Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Reading Between the Lines of the “Cameron Letter”: Musical Diplomatic Chairs

It seems like a long time ago when China announced on January 27, 2015 that it was implementing its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) on a much grander scale than originally publicly proposed[i]. A few days later, on February 2, 2015, China announced in a joint statement issued with Russia and India that it was not only convening its own ‘new world order’[ii], the stated function of the United Nations under its Charter, but that is was also supporting India’s longstanding bid to become one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)[iii].  But, it was less than 10 months ago when these two consecutive announcements were made[iv].
At the time, the significance of these announcements was obscured by the Israel-Palestinian stand-off and rampant allegations of unaddressed genocide in multiple hot spots. Over time, it has been the Syrian refugee crisis, the global quest for a solution to the multi-fractioned Syrian war and, most recently, the Cameron letter proposing that Britain break its ties with the European Union if four key demands are not met.
The announcements from earlier in the year were neither spurious nor have they been forgotten.  It is British Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement that the United Kingdom intends to exit the European Union and the recent state visits by China and India to Britain that have surreptitiously brought the announcements from earlier in the year back into the news; albeit not front page news.
Everything that occurs in our world is interdependent and interconnected.  To understand the geopolitical implications, these events must read in tandem with Britain, France, Germany, China, India and Russia’s recent foreign policy statements and their contemporaneous inter-related agreements:
March 12, 2015     The United Kingdom announced that it was joining the AIIB, becoming the first major Western Country to do so[v].  The decision was made without any consultation through diplomatic channels with the United States[vi].
March 13, 2015     “[Britain’s] Chancellor [George Osborne] has led the way in encouraging Chinese investment in the next generation of civil nuclear power plants in the UK and he ensured that the City of London would become the base for the first clearing house for the yuan outside Asia[vii].”
March 17, 2015      France, Germany and Italy announce that they would be joining the AIIB[viii].
September 21, 2015     In an article published by The Guardian, George Osborne and Jim O’Neill, the UK’s commercial secretary to the Treasury, jointly stated that “There are those who say we should fear China’s rise — that we should somehow guard ourselves against it. But we reject such thinking, which would simply leave the UK slipping behind. Instead, we should embrace it. We want a golden relationship with China that will help foster a golden decade for this country. It is an opportunity that the UK can’t afford to miss. Simply put, we want to make the UK China’s best partner in the West[ix].”
October 17, 2015     Chinese present Xi Jinping begins a four-day state visit to Britain, making him the first Chinese head of state to do so in over a decade.
Photo Courtesy of The Guardian
October 21, 2015   Over a four-day period, Britain and China executed deals exceeding $60bn[x], that “lifted China-Britain relations to a “golden era””.
October 21, 2015    “It is probably the most comprehensive push by any Western country on commercial ties with China, at the expense of any of the other considerations,” says Andrew Small, a transatlantic fellow in the Asia program at the German Marshall Fund in Washington (Emphasis Added)[xi].
October 21, 2015      Articles from around the world appeared questioning the motives for and implications of the full range of agreements entered into by China and Britain’s private and public sectors:
  1. The nuclear power plant China agreed to build and finance in Britain was questioned on many grounds, from interfering with global intelligence to Britain’s failure to avail itself of readily available green energy sources[xii].
  2. Having opened the door for Chinese enterprises to scrutinize Britain’s energy and telecommunication assets, and having agreed to train Chinese peacekeeping forces, the United States questioned the impact on NATO and other peacekeeping missions[xiii], in which China has historically refrained from participating despite being one of the UNSC’s five permanent members[xiv].
  3. tanding and ongoing human rights violations did not go unnoticed[xv].
  4. Britain’s steelworkers call for action as the industry was adversely affected by British-Chinese relations[xvi].
  5. The “ultra royal” welcome characterized by “lavish pageantry and obsequious attention” was noted as being extravagant even for Britain’s royals[xvii].
October 22, 2015     It was questioned whether the  “relationship between China and Britain would bring China closer to the United States or its fellow European Union members, particularly France and Germany, with the latter being complicated by Britain’s earlier statements that it intended to exit the European Union”[xviii].
