PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE (BEGINNING AND ADVANCED): NSDA 2019 April PFD Topic —"Resolved: The United Nations should grant India permanent membership on the Security Council."
General Questions:
1. When was India last a member of the Security Council?
a. Jan. 2011 to Jan 2013 was the most recent
b. Has been elected to the UNSC a total of seven times
2. How many and who are the current members of the Security Council?
a. 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent members who have two-year terms
b. Belgium, Ivory Coast, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Germany, Indonesia, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, South Africa and the 5 permanent members
3. How many and who are the current permanent members of the Security Council?
a. Five permanent members – China, France, Russia, UK, US
4. Are there UN member states who have never been part of the Security Council
a. “More than 60 United Nations Member States have never been Members of the Security Council.
5. When can UN members not on the Council get involved in issues that the UNSC take up?
a. “A State which is a Member of the United Nations but not of the Security Council may participate, without a vote, in its discussions when the Council considers that country's interests are affected. Both Members and non-members of the United Nations, if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Council, may be invited to take part, without a vote, in the Council's discussions; the Council sets the conditions for participation by a non-member State.”
6. What would it take to make a change like the resolution to the membership of the UNSC?
a. Would require and amendment to the UN charter
b. “Any reform of the Security Council would require the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states in a vote in the General Assembly, and must be ratified by two thirds of Member States. All of the permanent members of the UNSC (which have veto rights) must also agree.”
7. What new obligations and rights would be gained by a member state if it became a permanent member?
a. No real answer here, it depends on the details of how the charter would be amended. It could be that a new permanent member gets veto power, but maybe not. The charter itself doesn’t talk about “rights” of permanent or temporary UNSC members. While it describes certain powers (e.g. veto) to permanent members, the language of the charter deals more with “responsibilities"
c. See also Chapter 6 Article 33, 34, etc. - http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vi/index.html
d. See also Chapter 7, Article 39, etc. - http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/index.html
8. On what basis were the current permanent members granted that status?
a. They were the major powers and allied victors at the end of WWII and were involved in pushing for the adoption of the UN charter. There wasn’t any set of objective criteria used for their selection.
9. How are the non-permanent members of the UNSC selected?
a. Vote in the general assembly quotas by geographical region
Aff/Pro
1. The G4 (Brazil, Germany, Japan, India) are all seeking permanent membership on the UNSC as part of more comprehensive reforms of the UN
a. The G4 proposal would actually expand the UNSC to 25 permanent members
b. Currently, no South Asian nations are represented as permanent members of the UNSC (for that matter, neither is Africa or South America or the Middle East)
2. India’s claims to justify permanent status
a. Second largest population
b. Largest (by population) liberal democracy
c. Seventh largest economy
d. Third-largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping missions
e.
3. Expansion of the UNSC would better allow the UN to meet new and emerging challenges to international peace and security
4. The only significant reforms to the UNSC since it was chartered was in 1965 – to expand non-permanent seats from six to ten.
5. Five members do not adequately address the world. Particularly when the full 15 member set are often not representative of areas of concern around the globe.
6. Member states support expansion
a. The problem lies in coming up with a unified text of the necessary charter amendment in order to being negotiation.
7. The idea of expanding the UNSC to include the G4 as permanent members is supported by the UK, France, US and Russia
8. India’s position on expansion of the UNSC (as of 2011 statement)
a. The UNSC should have representation by members closer to the areas of its attention. “in the months of January and February 2011, more than 70% of the Council's meetings were on African issues and in terms of the amount of time spent, more than 90% of the Council’s attention was focused on African issues. And yet there is no single permanent member from Africa!”
b. Representation on the UNSC is limited and too restricted. “in the instance of the Latin American region, all slots have been filled up for the Council’s elected seats till 2034 and so there are no further opportunities.”
c. “For the record, let me also reiterate that the overwhelming majority of UN member-states have expressed their clear preference for expansion of the Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories.”
9. Failing to address necessary reforms will weaken the UN in the face of modern challenges
a. India’s Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj at the UN: "Step by slow step, the importance, influence, respect and value of this institution is beginning to ebb... The United Nations must accept that it needs fundamental reform. Reform cannot be cosmetic. We need to change the institution's head and heart to make both compatible to contemporary reality. Reform must begin today; tomorrow could be too late. If the UN is ineffective, the whole concept of multilateralism will collapse. India does not believe that the United Nations should become the instrument of a few at the cost the many."
