Barack Obama's announcement to support the presence of India as a permanent member of UN Security reform accelerated sharply this archaic institution and open a deeper discussion on the new distribution of powers in a world in which emerging powers supported by its success in globalization, demanding much more political influence. By the way, the American initiative is a jug of cold water to the hopes of Spain that the renewal of the UN were being put to a model agreement that would give more presence in the main executive body.
This is, without doubt, the great prize that India expected a visit that, until now, seemed consumed in mere gestures and empty rhetoric. With 1,200 million, an economy that competes in the top of the world, a model of democracy and universal inspiration from the example of Mahatma Gandhi, India feels years with the right to sit among the nations that govern the world. Other American presidents had stayed before the gates of support that right. Obama did yesterday in a speech to Parliament, who received his words stood.
"The sustainable and equitable international order that the U.S. seeks to include a United Nations that are effective, credible and legitimate. So I can say that in the coming years, expect a reform of the Security Council to include India as a permanent member" Obama said.
Senior U.S. officials could not determine after speaking with reporters, how soon Obama may think the consummation of that desire, if one year or a decade, but made it clear that this is a major commitment of American foreign policy drive energetically UN ambassador, Susan Rice.
U.S. officials also stated if the support to India is extended to other countries aspiring to a permanent presence, although mentioned Japan as a candidate they support and, therefore, it seems clear that the United States favors the claim that for maintain a coordinated time Brazil and Germany along with the two Asian countries. This group promotes the expansion of the current permanent members-the United States, China, Russia, France and the UK, with five or six more, the four developers, plus one or two elected from Africa. The proposal competes with another group that advocates medium-sized countries-Italy, Spain, Canada, South Korea, Mexico and Argentina, among others, who want the expansion of non-permanent countries, with regional distribution and presence longer than that currently occupying the rotating chairs.
The argument of the four major candidates is that their inclusion would give the Council more realistically reflect the balance of forces in the world today. Intermediate countries, like Spain, believe that a reform like this, now backed by the U.S., it would be undemocratic and prolong the discriminatory nature that has the current Council, whose composition is the embodiment of the world resulting from World War II.
This is a very complex debate and multiple implications. The final decision should be voted by the General Assembly and assumed or ultimately vetoed by the current Security Council. That is, once called the U.S. position would be in the hands of China, Russia, France and the UK. It is unlikely that the two European countries were to oppose the entry of Germany, especially if, as claimed by the U.S. now, the new permanent members would have no veto power. Russia could show interest in a counter the growing power of China. But the latter will not see with sympathy the rise of category two major competitors in Asia, especially India, a historical rival.
Thus, this issue can finally become a problem in China, or a new point on the table of negotiations between Washington and Beijing, a currency exchange on a bilateral relationship that already heavy responsibilities fall on economic, security and environment.
The support for the aspirations of India is at the same time, a blow to Pakistan, its rival, which is an ally of China and aspired to a greater presence in the Council in the regional expansion model championed by Spain.
The discussion of this issue can somehow revitalize the UN, as also to highlight the interest of all to govern the institution despite the many criticisms that are made, the conclusion of the reform would allow him to recover a role in world affairs.
For USA, the support given to India is the culmination of a policy that Obama launched a long time to elevate the role of emerging powers. His support for the G-20 to the detriment of the G-8 is the best example of that policy. For Europe, which has lost relevance in the transition to the G-20, enlargement of the permanent members of the Security Council of the UN would be a further loss of influence.
The guardian of international order
- Peace and security. The Security Council, established in 1945 and first met in 1946, is the body responsible for maintaining peace and international security. According to the UN Charter, Member States are obliged to accept its decisions. The body may take action to enforce its decisions, from economic sanctions to the use of force.
- Members. The Council has 15 members, five permanent and 10 elected by the General Assembly for two years. Permanents are the United States, China, Russia, France and the UK.
- The power of veto. In matters of substance, not one of the five permanent members blocked their approval. It is the rule of the "unanimity of the Great Powers", or power of veto