Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi
INDIA’S bid to assume the chairmanship of some of the most important subsidiary bodies of the UN Security Council could not muster support from other members of the 15-nation body, according to diplomatic sources. The sources said that the Indians pushed for, but failed, to secure the chairmanship of the powerful “1267” Al-Qaeda/Da’esh Sanctions Committee and the “1540” Non-Proliferation Committee and also to become the custodian of the Afghanistan file in the Security Council. Similarly, India’s bid for the Non-Proliferation Committee encountered resistance in the Security Council, diplomats said. Many Western countries considered that India was not suited to head this important panel since it is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Yet the current developments also vindicate India’s waning clout in the UNSC as the UNSC members lose faith in India’s credentials. The facts speak that because of its anti-peace and anti-human rights policies in Kashmir, and owing to the complexities to be faced regarding the UNSC reforms, New Delhi loses its dream to secure a permanent UNSC seat. The debate regarding the expansion in the UNSC has been actively and heatedly underway since 2005. Basically, the UNSC has to focus its role in fulfilling the challenges imposed to it in terms of upholding the norms of human rights, peace and security globally. In the given situation, India has not played any worthy role in these areas where the UN’s clout is determined. Therefore, India loses its claim to acquire a permanent seat in the UNSC. Additionally, to meet the eligibility criteria it requires the consensus of the P5, which seems a dream far behind from the existing reality.
India — along with Brazil, Germany and Japan — has been campaigning for a permanent UNSC membership. Speaking to the UN General Assembly (GA) recently, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative Ambassador Munir Akram, in an apparent reference to India, said one country has waged 20 wars since independence and fomented terrorism and instability across the region, especially in Pakistan. Modi’s unjust, callous and controversial Kashmir policy is a major threat to human rights, peace and security in the South Asian region. “It’s a pipe dream,” said Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Munir Akram, while responding to the demand. “The world does not want a fascist state as a permanent member of the Security Council.” The Security Council is currently composed of five permanent members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the US – and 10 non-permanent members that are elected in groups of five to two-year terms. On the issue of achieving equitable representation in the Security Council— vis-à-vis the motion of G4 that includes, Brazil, Germany, India and Japan—Pakistan justifiably argues that the creation of new permanent seats would only “satisfy the hunger of a few States for power and privilege’’.
And arguably, a comprehensive reform of the Security Council’s permanent membership could be had if candidates and current members are willing to barter. The non-permanent seats should be left in place at ten. And the permanent seats should be increased by two for a total of seven. Russia, China and the US, by virtue of their economic, political and nuclear strength should also be left in place. But the remaining four seats should be dedicated to regional representation for Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Each regional permanent seat should be filled on a rotating basis among three states in that region for a two-year term. And yet, the European seat would be shared among France, Britain and Germany. The Asian seat would be shared among Japan, India, and Pakistan (or Indonesia). The African seat would be shared among Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria (or Kenya). The Latin American seat would be shared by Brazil, Mexico and Argentina (or Chile). This would certainly ensure the most diverse representation while also ensuring a relatively small, and thus more efficient and manageable, Security Council. It is on the record that India has no intention to honour the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, rather it has been escaping the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir—vehemently manifested by Modi’s Government fake attempt to change the erstwhile status of Kashmir, thereby trying to annex the disputed Kashmiri territory as the units of the Indian Federation via its unilateral move on August 5, 2019. The UNSC passed Resolution No 39 on January 20, 1948 calling for an urgent investigation into the dispute in order to avert the possibility of its turning into a major war between the two countries. This was to be done by the newly-established UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP).
The UNSC adopted Resolution No 47 on April 21, 1948 calling for ceasefire, and decided that the accession of Jammu and Kashmir either to Pakistan or to India would be determined through a free and impartial plebiscite to which both the countries agreed. The resolution also instructed the UNCIP to visit the subcontinent and take measures to facilitate India and Pakistan to hold the plebiscite in accordance with Resolution No 47. Veritably, for the new South Asian generation, the Kashmir issue is the root cause of regional conflagration and instability. The newest generation of South Asians including academics, strategists and politicians believe that the time has come for a solution. Though one does not know what steps should/could/might be taken first, what should be taken second, third, and which should be reserved to the last such as the floating proposals to resolve the Arab-Israeli dispute, “solutions” to the Kashmir problem must operate at many levels. The feeling of hostility— in the Kashmiri youth against the Indian government and its ruthless policies— has reached its zenith. This suggests both caution and flexibility. By no means, it suggests maintenance of the status quo. The examples of the Middle East, South Africa, and, perhaps, of Ireland, indicate that seemingly intractable disputes can be resolved, or ameliorated, by patience, outside encouragement, and, above all, a workable peace-striking strategy must be adopted. Therefore, making South Asia a haven of peace, not a haven of war, seems an inevitable option. It is imperative at the part of the head-butting powers of the UNSC to make India accountable for its culpable actions in Kashmir.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law.
