‘No veto isn’t reduced status’

The panel has suggested two models for expanding the UNSC to 24 members:

• Model A (5+6+13): Adding six permanent members, two each from Asia and Africa and one each from Europe and the Americas.

• Model B (5+8+11): Inclusion of eight new members with four-year terms, two each from Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas. Membership can be renewed. India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, the four countries which have called for expansion and reforms of the UNSC, welcomed the report at New York for recognising the need for such reforms.

However, External Affairs Minister K. Natwar Singh said in the Rajya Sabha yesterday that UNSC membership without veto power will not be acceptable. As this debate is bound to intensify in the days ahead, Nambiar says any insistence on the new members also getting veto power or complete removal of veto from the existing five countries would have scuttled the entire effort. ‘‘All this may be right but the ground realities are different. Any such recommendation would not fly and the report would have simply fallen by the wayside.’’

But Nambiar highlights the fact that the report calls for minimal use of veto and has even suggested a process of indicative voting wherein if two or more members are against a proposal, the sponsor should reconsider it rather than veto it.

‘‘The veto is an anachronistic relic of the old arrangement and there was consensus that use of veto should be reduced…but let me tell you, not having veto power doesn’t reduce status. A country like India may now be able to participate at the highest level of decision-making process,’’ he said, listing the positives that emerge for India if the recommendations are implemented.

Nambiar himself was not in favour of the second model. In fact, there was considerable opposition to the idea when it was first mooted at the panel’s fourth meeting. It was at the fifth meeting that the panel agreed to suggest two models taking into account the differences in opinion.

The panel has endorsed the ‘‘use of force as a last resort’’ to protect civilians from genocide, ethnic cleansing and other comparable atrocities. While acknowledging the right of a sovereign state to resolve inetrnal issues, the panel has favoured pro-active intervention by the international community. Nambiar also underlined the emphasis given by the report on human development and security. ‘‘I would like to mention this because there was a consensus that it is in societies deprived of development and human security where terrorism finds breeding grounds.’’