger.

Britain and its supporters next considered a legally questionable strategy of stopping further rounds of voting and forcing a joint
conference through a Council resolution.

But in the face of the Assembly's resoluteness, Britain folded on Nov 20 conceding: "The current deadlock is unlikely to be broken by further rounds of voting."

There are two other lessons for India. The whole exercise firmly established that its lot is with the non-aligned and developing nations, most of which make up the Group of 77, who rallied to support it.

India may have slowly been diluting its ties to these groups, which have themselves lost their ideological edge and cohesiveness. But these groups still share a commonality of interests, maintain their identities despite their heterogeneity and are a voting force. The United States may have a 100-year vision for India as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently said, but for now its priorities are with Britain.

Although it's a case of all's well that ends well, the initial strategy of going against Lebanon's Salam was flawed for two reasons. India did not announce Bhandari's candidacy for re-election till June this year while Salam had been campaigning for about two years and had sealed the backing of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an influential group with 55 voting members in the Assembly.

France, a permanent member, had also formally nominated him -- and in turn polled the most votes in the Assembly. India had less time to campaign for Bhandari and line up commitments in the Council. Announcing his candidacy after the OIC endorsement also did not sit well with some OIC members.
India accidental catalyst for UN rebellion: Lessons from ICJ elections
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avi, Dash, BlackOpsIndia and 3 others
After reading this thread I am quite convinced that permanent Security Council has outlived its usefulness, after the World War II of course there was a need for a permanent Security Council since all the other countries were underdeveloped and Europe was in ruins. But now the times have changed and the world no longer needs super powers not does it need the permanent Security Council. Equality between the Nations is of prime significance and it can only be achieved Through The dissolution of the permanent Security Council and giving All the Nations and equal Right to vote.

That is to say one Nation one vote
 
Please provide the source link too, better with Source anchor, hyper links are not visible on mobile, they are hidden in text, please @Aashish can you change hyper link style and make them underline?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AbRaj
Manmohan_MMY said:
After reading this thread I am quite convinced that permanent Security Council has outlived its usefulness, after the World War II of course there was a need for a permanent Security Council since all the other countries were underdeveloped and Europe was in ruins. But now the times have changed and the world no longer needs super powers not does it need the permanent Security Council. Equality between the Nations is of prime significance and it can only be achieved Through The dissolution of the permanent Security Council and giving All the Nations and equal Right to vote.

That is to say one Nation one vote
Click to expand...

While one nation,one vote would be the most equitable solution, it wont,however, take into consideration the realpolitik of the situation.
The notion that the P5 countries were given the veto powers simply because they were the victors of WW2 is quite simplistic.

The earlier incarnation of U.N - The league of nations, failed due to this very reason. There was simply no realistic way of implementing any decision arrived at by the body since basically every nation held veto powers.

The rationale behind few nations being given the veto option are as follows--
Joining the U.N organization by its very definition involves giving up a certain degree of autonomy. The powerful countries had very little interest in that happening as it would result in their internal matters or foreign policies being put up for vote. Thus veto was supposed to be an incentive for them to take part in such an undertaking and submit themselves unto it.

The reasoning holds up even today. The P5 nations represent nations that are very influential and powerful either militarily,economically or in diplomacy. Them being invested in the security infrastructure lends the decisions and resolutions of the body a certain credence and a degree of enforceability.Without them there wouldn't be an iota of credibility in the U.N security council as it would be rendered effectively toothless,with no way of enforcing the will of the council as no nation would be ready to get their hands dirty.

In an hypothetical one nation,one vote environment, if there would have been a resolution against them,there would be no way of enforcing the said resolution as the countries involved would be too powerful to coerce.
Such blatant disregard of the resolution would simply render the U.N even more powerless than it is today.

While the geopolitical situation has changed quite a bit from then and security council reforms with regards to induction of new members definitely have to be undertaken. There is still a case to be made for retaining the veto.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aditya10r, Dash, Aashish and 2 others
Dash said:
My take on UNSC permanent seat.

If you can’t join the group then piss in this group from outside. It will change their mind to at least get you in and piss while no one will be watching;)
Click to expand...

If the group won't let you join, make the group irrelevant.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aravind
To understand why the P5 exist, you have to go back to the UN's predecessor, the League of Nations.

The League was an international organism created after WW1 with a mission of preventing wars between members. Needless to say, it failed spectacularly and didn't prevent WW2 in the slightest. The first major failure of the LN was the "Manchurian Incident", when Japan started invading China. None of the LN members wanted to act against Japan (the only regional members of the LN were China and Japan themselves) and so all that the other LN members could do was sternly wagging their fingers. Japan just pulled out of the LN and continued attacking China. This was followed by failing to stop the Chaco War, failing to prevent the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now known as Ethiopia), failing to do anything about the Spanish Civil War, and failing to stop Japan from attacking China again, and finally failing to prevent WW2.

