Asifezdi
According to the Indian media, the top Chinese foreign policy official,
State Councillor Dai Bingguo, last month assured Sitaram Yechury, a leader of the Communist Party of India (M), that Beijing is not opposed to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for India. Yechury, who was leading a CPI (M) delegation that was visiting China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party, said that Dai had “bent over backwards” to explain that China has “no objection at all” to the Indian bid for a permanent seat, but was firmly opposed to Japan’s candidature because of its “historical baggage.” The reason why Beijing had not openly come out in India’s support, Dai reportedly explained, was that New Delhi had tied its candidature with that of Japan in the Group of Four (G-4), the collective initiative for permanent seats launched by India, Japan, Germany and Brazil in 2004.
It was never a secret that Beijing has been opposed to the G-4 plan not because of the Indian candidature but mainly because it is not prepared to countenance a permanent seat for Japan. If we in Pakistan did not know it, it is either because of our inability to read the coded language of diplomacy or an ostrich-like capacity for deluding ourselves and closing our eyes to unpleasant developments. Now, for the first time, a top Chinese official has let it be known with clarity that Beijing is not opposed to Indian ambitions; and suggested that India could have China’s support if Delhi were to delink its bid from that of Tokyo.
Dai’s message is the second wake-up call to Pakistan to reconsider its strategy on Security Council reform. The first warning was given by Obama last November when he pledged US support to the Indian bid for a permanent seat. The government’s reaction then was typically one of complacency. Instead of bestirring itself at the international level, our government focused its efforts mainly on soothing domestic public opinion. The foreign secretary expressed Pakistan’s disappointment to the US ambassador but the matter was not taken up, as it should have been, by Zardari, Gilani, or Shah Mahmood Qureshi, then foreign minister, with their counterparts in Washington. The National Assembly and the government passed resolutions denouncing US support for India. Washington treated these resolutions in the same way as it treats our protests on drone attacks – as steps aimed essentially at pacifying domestic opinion.
We do not know what our ambassador in Washington told the American officials. The State Department spokesman said that Pakistan had not expressed “any particular concern” at US support for India. David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post that Obama’s success in strengthening ties with India on his visit to that country without upsetting Pakistan – a “neat trick” as he described it – was one of the foreign policy achievements of the Obama presidency. The US has often played tricks with the Pakistani people but mostly with the complicity of our own government. This would be just one more instance.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi tried to reassure the public that it should not worry unduly. Pakistan, he said, had discussed the matter with China and the two countries had similar views. He was only partially right. The two countries agree, for example, that Security Council reform should only be pursued on the basis of a broad consensus among member states and that a decision imposed by a divisive vote would be counterproductive. But Pakistan and China have different perspectives on India’s bid for a permanent seat, as Dai’s assurances to the Indian delegation make clear. Our foreign minister seems to have been unaware of this.
Last month, our newspapers carried an APP story alleging that India had abandoned its quest for a permanent seat. This is dead wrong. India has not given up its bid but continues to pursue it furiously. It has been leading a push by G-4 for a vote on a short framework resolution calling for the expansion of the Security Council membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. The plan was to have it passed before the current session of the UN General Assembly ends in September.
According to the Indian media, the top Chinese foreign policy official,
State Councillor Dai Bingguo, last month assured Sitaram Yechury, a leader of the Communist Party of India (M), that Beijing is not opposed to a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for India. Yechury, who was leading a CPI (M) delegation that was visiting China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party, said that Dai had “bent over backwards” to explain that China has “no objection at all” to the Indian bid for a permanent seat, but was firmly opposed to Japan’s candidature because of its “historical baggage.” The reason why Beijing had not openly come out in India’s support, Dai reportedly explained, was that New Delhi had tied its candidature with that of Japan in the Group of Four (G-4), the collective initiative for permanent seats launched by India, Japan, Germany and Brazil in 2004.
It was never a secret that Beijing has been opposed to the G-4 plan not because of the Indian candidature but mainly because it is not prepared to countenance a permanent seat for Japan. If we in Pakistan did not know it, it is either because of our inability to read the coded language of diplomacy or an ostrich-like capacity for deluding ourselves and closing our eyes to unpleasant developments. Now, for the first time, a top Chinese official has let it be known with clarity that Beijing is not opposed to Indian ambitions; and suggested that India could have China’s support if Delhi were to delink its bid from that of Tokyo.
Dai’s message is the second wake-up call to Pakistan to reconsider its strategy on Security Council reform. The first warning was given by Obama last November when he pledged US support to the Indian bid for a permanent seat. The government’s reaction then was typically one of complacency. Instead of bestirring itself at the international level, our government focused its efforts mainly on soothing domestic public opinion. The foreign secretary expressed Pakistan’s disappointment to the US ambassador but the matter was not taken up, as it should have been, by Zardari, Gilani, or Shah Mahmood Qureshi, then foreign minister, with their counterparts in Washington. The National Assembly and the government passed resolutions denouncing US support for India. Washington treated these resolutions in the same way as it treats our protests on drone attacks – as steps aimed essentially at pacifying domestic opinion.
We do not know what our ambassador in Washington told the American officials. The State Department spokesman said that Pakistan had not expressed “any particular concern” at US support for India. David Ignatius wrote in the Washington Post that Obama’s success in strengthening ties with India on his visit to that country without upsetting Pakistan – a “neat trick” as he described it – was one of the foreign policy achievements of the Obama presidency. The US has often played tricks with the Pakistani people but mostly with the complicity of our own government. This would be just one more instance.
Shah Mahmood Qureshi tried to reassure the public that it should not worry unduly. Pakistan, he said, had discussed the matter with China and the two countries had similar views. He was only partially right. The two countries agree, for example, that Security Council reform should only be pursued on the basis of a broad consensus among member states and that a decision imposed by a divisive vote would be counterproductive. But Pakistan and China have different perspectives on India’s bid for a permanent seat, as Dai’s assurances to the Indian delegation make clear. Our foreign minister seems to have been unaware of this.
Last month, our newspapers carried an APP story alleging that India had abandoned its quest for a permanent seat. This is dead wrong. India has not given up its bid but continues to pursue it furiously. It has been leading a push by G-4 for a vote on a short framework resolution calling for the expansion of the Security Council membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. The plan was to have it passed before the current session of the UN General Assembly ends in September.
