POLITICS: China’s Opposition to UN Reform Queried

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Antoaneta Bezlova

BEIJING, Jun 13 2005 (IPS) - China’s decision to dispense with its customary diplomatic ambiguity on the matter of United Nations reform and come out firmly against a proposal for quick expansion of the Security Council is being presented by the state propaganda machine here as an unavoidable act of opposition to Japan’s bid for a permanent seat on the council.

But Beijing’s rejection of Japan’s bid is also a convenient posture that conceals its reluctance to surrender a very privileged position of its own – the only Asian and the only developing country with a permanent seat and veto power on the Security Council, diplomats and analysts say.

“They feel they are part of a very exclusive club and that they deserve it,” says a Brazilian diplomat in Beijing. “It is not a privilege they want to share with any newcomers, and by opposing Japan they have found a suitable way of protecting their own position.”

China is one of the prestigious council’s five permanent members with veto power. The other seats are held by the United States, Britain, France and Russia.

Last week Beijing criticised efforts by the Group of Four (G4) – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan – to expand the permanent membership of the council as “immature” and a threat to UN reform.

“For a few countries to force through an immature proposal, it has derailed Security Council reform and gravely undermined any potential progress of UN reform,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Liu Jianchao said at a regular media briefing.

The (G4) nations have been lobbying to become members of the council and submitted a proposal to expand the UN’s top decision-making body by adding six permanent members with veto power and four non-permanent seats.

But the G4 has faced opposition from the United for Consensus movement, a coalition of countries led by Italy that favour expansion only in the non-permanent category.

The movement is calling for a consensus before any decision is reached on the form and size of the Security Council. The G4, by contrast, argues that significant changes can take place only through a vote.

China has aligned itself with the Consensus movement, which also includes South Korea, Pakistan, Argentina and Mexico. In a policy paper released last week, Beijing argued that UN reform should be achieved via broad consensus and that such a divisive issue as the expansion of its most powerful body should not be rushed through with a vote.

The paper advocates expansion of the council in favour of developing countries, particularly small and medium-sized ones, on a rotating basis. It strikes a defiant note by concluding that China would “oppose any deadline for an imposed vote over a UN reform plan on which members still differ greatly”.

Member states have been arguing over reform of the Security Council, the only UN body empowered to make war and peace, for more than a decade.

Earlier this year UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a 62-page report, ‘In Larger Freedom’, which backs a proposal made by a high-level panel on U.N. reform, which called for two alternative models for a revamped Security Council:

Model A provides for six new permanent seats, none with veto powers, and three new two-year term, non-permanent seats, divided among Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the Americas.

Model B provides for no new permanent seats but creates a new category of eight four-year, renewable-term seats and one new two-year, non-permanent (and non-renewable) seat, divided among the four regional groups.

In opinion pieces and articles released last week, Beijing presented its opposition to the council reform as necessitated by Japan’s contentious bid.

“In East Asia, China failed to win trust from neighbouring countries owing to its attitude towards history. So if Japan wants to play a bigger role in the UN, consensus should be reached first in the region,” the state-run ‘China Daily’ quoted Chen Xianyang, an expert with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

“Why did China say ‘no’ at the crucial moment?” read the headline of a full-page article in the Guangzhou-based ‘Southern Weekend’ on Thursday. “There is no way China can allow a Japan that is still glaringly disrespectful of history to be admitted into the world’s decision-making body,” answered the paper.

The article argued that blocking reform now is a step aimed at preventing China from having to use its veto power later, when the amended UN Charter is submitted for approval to the Security Council.

“The whole world’s eyes are fixed on China now,” the paper quoted Lin Guojiong, a retired Chinese diplomat with many years of working experience at the United Nations, as saying.

“We have to be firm and stick to our consistent position regarding Japan’s bid for the Security Council. If we weaken on this one, China’s international authority that we have tried to build carefully all these years would be seriously damaged,” he added.

With its massive financial contributions to UN institutions and years of concerted efforts at joining the Security Council, Japan’s bid has appeared the strongest among the G4.

But in April, its chances were undermined by weeks of protests in China and South Korea. Demonstrators claimed that Japanese atonement for the atrocities committed by its troops during the country’s invasion and colonisation of East Asia from 1910 to 1945 is insufficient.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao voiced most bluntly China’s opposition during a visit to India in April, saying Japan must face up to its past before becoming eligible to take up more responsibilities on the world stage.

By contrast, he praised India, with which China is forming increasingly strong economic ties. “We fully understand and support the Indian aspirations to play an even bigger role in international affairs, including in the UN,” Wen Jiabao said.

Chinese diplomats made similar pledges of support for bids from Brazil and Germany. But Beijing’s decision to oppose the council’s expansion in the permanent seat category has now made media in the G4 countries question whether it was indeed sincerely supportive of those countries’ aspirations.

Analysts here believe China’s outright opposition to Japan’s bid would drive a wedge in the unity of the G4 members and perhaps even lead to its break up.

“Japan is taking the blame for China’s rejection of the UN reform proposal,” says Wu Miaofa, a researcher with the China Institute for International Relations. “Since China’s position became clear, they have been more active than ever in Southeast Asia and Africa, providing more financial assistance and trying to secure necessary votes.”

Only by attaining a two-thirds majority in the 191-member UN Assembly, which translates into 128 votes, can an amendment to the UN Charter be submitted to governments for ratification. The entire UN reform package unveiled by Annan last year will be put to the test at a summit of world leaders in September 2005.

“Japan is not likely to succeed in wining those votes neither in Southeast Asia, nor in Africa,” predicts Wu. “Both regions value China’s friendship and will look China’s way.”