Other than China and Russia, the United States, Britain and France[xix] hold the other three permanent seats on the UNSC, one of which is coveted by India[xx], augmented by ten rotating, nonpermanent UNSC members[xxi].
October 26, 2015     “The German and French ambassadors to China published a joint letter in the Chinese press calling the two countries China’s core partners ahead of visits to China by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande[xxii].”
October 28, 2015      Following years of strained diplomatic relations, India hosted the largest gathering of African leaders, urged to attend by China. The rationale was simple:  “New Delhi’s failure to secure backing from African nations for its permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council jolted the government out of its slumber, galvanizing it to strengthen ties with a continent that has often complained of indifference by New Delhi[xxiii].”
November 9, 2015     Days prior to India Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s British visit, an article appeared in an Indian newspaper summarizing Mr. Modi’s intention that India secure one of the five UNSC permanent member seats[xxiv].
November 10, 2015     It was reported that, “David Cameron is enthusiastic about India as a permanent UNSC member[xxv].”
November 10, 2015     A flurry of news articles appeared covering India Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s upcoming visit to Britain[xxvi].
November 10, 2015     Mr. Cameron issued the letter containing four areas that must be resolved in Britain’s favor for it to remain a part of the European Union as it is currently configured or as it may be reconfigured:
The prime minister said he wants the UK to stay in a reformed EU, but he has not ruled out recommending leaving if he cannot secure the change he wants with the leaders of the other 27 EU countries.
  1. Protection of the single market for Britain and other non-euro countries
  2. Boosting competitiveness by setting a target for the reduction of the “burden” of red tape
  3. Exempting Britain from “ever-closer union” and bolstering national parliaments
  4. Restricting EU migrants’ access to in-work benefits such as tax credits[xxvii]
November 11, 2014     It was reported that in a speech given the day prior Mr. Cameron stated, “I say to those who are thinking about voting to leave. Think very carefully, because this choice cannot be undone.”
This statement issued contrary to that Article 50, paragraph 5 of the Lisbon Treaty, which governs the European Union, unequivocally states: “If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”
Article 49 provides that: “Any European State which respects the values referred to in Article 2 and is committed to promoting them may apply to become a member of the Union.” It then details how the process would occur[xxviii].
November 12, 2015     Denmark’s prime minister gave a “guarded welcome” to Mr. Cameron’s demands for European Union reforms[xxix].
November 12, 2015     Germany voiced its interest in working with Great Britain[xxx].
November 12, 2015    Germany, France and the Netherlands announced upcoming diplomatic trips to China[xxxi].
November 12, 2015     Commentators began questioning Mr. Cameron’s motivation[xxxii].
November 12, 2015     A news article appeared purporting to clarify China’s January 2015 statement about a “new world order”:
One needs to note that the term China uses is “international order” or “international system.” What China is referring to is the international institutions within the United Nations structure to which China is an equal member and has a sense of belonging. China is also an important initiator and contributor to this order [xxxiii].
November 12, 2015     On the first day of Mr. Modi’s visit to Britain, more than £9bn of business deals were concluded.
“Cameron said he wanted to focus on Modi’s record as a trailblazer for hi-tech industries in a series of smart cities across India, which will be linked by 10,000km of new roads. Modi announced that a rupee bond is to be issued in London to raise funds for the expansion of the Indian railway system[xxxiv].”
November 12, 2015     A Russian newspaper reported that “The United Kingdom “firmly” supports Indian membership in the UN Security Council, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday alongside Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi”[xxxv]”.
November 13, 2015     With formal talks to convene this coming week, the European Union issued its first formal statement in response to the “Cameron Letter”:
Reaching a deal on David Cameron’s EU renegotiation goals will be “very, very tough”, European Council President Donald Tusk has said.
In his first comment since the UK prime minister wrote to him setting out his objectives, Mr Tusk said there was “no guarantee” of a deal by December.
“I have to say that it will be really difficult to find an agreement,” added the European Council president [xxxvi].