So after WW2, people looked at why the League didn't work. The first answer was simply that many countries big and small didn't want to join the League in the first place as they didn't want to be bound by its rules. Critically, this was the case of two major powers back then: America and Russia. So it was important to have a way to convince these powerful countries to join the League v2.0, so that it could get to exist at all, and this was the Permanent seat at the Security Council, coupled with a veto power, that was used as the carrot to entice them to join.

The permanent seat and the veto power was a recognition that these countries were powerful enough to be above the law, which is intrinsically unjust, but it was the price to pay to have a law in the first place. So that was a lesser evil of some sort.

Public opposition to the mere existence of the UN continues to be strong in America. The UN is perceived as a shadowy global government whose only goal is to deprieve American citizens of their freedoms. If you took away America's veto power, you'd see populist politicians like Trump quickly pulling their country away from the UN. So it's unfair but it's the price we have to pay.

It's clear that today, the UNSC should have more permanent members. But there's a lot of resistance to the idea of giving away more veto rights, because any potential new UNSC permanent member would be already in the UN (so they didn't need the "carrot" of veto power to be enticed to join) and the fear that too many vetoes would paralyze the organization and make it unable to do anything. However, the compromise of a permanent seat without veto power is perceived as insulting. So that's a big stumbling block right here.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aditya10r, Prateik and Dash
Manmohan_MMY said:
After reading this thread I am quite convinced that permanent Security Council has outlived its usefulness, after the World War II of course there was a need for a permanent Security Council since all the other countries were underdeveloped and Europe was in ruins. But now the times have changed and the world no longer needs super powers not does it need the permanent Security Council. Equality between the Nations is of prime significance and it can only be achieved Through The dissolution of the permanent Security Council and giving All the Nations and equal Right to vote.

That is to say one Nation one vote
Click to expand...

How can you expect an vote of an country called Vanautu to have the same weight of the vote of an USA?
Even if everybody are made one and UNGA declares war on one country to protect its people, will small countries be able to contribute militarily or economically significant due to their one vote weight basis? Most of the times wars are fought by USA, Russia, France, UK, EU and India/Pak/BD in UN uniform. Other countries are most negligible contributors to either war efforts or later economic efforts.
UNSC has its uses now. The no of countries holding the veto is the issue.
 
The UNSC have managed okay since WWII. The dissent lies in the fact that people always assume things could have ended up better, without considering how much worse they could have ended up.
 
Manmohan_MMY said:
After reading this thread I am quite convinced that permanent Security Council has outlived its usefulness, after the World War II of course there was a need for a permanent Security Council since all the other countries were underdeveloped and Europe was in ruins. But now the times have changed and the world no longer needs super powers not does it need the permanent Security Council. Equality between the Nations is of prime significance and it can only be achieved Through The dissolution of the permanent Security Council and giving All the Nations and equal Right to vote.

That is to say one Nation one vote
Click to expand...
Does that mean that a warlord in Sierra Leone should have the same weight as Indian PM?
 
BMD said:
Does that mean that a warlord in Sierra Leone should have the same weight as Indian PM?
Click to expand...

Is it not the case already? It still counts as one vote, regardless of who casts it - India or Sierra Leone.
 
Prateik said:
Is it not the case already? It still counts as one vote, regardless of who casts it - India or Sierra Leone.
Click to expand...
But you have 5 sensible members (except China) who can veto their actions.
 
If a draft resolution has gathered enough votes, that it necessitates a P5 veto to torpedo it, we can safely assume that the said resolution already does possess a modicum of sensibilty.
The most common action stopped by vetoes is a statement from the Council in some form, such as a condemnation of state actions or the call for states to comply with international law. So veto has mostly been a tool to safeguard themselves, and their buddies from such resolutions.
While i do recognise the need for it in certain cases, there is hardly anything fair, just or in this case sensible about the veto or situations in which it has been used.
Just a tool used by strong countries to enforce their writ.
And it is about time India joins that list. :LOL:
 
Can't link India's case for NSG membership with that of Pakistan: Russia
Even as China continues to stall India's Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) membership, Russia has come out strongly in support of India saying that India's application cannot be "interlinked" with that of Pakistan and that Moscow is discussing the issue with Beijing at different levels. China has favoured a criteria-based approach for expansion of the 48-member group, which controls international nuclear commerce, instead of one based on merit, in what India sees an attempt to draw a false equivalence between India's case and Pakistan's.

The issue again came up for discussion on Wednesday as Russia's deputy foreign minister Sergey Ryabkov met foreign secretary S Jaishankar. "We recognise that at the moment there is no unanimity on Pakistan's application and that the same cannot be interlinked with India's," said Ryabkov, after his meeting with Jaishankar.

