 Welcome to the next International Relations Capsule for the Shankar PAS Academy. Today we are discussing India as President of the UN Security Council. As everyone knows, India will be chairing, India is chairing the sessions of the Security Council this month that is August. The Security Council is chaired every month by one of the 15 members of the Security Council by alphabetical order rotation. Normally in the 24 months term of a member, each member gets a month at least and sometimes a second time is all because of the alphabetical order. So India will be President of the Security Council again in December 2022, so we may have another chance. Of course you must remember that this is purely rotational and it depends on the number of members and the alphabetical order in which they are arranged. And permanent members and non-permanent members are alike in this, there is no distinction. But people often say why only for one month because a president does not get enough time to organize something or do something different. Within a month it is too short a period. But the saying goes that the permanent members do not want any non-permanent member to dominate the session for long. So they in any case control the Security Council because of the veto. And everybody takes a turn and therefore nobody gets any particular importance in this process. I mean this is just a talk at the United Nations. In fact, the presidency by the non-permanent members is often referred to parents handing over the steering wheel of the car to the children for a little while to try. But at the same time the parents will make sure that the gears, the brakes, the clutch will all be under their own control. They don't trust the children to play too long or drive too long. Because Security Council is definitely dominated by P5 because they can stop anything, they can start anything. And that is why they say that they want to keep a tight control and therefore it has been established that a country will be president only for 30 days. And then another country comes and takes over. The presidency basically is only the responsibility of chairing the sessions. The president does not have any other powers. Normally the president's responsibility is to consult the members of the Security Council. A lot, a large number of informal consultations are held to fix an agenda for the month of that month. And normally there are stories, there are agenda items considered month after the other, like several items in the Middle East. They are kind of constantly being discussed. And as you know the Security Council is supposed to be permanently in session. Any time of the day or night Security Council can be called. The only condition is that every member should be present. Somebody from every member state has to be present. That the full presence of the members is required. So as and when necessary the president can call these meetings and then informally consult them as to what are the items should come on. And they even prepare a scenario as to how the things will move. There is nothing surprising or unexpected in the Security Council normally. So that is really how the president angles the situation and he makes sure that the meetings are held properly and discussions are held. And then formal meetings are held to adopt decisions, take wards etc. So normally this is taken as a routine performance of the permanent representatives in the UN. But some countries take their own initiative during this period. Because that is a month when you have an important role as a prestige for the permanent representative. And everybody looks up to the president to direct the discussions etc. So when I was in Security Council we were president in 1992. And we didn't do anything special. What we did was the ambassador's womb that is the president of Security Council's womb. We put a picture of Mahamagant just to identify that. This is India. And also we serve Darjeeling tea to members because they sit there long hours. And so Darjeeling tea was served to give a flavor of India. Because we did not do anything special for the presidency of the Security Council. But this year we have decided to take several initiatives. First of all, the prime minister in a few hours from now will be chairing the session of the Security Council. Because it is up to the member state to decide who will chair these sessions. Normally it is the permanent representative but in certain cases foreign ministers come and chair. Prime minister is normally chair only if it is a head of state, head of government. In 1992 January when UK was president of the Security Council and that was just after the end of the Cold War. They decided to have a session exclusively for heads of government and heads of state. Narasimha Rao was the prime minister, travelled to New York to attend the session. And it was a difficult session because soon after the Cold War there was some enthusiasm to change everything in the UN. And the Security Council was supposed to take on some additional responsibilities particularly relating to the disarmament. So normally disarmament is not part of the Security Council. And this was rather unusual but then since it was at the head of state, head of government level there were not too many arguments. Whatever the president proposed people generally agreed. But we had a difficult problem that in the draft which was proposed by the British government. There was strong