This is an issue/concern which has been occupying my mind for quite some time now. Every informed and updated global individual in the world knows that since a decade or so, there has been a rising voice among some fast emerging countries to make reforms in the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) to include them, particularly India, Brazil, Japan and Germany; also officially known as the G4. These are four countries which support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Unlike the G8, where the common denominator is the economy and long-term political motives, the G4’s primary aim is the permanent member seats on the Security Council. Each of these four countries have figured among the elected non-permanent members of the council since the UN’s establishment. Their economic and political influence has grown significantly in the last decades, reaching a scope comparable to the permanent members (P5) or even more than some of them.
While each of these four countries and even some African countries want the UNSC permanent membership, the question that needs to answered first is “Which among these countries is ready to take on additional responsibility of securing global peace and security and spending a substantial part of its resources for global welfare?”
Unfortunately, the observation is that while many countries in the world want the UNSC permanent member tag and question the hegemony of US in playing the role of “international policeman”, very few are willing to dole out the resources needed to secure global security. The recent example is the ISIS carnage that started in Iraq recently. While many countries have been making bids for the UNSC permanent membership since the last decade, no nation came to the rescue of the battered nation that is Iraq and surprisingly started questioning the US on its firm resolve not to send troops to Iraq for reinstating peace there. While it is a proven fact that the primary reason for Iraq’s current state has been the U.S. invasion of the nation in 2003 and its purely self-oriented actions throughout the world, it cannot be negated that countries which desire an international role must deserve it first. A commendable situation would have been crated if Iraq would have witnessed international troops and supplies coming for help from India, Germany, Brazil, Japan and all those countries that talk of the UNSC reforms. Finally, it was the US which initiated much delayed air strikes against ISIS artillery recently. I am not saying that this was a selfless action taken for the welfare of the Iraqi people, it was for securing American diplomats and businesses operating in Kurdistan. But the US did take action and dropped relief supplies to members of the ancient Yazidi sect, tens of thousands of whom are massed on a desert mountaintop seeking shelter from fighters who had ordered them to convert or die. It is hard not to applaud the American strikes for securing Kurdistan even if it was partially orchestrated for American interests.
Criticism is due for the other permanent members of the UN Security Council as well. Did China send its troops to Iraq even if as they say a “goodwill gesture”? Did Russia deploy its vast resources for the Iraqi peoples’ safety? Did France or Britain the so called European powers come to help, even when Britain contributed its troops for the 2003 Iraq invasion? So it is clear that except the US, even the other permanent members did not bat an eyelid!
We saw world leaders condemning the ISIS carnage, but that was all it was limited to “condemnation”. Being an international policeman requires “action”. And whether we like it or not, it is always the US which takes action and is expected to take action in such circumstances. It is cornered up in that troublesome spot where it is criticized on humanitarian grounds for taking action and condemned if it refuses to do so. It did not make itself a superpower or an international policeman expected to right all wrongs occuring globally. The world has made it that. There is a reason why US took so long to launch these strikes, and its that now it not the same world hegemon it was after WWII. Its influence has become less after the emergence of a multipolar world. It is fast losing confidence with its citizenry for making more wars or spending resources trying to sort out other nations’ problems. It has problems of its own and is tired of displaying its transient “World Superpower” status. Neither the BRICS, nor the SAARC, nor the NATO, nor the ASEAN, nor the G8, nor the SCO come to the Iraqi peoples’ rescue! What is the use of making such groups then? Why all the talk about historical cultural ties with the Arabs and the Persians? Why the outrage on American(read CIA) orchestrated coups and conflicts? When no country wants to dirty its hands cleaning the globe!
Atleast India needs to be appreciated for sending more troops and aid for UN Peacekeeping Forces and bilateral aid to African countries than the other “aspirers”. Maybe I am wrong and do not get the rationale behind international manoeuvres taking place, still as an ordinary informed individual I brought out all the concerns that plague me. I hope and know that with time as she acquires more and more strength, India will come to take on greater roles in the international arena and emerge as a benevolent world leader. Jai Hind.