November 13, 2015     The French government, through French digital affairs minister Axelle Lemaire, issued a preliminary statement that there was “…no willingness, at least in the short term” to change EU treaties to accommodate the UK’s request to restrict newly-arrived EU citizens’ access to benefits.
This is not something that the French government would see as being reasonable… So there’s the question of is it legal or not and there’s the question of is it good to raise the issue at the moment and this, the timing is probably not so good[xxxvii].”
Only as the coming weeks play themselves might some answers be found to what are and have been open-ended questions for some time now as to:
  1. The fate of the European Union;
  2. China’s intentions as to its role in the United Nations and as a permanent member of the UNSC;
  3. Whether composition of the five permanent UNSC members changes to include India and, if so, which country – France, Britain or the United States loses its permanent seat[xxxviii];
  4. The economic power that the AIIB will ultimately wield, including its impact on the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the Euro and the dollar; and
  5. How the AIIB will be used by China to impact foreign relations[xxxix].
All that is known for sure is that everything is interconnected and interdependent.
About the Author
Cynthia M. Lardner holds a journalism degree, she is an attorney, and has trained as a clinical (school and agency) therapist. Her philosophy is to collectively influence conscious global thinking understanding that everything and everyone is subject to change given the right circumstances; Standard Theory or Theory of Everything.
Ms. Lardner has accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus and LinkedIn, as well as accounts under the pseudonym of Deveroux Cleary, and is globally ranked in the top 1% of all account holders for her outreach and influence.
Having just relocated to Den Hague or The Hague, she is currently looking for a challenging position that will fully utilize her collective skill set.
[i] Lardner, Cynthia, “Geopolitical Meltdown”, Game of Thrones Meets House of Cards, April 9, 2015, as found on the www athttps://cynthiamlardner.wordpress.com; and athttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/game-thrones-meets-house-cards-geopoliticalmeltdown-cynthia?trk=mp-reader-card
(“{S]urreptitiously striking a potentially deadly blow to global financial stability, China concurrently moved ahead in implementing its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).  The stated rationale for its necessity differs radically from the underlying reason.
The reason articulated by the Peoples Republic of China:
The AIIB is a regional international financial institution originally proposed by the Chinese government in 2013 and launched in October 2014. The objective of the bank is to finance road, rail, port, and other infrastructure construction projects [xlvii].
The actual impetus is quite disparate from the stated rationale:
Reforms to give China a little more say at the International Monetary Fund have been delayed for years, and even if they go through America will still retain far more power. China is, understandably, impatient for change. It is therefore taking matters into its own hands.
Dig deeper:
Setting up rivals to the IMF and World Bank is easier than running them(Emphasis Added) [xlviii] (citations omitted).
[ii] Id., citing Ng, Teddy, “India and Russia back China’s call for ‘new world order’:  Foreign ministers of two nations meet Chinese counterpart in Beijing as China ‘seeks to counterbalance US influence’ in the Asia-Pacific”, February 3, 2015, South China Daily Post, as found on the www athttp://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1699900/india-russia-back-call-new-world-order; Krishnan, Ananth, “China and Russia back India for seat on UN Security Council”, February 2, 2015, The Daily Mail India, as found on the www athttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2937182/China-Russia-India-seat-security-council.html#ixzz3QhdEzHPy
(“The statement further declared that the three nations, with China at the helm, would “build a more just, fair and stable international political and economic order” and a “multi-polar” world”.   Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi proclaimed, “We advocate the principle of partnership rather than alliance,””).
[iii] Id.  (“First, China, along with Russia, two of the five permanent United Nations Security Council (UNSC) members, issued a statement on February 2, 2015 supporting India’s bid for one of five permanent UNSC seats [xi].  If India supplanted one of the remaining three permanent UNSC members, Great Britain, France or the United States, would lose its seat (citation omitted).
[iv] Id.  (“In less than two months, with stealth-like precision, China strategically and concurrently implemented two initiatives presenting an imminent threat to financial stability and global security.”).
[v] “UK announces plans to join Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank”, March 12, 2015, HM Treasury, Gov.UK, as found on the www athttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-announces-plans-to-join-asian-infrastructure-investment-bank
(“[T]he UK will play a key role in ensuring that the AIIB embodies the best standards in accountability, transparency and governance, which will be essential to ensuring the success of the initiative and to unlocking the potential benefits for the wider global economy.).
See also Gray, Eliza, Endnote Supra 15 (“The AIIB is an example of China’s desire to establish a new set of world economic institutions to shift power away from the US. Britain’s joining of the bank caused tension with the US, as well as with other Western allies like Germany and France, that would have preferred to join the bank in a united front. European countries are eager for China to invest capital in infrastructure projects, which the Europeans see as an opportunity to boost their sluggish economies. For Britain’s part, Osborne has encouraged China to invest in building things like homes and high speed rail, in efforts to re-invigorate the Northern cities of Manchester and Leeds.”).
[vi] Dyer, Geoff, “US Attacks UK’s ‘constant Accommodation’ with China”, Financial Times, March 12, 2015, Financial Times, as found on the www athttp://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/31c4880a-c8d2-11e4-bc64-00144feab7de.html.
[vii] “US Anger at Britain Joining Chinese-led Investment Bank AIIB”, The Guardian, March 13, 2015, as found on the www athttp://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/13/white-house-pointedly-asks-uk-to-use-its-voice-as-part-of-chinese-led-bank.
[viii] Thomas, Andrea and Hutzler, Thomas, “Germany, France, Italy to Join China-Backed Development Bank:  The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is seen as challenger to Washington-based World Bank”, March 17, 2015, Wall Street Journal, as found on the www athttp://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-france-italy-to-join-china-backed-development-bank-1426597078.
[ix] Zhang, Yuanan, “China-U.S. v China-UK: Two Very Different Kinds Of Diplomacy”, November 11, 2015, World Crunch, as found on the www athttp://www.worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/china-u.s.-v-china-uk-two-very-different-kinds-of-diplomacy/tpp-jinping-hollande-merkel-cold-war-diplomacy-relationship/c9s19992/.
[x] “China, Britain Sign Business Deals Worth More Than $60B”, October 21, 2015, Voice of America, as found on the wwwhttp://m.voanews.com/a/3016554.html
(“The Chinese state-owned National Petroleum Corporation and British oil giant BP are participating in the development projects.”); and
Gray, Eliza, “Britain’s Courting of China Raises Concerns Among Its Allies”, October 21, 2015, Time, as found on the www athttp://time.com/4079509/britain-china-courting/
(China’s four day state visit to Britain was expected to yield more that $46 billion in investment deal, “…including an investment in a nuclear power plant in Southwestern England. The Chinese will provide 30% of the funding to the plant, which will be built by a French energy company and a Chinese state-owned energy firm. Construction and management of the plant will create thousands of jobs and it is expected to provide 7% of the U.K.’s energy needs when it is completed.).
[xi] Gray, Eliza, Id. (“Though Britain is not alone in desiring Chinese capital, experts say it is unusual for a Western country to be so unreserved about the courtship. In September, Osborne travelled to China and declared Britain “China’s best partner” in the West, and called for a “golden era,” between the two countries.”
[xii] Austin, Greg, “Just how dangerous is China-Britain nuclear agreement?”, October 25, 2015, Japan Times, as found on the www athttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/10/25/commentary/world-commentary/just-dangerous-china-britain-nuclear-agreement/.
The U.K.-China nuclear deal is particularly complicated by the fact that it is this sector that has been named by the U.S. as one of the main victims of Chinese commercial espionage by cyber means.
The mix of competing interests opposed to the U.K.-China nuclear deal has been enriched by environmentalists who have argued that Britain need not expose itself to any possible Chinese threat because it did not have to go down the nuclear energy path at all, and could rely instead on other renewable resources.
[xiii] LaCorre, Phillippe, “What the budding China-UK romance means for the global economy”, October 22, 2015, Brookings, as found on the www athttp://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/10/22-china-uk-relations-lecorre
(“The United States is worried about a rising China in the military field. Six months after the British sudden decision to join AIIB without seeking its advice, Washington has concerns about one of its key European and NATO allies, giving away some of its energy and telecommunication assets to Chinese enterprises…. The United Kingdom is also helping China train some of its peacekeeping forces (in September, China has committed to stabilize a U.N. peacekeeping standby force of 8,000 troops) and has been sending numerous consultants to China in fields as diverse as finance, infrastructure management, higher education, and civil engineering.”).
[xiv] Lardner, Cynthia, Infra Endnote i.
[xv] “Britain’s fawning over China is shameful and utterly cynical: How cheaply the British government throws away its beliefs in human rights and democracy”, November 1, 2015, The Guardian, as found on the www athttp://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2015/nov/01/letters-china-xi-jinping-britain-visit
(“Meanwhile, British police arrested a survivor of the Tiananmen crackdown and raided his home after he stood in front of President Xi Jinping’s motorcade.  Organised pro-Beijing crowds were allowed to drown out China critics.  At home, Xi has overseen the most severe crackdown on civil society since the Tiananmen Square massacre 26 years ago. Hundreds of lawyers, liberal scholars, journalists and activists have been jailed or detained since he took power. David Cameron remained silent publicly on human rights.
And what about Britain’s former colony, Hong Kong? Britain was a party to the joint declaration and yet when the Chinese government turned its back on its promise for genuine universal suffrage and insisted that candidates for the leadership of the territory must first be vetted by Beijing, the British government hardly said a thing. The message from Britain was loud and clear: you carry on with the torture, forced abortions, executions, jailing of government critics and other rights abuses – we simply don’t give a damn. Who cares about values when we are talking money? Yes, Britain, one of the oldest democracies in the world, can really be bought so cheaply.
And for the human rights campaigners in China who brave their lives to fight against a repressive regime, this is a devastating blow to their morale. To thousands of prisoners of conscience, what David Cameron and the royal family have done amounts to a slap in the face. Not only that their government cares little about them, but the free world that is supposed to be champion of rights and freedoms has abandoned them. Yet these brave people are only a minority in China. Few living under a repressive regime can afford to pay the heavy price for speaking out against injustice, so most people choose to stay silent. But the politicians and royalty in the west have nothing to lose, yet they have chosen to be complicit in the endorsement of abuses and lies.”).
See also Zhang, Yuanan, Infra Endnote ix (“It took a full year, only after Cameron reiterated that Britain recognizes Tibet as part of China and that it does not support “Tibetan independence,” for the frozen bilateral relationship to begin to thaw again.”).
[xvi] “UK steelmakers call for immediate EU action on Chinese imports,” November 9, 2015, Reuters, as found on the www athttp://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0SY00B20151109?irpc=932
(“Last month, Chinese President Xi Jinping said his country had reduced capacity in its steel industry by 77.8 million tonnes, fending off criticism that Chinese exports had brought the British steel sector to its knees.”).
[xvii] Heaver, Stewart, “To kowtow or not is no longer the question when Britain and China deal”, November 14, 2015, Post Magazine, as found on the www athttp://m.scmp.com/magazines/post-magazine/article/1877753/kowtow-or-not-no-longer-question-when-britain-and-china-deal
(“An “ultra royal welcome” was afforded President Xi Jinping during his state visit to Britain last month. The considerable attention to etiquette and protocol paid by the hosts doubtless contributed to the success of the trip, and the heralding of a new “golden era” in Sino-British trade relations.
The positive impact of the lavish pageantry and obsequious attention heaped on the visiting Chinese delegation could not have contrasted more acutely with Britain’s first diplomatic attempt to establish Sino-British trade relations, in 1793.”).
[xviii] LaCorre, Phillippe, Infra Endnote xiii  (“Britain could possibly help China bring the United States closer to the negotiating table if the security situation in Asia Pacific were to deteriorate.
This will not be particularly easy for Britain, which has retreated somewhat from its global role. But China has other options within the EU: France was the first Western country to establish full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in 1964 and retains, as another permanent member of the U.N. Security council, a good relationship with Beijing.
