India’s announcement, nominating Shashi Tharoor as a contender for the post of UN Secretary General, has predictably, though regrettably, stirred up the Pakistani hornet’s nest. Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to UN, Munir Akram, launched a two-pronged attack in New York yesterday. Firstly, he argued that because India has shown interest in backing an Indian for the post, it has willy-nilly given up its claim to be considered for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Secondly, he has let it be known that even Pakistan would be putting up a candidate. While it is Pakistan’s business whether it puts up a candidate or not, their reaction is likely to trigger-off an India-Pakistan spat, creating a diversion from the issue — which is to have a credible candidate from Asia as the next UN Secretary General. Shashi Tharoor himself has said his candidature is to enable a wide and credible choice from Asia, so no argument can be used at the UN to introduce candidates from other continents. Conventionally, the rotational principle for selection of UN Secretary General, has been adopted, though Kofi Annan, through a flawed argument, got a third term for Africa, having succeeded Boutros Boutros Ghali of Egypt, who had used one African term. The issue that is more germane to India is Munir Akram’s first argument, that India’s advocacy of Shashi Tharoor is clearly a giving up of India’s claim to a permanent membership of the UN Security Council. To understand the Indian approach to the expansion of the UN Security Council, one must delve into the background. For many decades, whenever this issue has arisen, our stand was that while India was not openly seeking a seat, whenever an expansion took place, objective criteria automatically qualified India.This argument has been finetuned over the last two years, with the setting up of the G-4 group consisting Brazil, Germany, Japan and India to convey the message that the UN Security Council of today does not represent the contemporary realities. The UNSC needs to be democratised, with the inclusion of more members who have the capacity and tradition of espousing the core values of the UN, which in its enlarged and critical role in the post Cold War era, needs to have moral authority and visible democratic functioning. All this would not be possible unless there is a comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council. Whether India becomes its permanent member is not material to this argument. The G-4, in the 59th session of UN General Assembly last year introduced only a Framework Resolution which did not name any country. It simply spelt out what an expanded Security Council should look like. As to which countries actually qualify to be in the UNSC, is for the UNGA to decide in a subsequent election. On the other hand, the appointment of the next UNSG is to be decided definitely before the end of 2006, when the term of current Secretary General ends. Therefore, the two processes—the appointment of the UN Secretary General and expansion of the UNSC, are distinct from each other and entirely on different time scales. There would thus be no contradiction between the two. For instance, Egypt today aspires to be a permanent member of the Security Council, even though it has in the past provided a UN Secretary General. This flexibility is a reflection of the desire of the global community to see that the best candidate makes it to the top UN post. Certainly Pakistan should be entitled to put up its candidate as much as India is. Whether the Pakistani candidate is the most credible is for UN members and the global community to decide. There is, however, no need for the rhetoric unleashed by Akram as it distracts from the basic issue— giving UN a new chief, who can restore its moral authority and credibility. The writer is former secretary, Ministry of External Affairs