This is probably the first time that a top Russian diplomat has publicly drawn attention to the futility of juxtaposing the 2 cases. "We know about the difficulties involved but unlike some other countries, who only speak, we are making practical efforts...we are discussing it with China at different levels,'' he added. Earlier this year, foreign minister Sushma Swaraj had said that India had approached Russia to convince China to drop its opposition to India's membership.

That Moscow doesn't expect China to relent though without a concerted effort from all member states was evident from Ryabkov's remark that he found the politicisation of the issue unfortunate and that other nations needed to play a more positive role for India's membership. He didn't name these nations though. Significantly, as he backed India's case for membership of all export control regimes, Ryabkov said that he expected India to join The Wassenaar Arrangement as early as Thursday. The 41-nation group, of which China is not a member, deals with export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies.

While Ryabkov admitted that Russia was looking to build ties with Pakistan, a country he described as taking great interest in multilateral forums, he said Russia had no ``hidden agenda'' in its dealings with Islamabad. ``I can assure you that Russia's ties with no country in the world will come at the expense of its relationship with India,'' said Ryabkov.

On the issue of cross-border terrorism, Ryabkov said a very "forceful" message had been sent out at the Brics summit in Xiamen this year and that international and pragmatic cooperation was required to defeat those individuals who were operating outside of their countries. For India, the big takeaway from the Xiamen Declaration was the naming of Pakistan based terror groups like LeT and JeM. This exercise was at least partly undone by China later though when it blocked a UN ban on JeM chief Masood Azhar. Ryabkov said though that India's "very firm and convincing" position on terrorism was yielding fruits and that this was evident from the message in Xiamen.

On the issue of North Korea, which too was discussed between the two countries, Ryabkov reiterated Russia's position that there was no alternative to a political "track" for resolving the issues and that all parties needed to show restraint. "We don't believe there is place for more sanctions on North Korea," said Ryabkov, adding that there were commonalities in the position taken by both Russia and India. As Swaraj said recently, India believes that some channels of communication with Pyongyang should remain open.
Can't link India's case for NSG membership with that of Pakistan: Russia - Times of India
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aashish
India’s chances very good on Wassenaar membership: Russia
India is likely to get the membership of the Wassenaar Arrangement tomorrow, one of the key export control regimes that deal with non-proliferation, if everything goes well, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said today. He also said Russia is trying to develop relations with Pakistan, “without any hidden agenda” and “in no case at India’s expense”. There are “very good chances of a positive action” on India’s application tomorrow at the Wassenaar Arrangement’s plenary session in Vienna, Ryabkov said. The two-day plenary session of the 41-member club commenced today. Ryabkov said the issue of India’s membership to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), another major non-proliferation group, has been “politicised”, which, he termed, “unfortunate” and noted that New Delhi’s application should viewed on merit. “If everything goes as expected… I keep my fingers crossed… then tomorrow we may see a decision of accepting India into the Wassenaar Arrangement, which is also very important export control regime,” he said. The deputy foreign minister of Russia asserted that this is an example and reflection of his country’s unwavering commitment and support to India in internationally recognised export control groups.

“There are good chances of a positive action on the Indian application on the Wassenaar Arrangement (which) could be taken tomorrow,” he said while interacting with mediapersons at the Russian Embassy here. Earlier this year, India approved SCOMET (Special Chemicals, Organisms, Materials, Equipment, and Technologies) items, mandatory under the Wassernaar Arrangement. Through the revised list of items, India also seeks to send a message about its larger commitment to non-proliferation. Ryabkov said Russia has been “very straightforward” and “vocal” in supporting India in its endeavour of getting NSG membership because of the country’s “impeccable and impressive record” in the area of non-proliferation.

He said other countries “who only speak”, should also be more proactive in helping India enter the elite club. “The issue of India’s membership has been more politicised than anything else and it is an unfortunate development. “We want to bring the group back to its roots and make it possible for the group to consider everyone’s supporting applications on its merits and this is how it should be done in case of India,” he said. China has, on several occasions, stone-walled India’s bid for membership to the NSG. India is already a member of the Missile Control Technology Regime (MTCR). China is neither the member of the Wassenaar Arrangement nor the MTCR and the Australia Group.

Membership to the Wassenaar Arrangement and Australia Group, another export control regime, would give India a chance for a closer interaction with member-states and also hold up its credentials, despite not being a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Russian deputy foreign minister said he had an extensive discussion with Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar on issues ranging from the volatile situation in the Korean Peninsula to India’s bid for NSG membership. On Pakistan’s entry to the NSG, Ryabkov said there is no prospect for any “unanimity” with respect to the Pakistani application.

“So, I don’t think it will possible to interlink the application of India and Pakistan for becoming members of the NSG,” he said.
India’s chances very good on Wassenaar membership: Russia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom