• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • U.N. Security Council Expansion is Not in America’s Interests

    United Nations Security Council

    President Barack Obama made waves during his trip to India by telling the Indian parliament that “in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed United Nations Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.” This simple, vague statement has become the headline for his entire visit with U.S. and Indian media declaring that “Obama supports adding India as a permanent member of U.N. Security Council” and “Obama Backs India Bid for UN Security Council Seat” and “Obama backs UNSC bid, slams Pakistan.”

    The statement made news because until the speech, the U.S. had only endorsed Japan as a new permanent member of the UN Security Council, albeit within the context of modest expansion. The inclusion of India among the countries that the U.S. is willing to see on an expanded Security Council is understandably celebrated in India.

    But when you look at President Obama’s remark, it is not entirely clear that the U.S. would actually support a proposal for India to gain permanent member status on the Council if presented with the opportunity. ABC news indicated that “U.S. is backing India’s membership only in the context of unspecified reforms to the council that could take years to bring about.” The President did not say what those reforms were, if it would accept an expansion proposal that went beyond India and Japan, or whether the U.S. would support giving a new permanent member the veto over Security Council resolution like that possessed by the current five permanent Security Council members.

    All of these issues are critical. India has been crystal clear in its position:

    The composition of the Security Council needs to change to reflect contemporary realities of the twenty-first century. This implies, in the first instance, increase in the membership of the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Second, new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members. Third, veto should be extended to new permanent members. This is predicated on the logical and principled position that there can be no discrimination within the same category of members of the Security Council.

    Based on U.S. policy under previous administrations, India’s stance on U.N. Security Council expansion is unacceptable. The U.S. can’t simply approve of permanent seats for Japan and India. Any reform of the U.N. Security Council opens the door for a larger expansion. Under the Bush Administration, the U.S. indicated that it was prepared to accept “two or so new permanent members and two or three additional nonpermanent seats, allocated by region, to expand the Council to 19 or 20.” This is starkly at odds with the proposals being discussed in recent years at the U.N. which involve an expansion of the Council by 10 or 11 seats, including as many as 6 new permanent members.

    This reluctance is based on experience. The Security Council is by no means perfect. It is subject to delay and indecisiveness. Getting resolutions through the U.N. Security Council involves an enormous amount of effort unless they merely continue the status quo or are without serious content.

    However, a larger Council would not solve these problems. On the contrary, it would further undermine the Council’s ability to act decisively as timely action would fall victim to political impasse, conflicting interests, or debate among nations that have little to contribute to the Council’s ultimate responsibility—enforcement of international peace and security. The potential for gridlock increases even more if new permanent member possess the veto.

    The Obama administration, after fighting for months to get a resolution on Iran through the Council, understands this and would also likely not support a large expansion of the Council. However imperfect, the current composition of the Council is infinitely preferable to ill-considered expansion that will surely make the Security Council less relevant. While the Security Council is not the only source of legitimacy for international action, it can often be a preferred route. The U.S. gains little from a weakened Council.

    Therefore, the announcement in India is likely a cynical diplomatic game. President Obama most likely is calculating that the short-term political goodwill generated from the statement is a freebee that he will never be expected to deliver on. He’s counting on the political rivalries surrounding various countries ambitions for a permanent seat on the Security Council (or keeping their rivals from getting one) to scuttle any serious proposal from being acted on under his Presidency.

    Granted, it could well work out this way. Security Council expansion has been under discussion for decades with little to show for it. As an amendment to the U.N. Charter, a proposal to expand the Security Council must clear two key hurdles. First, it must be supported by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly, or 128 nations. Second, it must be ratified by two-thirds of the General Assembly and all five current permanent members of the Security Council. Wrangling among the member states has sidetracked it repeatedly. Indeed, China’s opposition is Japan’s biggest obstacle to a permanent Security Council seat, and could well be India’s.

    But if a proposal is actually put to vote in the General Assembly, however, the U.S. faces a quandary. The Council cannot be expanded without U.S. approval and India would now expect U.S. to support a proposal granting it a permanent seat. The U.S. faces the difficult prospect of supporting a proposal—even if it is deemed against U.S. interests—or harming relations with India which would interpret a no vote by the U.S. as a broken promise.

    And for what? The relationship between India and the U.S. is moving forward on a number of sound areas based on mutual interest. India would have been disappointed if President Obama had not made his statement. But it would have been consistent with past policy and would have been quickly forgotten. Why risk damaging a burgeoning relationship over an applause line?

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    10 Responses to U.N. Security Council Expansion is Not in America’s Interests

    1. Satish Chandra says:

      Despite Obama's lying to the American public, no sales deals to India have been signed or will be signed because of what I have said below:-

      1) India's njgger-slave, traitor service chiefs who are constantly talking of threats from India's 'neighbors' must be shot on the spot. The United States is EVERYBODY's neighbor. It has already invaded and occupied Afghanistan, a part of traditional India and will expand its occupation to the rest of the subcontinent.

