NEW DELHI: Germany, Japan, India and Brazil (referred as the G4 nations) have offered another formula in their bid to become permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), proposing that they are willing to forgo the veto power bestowed the current permanent members (P-5) for at least 15 years.

The new draft on UNSC expansion, circulated by the four countries earlier this week is aimed at democratization of the world body. The draft re-asserts the earlier G-4 position, calling for the inclusion of six permanent members and four non-permanent members to the UNSC’s existing strength of five permanent members, with the added provision that veto powers will not be exercised for 15 years.

The resolution will have to be passed by the UN General Assembly (UNGA), with the G4 nations pushing for a vote this month. While emphasizing that the new permanent members should have the same tasks as the current permanent members, the new proposals adds the important rider that they “shall not exercise the right of veto” until a review 15 years after the measure is approved. Thus, the G-4 nations have proposed a freeze on new veto empowered permanent entrants to the UNSC till 2020. Whether or not they should ultimately be vested with the veto power would be the UNGA’s prerogative after reviewing the performance of an expanded UNSC. India which has been in the forefront of the demand for non-discriminatory veto power, says it has not moved away from the principle. Nirupam Sen, India’s ambassador to the UN, said that the veto issue may have been deferred for now, but the principle remains intact. During the 15-year interregnum, member nations would have the time to judge the contributions made by the new permanent members and decide whether the veto power should be extended to them, Sen said.

Some may view that the new formula on veto power is a major compromise by the G4 nations. On the other hand the current formulations are also a reflection of a more pragmatic approach given the deliberations and delays that have marked the discussions on UN reforms so far. As matters stand and emphasized by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan during his recent visit to India, the question of conceding veto powers by the permanent members of the UNSC remains a long-shot. Annan was categorical on veto rights. He said many wanted removal of the exclusive rights of the five permanent members of the UNSC, it was not possible to do so; therefore, status quo had to be kept. It may be recalled that Annan has recommended restructuring the UNSC to make the council better reflect new political “realities” and address the fresh security threats in a world that has evolved since the organization’s formation 60 years ago. He expressed a preference for consensus, but if arguments threatened to delay action, he said, the matter should be put to a vote so that world leaders can decide in September.

Two-thirds of the 191-member UNGA must first vote to amend the charter to expand the council, a public ballot tentatively scheduled for the end of June. Then they must select the six new permanent members, ideally in July, before ambassadors leave for the August holiday.

The revised G-4 draft follows weeks of hectic consultations after the original one hit a wall. India has been zealously pursuing its place in the UNSC forming part of Manmohan Singh’s priority agenda. Last year Singh addressed the UNGA and lobbied for a UNSC seat for India. New Delhi now has reciprocal arrangements with the three other nations seeking a permanent seat. Brazil, Germany and Japan are also pressing to join the current five veto-wielding members of the UNSC — the USA, Britain, France, Russia and China. India and Japan have agreed to back each other rather than contest against each other, thus increasing each others’ chances. India claims a seat on the basis of its huge population, growing economy and contribution to the various activities of the UN.

A comment in The Pioneer reads: “Several UN member states are of the view that vesting permanent members of the UNSC with veto power is not necessarily a good idea-today’s geo-political realities are vastly different from those that existed when the UN came into being. A self-imposed 15-year moratorium by the new permanent members could ultimately lead to the abolition of veto power and the establishment of a truly democratic process of decision-making based on near-unanimity of views. After all, UNSC decisions should ideally be independent of the narrow interests of individual permanent members; tragically, that has not been the case till now.”

However, there is still a long way to go, given the geo-strategic politics at play. US supports Japan’s bid for a UN seat, while China will have nothing of it given the history of strained relations. The US has endorsed only Japan emphasizing that the country gives more money to the world body than Britain, France, Russia and China put together. China has gone on record to support India, while the US has never supported India’s candidature that is opposed by Pakistan. Italy opposes Germany.

In a conference call, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told foreign ministers from permanent members this Friday that the US wanted to postpone this month’s vote, possibly until after the UN summit scheduled for September. Rice also said the US needed more time to sort out the consequences of a larger Security Council for the global balance of power.

Beijing has dismissed the new plan as “immature” stressing that “a big divergence still exists on UNSC reforms.” The rival formation called “Uniting for Consensus’’ that is led by Italy, Pakistan and Mexico will not give in easily.

To further complicate matters, Russia has sided with China and wants to maintain status quo fearing a reduction of its power. France broke with the rest of the permanent members this Tuesday, putting its weight behind Germany by cosponsoring the G-4 resolution. Britain supports the resolution but has not decided whether to sponsor it. That puts the Americans in the tight position of siding with the Chinese and Russians.

German diplomats have said that they believe the G4’s compromise could receive the required two-thirds majority needed for passage in the UNGA. Observers say that China, Italy and their allies do not have the 64 votes that are needed to block a proposed resolution in the UNGA. However, the US or China can simply kill amendment by refusing to approve it, even if the UNGA approves the change.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist

---