10. China is using its permanent status as a way to keep India under thumb and assert its superiority in the region.
11. Under the current structure the UNSC has lost the ability to act in a timely manner, which harms its effectiveness, which damages its credibility and legitimacy.
a. As recently as the week of Mar. 10, the UN has reported on killings in the DR Congo from the previous December and warned that “new waves” of killings may be forthcoming. There is a weak call for state intervention, but no plan to force any such intervention or to do anything beyond monitoring and probing the killings.
12. India has been elected to the UNSC seven times, most recently with a significant number of votes. Permanent membership would formalize its status. It might also make sense to add all of the G4 countries
a. https://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/india-wins-unsc-seat-with-highest-votes-in-5-yrs_661197.html
b. “As of 2013, the current P5 members of the Security Council, along with the G4, account for eight of the world's ten largest defense budgets, according to SIPRI. They also account for 9 of the 10 largest economies by both nominal GDP and Purchasing Power Parity GDP.”
13. Need to put a deadline on current open-ended discussions to get an actual decision instead of just the de facto “no” of constant delays and talks with no progress
a. “Daniel Drezner (professor at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and blogger): Right after the US moves its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem: it has been promised for decades by presidential candidates but never comes to fruition. Ten years would be a really optimistic estimate.”
b. Plus, we just moved the embassy to Jerusalem, so I guess, it’s time?
14. Chapter I, Article 1 of the UN Charter says that the first primary purpose of the UN is “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”
a. Would affirmation of the resolution do this? Yes. It expands representation, giving the UNSC more legitimacy, it provides a venue to address areas of concern in a more timely manner and it recognizes the growing importance of India as well as the growing interdependence of nations around the world. Both in terms of economic interests as well as security and peace interests. So should we affirm? Yes.
15. Some questions to ask the aff
a. If the UNSC is broken, what about it is broken and how would adding India as a permanent member fix it?
b. Are there any objective criteria that we could use to determine who should have membership and permanent membership on the UNSC? Would GDP be a measure? Population? Contributions to the UN? Should it include nations with nuclear weapons? Or some combination of these criteria? Or no objective criteria at all?
i. And if there’s no objective criteria, I nominate Tahiti as the only permanent member because they have nice beaches.
c. Do the reforms to the UNSC need to include more than just adding India? More than just adding the G4? More regional representation in Africa and the Middle East? What about revisions to who has veto power?
d. Would affirmation make the conflict over Kashmir worse? If not, how would the Pakistani’s be placated?
e. If India contributes significantly to UN efforts including peacekeeping, what would be the real consequences of NOT giving them a permanent seat on the UNSC?
f. How important is membership (not necessarily permanent membership) on the UNS for the purposes of maintaining international peace and security? For example, Switzerland didn’t even join the UN until 2002 but they’re not out starting wars. If more than 60 UN member states have never been part of the UNSC, let alone a permanent member, how critical is permanent membership to being able to maintain peace?
g. Why is expansion of the USNC better than other alternatives, for example, heavier reliance on regional arrangements/organizations under Article 52 of the UN Charter (e.g. reliance on the African Union to resolve disputes in Africa)?
Neg / con
1. TLDR – if it an’t broke, don’t fix it.
a. The composition of the UNSC was set in 1945 and has changed very little while the overall geopolitical landscape has changed significantly. Still the UNSC remains the top body for international peace and conflict resolution.
2. No text for the necessary amendment exists which is necessary to even being negotiations about expansion of the UNSC. Members don’t yet have anything near a consensus about the terms of such an amendment – how many permanent seats to add, who to add, what other reforms (e.g. ending the veto power of permanent members) should be included.
a. It might be possible to push forward on smaller, more limited change like just adding the G4 countries, but then you could easily lose the support of other UN members that would be left out.
c. There’s no large-scale consensus on the details of reforms to the UNSC.
3. China opposes reforms to the UNSC. Sometimes publicly, though more often they publicly express neutrality and negligence rather than opposition.
a. More specifically, China’s position is that they don’t want to “rush” a vote on any such changes / reforms. They say it will damage the interests of developing countries,
b. Expansion and reforms should wait until a significant consensus on the details can be reached.
c. China calls for UNSC reforms to increase the representation of developing countries because they make up more than two-thirds of UN member states
4. If we go with expansion of the UNSC to include all G4 countries there is historical mistrust – Germany in Europe, Japan in Asia, corruption in Brazil, conflict between India and Pakistan, that make it difficult to gain regional support and global consensus.
