Justice, Security and Rule of Law: How the United Nations Security Council Has Failed You

By:  Cynthia M. Lardner

In today’s turbulent world “…three core themes come to the fore: justice, security, and rule of law,” stated Dr. Abi Williams, President of The Hague Institute for Global Justice, who has previously served under United Nations Secretary Generals Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon.

When it comes to global justice, security and Rule of Law, the United Nations (U.N.) is the international organization that the world relies upon.  The U.N. was created in 1945 to restore world order after World War II and to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.  On July 12, 2016 an issue arose challenging the U.N.’s ability to fulfill its essential purpose.

On July 12, 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague issued an opinion in a territorial dispute between People’s Republic of China and the Philippines, commonly referred to as the South China Sea (SCS) Dispute. The sweeping opinion found in favor of the Philippines ruling that China, which had boycotted the proceedings calling them illegal, violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS); an agreement about territorial seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZ), in claiming sovereignty over the 80% of the SCS, known as the “nine-dash line”, encompassing almost 80% of the SCS. China has militarized the region rich in natural gas deposits.

The PCA held that:

Having found that certain areas are within the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, the Tribunal found that China had violated the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone by (a) interfering with Philippine fishing and petroleum exploration, (b) constructing artificial islands and (c) failing to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing in the zone. The Tribunal also held that fishermen from the Philippines (like those from China) had traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal and that China had interfered with these rights in restricting access. The Tribunal further held that Chinese law enforcement vessels had unlawfully created a serious risk of collision when they physically obstructed Philippine vessels.

In advance of the decision, China stated that it would not honor the PCA decision; a tribunal to which it is a member nation. As the PCA has no enforcement authority, enforcement falls on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The conundrum is that China is also a permanent member of the UNSC, which can veto UNSC enforcement of PCA decisions.  Rather that upholding its obligation as a permanent member of the UNSC to honor international law, China, in advance of the opinion, stated it will go to war to protect the “nine-dash line” region, leaving enforcement to the smaller nations in the region and their allies.

This calls into question whether China can ethically maintain its position on the UNSC.

This paper analyzes whether not only China but, also the Russian Federation should be permitted the ongoing privilege of sitting as an UNSC permanent member. As Sir Winston Churchill said, “Where there is great power there is great responsibility.”  Russia and China have failed in their responsibility to the other 191 member nations of the U.N.

United Nations Security Council’s Permanent Five

Created by the Rome Statute, to which all 193 U.N. member nations are signatories, the U.N.’s mission, as articulated in its Charter is:

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”

The U.N. General Assembly, via the U.N. Charter, delegated the sole responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The UNSC is comprised of five permanent member nations, and ten rotating member nations elected by the five permanent members to staggered two-year terms.  At the time of its creation, the world’s five greatest superpowers were afforded the privilege of serving as permanent UNSC members:  the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Russia and China (P5).  There is no provision in the U.N. Charter requiring that designation as a UNSC permanent member ever be reviewed or revisited.

The UNSC is responsible for authorizing U.N. peacekeeping operations.  Chapter VII of U.N. Charter authorizes the UNSC to deploy U.N. peacekeeping operations, including joint operations with allied forces and NATO, into volatile post-conflict settings where the state is unable to maintain security and public order.  Invocation of Chapter VII denotes a legal basis for taking action, and “…is viewed as a statement of firm political resolve reminding the parties to a conflict and the wider U.N. membership of their obligation to honor UNSC decisions.”  Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted on 28 April 2006, requires the UNSC to proactively protect civilians in an armed conflict, including taking action against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity

The UNSC is also imbued with the singular responsibility for voting on U.N. member state applications, selecting the Secretary-General, and the creation and oversight of hybrid criminal courts.

The P5 have de facto control over the UNSC by virtue of their exclusive veto power over exercised when any permanent member casts a “negative” vote on not only “substantive” draft resolutions but as to what constitutes a substantive issue.

The veto power extends to the discretionary enforcement of decisions rendered by the U.N.’s International Court of Justice, which issues legal advisory opinions and hears cases involving crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the PCA.

