Reform eludes UN Security Counci

The framework document adopted at the General Assembly did not break the impasse on reforms, but brought some clarity as to who was on which side. It also became clear that any plan to introduce a substantial draft resolution in the next session would be futile.

The adoption by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) of a consensus resolution for beginning discussions at the Intergovernmental Negotiations Group (ING) on the basis of a framework document has been hailed as historic and path-breaking, but, in actual fact, the UN has not moved anywhere closer to an agreement on reform. The proposal should have been routinely adopted, coming as it did from the president of the General Assembly. Sam Kutesa, the outgoing President of the General Assembly had circulated the framework document at the end of July 2015 after extensive consultations, to serve as a sound basis for the next stage of consultations at the next session. He claimed that it was developed through an “inclusive and transparent process”, which included written submissions.

T. P. Sreenivasan

Trouble arose when some powerful states and groups made submissions, but insisted that their proposals not be included in the framework document. As a result, the president had to prepare his text in two parts, one containing collated views of a number of member states and another reproducing the letters of others.

The document revealed, not for the first time, that the positions of member states remained as wide apart as before and that there was not an iota of hope that a meeting point could be found during the 70th anniversary and beyond.

Opposition to expanison

Many countries, particularly small and middle powers, submitted detailed opinions on each of the specific points on which ideas were sought, such as categories of membership, veto, regional representation, size of the enlarged Council and its working methods and the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. France and the U.K. made their submissions and their views were reflected in the document.

The setback to the whole exercise came from China, Russia, the U.S. and some others, including the Uniting for Consensus Group (opponents of expansion) when they expressed their opinions in vague, but negative terms and kept out of the framework document. This meant that they would prefer the negotiations to continue in the Intergovernmental Negotiations Group without a text at a snail’s pace.

The substance of the positions of China, Russia and the U.S. came as a shock to India and others, who had believed that they had the support of these countries in one form or another. China declared that the time had not come for any serious negotiations, but it would support necessary and reasonable reform, with greater representation for developing countries. Russia was equally vague and supported “any reasonable option of expanding the Council”, but without any change in the veto. The U.S. favoured a “modest expansion”, without supporting any formula under consideration and no alteration or expansion of the veto. Unlike France and the U.K., these countries made no mention of their support to India as a permanent member. Although the U.S. and Russia later said that there was no change in their position of support to India, their written submissions revealed that their support had no practical value.

Among the permanent members, France was the closest to the Indian position, favouring the inclusion of India, Brazil, Japan and Germany (G-4) and an African representative as permanent members and expansion of the non-permanent category of members. France even expressed no objection to the veto power being extended to the new permanent members. The U.K. supported G-4 as the new permanent members, but without veto.

The positions of China, Russia and the U.S. cast a gloom on the G-4, which proposed a draft resolution to remit the framework document to the ING, under its new chairman, Ambassador Courtenay Rattray of Jamaica. China spread a rumour that it would seek amendments to the draft and even press for a vote. But in the end, China decided to join the consensus to commence text-based discussions, even though it had made clear that the time was not ripe for specific formulations.

The latest decision of the 69th session of the General Assembly did not amount to any change in the impasse on reform of the Security Council, but brought some clarity as to who was on which side. It also became clear that any plan to introduce a substantial draft resolution in the 70th session would be futile. The G-4 or any other group does not have the votes to get a resolution adopted by the General Assembly even to pressurise the Security Council to consider a concrete proposal. The compiled views in the framework document did not show any convergence even within the various groups outside the P-5. A G-4 diplomat told me in New York that the framework document was not likely to add any momentum to the negotiations. It would only ensure that the debate would go on for many more years without any result. The numerous paragraphs within brackets will remain in the text for long. The apparent progress in moving to text based negotiations is illusory. It is the lack of political will that has inhibited progress, not the lack of drafting skills.

India and the G-4 have exhausted all the arguments in favour of expansion and they have to be more and more inventive in promoting their proposals. They have already made a compromise on the veto, the claim to which would be suspended for fifteen years or so. The next step will be to accept anything less than permanent membership, such as extended non-permanent terms, subject to re-election every five years or more. The only achievement that they can boast of is the support of France and U.K., but it can melt away as part of a P-5 consensus at very short notice.

