Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

April 9th, 2005

Tags

, , , ,

Comments

13 Comments so far.
Add yours.

UNSC Bid Status: First Report

This is the first post in an irregular running series as I keep track of two of the four countries that are trying to gain permanent membership to the UN Security Council. I’ll reveal my Asian bias as I limit this survey to India and Japan (Germany and Brazil are also trying to get on the council, but I can’t cover the world). I have more interest in Japan, with the world’s second largest economy, and India, with the world’s second largest population. The shuttle diplomacy, curious alliances, and various backroom dealings behind their bids are going to be fascinating, especially with neighbors (Pakistan and the Koreas) spearheading the opposition.

Kazakhstan is the latest country to officially back Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, along with Uzbekistan, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, while South Korea recently said they will join their northern neighbor to oppose Japan’s candidacy. Madagascar, Iceland, the UAE, and Myanmar back India’s bid as Pakistan and Italy oppose it. Britain, France, Sri Lanka, Russia, the Maldives, and Australia are said to back all four candidates. Here’s my map of the current tally:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: none of these endorsements are guaranteed! As noted recently elsewhere:

On Monday and Tuesday, Israel wants to block India. On Wednesday and Thursday, Israel wants to support India. On Monday and Wednesday, Egypt wants to block India because they don’t want a nation with a Hindu majority having a permanent seat on the UNSC. On Tuesday and Thursday, Egypt is busy lobbying the US for a permanent seat on UNSC and posing no objection to India. READ MORE…

So far, it’s been predictable. What we’re going to see from here on out is a struggle for recognition in Latin America, Europe, and particularly Africa. Each state will have one vote, making the Gambia and China equal. This will have a major impact on how all four countries make their decisions over the next year, such as Japan’s decision not to send peacekeepers to the Sudan. Stay tuned!

Comments to this entry

praktike
April 9, 2005
3:45 pm
Why does Italy oppose India?
Curzon
April 9, 2005
3:51 pm
Sorry, should have included that in the post:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/6640_1313125,00160032.htm

Italy and Pakistan are the two strongest opponents of expansion in general. Italy, in a joint statement with Pakistan, said they opposed Germany and India's assention, but no mention was made of Japan or Brazil... yet.

I'm waiting for the official declarations before I color in the map; for example, Nepal and Bangladesh are expected to back both Japan and India but haven't yet done so; Mexico is expected to oppose all four candidates but hasn't yet said so. Stay tuned for Update No. 2...
Daves Knothere
April 9, 2005
6:20 pm
Let's boot France off the Security Council and replace it with Japan. France hasn't been a world-power since the time of Napoleon. It was poor judgment to put France on the Security Council in the first place. Adding new members with veto power to the existing Security Council would make it nearly impossible to get any meaningful resolutions passed. France is the iceberg floating in the sea lanes of the Security Council. France has got to go. It's laughable that anyone but the Germans would seriously consider a German membership. If India was admitted, muslims would demand a seat for an Islamic country, reminiscent of the slave state - free state dance prior to the American Civil War.
Curzon
April 9, 2005
6:39 pm
"France is the iceberg floating in the sea lanes of the Security Council." Very nice.

I think I agree -- my ideal Security Council would be:
* US
* Great Britain
* Russia
* China
* Japan
* India
* A Rotating EU Seat
* A Rotating "Big Africa" Seat (Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, plus potetially the Sudan and the Congo)
* A Rotating "Other Africa" Seat
* A Rotating "Other Asia" Seat
* A Rotating Latin America Seat
* A Rotating Muslim Seat (to ensure at least one Muslim representator)

As for a veto, I'd require two vetos to strike down a resolution.
Joe
April 9, 2005
10:09 pm
You would advocate separate seats for the UK and EU? That kind of undermines the conceptual European CFSP, doesn't it? I would think it better to have two rotating EU seats, maybe one for Western Europe and one for Central and Eastern Europe, or a similar arrangement.
Mutantfrog
April 9, 2005
10:38 pm
France may not be a world power exactly, but they are one of the world's leading holders of nuclear weapons. I don't know if this has ever been formalized, but it seems to me that permanent member of UNSC == right to possess nuclear weapons. Having recognized nukes it what earns them their council seat, and not having a council seat is what makes the nukes of other countries (Pakistan, Israel, DPRK) illegal according to the UN.
Joe
April 10, 2005
12:24 am
Mutantfrog: The permanent members have that right, and it was formalized by the NPT. However, India, Pakistan, and Israel "never signed the NPT":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty ... while North Korea did sign, but then pulled out when they wanted to start making nukes.

However, the 5 permanent members did not earn their seats by having nukes. They earned their seats by winning World War II.
Simon World
April 11, 2005
6:07 am
Daily linklets 11th April

This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates. Scroll down for today's other posts. In 1962 China and India went to war...
tdaxp
April 13, 2005
6:15 am
Bad News for Japan (No UNSC Seat this Year?)

"Japan's Bid for UN Council Seat This Year Frustrated," Digital Chosunilbo, 12 April 2005, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200504/200504120024.html.

If this is accurate, it's frustrating

Representatives of 116 nations including Ko...
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » UNSC Bid Status: Second Status Report
April 27, 2005
7:42 pm
[...] post UNSC Bid Status: Second Status Report For background, click here. Big news—a coalition of “like minded” nat [...]
Simon World
April 29, 2005
11:41 pm
Daily Linklets (TGIF)

Jitters in Thailand, Tamil Tiger Tony, suspect reporting on Japan, North Korean Freedom Week, The Acorn is banned, UN reform, photo comparisons, and more, all on today's Daily Linklets
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » UNSC Bid Status: Third Status Report
May 14, 2005
10:28 pm
[...] post UNSC Bid Status: Third Status Report First Report—Second Report Japanese PM Koizumi and Indian PM Singh met last week to [...]
Rick Pataki
July 3, 2005
9:35 pm
The criteria for UNSC should *not* be winner vs looser of WWII (or) Rich Industrialize country Vs Backword country

Criteria should be based on representing the every mankind in UNSC so we have peace, harmony and build a secular world

Only sub-continent that is not represented in UNSC is
Indian sub continent, African sub-continent and Latin America

I would think India with 1/3rd of human populations and largest Democracy present the strong case for UNSC seat.

Please do not divide the world on basis of Color, Race and Religion.

South Africa representing the African group interest and buldging Democracy in Africa be given the UNSC.

Brazil a Democracy and representing the Latin american interest.
group.