China and Russia’s Abuses of P5 Power

The P5 has come under a great deal of criticism for failing to deliver justice, provide security, and adhere to Rule of Law, including its responsibility to protect (R2P) from statespersons, such Kofi Annan, the seventh U.N. Secretary-General and Nobel Laureate, former United States Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and former Canadian Foreign Minister Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, calling into question whether the U.N. Charter needs to be amended.

The South China Sea Dispute

Along with the matter decided by the PCA, China has also been engaged in similar territorial SCS disputes with Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

It is incomprehensible that China, a P5 member, can flagrantly ignore not only the PCA’s decision, which is final and binding upon the parties, but also UNCLOS, the treaty governing territorial rights.  Rather, than adhere to international law, China is prepared to go to war with the U.S. and other countries over the SCS. Complicating the matter is the joint military build-up by China and Russia in the South China Sea.

An Article VII draft resolution as to the enforcement of the PCA opinion or peacekeeping operations in the SCS would be vetoed by China and Russia.  Given that NATO has already stated it will not become involved in the SCS Dispute, if armed conflict erupts, defense against China and, likely Russia, military superpowers, will be the responsibility of the smaller nations in the region, the United States, France and their allies.

“Only when everyone plays by the same rules can we avoid the mistakes of the past, like when countries challenged one another in contests of strength and will, with disastrous consequences for the region,” stated U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

Russia, Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula

Russia’s relationship with NATO, its member nations, allies and partners deteriorated following Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and military aggressions in Ukraine.  On July 15, 2015, rather than abstain, Russia vetoed a resolution as to its illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, shielding itself from accountability under international law.  Russia President Vladimir Putin recently stated that there will never be any diplomatic discussion of the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

Russia’s aggressions in Ukraine were to have been resolved by the September 5, 2014 Minsk Protocol, confirming Ukraine’s sovereignty, which was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the Donetsk People’s Republic, and the Lugansk People’s Republic.  Despite being called upon by the international community to implement the Minsk Protocol, including the G20 in April 2016, and at the February 2016 Munich Security Conference, Russia has refused.  As a P5 member, there will never be Article VII action to protect the Ukraine people from ongoing aggressions, including genocide, a war crime.

It is noteworthy that Russia, a P5 member, is not a member nation of the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute, which prosecutes state actors for crimes against humanity, including genocide.

The Birth of Responsibility to Protect

Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, former Foreign Minister of Canada, cited the UNSC’s 1999 failure to act under Section VII in Kosovo based on Russia’s veto of U.N. peacekeeping troops to force the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from Kosovo.  Dr. Axworthy stated that he and then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright were emotionally and morally sickened by the mass genocide in Kosovo.  Dr. Axworthy stated that he and then Secretary Albright asked themselves, “Could we stand by and let people be murdered?”

NATO intervened in what came to be known as “Madeleine’s War”.

As then President Bill Clinton stated, “”It’s to our advantage to have a Europe that is peaceful and prosperous. And there is the compelling humanitarian case: if the U.S. walks away from an atrocity like this where we can have an impact, then these types of situations will spread. The world is full of ethnic struggles, from Ireland to the Middle East to the Balkans. If we can convince people to bridge these tensions, we’ve served our interests as well as our values.”

Dr. Lloyd Axworthy speaking at The Hague Institute for Global Justice on July 12, 2016

This Kosovo incident gave rise to the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) under which “We [humanity] must be prepared to stop mass atrocities” and where sovereignty is “…not a divine right but an obligation to protect your people,” stated Dr. Axworthy during a July 12, 2016 talk on “Pursuing Justice in a Globalized World:  Reflections on the Commitment of Madeleine K. Albright”.

Since the war, Kosovo has been unable to secure U.N. member state status based on Russia’s veto.

Responsibility to Protect

R2P was later adopted by the U.N. obligating the international community, including the UNSC to prevent and protect individuals from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Yet, both China and Russia have and are engaged in genocide and ethnic cleansing; with Russia focused on Jewish populations and China on Tibet.

Russia and China’s Recent P5 Vetoes

At a time when Dr. Axworthy noted that “…human rights in a position of limbo,” Rule of Law has been increasing ignored by the UNSC.