Germany is China’s top European economic partner and the two countries have developed a mature relationship fields such as automobile, transport, and, energy. China also increasingly considers Germany to be the leader of Europe and will welcome German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the end of October for her eighth official visit since 2005.
China has between now and the British referendum on EU membership to find out. David Cameron may have proudly declared to the Chinese media that the United Kingdom was “uniquely placed to make the case for deepening the European Union’s trade and investment relationship with China,” but the truth of that statement remains to be seen. Like the rest of the world, China is aware that the next twelve or fifteen months could see a British exit from the EU, which would lose Britain much of its advantage over its European rivals. If that was to be the case, Germany and France, who have also been baffled by Britain’s pro-China stance, would be ready to step in.).
[xix] LaCorre, Phillippe, Infra Endnote xiii  (“China has other options within the EU: France was the first Western country to establish full diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China in 1964 and retains, as another permanent member of the U.N. Security council, a good relationship with Beijing.”).
See also Marlowe, Lara, “France-China statement heralds progress on path to climate conference”, November 5, 2015, The Irish Times, as found on the www athttp://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/france-china-statement-heralds-progress-on-path-to-climate-conference-1.2418789; and “Spotlight: China condemns Paris attacks, warns nationals in France to stay alert”, November 14, 2015, Xinhua, as found on the www athttp://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-11/14/c_134816015.html.
[xx] See gen Sharma, Smita, “How China and Pakistan almost scuttled India’s bid for Security Council seat”, October 28, 2015, Daily O, as found on the www athttp://www.dailyo.in/politics/india-africa-summit-2015-unga-unsc-permanent-member-uganda-kutesa-modi/story/1/7052.html.
[xxi] “Ukraine, Egypt, Japan among new members of UN Security Council”, October 15, 2015, Deutsche Well, as found on the www athttp://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-egypt-japan-among-new-members-of-un-security-council/a-18785835 (“Five countries have won non-permanent seats at the UN Security Council after running unopposed. The new members are likely to draw controversy amid regional tensions around the globe.
Ukraine, Egypt, Japan, Senegal and Uruguay were announced on Thursday as the new non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The five countries ran unopposed.
The UN Security Council consists of five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) and ten non-permanent members, each of whom is elected for a two-year term.
The other five current non-permanent members are Angola, Malaysia, New Zealand, Spain and Venezuela, who will step down in 2016.”).
[xxii] Zhang, Yuanan, Infra Endnote ix.
[xxiii] Pant, Harsh, “India playing catch-up to China in Africa”, October 28, 2015, The Japan Times, as found on the www athttp://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/10/28/commentary/world-commentary/india-playing-catch-china-africa/.
[xxiv] Modi, Modi: One Man, Multiple Roles, November 9, 2015, India Today, as found on the www at http://m.indiatoday.in/story/modi-modi-one-man-multiple-roles/1/520089.html.
(“Modi believes that it is time a nation that houses one-sixth of humanity and is soon to be the world’s third-largest economy, takes its rightful place in the sun. He also reckons that with the US on a gradual decline and the Chinese shaky, India as the world’s largest democracy has the opportunity to lead the world if it plays its cards well.
As part of the quest for that status, Modi is pulling out all stops for India to become a Permanent Member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a proposal that had been languishing since 2005. The UNSC is the diplomatic power club that currently has only five Permanent Members that also enjoy veto rights — the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. Now to gain entry into the UNSC, India needs the support of two-thirds of the members of the 193-strong General Assembly.”).
See also Parikh, Maithili., “Will India Make It To The United Nation’s Elite Clout?”, October 20, 2015, Youth Ki Awaaz, as found on the www athttp://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2015/10/india-un-security-council-seat/
(“The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has made a statement to the Russian media that since Africa, Asia and Latin America are under-represented at the UNSC, Russia supports Brazil and India’s application to be included among the ranks of its permanent members. He further stated that the developing countries required fair representation. While the Russians seem to be warming up to this idea, the other permanent members of the UNSC too seem keen for India to join their ranks.