G-4 has so far maintained a façade of unity, but each of them may be amenable to bilateral deals if any one of them becomes a liability for the other three. Germany has already toned down its demand for permanent membership because of over representation of Europe. This may well be the motive for France and U.K. also to support G-4.

They may feel that a limited expansion by way of some additions now may be better for Europe than confronting a proposal for a thorough reorganisation of the Security Council later. Japan is clearly a liability because of the open opposition by China. India and Brazil too have opposition from their regions, but nothing serious to block their entry in the event of a settlement.

India’s claim to membership

India has upgraded its claim to “right” and remained the leader of G-4. But there is a section of opinion that India’s position on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its border “disputes” with Pakistan and China might be impediments to its permanent membership. The India-U.S. nuclear deal was expected to give de facto recognition to India’s nuclear status, but its non-NPT status came in the way of its entering the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). No amount of extra effort by India can resolve the NPT, Pakistan and China issues in a hurry. But the expansion of the Security Council is not contingent on any action of omission or commission on the part of India and so there is no particular pressure on India to relent on these issues.

More than 34 years of struggle with the issue of “equitable representation” in the Security Council has not brought us any closer to an expansion of the Council. An Indian Foreign Secretary had once remarked that India had the choice of either acquiring real power through the manufacture of nuclear weapons or pursuing illusory power by seeking to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Having acquired real power, India could as well give up the pursuit of illusory power, he had said. But in keeping with the present Government’s “power push”, our quest for permanent membership will continue. But the best we can get, if at all, may be a semi-permanent status, requiring us to get elected every few years.

As for the UN itself, reform of the Security Council is an existential requirement for the organisation. If it resists all proposals for change in the years to come, there is a real risk of the UN being sidelined or rival organisations taking over its agenda. Therefore, it is likely that some changes would be accommodated on the basis of one of the two alternatives proposed by Kofi Annan in his report, ‘In Larger Freedom’ in March 2005. According to this plan, there would be no new permanent seats, but a new category of eight four-year renewable term seats and one new two-year non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat to be divided among the various regional groups. The plan would continue to be unacceptable to India and some others, but it might well be the lowest common denominator to be tried out. But what the UN requires is not a fix like that, but a fundamental change to reflect the realities of the present century.

Time to reform the UNSC

The adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of a resolution to use a framework text as the basis of discussions on Security Council reforms is a welcome step forward. As India’s Ambassador to the UN, Asoke Mukerji, said, this is the first time in the history of the intergovernmental negotiation process that a decision on UNSC reform has been adopted by means of an official document. This also indicates that most countries in the General Assembly support a restructuring of the UNSC. Meaningful reform of the Security Council is overdue. The institution, formed to meet the challenges of the post-War world, has struggled to cope with the dynamics of the post-Soviet Union world order. In the past quarter century, the global order has seen massive changes, from American unilateralism to the rise of multilateral institutions such as BRICS. The developing nations, including India, now play a larger role in both the international economy and politics. But these changes are not reflected in the UN, where all critical decisions are still being taken by the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council. Besides, the geopolitical rivalry among the permanent members has prevented the UNSC from coming up with effective mechanisms to deal with global crises. Syria is a case in point. Even as a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Syria, there is no consensus in the Security Council on how to tackle it. Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon admitted recently that the UNSC had failed Syria. If the UN still shies away from reforming the Security Council, the possibility of the institution being sidelined by emerging powers cannot be ruled out. The resolution adopted in the General Assembly offers a chance to break the logjam.

But the road ahead is not easy. Three powerful members of the UNSC — Russia, China, and the U.S. — are opposed to any major restructuring of the Council. While Russia and the U.S. have said they would support India’s UNSC bid, when it comes to proceedings at the UN their positions represent a far cry from the promises they make at bilateral meetings. The U.S. favours only a “modest expansion” of the UNSC, while Russia doesn’t want any change in the veto arrangement. Even if the General Assembly members reach a consensus on reform, it could be shot down by the permanent members. The permanent members should realise that a more democratic and representative Security Council would be better-equipped to address global challenges, and that there are more pressing issues to be tackled at the global level than merely preserving their prerogatives. The champions of reforms — India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, or the G4 — should continue their multilateral diplomacy to build a democratically evolved global consensus on restructuring the UNSC.