There have been many instances of Russia and China misusing their UNSC veto power in contravention of international law:

• On June 15, 2009, Russia vetoed action concerning its 2008 Georgian invasion, which culminated in a March 18, 200 treaty on alliance and integration signed between the South Ossetia region of Georgia and Russia on 18 March. This so-called treaty is yet another move by the Russian Federation that hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region.  It violates Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and blatantly contradicts the principles of international law;
• Between 2012 and 2014, Russia and China have double vetoed four draft U.N. resolution concerning the crisis in Syria, including a referral to the International Criminal Court and the imposition of U.N. sanctions;
• On July 8, 2015, Russia vetoed taking action with respect to the genocide that occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina in clear contravention of Security Council Resolution 1674; and
• Russia vetoed a referral to the International Criminal Court to hold those state actors accountable for having shot down Malaysian Airlines Flight No. MH17 on July 17, 2014.

The U.S. has also used its UNSC veto power in the past, primarily to block resolutions concerning Israel.  However, this is unlikely to reoccur as during 2015 the Obama Administration’s foreign policy position as Israel and Palestine underwent a drastic shift away from favoring Israel.  The U.K. and France have never used their veto power.

“A security council that is fractured into special national interests, abusing the right of the veto; warlords and dictators who kill with impunity to advance their greed for riches or power; and the weakening of resolve in North America and Europe to act in a collective manner, and thus far a confused set of objectives by the emerging states. As Kofi Annan clearly concludes, our level of governance is not up to the task posed by world realities,” stated Dr. Axworthy.

No nation should be allowed to sit on the United Nations Security Council, let alone be afforded permanent status, if it fails to adhere to Rule of Law, minimally, international law.

Selection of the Next Secretary-General

With Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s second term set to expire, the selection process by the UNSC has also been sharply criticized. “The selection of the Secretary-General has previously been a process shrouded in secrecy, and, ultimately, decision-making lies under the almost complete control of the five permanent members” stated Tom Brookes, Programme Office at The Elders Foundation.  While the current selection process has involved an open debate between ten of the 12 individuals under consideration, it has no impact on the selection process.

Hybrid Courts

The UNSC has failed to convene, offer oversight and provide funding of hybrid criminal courts, i.e. courts created to address war crimes or crimes against humanity in any given country. By way of example, according to Ambassador David John Scheffer, the UNSC has not funded The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, commonly known as the Cambodia Tribunal or Khmer Rouge Tribunal, which is relegated to raising funds to cover its annual $3 million operating budget, with funding coming primarily from the U.S.

By the Numbers

In addition to flagrant misuse of their P5 veto power, there are three indices three global indices measuring positive and negative peace, corruption and adherence to Rule of Law which statistically support the restructuring UNSC.

First is the 2016 Global Peace Index, issued by Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), which empirically ranked 175 independent states and territories based on their levels of peacefulness.  Peacefulness is measured based on two primary components: positive peace or resilience, and negative peace, defined as the presence of violence or fear of violence.  Overall scores are normed on the basis of one to five.

Camilla Schippa speaking on June 24, 2016 at The Hague Institute for Global Justice on the GPI

“We see peace as a measure of conflicts.  And the Global Peace Index found an overall increase in conflict with a widening gap between the most and least peaceful countries,” stated Camilla Schippa, IEP Director of Operations.

The cost to humanity is mindboggling.  Violence costs 13.3% of the world’s GDP or $13.6 trillion dollars.  This breaks down to $1,876 annually or $5.00 per person every single day.

Second, Transparency International’s 2015 Corruption Perception Index (CPI) measures perceived levels of public sector corruption in 167 countries.  The four areas measured are bribery, corruption, whistleblowing, and Rule of Law.  The CPI defines Rule of Law as the, “Legal and political systems, structures and practices that condition a government’s actions to protect citizens’ rights and liberties, maintain law and order, and encourage the effective functioning of the country.”

“The 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index clearly shows that corruption remains a blight around the world.” stated José Ugaz, Chair of Transparency International.