Official records of the United States of America too suggest a dual stand; while the official statement of the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest states that President Obama would support India’s inclusion, a leaked report suggests that Prime Ministerial candidate Hillary Clinton ridicules such a prospect. Visibly, the only permanent member that has been ambiguous and non-committal to this prospect has been China, possibly due to their close ties with India’s neighbour, Pakistan. Since reform of the Security Council can only be undertaken once the entire body of permanent members votes in the affirmative along with 2/3 of its non-permanent members, the road seems rather uphill at least until China decides to support India.
Leading the non-permanent members opposing India’s permanent membership, is India’s nuclear arms rival, Pakistan and an interest group called the ‘United for Consensus’ or colloquially ‘The Coffee Club‘. Pakistan is bound to raise the apprehension of regional imbalance, drawing special attention to the ongoing Kashmir conflict between the two countries, which could definitely impede India’s campaign.”)
[xxv] “Modi In UK: What To Expect”, November 10, 2015, Swarajya, as found on the www at http://swarajyamag.com/world/modi-coming-to-london/.
[xxvi] Taylor, Adam, “India’s Modi goes to Britain as both hero and villain”, November 12, 2015, Wall Street Journal, as found on the www athttp://wpo.st/4qmm0; Sugden, Joanna, “Britain Rolls Out Red Carpet for Modi Amid Protests: The Itinerary”, November 10, 2015, Wall Street Journal, as found on the www at http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-30824; “Why Cameron is pulling out all the stops for India’s Modi, November 11, 2015, BBC News, as found on the www at  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-34773767;  “The links between the UK and India”, November 12, 2015, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34767180;  Shadbolt, Peter, “Why India is increasing its UK investments”, November 12, 2015, as found on the www athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34787765; and “Indian PM Modi due to arrive in UK for three-day”, November 12, 2015, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34790212.
[xxvii] “David Cameron sets out EU reform goals”, November 10, 2015, BBC News, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34770875
(“A spokesman for European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said Mr Cameron’s benefit restriction proposals were “highly problematic” as they affected the “fundamental freedoms of our internal market” and amounted to “direct discrimination between EU citizens”.
But he said the Commission viewed the letter as the starting point of negotiations and it would work with the PM for a “fair deal for Britain which is also fair for all the other member states”.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said “we want to work through these proposals with the aim of working towards a solution”.
“Some points are more difficult than others, but given that we are working in the spirit of wanting to reach a solution, I am reasonably confident that we can succeed. Germany will certainly do its bit to help as far as European rules permit,” she added.).
See also Shapiro, Ari, “Conservative Victory Moves U.K. Closer To EU Exit”, May 8, 2015, NPR News, May 8, 2015, as found on the www athttp://n.pr/1cgNN42.
[xxviii] Kaseem, Rasam, “CAMERON LIED IN EU SPEECH: CLAIMED ‘CHOICE CANNOT BE UNDONE’, LISBON TREATY CONTRADICTS”, November 11, 2015, Breitbart News, as found on the www athttp://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/cameron-lied-in-eu-speech-claimed-choice-cannot-be-undone-lisbon-treaty-contradicts/ (British Prime Minister David Cameron appears to have lied in his big European Union referendum speech at Chatham House yesterday, telling the British public that if they vote to leave the EU, the “choice cannot be undone”.).
[xxix] Id.
[xxx] “The Latest:  Denmark Cautiously welcomed UK reform demands,” November 10, 2015, The Washington Post, as found on the www athttp://wpo.st/uqQm0
(“In a message directed to Cameron on Twitter, Lars Loekke Rasmussen said “Good basis for concrete negotiations. It will be difficult. I hope we will succeed because we need a strong UK in EU.”
Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka says he considers the most controversial of British Prime Minister David Cameron’s demands for European Union reforms the one about limiting the free-movement principle.
Sobotka says that “the right to work and live anywhere in the EU is absolutely essential to us due to our historical experience.”).
See also Kenyon, Peter, “David Cameron Delivers List Of Reforms For Britain To Stay In EU”, November 10, 2015, NPR News, as found on the www athttp://www.npr.org/2015/11/10/455510011/david-cameron-delivers-list-of-reforms-for-britain-to-stay-in-eu?sc=17&f=1004&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app.