ias mains test series by samveg ias

India’s Malnutrition Shame,Global Nutrition Report 2015 by the International Food Policy Research Institute,

The latest edition of the Global Nutrition Report 2015 by the International Food Policy Research Institute, released on Tuesday, brings back the concerns over malnutrition into sharp focus. In July, the government of India, after much avoidable controversy, released malnutrition (used synonymously as undernutrition) figures from the Rapid Survey on Children (RSoC) data that was collected in 2013-14. This dataset was keenly awaited as it provides a nationwide assessment after the third round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), which is nearly a decade old now. The RSoC data also assumes significance as the world adopts the Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 2.2 seeks to end all forms of malnutrition by 2030, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under five years of age.

The RSoC was conducted by the ministry of women and child development with  technical support from Unicef. It found 29.4 per cent of children (aged less than three years) to be underweight (low in weight for their age), while 15 per cent were wasted (low weight for their height) and 38.7 per cent were stunted (low in height for age). On the face of it, this compares well with the NFHS-3 data, in which the corresponding figures were 40.4 per cent (underweight), 22.9 per cent (wasted) and 44.9 per cent (stunted). But in absolute terms, the current levels of underweight and stunted children are abysmally high and former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s assertion
that malnutrition is a “national shame” is still valid.

A civil society collective appealed to policymakers in a press release on July 23 to “declare malnutrition as a medical emergency to save India’s children dying of hunger”. The Union minister for tribal affairs on August 4 said that his ministry “will collaborate with Ramdev and Balkrishna to identify and document medicinal herbs helpful in the treatment [emphasis added] of malnutrition”. But ready-to-use therapeutic food was introduced as a “treatment” to combat this medical emergency nearly two decades back.

The moot question is: can malnutrition be “treated”? Current mainstream global notions draw upon African experiences, where severe acute malnutrition (SAM) has been triggered by acute crises, such as drought, crop failure and civil wars. Classical SAM is a medical emergency, carries with it a high risk of mortality, and requires not just therapeutic feeding but other medical inputs. This global wisdom was bought off-the-shelf by national experts and Indian strategies and guidelines continue to be largely clinical, essentially seeking to treat malnutrition.

The predominant form of malnutrition in India is significantly different from classical SAM and standardised protocols for treatment are not as effective in the Indian context, where longer durations are required for achieving targeted weight gains. This is on account of the high levels of underlying stunting. Stunting signifies chronic undernutrition and has no scope for “cure” in a therapeutic mode. Its levels in India are higher than in Africa, and exceedingly so among chronically poor populations. Severe chronic malnutrition (SCM) in children is characterised by stunted growth and is a potentially less serious but continual form of malnutrition. SCM is generally an outcome of latent poverty, chronic food insecurity, poor feeding practices and protracted morbidities, but rarely a direct cause of mortality. In short, stunted children are hungry but not sick.

Chronic malnutrition requires a far wider spectrum of programmatic interventions beyond clinical management. Multi-sectoral actions are needed to combat multi-dimensional deprivations. Simultaneously, there is an urgent need for promoting practices to improve the quality of local diets, improving child-feeding practices, reducing exposure to illnesses, and paediatric care services. This would need a broad-based commitment of resources as well as the creation and nurturing of local capacities and leaderships.

Despite recent gains, malnutrition continues to be a national emergency; though not a medical one. The National Nutrition Mission (a multi-sectoral programme earmarked for 200 high-burden districts) has not taken off in any meaningful manner. The penchant for a magic bullet to treat and cure malnutrition draws attention away from the Indian epidemiological reality. Policymakers and opinion leaders are increasingly impatient with the tardy progress of the current set of interventions. The way forward requires a reorientation of Indian research to inform policy and practice and change the current tenor of policy discussions. The Make in India call should apply no less to research and practice.

How refugees impact Europe

President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker recently threatened financial sanctions against European Union (EU) member countries which fail to observe asylum procedures over the 1,60,000 refugees who attempted to enter countries on the periphery of Europe, namely: Italy, Greece and Hungary. Considering Hungary has failed to regulate the entry of these refugees owing to weak border controls, it has not adhered to the Dublin Regulation 2013. The Regulation states that asylum-seekers need to apply for refugee status in the country of their arrival.

