WHY INDIA SHOULD BE DENIED PERMANENT MEMBERSHIP OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL - SIKH FEDERATION (UK)

Before Manmohan Singh arrived in New York he received an assurance from Tony Blair in Britain for India's effort to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Some have asked why 24 hours later, when Manmohan Singh met with President Bush, he did not ask for US support for India to become a permanent member of the Council.

Indian officials have indicated that they believed the Americans were not yet ready to support India's case, despite this being a major focus of Manmohan Singh's visit. The Sikh Federation (UK) suggests that he did not want to be embarrassed on his first major international trip by raising this issue and then being rejected by the US.

While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions which the 191 Member States are obligated under the UN Charter to carry out. All Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. There are currently 15 members on the UN Security Council with each Council member having one vote. However, decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule often referred to as the "veto" power. India is desperate to try and secure this power.

The Federation believes it would be a disaster for the UN if India was made a permanent member of the UN Security Council and has written to Tony Blair questioning his support for India's membership. In the letter to the UK Prime Minister the Federation sets out why India should be denied permanent membership of the UN Security Council. The key reason quoted in the letter is that:

"India has little or no respect for the United Nations and its decisions. It has defied the UN on Kashmir, been condemned by the Council for carrying out nuclear tests, refused to become a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and is not prepared to accept the right to self-determination, which is enshrined in International Covenants on Economic, Social, Cultural, Civil and Political Rights."

The Federation has reminded Tony Blair of the UN Security Council's resolutions and outrage following India and Pakistan's nuclear tests and quotes Robert Fowler, the Canadian representative on the UN Security Council at that time, who stated:

"Countries that deliberately undermined peace and security and flout the will of the international community had voided their claim to Security Council membership, let alone a permanent place in the management of the post-cold war world."

The Federation continues in the letter by stating "Sikhs will always oppose India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council until it accepts without any condition that Sikhs are allowed to freely exercise their right to self determination, including the ability to establish an independent sovereign Sikh state, Khalistan."

The Federation has also reminded Tony Blair of the dangerous rhetoric in India towards the UK and the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council. The letter to the PM states: "In the last few days some in India have described the UN as a group of USELESS NATIONS (UN) and described the five permanent members on the Council as ROGUE Nations that bully other nations. One Indian commentator has said: "the UK is now almost a third world nation, a shameless insignificant stooge without teeth or a backbone whose questionable claim to fame ended many decades ago."

It has been pointed out by the Federation that it is this sort of rhetoric which demonstrates why India should not be allowed to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. A Federation spokesman said: "We are confident that the issues we have raised will register and that statements coming out of India will not go amiss with the five permanent members - China, France, the Russian Federation, United Kingdom and the United States."

The letter to the PM also makes a number of other relevant points concerning India's lack of suitability as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Federation describes India as a sprawling political patchwork, with tensions between regional governments and the centre. It has pointed out that Party affiliations are weak and corruption or wealth is at the heart of the political set up. The Delhi Government is itself described as a loose alliance of more than 15 parties. The Federation has suggested India should be tackling poverty, its poor human rights record and the lack of adequate social and physical infrastructure rather than wasting its time seeking international power.

Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK) said: "How can arrogant India seek permanent membership to the UN Security Council if it will not accept the UN's decisions and principles, is unable to tackle its own domestic communal problems and disrespects basic human rights. It has now been denying Amnesty International access to Panjab for more than 25 years and is still unwilling to allow the UN Rapporteur on Torture to investigate in Panjab. We are hopeful that Member States will look closely at India's poor record on human rights and disregard for the international community on nuclear proliferation. If you combine this with India's volatility, right wing fanatics and old regional animosities with nuclear rival Pakistan, we believe it makes it impossible to accept India as a permanent member."