Third is the World Justice Project’s (WJP) 2015 Rule of Law Index® (RLI). According to the WJP, “The rule of law is the foundation for communities of peace, opportunity, and equity—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.”  The RLI provides original, impartial data on how the Rule of Law is experienced by the general public in 102 countries. The RLI measures nine variables — constraints on government powers, absence of corruption, open government, fundamental rights, order and security, regulatory enforcement, civil and criminal justice, informal justice – generating an overall score ranging from .35 to .87.

Russian Federation

Russia’s overall GPI Score was the lowest of the P5: 3.079/5, ranking it 151 out of 163, or in the bottom 10 percent of the countries evaluated. Russia also performed the worst out of the P5 on the CPI, ranking a meager 29 or 119/168.  Thus, it is no surprise that Russia also had the worst P5 score on the RLI:  .47 overall, placing it near the bottom quartile, or 75^th out of the 102 nations.

People’s Republic of China

On the GPI, China ranked 120 out of 163, with an overall GPI of 2.288/5.  China also performed poorly on the CPI, ranking 37 or 83/168.  China also fared poorly on the RLI, having a composite score of .48, ranking it 71.

The United States

On the GPI, the U.S. ranked 103 out of 163 nations, with a composite score of 2.154/5.  According to Ms. Schippa, the U.S.’s score was negatively impacted by the number of incarcerated individuals and access to firearms, required, to date, by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. ranked 76 or 16/168 on the CPI, with its score having steadily improved over the last four years. On the RLI, the U.S.’s composite score was .73 ranking it 13^th out of the 102 countries measured.

United Kingdom

On the GPI, the U.K. ranked 47 out of 163, having generated a composite score of 1.830/5.  The U.K.’s CPI was 81 or 10/168.  Great Britain fared well on the RLI, with an overall score of .78 ranking it 12th.

France

France ranked 46 out of the 163 nations measured by the GPI, with an overall score of 1.829/5. On the CPI, France ranked 70 or 23/168.  On the RLI, France’s overall score was .74, placing it 18 out of 102 countries.

The Call for Reform

Kofi Annan astutely reflected that:

Where we collectively realize that we do not live in a zero-sum world where someone’s gain automatically comes at another’s expense. I envision a world where these values are supported by an international architecture, a modernized United Nations that reflects the changing balance of global power brought about by the rise of China, Brazil, India, South Africa, and other emerging countries.

But above all, of a United Nations that serves not only states but foremost peoples — and becomes the forum where governments are held accountable for their behavior toward their own citizens. A forum where the shared values of pluralism, tolerance, solidarity, democracy and dialogue triumph over unilateralism, ultra-nationalism, and over the politics of identity…

You may argue that this is a pipe-dream, that around the world, personal liberty, human rights, and democracy are being eroded — even in countries that have embraced democratic ideals. Let us renew and strengthen this international system. From epidemics to climate change, we need to set our narrow self-interests aside and realize that we are in this world together, for better or for worse. Hitting each other on the head has not done us much good in the past. It is time to move beyond that, to embrace our common humanity and resume our journey towards a fairer, more peaceful world.

Mr. Annan concluded that, “A United Nations for the twenty-first century would have to create new partnerships, respond to the needs of the individuals and stand for the principle that national sovereignty could never be used as a shield for genocide or a gross violation of human rights.”

“Yet the Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, acting on behalf of all the member states, is still dominated by the same five permanent members that were designated all those years ago, being the five great powers that had just won the war. The governments of those five powers have become so used to their exalted status, which is protected by their ability to veto any change in the Charter, that they think of it almost as their natural right, sometimes forgetting that it is above all a responsibility. They assume that the world will continue to respect their authority, and fail to notice that, year by year, that authority is eroding,” stated a release issued by The Elders, a group of former statespersons who comprise a nonpartisan peacekeeping group.

As a result of the criticisms from around the globe, they have been numerous statespersons, commissions and entities calling for reform of the U.N., particularly the UNSC.  For instance, the 14-member Commission on Global Security, Justice, and Governance Commission convened by The Hague Center for Global Justice consisting of numerous ex-foreign ministers adamantly called for U.N. reform citing a “crisis in global governance.”