In reality, it is difficult to adhere to this requirement since many refugees are not registered formally or even statistically considering Italy, Hungary and Greece have become chokepoints to cope with over 3,50,000 refugees and economic migrants this year. Evidently, their border control facilities have collapsed under the phenomenal pressure with multiple 'leaks' that threaten south-eastern Europe's border stability and have opened a Pandora's Box in Europe.

Most refugees seek to reach Germany, Denmark or Sweden as main target destinations owing to their strong social welfare systems. In a European context, the larger problem is that only some states like Germany are open to absorb refugees while other east European countries prefer to push these asylum seekers and economic migrants into the more prosperous states. Though the EU comprises 28 member countries, only some of them take their responsibility to manage the refugee crisis while others do not do so.

Today, Germany grapples with an unprecedented influx of refugees which could either be perceived as a boon or bane. Germany's demographic profile suggests a greying population that is starved of skilled human resources in several sectors which this flood of refu-gees could provide. However, this comes with a caveat in terms of social integration and internal security for Germany.

The emerging wave of refugees from Syria, Iraq and other West Asian countries are quite different from earlier refugee inflows given the magnitude of their numbers. It is ironical that Muslim refugees from Iraq and Syria choose to opt for Germany -- a part of Christian Europe. Their ethnic diversity makes them vulnerable to religious persecution in their home regions that compels them to exit. Therefore, to what extent would these refugees be able to adapt to a Christian-based culture in Europe? Germany is not new to refugees who come as political asylum seekers from various countries and cultural backgrounds. In the post-Second World War period, the trend was set by East German refugees who obtained political asylum in West Germany. However, their ethnic, linguistic and cultural commonality enabled them integrate easily.

Since then, a host of non-European refugees has entered Germany after reunification which included people from Tibet, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Albania, Eritrea, Somalia and Palestine who were assimilated into German society. Collectively, these non-European refugees form a miniscule minority of the German population, and therefore they posed no serious problem to their host country.

Germany is a refugee-friendly country due to historical reasons related to the Second World War. The post-war West German Constitution in order to make amends for the trauma of the Second World War crimes went out of the way to promote human rights. This is evident from Article 16a of the Basic Law grants victims of political persecution an individual right of asylum. The fundamental right of asylum thus has high priority and expresses Germany's willingness to fulfil its historical and humanitarian obligation to admit refugees.

The German Office for Immigration and Refugees recorded over 1, 73,000 new applications for asylum in 2014, a 58 per cent increase compared to the previous year. They have scrutinised almost 1, 29,000 files and Syria ranks highest with 40,000 refugees, followed by 17,000 from Serbia and 13,000 from Eritrea. Of these 28,000 refugees are from countries declared "safe" by the German Ministry of the Interior, besides Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia. It is well known that "welfare tourists", Roma populations who move to Germany only to avail its social benefits and therefore their applications are rejected automatically.

'Breathtaking' challenge

While the Bavarians have welcomed 20,000 refugees from Syria and Iraq in an unprecedented move only a few days ago, the German state has yet to take an official position on the issue. A steadfast German Chancellor Angela Merkel called this challenge "breathtaking" and tried to reassure German citizens that the crisis was manageable. The humane approach of the Bavarian people towards these refugees complicates the Schengen Agreement that dictates intra-EU movement of peoples across 26 countries.

Today, Europe is overwhelmed by the tsunami wave of refugees who await their fate on its southern borders and have flooded over into the core. These refugees are bound to cause major social, political, cultural, economic and demographic upheavals in an ethnically homogenous Europe. The consequences of this demographic distortion may result in a re-conceptualisation of a borderless Europe. The EU is synonymous with economic prosperity and trade regulations, which provide the cohesion of 'good friends in good times'. Till now, the strength of the EU has not been tested in a humanitarian crisis of this nature and magnitude. Europe's territorial integrity was not impacted on a major scale -- except for the Kosovo crisis and the collapse of Yugoslavia along with the USSR.

Whether the EU would emerge stronger as a politico-economic regional organisation or not after it copes with the recent refugee crisis based on common treaties and borders, remains to be seen. Importantly, the EU would have to formulate a border management policy related to Europe's outer perimeter which runs along the Mediterranean coastline from where most of the sea-borne refugees enter Europe from time to time.

