Security Council Should Stick to Mandate - No Need For UN to Overreach

The HINDU ^ | 25 September 2009 | Siddharth Varadarajan

[underthestreetlite]

Pittsburgh: India has argued that non-proliferation obligations arise from treaties to which states are parties and that any question of non-compliance has to be addressed in accordance with those treaties or agreements and not by the Security Council over-reaching its mandate.

In a letter to the U.N. Security Council president aimed at distancing India from the September 24 resolution on non-proliferation, Ambassador Hardeep Puri also insisted that India cannot accept obligations stemming from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or agreements it has not signed or externally prescribed norms that infringe its sovereignty, national interest and Constitution.

India also emphasised that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s authority to apply safeguards or verify undeclared nuclear activity is not open ended but “is derived from specific safeguards agreements it enters into with member states.” Mr. Puri’s letter noted, in this context, that India had concluded a number of agreements and reciprocal commitments as part of its civil nuclear initiative.

Taken together, the Indian stand represents not just a defence of the country’s status as an exception to the NPT regime but a reversion to its traditional arguments on disarmament. New Delhi had tended not to emphasise these over the past few years, perhaps in keeping with Washington’s approach during the Bush administration. But with Mr. Obama’s team harking back to the non-proliferation agenda of the previous decade, India now feels more comfortable returning to its long-held positions.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

India doesn’t get it. You agree to get rid of your nukes - and then build them in secret anyway - all but the U.S.

[ncfool]

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Practically speaking, until the UNSC adjusts its veto membership to be “reality based”, and likely creates a mechanism to do so automatically, it will be crippled.

The Cold War membership reality has changed. Today, there are four elements that are essential to membership. The least of these are nuclear weapons, or at least the ability to rapidly assemble them. Far more important are:

1) A major economy.
2) A large, modern army and navy capable of force projection.
3) The willingness to force project for UNSC, not just national objectives.

Having a major economy makes that nation an economic nexus, with complex trading arrangements with many other nations. This means it must engage in international shipment of goods, in international waters and airspace.

Right now, and in the near future, this means the US, China, Japan, Russia, the EU, India, Mexico (once the PPP is built), and likely six other economic blocks: northern and southern Africa, the Middle East, South America, ASEAN and Oceania.

A large army and navy capable of force projection is much more limited in membership. The US, China, Russia, India and possibly the EU and Japan if they decide to have such a military.

The willingness to force project is the greatest discriminator. The US, China, India, and possibly the EU and Japan again. Because of this limitation, it is likely that a permanent professional military force may be created by the UN, specifically for UNSC objectives.