5. Even India has effectively given up on its demands in more recent times. India’s demands to be included as a permanent member of the UNSC have largely been ignored with no real consequences (e.g. removing Indian peacekeeping forces)
6. Too much diplomatic effort to change the charter
a. Negroponte: I think we should keep the number of seats at 15 but have more permanent members. But it would take a significant amount of diplomatic effort to modify the charter.
c. It’s way too difficult to find a consensus on who to add and what to change
i. Drezner: Brazil and Japan, and the EU should have one seat. No African or Mid-East country is a really obvious candidate -- no one state or supranational organization possesses the requisite power.
ii. Graham Allison (Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School): If you are trying to make the Security Council reflective of the world we live in today, it should include at least India, but also a state from Africa (Nigeria or South Africa), and one from South America, most likely Brazil.
iii. Andrew Bacevich ( Professor of International Relations and History, Boston University): Who should? India, Germany, Japan, Brazil. Who will? None of them.
7. The UNSC is becoming less relevant anyway. While reforms and expansion might help stave that off, that’s not a sure thing and could just as easily lead to gridlock within the UNSC and General Assembly and make it less relevant
a. Drezner: I'm not sure about its [overall effectiveness] going forward. It can move along well on issues like terrorism but will underwhelm on issues that infringe on national sovereignty: separatist movements, democracy promotion, etc.
b. Bacevich: The UNSC matters -- it just doesn't matter all that much.
c. Thomas Pickering (Chairman, Board of Directors, American Academy of Diplomacy, and former U.S. Ambassador): The danger is that the Council becomes too large and irrelevant that way.
8. Let’s assume the UNSC is broken, then we need larger scale reforms than just adding India (or even adding the G4) as permanent members.
a. These should include the following five reforms
i. membership categories,
ii. veto powers of the five permanent members,
iii. regional representation,
iv. the size of an enlarged UNSC and it’s working methods
v. the relationship between the General Assembly and the UNSC.
9. Under Chapter 8 (e.g. Article 52) and other portions of the UN Charter, there are provisions to rely on regional organizations to resolve conflicts which are better suited to deal with conflicts than the larger UN body. These groups inherently have a stronger interest in peaceful resolution of conflicts within their region than would an expanded UNSC, and are better positioned to respond in a timely and effective manner. While the UN should reserve the power and responsibility to step in should need arise, the resolution asks us to take preemptive steps to expand the UNSC in order to address the mere possibility of ineffective regional organizations. Such steps are unwarranted.
10. Adding India to the Security Council would give it international cover for human rights abuses against minorities (such as Muslims) much in the same way that China’s status on the UNSC gives it international cover for its human right abuses against minorities (e.g. Muslims, Uyghurs)
a. China is “in a league of its own” for human rights violations
b. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/mar/13/china-human-rights-violations-mike-pompeo
d. While the US says that it ‘may’ use sanctions against China and leaders it believes are responsible for human rights violations, it hasn’t done so yet. And (see below) Secretary of State Pompeo’s statement is to the effect that the US will ignore human rights if it’s in the interests of the US.
f. So what does the US actually do about it? Mike Pompeo complains, but it’s not a significant part of trade negotiations, there are no UN or US sanctions. Basically the US just ‘calls them out’ on it. In part because of trade and in part because China has a permanent seat on the UNSC. In fact, Pompeo says the US (or Trump Administration at least) will work with anybody regardless of their human rights records as long as it’s in America’s interest. Putting India on the UNSC would put India in the same position as China – able to violate human rights with no real consequence on the international stage.
h. Indeed, as recently as the week of March 10, China is delaying UN sanctions that India wants against militant groups and their leaders. China is cracking down on it’s own Muslim population while giving cover to Pakistani-based terrorists.
k. And they can get away with it because they have a permanent seat on the UNSC – and the veto that comes with it. Giving India similar leverage will provide India with international cover to violate human rights. Something they’re already doing.
q. So if you want to give India cover for more human rights violations in Kashmir, then yeah, go ahead and affirm the resolution
11. Questions to ask the negative
a. What is the primary objective of the UNSC?
i. The UN was chartered with four major objectives
1. Maintain international peace and security
2. Develop friendly relations among nations
3. Cooperate on solving international problems
4. Be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations
ii. The UNSC was chartered to address the first of these
b. Yemen, Venezuela, Kashmir, Syria, Central Africa, Gaza and the West Bank. How effective has the UNSC been recently at maintaining international peace and security?
c. Why does it make sense for the more active areas of conflict around the world not to have representation on the premier body for maintaining international peace and security?
i. E.g. Middle East, Central Africa, Kashmir, Latin America
d. The five current permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) are all nuclear powers. Doesn’t it make sense that membership be expanded to include the newer nuclear powers in order to minimize the risk of a conflict escalating towards nuclear deployment?
Change Log
rpalmeira 2019.03.17 v1a – minor corrections to spelling and grammar
No comments:
Post a Comment