[xxxi] “Busy week of diplomacy sees EU leaders lining up for China trip”, November 13, 2015, The Telegraph, as found on the www athttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/china-watch/politics/11980805/eu-leaders-china-trip.html
(“President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the United Kingdom prompts European continent leaders to follow suit with a visit to China.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel arrived in China on Thursday for a two-day visit, while French President Francois Hollande has scheduled a trip on Nov 2. King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands is already here for a state visit from Oct 25 to 29.”).
[xxxii] Mardel, Mark, “Cameron’s EU renegotiations a mere sideshow”, November 12, 2015, as found on the www at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34790247\
(“…suggests that Mr Cameron has made the calculation that the renegotiation doesn’t really matter very much. Of course he will swear blind that it does, but politically it may be more akin to a piece of theatre than the building blocks of an argument about policy.).
[xxxiii] Ying, Fu, “Under the Same Roof: China’s View of Global Order”, November 12, 2015, World Post, as found on the www athttp://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8537918
(Chinese President Xi Jinping, when visiting the U.S. in September this year, expressed his views at the United Nations General Assembly. He said China will remain a staunch defender of the international order; we will continue to uphold the international order and system underpinned by the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter.
Indeed, most of what China offers to the world, be it in the economic field or in the security fields, revolves around the U.N. system and is under the U.N. auspices.”).
[xxxiv] Watt, Nicholas, “David Cameron: India and UK are no longer imprisoned by the past”, November 12, 2015, The Guardian, as found on the www athttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/12/david-cameron-narendra-modi-india-prime-minister-uk-visit.
[xxxv] UK ‘Firmly’ Backs Permanent Indian UN Security Council Membership – Cameron”, November 12, 2015, Sputnik, as found on the www athttp://sputniknews.com/politics/20151112/1029992670/uk-supports-india-unsc-membership.html#ixzz3rMUYVr1O.
[xxxvi] “Donald Tusk: Deal on UK’s EU renegotiation ‘very tough'”, November 13, 2015, BBC News, as found on the www athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34803222 (Cameron failed to attend an EU summit meeting on the refugee as India’s Prime Minister Modi was visiting Britain).
[xxxvii] Id.
[xxxviii] There has been a push for United Nations reform both internally and by external peacekeeping groups.  At the core of the proposed reforms are sweeping changes to the UNSC so as to provide greater regional representation to those nations most affected by its decisions.  See Lardner, Cynthia, Infra Endnote i, citing Lee, Michael, R., “On UNSC Reform, New UfC Paper Calls for Transparency, No New Permanent Seats”, March 25, 2015, Inner City Press, as found on the www athttp://www.innercitypress.com/unscreform1ufc032515.html;  Swart, L., and Pace, Cile, “Changing the Composition of the Security Council: Is There a Viable Solution?”, March 1, 2015, Center for U.N. Reform, as found on the www athttp://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/629; and Annan, Kofi, “The New World Disorder: Challenges for the UN in the 21st Century”, Andrew Carnegie Distinguished Lecture on Conflict Prevention, October 23, 2014, as found on the www athttp://kofiannanfoundation.org/newsroom/speeches/2014/10/new-world-disorder-challenges-un-21st-century.
[xxxix] Lardner, Cynthia, Infra Endnote i, citing, Wei, Lingling, and Davis, Bob, “China Forgoes Veto Power at New Bank to Win Key European Nations’ Support: U.S. is concerned new bank would be an instrument of Beijing’s foreign policy,” March 24, 2015, Wall Street Journal, as found on the www athttp://www.wsj.com/articles/china-forgoes-veto-power-at-new-bank-to-win-key-european-nations-support-1427131055?cb=logged0.41626988095231354(“Beijing still is likely to have the upper hand, even without veto power, over major decisions, said people involved in the discussions. That is likely to fuel concerns—expressed by the U.S., India and others—that the bank will ultimately be a tool of Chinese foreign policy (Emphasis Added).”).

No comments:

Post a Comment