reference to the non-proliferation treaty which we have not signed. So we tried to explain to them that this would be a difficulties for our prime minister. But all the others, all the 14 others were very insistent on it. And therefore the statement was actually issued with regard to disarmament. And Mr. Narasimha Rao made a reservation on it that was a historic event. Of course many others tried to persuade him not to make a reservation because it was a Security Council decision. Anyway it was only a statement by the president, it was not a resolution. So there was a little bit of embarrassment but otherwise we managed it. Otherwise prime ministers do not attend and they do not also chair. But Mr. Modi has decided this time that he will chair one of the sessions. Unfortunately not in person but online. And in addition to that we have also decided that the three special subjects will be discussed during the month. Maybe three special sessions or maybe short or maybe several short sessions or whatever. So after consultation the members agreed to discuss three issues. One is maritime security. Second is peacekeeping operations. And the third is counter-terrorism. As we can imagine India is very interested in these things specifically. And other countries also agreed. Nobody objected. If a permanent member had objected we could not have these meetings. But there is always generally good will. Nobody stops anybody from raising any issue. So the prime minister will actually be chairing a session on maritime security. This has some significance because we are very much interested in the maritime security. The Indian Pacific is very much in focus. China is an issue. South China Sea issue. So there are very many things that India would like to discuss. And so will others. And I heard today that President Putin will also be participating in this discussion. We don't know whether there is any other head of state. So this meeting has become rather significant. Whatever may be the discussions we do not know whether there will be any decision taken or a statement made. But everybody will be free to come and make any statement they want to do. And we probably will try to summarize it as the president, the prime minister may be able to summarize some kind of conclusions. The other two issues will probably be chaired by the ex-survivalist minister. Mr. Jay Shankar will be traveling to New York to chair these sessions. And also barely Foreign Secretary Mr. Schringler may also go to New York to do the other sessions. One on peacekeeping operations and the other on counterterrorism. Peacekeeping operations, India has a special interest because India is one of the largest donors or suppliers or contributors to the peacekeeping operation. As Indian soldiers are in several peacekeeping operations and India is one of the largest contributors. And therefore we have some issues relating to the organization structure, how the other countries join. It's a long process but and also consultation. We insist that group contributors should also be consulted about the kind of activities peacekeeping operations will take. So over the years it has evolved, there are many rules and regulations. And so our role there since we are not a permanent member of the Security Council is basically discussing issues relating to the our peacekeeping operations. How Indians have been participating in and all the problems, the payment for peacekeeping operation not regularly paid. So sometimes the UN owes India a large amount of money at particular stages. So these are the issues that we might raise and we might also suggest that we discontinue some peacekeeping operations. Many peacekeeping operations started long ago are not able to be wound up because all the sides have to agree if something has to be wound up. The classic case is the United Nations military observers group for India and Pakistan. And this was as you know in the 40s, the late 40s. This was established after the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. And strangely these people are still there. Some 34 soldiers mostly from Latin America etc. are still there. We don't recognize them because after the ceasefire line became LOC. We believe that the United Nations has no hold there. But Pakistan insists that it should be there until Pakistan also agrees. This will go on unnecessary expenditure for the United Nations. We don't allow them to come to our side of the border. But we allow them facilities in Delhi and Pakistan makes much of their activities. They make some report about a border incident or something. They report to the Secretary General. Secretary General collects all this and put in your report. But we normally keep away from all this. We don't recognize it. It's a good idea if we can somehow persuade the Pakistanis to terminate this. There may be others like that. But I don't expect that to happen. Because Pakistan will insist that this is a security council issue. And then the ceasefire has to be observed etc. So I don't think it will work. But maybe some kind of housekeeping will be done. I don't expect any major decisions. Counter terrorism of course is our favorite subject as you know. We have been victims of it for more than 30 years. And if India speaks about the UN, definitely that the subject of terrorism will come. There is a general agreement about discussing terrorism. Because we are not the only victims. Even Pakistan claims that is a