UN award for leadership on climate change

United Nations: Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has been declared as one of the winners of the UN Champions of the Earth award in recognition of her “leadership and vision” in both making climate change an issue of national priority and advocating for a global response.

“Serving as Prime Minister of Bangladesh – one of the world’s least-developed countries – Sheikh Hasina has proven that investing in climate change is conducive to achieving social and economic development,” said the announcement issued by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), which confers the awards.

UNEP noted that Bangladesh is one of the world’s most populated countries, with over 159 million people. It is also one of the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Cyclones, floods and droughts have long been part of the country’s history, but they have intensified in recent years.

“Through a number of forward-looking policy initiatives and investments, Bangladesh has placed confronting the challenge of climate change at the core of its development,” UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said. “These initiatives, from climate change adaptation measures to ecosystem preservation legislation, mean that current and future generations of Bangladeshis are better prepared to address climate change risks and reverse the impacts of environmental degradation,” he said.

He added that Hasina has demonstrated “leadership and vision” in both changing climate change an issue of national priority and advocating for an ambitious global response. “As an early adopter and advocate of climate change adaptation policy, she continues to be an example to follow as world leaders seek to take action on climate change as part of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris climate conference in December,” he added.

The award cites, among other initiatives, the progressive Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan of 2009, which made the South Asian nation the first developing country to frame such a coordinated action plan. Bangladesh is also the first country to set up its own Climate Change Trust Fund, supported by nearly USD 300 million of domestic resources from 2009-2012.

The award also noted that the Bangladesh government currently earmarks 6 to 7 per cent of its annual budget – someUSD 1 billion – on climate change adaptation, with only 25 per cent of this coming from international donors. In addition, under her leadership, the Bangladesh Constitution was amended in 2011 to include a constitutional directive to the State to protect the environment and natural resources for current and future generations.

“As one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, Bangladesh understands the importance of addressing the impact of climate change. The country is already experiencing its detrimental effects, and it is often the poorest and marginalised who feel it most,” said Robert Watkins, UN Resident Coordinator in Bangladesh. The awards will be handed out at a special ceremony on September 27 here at the close of the Sustainable Development Summit.

Expert Group on tackling Cyber Crime submitted its report

Union Home Minister asked for immediate processing and its implementation

An Expert Group constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs on Dec.24, 2014 submitted its report on “Roadmap for Effectively Tackling Cyber Crimes in the Country” to the Ministry of Home Affairs after examining the global practices on cyber crime prevention.

The Union Home Minister Shri Rajnath Singh took a presentation from the Members of the Committee here today which was also attended by the Minister of State for Home Affairs Shri Haribhai Parathibhai Chaudhary, Shri Rajiv Mehrishi, Home Secretary, Shri Ashok Prasad, Secretary (IS), members of the Expert Group and senior officers of MHA.

Shri Rajnath Singh expressed keen interest in the issues relating to cyber crime and its impact on the public. He extensively dwelled on the criminal and other activities on the internet which directly impacted on the general public particularly women and children and the establishment of appropriate infrastructure to redress such grievances in convenient and time bound manner.

The Home Minister expressed serious concern on the growth in cyber crime as revealed by the statistics of National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB). Shri Rajnath Singh directed the MHA to come up with concrete proposal regarding infrastructure, research, people friendly interface so that the matter could be considered at the highest level in a well defined timeframe.

The five-member Expert Study Group comprising of Dr. Gulshan Rai, National Cyber Security Coordinator, Professor N. Balakrishnan, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Dr. Rajat Moona, Director General, Center for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Pune, Shri B.J. Srinath, Director General Cert-In, Dr. Manindra Aggarwal, Professor Computer Science, IIT Kanpur and Dr D. Das, Professor IIIT Bangalore and Shri Kumar Alok, Joint Secretary (Centre State), made its recommendations on measures required to control cyber crime including legal and technical measures.

The Expert Group was set up with the main objective of:

I. Preparing a Road Map for effectively tackling the Cyber Crime in the country and give suitable recommendations on all its facets.

II. Recommending possible partnerships with Public and Private Sector, NGOs, International Bodies and International NGOs.