In
Security
Council Reform
Session of
L69, of Veto
& Small
States,
Indian Answer?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 13 --
Two stories
above the UN
Security
Council, other
members states
began a closed
door meeting
in the General
Assembly on
Tuesday about
Security
Council
Reform. The
so-called L69
was making
its pitch, led
by Jamaican
Permanent
Representative
Wolff and
Hardeep
Singh Puri of
India.
Inner
City Press
asked Hardeep
Singh Puri, on
his way up to
the GA, if it
isn't a
contradiction
for India to
be a member of
both the Group
of 4 (with
Japan, Germany
and Brazil)
and the L69,
given their
different
proposals
about the
veto.
He said no,
said he would
provide a copy
of his speech,
and then went
upstairs and
faced the same
question
from members
of Uniting for
Consensus. One
UfC leader,
when the GA
meeting broke
at 1 pm, said
that India had
not fully
answered the
question.
Hardeep Singh
Puri is one of
the better
speakers in
the UN system,
so one expects
some answers.
And
so here is one
write-up of
the questions:
If
it's said that
80 member
states support
the G4
proposal, why
not release a
list of
these states?
Or is it true,
as some in UfC
allege, that
the 80 break
in half on the
question of
the veto?
How
would given
more countries
the veto
impact on
issues like
Palestine and
the
settlements,
or more
recently
Syria? Why
even pretend
that the
current
Permanent Five
would agree to
give more
countries the
veto,
or to give up
their own?
Why
reproduce the
error of the
past --
permanent
seats when no
country's
power is
forever -- by
fixing in time
the big donors
of today?
One UfC
activist
opined to
Inner City
Press, during
the break
between
sessions, that
India is
strident on
getting the
veto "after
what
Obama said"
about
supporting
India, and
"because time
is on
India's side,
unlike Japan."
Ouch!
Another
UfC
proponent
pointed out to
Inner City
Press that
currently each
of the
Permanent Five
members have
big staff
posts in Ban
Ki-moon's
Secretariat.
"If you
increased it
to a P11, then
all the posts
would be
spoken for,"
he said, "with
even less
merit based
selection than
today."
This
continued, in
writing:
In
their
letter dated
6th September
2011 the L69
refer to the
results of
their
initiative
which was
carried out in
a genuine give
and take. In
fact it seems
the L69
proposal wants
to give too
little to
small and
medium sized
states and
take a lot
away from them
by allotting
six
permanent
seats to the
few (G4 plus
two African
countries).
Small and
medium sized
countries
represent 114
out of the
total
membership of
193 UN member
states. Since
the last
expansion of
the SC in
1963, 80
new members
have joined
the UN, and 69
were small and
medium sized
states. A good
question to
the L69 is
whether they
can give one
reason why
comparatively
the L69
proposal is
better for the
114 small
and medium
sized states
than the
Uniting for
Consensus
proposal?
The
UfC
proposal has
at heart the
interest of
small and
medium sized
states. These
represent 114
out of the
total
membership of
193 UN
member states.
In the last
expansion of
the SC in 1963
the total UN
membership was
113. Out of
the 80 new
members that
joined since
then
the vast
majority, to
be precise 69,
are small and
medium sized
states. The
Security
Council needs
to adapt to
this reality.
The
Italian -
Colombian
proposal
specifically
allocates one
(1) non
permanent seat
to small
states (with a
population
below 1
million)
and one (1)
non permanent
seat to medium
states (with a
population
between 1 and
10 million).
Over and above
it leaves all
other seats
open to both
small and
medium sized
States. The
increase in
non
permanent
seats,
including the
creation of
longer term
seats, will
make more
options
available to
developing
countries,
including
small
and medium
sized states
that will be
able to run
for regular
non
permanent
seats (2
years) without
competing with
stronger
countries.
The
debate
continues.
Watch this
site.
, 