victim of terrorism. So discussion itself is not an issue. But to come to any decisions will be difficult. We just generalizations. Terrorism of any kind is not acceptable. That is all that is going to happen. I don't think there will be any particular agreement. Because it becomes India versus Pakistan and there are others. And as you know the terrorism has not even been defined in the United Nations. Because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And therefore everybody is not treated the same way. Like it happened in Palestine. They used to say that Palestine is the other terrorist. We say Pakistan is terrorist. So others say they are not fighting for freedom. So this complication is there. And therefore I did not expect any advance or any decisions in this. But our idea is basically to expose these. And at the time when we are there. To give a kind of new energy to the United Nations. And it's very difficult to bring in new issues. I would have expected that perhaps we could have raised the issue of COVID. International cooperation to deal with COVID. Could have been a very important discussion to have. But because of the background of China refusing to have such discussion. The security council has no point trying for it. I suppose that may be the reason why India did not raise it. I would have liked to raise that. Because that's a very current and important question. On vaccines, cooperation about supply of medicines facilities etc. But I don't know whether we tried that. But even if we tried it probably that would not have worked. So in this one month. These are the some of the things that we want to get. And but as it happened even before all this started soon after. We became the president. A request was received from the Afghan foreign minister by our external affairs minister. They asked for an emergency meeting of the security council. Because of the situation Taliban advancing towards Kabul. And naturally we are friendly to them. So we agreed and we consulted others. And there was no objection. And therefore a meeting was actually held on Afghanistan. And I saw only Indian permanent representatives speech on it. I don't know who the others were and whether this will continue. But there was indeed a session. And where India spoke very strongly and firmly. Against forceful takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban. So that debate when we are also talking about talking to Taliban. And working out for a solution. There will be an opportunity where we spoke rather harshly. So as a result of that perhaps our chances of talking with the Taliban. Has become less as a result of the session. But the session does not seem to have taken any decision. And it may perhaps continue. Some for some time more. So the session on maritime security is today. And then others will continue. So till the 31st of August. There will be a lot of activity. We have also created some kind of Indian atmosphere there. You know we are permanent representative supplied. Some millet breakfast. For the members of the security council. Because India had taken an initiative to promote. Millets as food in the UN. Because it is quality and availability etc. So that initiative also we took as a kind of side. Flavor for the security council session. So the idea is basically to make the UN. More active. And Prime Minister's speech will be basically India's own speech. Because when he presides. If he say makes any statement. Officially it will have to be with the. The support of all the members. So. And otherwise he'll only lead the discussion. And like every other member. The president also can make a statement. National statement. And then he'll say so. I'm going to make the next statement. In my capacity as the head of the Indian delegation. So the Prime Minister's statement will basically be an Indian statement. And I'm sure he'll touch upon not only all these three issues. But also other issues of. Of concern. So we I do not know yet. Whether there will be. Effort for us to. Issue any consensus statement with the approval of all the members. I just not. Keep clear. So it is basically to project our commitment to the UN. And the Prime Minister's. Presence there will be an indication of our. Support the UN. And for us to see that even deals with some of these. Issues and so. India is taken on a role. Which is permitted but at the same time not. Very common. The security. Behind all this people suspect that there is this. Candidature of ours to be a permanent member of security. So that is. There are rumors in New York that this is all basically to. India to project its capabilities. And also it's a. It's eligibility for a permanent membership. And the reform agenda will be pushed. But reform agenda is not on the. On the agenda of this month. But I don't know how it will be. Taking place. But it's quite obvious that this interest is basically to project that. But we know the story since 1979. This discussion has been going on an expansion. Of the Security Council initially it was only. Non permanent members. But the permanent members agreed. Post it to thumbnail. And then later after the Cold War. The idea was proposed to expand the Security Council. Permanent membership. And India, Japan, Germany and Brazil emerged. As the candidates. And this has gone on forever. There is no agreement. No principle agreed. Because there is no formula. There are many formulas. But there is no one formula