Hardeep Singh Puri
India’s permanent representative to the UN
New Delhi
9 January 2011
member of the UN Security Council. What are some of the priorities on
the UN Security Council’s agenda as India rejoins the Council after a
gap of nearly two decades?
The existing agenda focusses heavily on threats to international peace
and security in Africa. About 60 per cent of the Council's formal
meetings are about Africa and about Peacekeeping. India has
considerable empathy, knowledge and experience when it comes to Africa
and will add value to the deliberations of the Council. We are also the
leading contributor of UN peacekeepers having contributed one lakh
peacekeepers to virtually every peacekeeping operation in the last 50
years. The expertise that we bring to the Council in this core UN
activity is unparalleled. The Council has a focus on terrorism. We have
an immediate national interest in the counter-terrorism regimes that
are being developed by the Council. It is also noteworthy that no
democracy has as many neighbours on the Security Council's agenda as
India. This will naturally be a priority for us. We will contribute to
strengthening international regimes that support democracy and human
rights. India will work towards strengthening multilateral processes,
including a strong and efficient Council, and for an international rule
of law based on "right" rather than "might." The promotion of the
common good of all and not just narrow national considerations will
guide us.
Is the Permanent Mission of India to the UN adequately staffed and
resourced to perform duties expected of it?
The Ministry of External Affairs has increased the number of diplomats
assigned to the mission by 40 per cent in the past year. A special
team, with officers with the relevant experience, has been created to
focus on work relating to the Security Council. Other resources are
also being made available.
Is the Mission intensifying its coordination with foreign missions such
as that of the United States on issues that may come up before the UN
Security Council in 2011 and 2012, such as Iran, North Korea, West
Asia, Afghanistan, and human rights?
We have a system of regular interaction with important missions and
regional groupings in New York to discuss issues on the UN agenda. The
volume, level and quality of interaction has been augmented to reflect
the increased responsibilities that go with Council Membership and with
India's growing profile and capacities. We have recently had
consultations with the US where we have discussed our perspectives and
approaches on a number of issues of mutual interest at the UN.
Do you agree with the view that India will be on "probation" during its
two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, and
that its quest for a permanent seat will depend on how well it performs
in those two years?
I do not agree with such a view. First and foremost, Security Council
reforms are a matter for negotiation for the UN General Assembly and
are not a subject matter for the Council's consideration at present.
Second, India's entry into the Council stands on its own merits. The
spectacular margin of our victory at the elections on October 12, 2010
with 187 out of 190 votes stands testimony to our global stature. We
intend to bring our diplomatic, political and economic strengths to the
working of the Council and thereby enhance its effectiveness and
efficiency. This is our commitment to the international community.
At what stage is the process of reforming the UN Security Council? How
many of the 192 UN members are in support of India?
At present the process of intergovernmental negotiations on Council
reforms is interestingly poised. The large majority of the delegations
in New York have called for a shorter negotiating text by the end of
January 2011. They have urged the Chair of these negotiations to
prepare such a text based on the proposals and positions submitted by
countries or groups in the first half of 2010 and subsequently
streamlined in September 2010. As for support, let me put it this way:
We are quite confident that when the matter of choosing new permanent
members to an expanded Security Council comes up, India will have the
requisite numbers to sail through.
Is India making efforts to secure for itself veto power or has she
given up on it?
The issue of the veto is likely to be one of the more contentious, if
not the most contentious points of negotiations. My personal view is
that it will be very difficult for new permanent members to sell the
reform package to their domestic constituencies if they do not have the
same rights and obligations as the existing permanent members. Equally,
there will be resistance to the extension of veto to new permanent
members from certain quarters. For this reason, the G4 (Group of Four;
comprising India, Brazil, Japan and Germany) had in 2005 in a spirit of
compromise put forward its current position that consists of two
elements. First, that the new permanent members should have the same
responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members.
Second, that the new permanent members shall not exercise the right of
veto until the question of the extension of the right of veto to new
permanent members has been decided upon in the framework of the review
mandated 15 years after the entry into force of the Council reform.
Insofar as the "L69" group of 40 developing countries of which India is
an active participant, the position is that new permanent members
should have all the rights and obligations of the existing ones. This
brings the "L69" and African Group positions in sync with each other on
the issue of veto.
Has the G4 been able to reconcile its draft proposal with that of the
African Group?
With each passing day there is increasing convergence between the
positions held by India and the African Group. The most recent
manifestation of this has been the statement on December 17, 2010 at
the first exchange of the sixth round of intergovernmental negotiations
on Security Council reforms by the "L69" Group which has aligned its
position closely with the African position. This sentiment has also
been reciprocated by the Africans. Sierra Leone which represents the
African Group at these negotiations welcomed the "L69" statement, while
other African countries including South Africa, Nigeria and Mauritius
aligned themselves with the "L69" statement as well.
The leaders of all P-5 countries, except China, who visited India in
2010 have strongly supported India for a permanent member of the
Council. How do you view it?
We have a constant dialogue with China on this issue. I can state with
a reasonable degree of confidence that China will not be an obstacle to
India becoming a permanent member.
What is status of the Comprehensive Convention on International
Terrorism (CCIT) since it was first mooted by India?
India is working closely with interested delegations with a view to its
early adoption, preferably during the course of 2011. During the
current (65th) session of the UN General Assembly, the Working Group
dealing with this draft convention has recommended a text for the
consideration of the Sixth Committee that is the UN's Legal Committee
along with the proposals on the table. The draft CCIT is intended to be
a law enforcement instrument and the definition of terrorist offence
contained in it is geared towards that objective.
Will India be willing to increase its share of contribution to the UN
budget?
India's contribution to the regular budget of the UN in 2009-10 was US
$ 11.4 million, while our contribution to the UN peacekeeping operation
last year was US $ 7.7 million. Besides assessed contributions for
which I have given you the statistics just now, we also make
significant voluntary contributions to the UNDP, UN Democracy Fund,
UN's Central Emergency Response Fund, UNFPA, UNICEF, UNRWA, WFP, UN's
Peacebuilding Fund, UNODC, etc. This clearly makes us one of the most
important developing country contributors on voluntary basis. There is
complex formula that includes a set of interrelated factors, both
economic and non-economic, that determines any change in the share of a
country's contribution to the UN. Needless to state, India is a country
that is willing to step up to its responsibilities as and when called
upon to do so. But the other side of the equation is that the UN should
be able to appropriately respond to India's growing global stature.
No comments:
Post a Comment