The Commission’s findings, “Confronting the Crisis of Global Governance”, was launched at the Peace Palace in The Hague on 16 June 2016. Commission Co-Chairs Secretary Albright and Ibrahim Gambari, former Nigerian Foreign Minister and UN Under-Secretary-General.  The Commission called for “…an expansion in Security Council membership and better engagement with nontraditional actors. Specifically, it seeks to create more opportunities for countries, regional organizations, local authorities, and business and civil society groups to contribute to peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peace-building while, at the same time, increasing the council’s representative legitimacy and restraint in the use of the veto, particularly when a state fails in its responsibility to protect its own citizens.”

Secretary Albright warned that continuing failures within the U.N. “risks prolonging and deepening” global crises.

At the launch of the ‘Strengthening the U.N.’ initiative at the 2015 Munich Security Conference, The Elders proposed a model for expanding the UNSC, that the P5 agree a code of conduct on veto restraint, and argued that the UNSC provide greater opportunity for civil society groups to be heard through greater use of informal “Arria formula” meetings.  Arria formula meetings are informal, confidential gatherings which enabling the UNSC to have a frank and private exchange of views, within a flexible procedural framework, with individuals, groups or nations outside of the UNSC.

Another group, Uniting for Consensus (UfC), comprised of 111 of the U.N.’s 193 member states, mission is to increase the number of non-permanent UNSC members, from the existing ten rotating seats, to a composition and number reflecting greater regional representation.  In a March 26, 2015 press release the UfC stated:

[W]e could support a UNSC of up to 26 members in total – a Council that is more representative of the international community as a whole while preserving the principles of democracy and accountability to Member States. The legitimacy of the Council depends not only – or even primarily – on its composition, but on its transparency, accountability and effectiveness. It is not just about who takes decisions, but most importantly the inclusive and democratic nature of decision-making.

In 2014, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established a 17-member independent panel on U.N. Peace Operations to comprehensively assess the state of current and emerging UN peace operations.  The panel issued 104 page report, containing detailed and voluminous recommendations for change:

At the heart of …peace operations is the message that the United Nations must unite its strengths — of politics, of partnership and of people — to meet those challenges. This means that, where deployed, United Nations peace operations must be mandated and empowered to support the political resolution of threats to international peace and security. To succeed, United Nations peace operations must find a way to strengthen partnership at all levels, namely with regional organizations, with host Governments and with the local population, to overcome deep-rooted conflicts. United Nations peace operations must answer to “We the peoples”, the ultimate beneficiaries of peace and the survivors of conflict. Their perceptions and their assessments, particularly those of women and youth, are the critical barometer of the success, or failure, of United Nations peace operations.

The panel concluded that the U.N. requires “modernized approaches and structures to enable flexible and better United Nations system responses.”  However, the panel failed to state the structures and approaches to which it was referring.  As all substantive action of the U.N. requires UNSC approval, it can only be assumed that the panel was indirectly criticizing the UNSC.

Changes Supported by Sustainable Development Goal 16

On September 25, 2015, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which include 17 Global Goals.  Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon hailed the move as a universal, integrated and transformative vision for a better world.  The new agenda is a promise by U.N. leaders to all people everywhere.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions”, adopted to “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and to build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.”

SDG 16 has been broken down to eleven measurable targets. SDG 16.3 is promote Rule of Law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.  SDG 16.6 requires the development of “effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” This includes, under SDG 16.7, an increase in decision-making at all levels which is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative, which is tied to SDG 16.8, which seeks to broaden and strengthen participation by developing countries in global governance.  Also relevant is SDG 16.10, which is promote fundamental freedoms in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

In 2004, then Secretary-General Kofi Annan stressed that for the U.N. Rule of Law is “a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires as well measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of the law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency”.

SDG 16 cannot be achieved without amending the U.N. Charter to change the powers vested in the UNSC, and the increasing the number of UNSC members, to insure greater regional representation, or even eliminate the P5 or the UNSC in its entirety.

