UNSC seat not anytime soon: US

NEW DELHI: A week after the collective euphoria in India about a US endorsement for its membership to the UN Security Council, US officials tried to manage expectations, saying this would be a long and complicated process.
Robert Blake, US State Department's pointperson on South Asia, told reporters, "I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon...I think the president and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we're committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats."
However, the Indian optimism stands in sharp contrast and is infectious. From a traditional stand of low expectations and an underlying pessimism about the ability to change the global system, India is showing a rare can-do spirit.
India's permanent representative to the UN Hardeep Puri was quoted as saying, "We are entering the Security Council after a gap of 19 years... We have no intention of leaving the Security Council. In other words, before we complete our two-year term, we will be a permanent member."
It's an unusual statement of confidence by a foreign office that has made a living for over half a century by peddling uncertainty.
US President Barack Obama's endorsement of India for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council was simple. Wisely, he did not go into exactly how the US would go about pushing India's case in the UNSC. So what exactly are the issues that are at stake here?
There are five issues currently begging a decision in the reform of the UNSC. They are: the ideal size of a new UNSC; whether the new members will have veto rights, the number of permanent and non-permanent members, its relations with the UN General Assembly and regional representation.
India will push for a quick restart to the inter-governmental negotiations. But why does India feel optimistic? "It's eminently doable," said sources on background. India's recent bid for a non-permanent seat fetched it 187 votes. That was huge. It signalled, if nothing else, that the world is ready for UNSC reform and that India has a better chance than most.
Last week, India won what is believed to be the most difficult vote in the UNGA -- Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) with a whopping 164 votes, leaving Japan trailing at 146, China at 130 and Pakistan at 114. These, officials said, were all signals of support.
The US, said Blake, wants a "modest" expansion. It has been playing with the number 19, which will anger many countries. India and the G-4 have proposed 24 (11 permanent and 13 non-permanent).
Why was the US support to India important? "We needed the US to get off the bench," said senior officials. The US opposition to India meant India had less than a fighting chance.
Washington has so far only supported Japan for a permanent seat, but opposed the G-4 (a group of India, Japan, Brazil and Germany set up in 2004), hence opposed India. Obama's endorsement doesn't include G-4. At some stage, India might have to decide whether it wants to stay with the G-4 or plough alone.
In the G-4, Germany holds the weakest card. Opposition by Italy is the least of its problems. But there is a serious case against giving Europe a third UNSC seat (fourth if you count Russia as a European power), at a time when European power is in decline. Besides, EU is asking for a separate status for itself in the UNGA.
Africa is a huge problem. It should have two seats in the UNSC, but which two countries? Even the African Union is divided. There can't be UNSC reform without the Africans because the world runs the risk of all 53 countries boycotting.
The elephant in the room is China. By all accounts, China will do a repeat of the NSG battle -- promote opposition by the Coffee Club (now called United for Consensus), but would not like to be the only opposition on the floor. Japan, for instance, has both China and South Korea opposed to it. Brazil is opposed by Mexico and Argentina (since it's the only Portuguese-speaking country in a Spanish-speaking continent), and of course, Pakistan opposes India. Veto? India will fight to the end for the veto. Many countries say they can live without it, but, like nuclear weapons, it remains a currency of power.