Saturday, April 9 2005 11:12 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

United Nations: Rejecting the contention that expansion of UN Security Council (UNSC) through a General Assembly vote would lead to dangerous divisions, India has asserted that those giving this argument want to prevent the democratisation of the powerful body.

Branding as recipe for inaction the contention that the Council's expansion awaited evolution of total consensus among the 191-member of the General Assembly, India's UN Ambassador Nirupam Sen pointed out that voting was a democratic procedure and provided for in the charter of the world body.

Intervening in the debate on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's reforms proposals yesterday (Apr 8, 2005), he firmly rejected the suggestion that there should be no deadline for the consensus building process, emphasising that it would just mean delaying giving representation to developing countries indefinitely.

Rejecting arguments of a few countries, including the US and China, that the UNSC expansion through a vote in the General Assembly would lead to dangerous divisions and affect its effectiveness, Sen asserted that these nations fear slightest erosion of dominance of the permanent five members and want to prevent democratisation of the powerful body.

India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, comprising Group of Four (G-4), want to move a set of resolutions in the Assembly in next few months seeking expansion of the Council, permanent seats for themselves and amendment of charter for the purpose.

Annan had proposed that member States reach an agreement on expansion of the Council before mid September summit of the world leaders at the United Nations.

The US and China are among those opposing expansion of the Council through the vote as also Annan's deadline, calling it "artificial".

Diplomats expressed surprise that the language used by US and China in their presentations to the Assembly was similar and they came on the eve of the meeting of "like-minded nations" called by Pakistan and Italy who favour consensus and oppose expansion in the permanent membership of the Council.

"To speak of artificial deadlines after a decade spent in consultations on this issue is a little extreme. To say that developing countries including from Africa, should be included and then propose a process that would exclude them indefinitely is no great service to the developing world," Sen told the Assembly.

He pointed out that there is "broad difference" among three European members - Russia, Britain and France - and two non-European members - the US and China on the issue.

The non-European members, he said, have opposed broad agreement and early decisions and repeatedly emphasised the virtues of consensus and the evil of artificial deadlines.

When even five cannot reach consensus among themselves, how could one expect consensus among 191 members? he asked.

If consensus is considered such a vital principle, Sen said why they do not adopt it in the Council for taking all-important decisions by abolition of veto. "Consensus, like charity, should surely begin at home," he remarked.

"They know perfectly well that this (consensus) would paralyse decision-making in the Security Council. But there is no hesitation in paralysing decision-making in the General Assembly. By a curious coincidence both statements (of the US and China) are entirely silent on revitalisation of the General Assembly.