Amending the U.N. Charter

“A true United Nations would rise above the interests of individual countries. It would place the good of the planet and its people above the good of governments. The organization now based in New York cannot do this. Perhaps no world body ever will,” stated Stephen Kinzer, senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University.

The path to a true U.N., involves amending the U.N. Charter.  Following a conference, this requires a majority vote by the General Assembly and a vote by any seven UNSC members.  Despite all of the criticism, there has yet to be a call for a conference to amend the U.N. Charter. There has never been a better time than now for the General Assembly to come together and act to amend the U.N. Charter to insure justice, security, and rule of law for generations to come.

About the Author

Cynthia M. Lardner is a journalist focusing on geopolitics.  Ms. Lardner is a contributing editor for Tuck Magazine and E – The Magazine for Today’s Executive Female Executive, and her blogs are read in over 37 countries.  As a thought leader in the area of foreign policy, her philosophy is to collectively influence conscious global thinking. Ms. Lardner holds degrees in journalism, law, and counseling psychology.

Sources

Annan, Kofi, “The Next 10 Years in Global Democracy”, May 7, 2015, The Kofi Annan Foundation, as found on the www at http://www.kofiannanfoundation.org/articles/the-next-10-years-in-global-democracy-2839/.

Axworthy, Lloyd, “Kofi Annan’s Advice to the United Nations”, February 21, 2013, Huffington Post Canada, as found on the www at http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lloyd-axworthy/kofi-annan-united-nations_b_2733531.html.

Brookes, Tom, “Observing change at the United Nations”, June 16, 2016, TheElders.org., as found on the www at http://theelders.org/article/observing-change-united-nations.

“Corruption Perception Index 2015”, Transparency International, as found on the www at http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015.

Global Peace Index 2016”, Vision of Humanity, Institute for Economics and Peace as found on the www at http://www.visionofhumanity.org/#/page/indexes/global-peace-index.

“Identical letters dated 17 June 2015 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council”, June 17, 2015, General Assembly Security Council, UN Doc, as found on the www at http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/446.

Kinzer, Steven, “There is no United Nations”, October 15, 2015, Boston Globe, as found on the www at https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/there-united-nations/ReCzzbHtpQXzK04B6Psw4I/story.html.

Lardner, Cynthia, “In Deep Waters with China and Russia”, June 10, 2016, as found on the www at http://tuckmagazine.com/2016/06/13/deep-waters-china-russia/; https://issuu.com/nafelosangeles/docs/e_magazine_june_2016_issue_draft_1_; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/deep-waters-china-russia-cynthia-lardner;  http://cmlardner.blogspot.com/2016/06/in-deep-waters-with-china-and-russia.html; and https://cynthiamlardner.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/in-deep-waters-with-china-and-russia/.

 

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 at http://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 at http://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/629.

“Linkages between the rule of law, democracy and sustainable development”, April 19, 2012, International for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, as found on the www at http://www.idea.int/un/upload/Concept-Note-IDEA-IDLO-Italy-rev-5-0-Final.pdf.

“Mandates and the legal basis for peacekeeping”, United Nations Peacekeeping, U.N. Doc, as found on the www at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/operations/pkmandates.shtml.

“Rule of Law Index 2015,” World Justice Project, as found on the www at http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/.

“THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ARBITRATION (THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA)”, July 12, 2016, Permanent Court of Arbitration, UN Doc., as found on the www at https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf.

“The Responsibility to Protect”, United Nations Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, UN Doc, as found on the www at http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/responsibility.shtml.

“UN adopts new Global Goals, charting sustainable development for people and planet by 2030”, September 25, 2015, UN News Centre, UN Doc, as found on the www at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51968#.V4SlYLh9600.

“U.N. reform urged by veteran diplomats”, June 16, 2015, DW, as found on the www at http://www.dw.com/en/un-reform-urged-by-veteran-diplomats/a-18519580.

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].”

Conclusion

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.

__________________

Endnotes

[i] Lardner, Cynthia, “Geopolitical Meltdown”, Game of Thrones Meets House of Cards, April 9, 2015, as found on the www at https://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 at http://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 at http://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 at http://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 at http://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 at http://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).”).