which. Two thirds majority of the general assembly. And all the permanent members can agree. So there is a standstill there. But discussions go on. And therefore maybe is. Sensing this. The US spokesman. Said two days ago. That they are. On India being a permanent member of the Security Council. This is always the position. We always made some wishy-washy statements. Even the impression that. US is in favor of India. So many people in India believe. That's only China. Which is objecting to us. But in actual fact. I don't think any permanent member has specifically committed to. India's permanent membership. So maybe because of this. Indian activity was seen and said an effort. To push this. Americans made a formal. Statement. That while they are not. Against an expansion. A very modest expansion. They are talking about one or two. And that too with consensus agreement. And since there is no consensus agreement. We do not see. This process going on. And this is something we knew. But they stated it. Again. So on the whole. An India month. In the UN. Because unfortunately there is a holiday season. In New York. July, August most delegates go away. Because September. The assembly session starts. And they all want to come back. So August normally. It is a time of the charge of the fair. Some ambassadors will all be. Roaming around in Europe. Or somewhere else on holiday. So it's not a very good month. But some other prime ministers. Or foreign ministers may be interested. In participating in the discussion. But I have not seen. Final picture. So this is the story of. Of course there are many expectations. But I don't want to raise any expectations. That this will. Lead to any great. Or shall we say. Image for India. But people will watch and see. But India and Indian diplomats are very capable. The UN. And so generally a very good. Mission that we have. And therefore that will be noticed. Some comments will be made. But nothing negative will happen. And on the whole. India's. Image will be. Will be projected. That is the situation relating to. This at the end of the month. We may be able to make a better assessment. Of the. High profile. Security council meeting. Prime minister in the chair. Foreign minister. Visiting. Normally it is the ambassador who. Chairs the all these meetings. So some meetings will be. Chared by the. First minister. One session may be. Chared by the foreign secretary. It's all up to us. Anybody from India can. To maintain the consensus. In the security council. So maybe it's a good decision to do this. But you'd not expect any. Immediate benefits. In terms of either the topics under discussion. Or in terms of India's membership. Of the. Security council. Thank you. Well, that's too well known to be said again. Our position is certainly that. Jan. Is an integral part of India. And it's there only because they made it us. And so we raised it as. A dispute. Because unfortunately we should actually go on and said that this was aggression. So since this was raised as. As a dispute. After after the ceasefire nothing seems to have happened. You know they passed a resolution which we accepted. But the resolution is still implemented because the resolution has three parts. The first is that Pakistan should withdraw from. Pakistan occupied Kashmir. India should establish its own. Government in Jammu and Kashmir. And then a referendum should be. That is what the last security council. Resolution says. So if it has to be implemented first Pakistan has to withdraw. From POK. And then we have to establish administration over the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. When the referendum. So our position is very simple. We are waiting for the first step. Which of course Pakistan will never do. Pakistan says. We are not implementing the third step. So how do you implement the third step? First step is not. That's very logical. But the rest of the world seems to think that since the dispute. Is just to be resolved. And so you know. Successive presidents of the United States have been offering. Mediation. The Secretary General has been offering mediation. Soviet Union. Prime Minister. President. Soviet Union. Prime Minister. But we are totally against the mediation. And we have established in. Simla. In 1972 after the Bangladesh war. That this matter. Shall be exclusively dealt with in the bilateral. Bilateral. More. And that Pakistan also agreed. But after that. They have shifted their position. I've been going around saying. Somebody should. Some mediation should be done. And because the resolution is being implemented. So everybody knows the position. Of each other. And our position is only that. Bilaterally we have to discuss. But that discussion is on the basis that it is part of India. And Pakistan is. They are willing to discuss. They want. To be separated from India. So it is stuck where. And now there are no conversations even. Except for the ceasefire. There was some kind of conversation. But otherwise. Our position is that under unless. Terrorism ends. There will be no conversation. But recently we have heard about. Back channel discussion. What the Indian government of India has not confirmed it so far. And. So it's a stalemate. So. We will not raise. But if somebody else. Since we are the president. Want to embarrass India. It is not possible. But fortunately Pakistan is not in the security. I don't think anybody will. Anybody else will do that. Thank you very much.