      Was Britain India's neighbor? I am India's expert in strategic defence and the father of India's strategic program, including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan means the coast-to-coast destruction of the U.S. by India; see my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title for steps I have already taken for the nuclear destruction of New Delhi and then the coast-to-coast destruction of the U.S. and extermination of its population.

      Russia and other white countries are U.S. allies. These are the enemies to destroy. All other enemies will be taken care of automatically.

      Conventional arms are worthless for destroying the United Sates. Nuclear arms to destroy the United States with a FIRST STRIKE — this is the key — are cheap and easy to produce with technology India already has. Prepositioning by its special forces a couple of nuclear bombs in Washington and New York and letting the world know we have done so will give India freedom to test thermonuclear weapons designs, ICBMs, etc., as much as it wants, though India already has this freedom but for the njgger-slaves. Alternatively, twenty kiloton bombs can be prepositioned in the largest U.S. cities and then Washington and New York destroyed with the warning that additional U.S. cities will be destroyed if there is any retaliation. The nuclear destruction of New Delhi — without waiting — is all that is needed to make India win.

      My blog above answers all questions. The author's biography can be found in Marquis' Who's Who in the World (2010 and earlier editions). Satish Chandra

      2) I am India's expert in strategic defence and the father of India's strategic program including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. In my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title I wrote: The refusal by pieces of filth such as Advani to recognise the United States as India's number one enemy is sustained by thousands of C.I.A.-RAW-inspired headlines in India's media such as "Indian-American becomes Governor of Louisiana" which should instead say "Indian rewarded for conversion to Christianity with governorship: As reward for conversion to Christianity at age 18, as Americans themselves admit and his numerous published essays and articles on his conversion, Indian made Secretary of Louisiana's Health and Hospitals at age 24, President of the University of Louisiana system at age 27, then Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services in Bush Administration, then member of U.S. Congress and now youngest Governor in U.S. at age 36" (

      Bobby Jindal: The Story They Don’t Want You to Read CenLamar: On Life in Louisiana ). Even more important are the thousands of headlines that are missing from India's media, thanks to C.I.A.-RAW, the story they really don't want anyone to know, saying "India's greatest scientist and greatest living Indian publicly tortured in Harvard seminar, systematically and totally starved for up to 3 weeks at a time, made semi-starved and homeless and even blind for years, kept under 24-hour audio and video surveillance as well as surveillance of communications and electrical typewriter and computer use, document creation and photocopying, etc., by satellite for more than past 3 decades, systematically harassed and in poverty and neutralised and robbed of his work at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, robbed of crores in his money and property in India by C.I.A.-RAW, forced back into exile in the U.S., all with full cooperation and participation of India's RAW and India's C.I.A.-RAW-controlled prime ministers, politicians and media — to keep India poor, weak and enslaved: The most intelligent, most handsome man on Earth, a living Incarnation, plans nuclear supremacy for India in near future, to destroy India's number one enemy, the United States, with ten thousand nuclear-armed missiles and will machine gun and bulldoze into trenches all traitors who stand in the way." Since then I have said they will be destroyed in the nuclear destruction of New Delhi; see my blog.

      My blog above answers all questions. The author's biography can be found in Marquis' Who's Who in the World (2010 and earlier editions). Satish Chandra

    2. Brenda Ford, Dallas, says:

      U.N. SECURITY Council? India is Not to be Trusted
      http://www.foundry.org/2010/11/09/u-n-security-

      SANJAYA BAHEL, 57, chief of the U.N.’s Commodity Procurement Section from 1999 to 2003,…BAHEL, a Former INDIAN OFFICIAL, took the postal position in 2003. (SEE BELOW)

      U.N. OFFICIAL PLEADS GUILTY TO BRIBERY CHARGES

      Thursday, December 21, 2006

      NEW YORK—Nishan Kohli has pleaded guilty to providing a former U.N. procurement officer with cash and pricey Manhattan real estate in exchange for help winning more than $65 million in contracts with the world body, a U.S. attorney said Thursday.

      SANJAYA BAHEL peddled his influence as chief of the Commercial Activities Service in the U.N. Postal Administration to get the lucrative contracts for businessman Kohli, according to Michael Garcia, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Mark Mershon, assistant director-in-charge of the FBI’s New York field office.

      BAHEL, A FORMER INDIAN OFFICIAL, took the postal position in 2003. But before that, he was chief of the commodity procurement section with the U.N. procurement department.

      ***********************************

      FORMER UN PROCUREMENT OFFICIAL IS CONVICTED IN BRIBERY CASE

      6/7/2007

      By Larry Neumeister

      The Associated Press

      NEW YORK (AP)—A former United Nations procurement official was convicted Thursday of charges he helped a friend secure $100 million in U.N. contracts in exchange for cash and a huge discount on two luxury apartments.

      SANJAYA BAHEL, 57, chief of the U.N.’s Commodity Procurement Section from 1999 to 2003, slumped in his chair when the jury in U.S. District Court in Manhattan read its verdict after four hours of deliberations.

      He was convicted of bribery, wire fraud and mail fraud, charges that carry a potential penalty of up to 30 years in prison.

    3. Satish Chandra says:

      Despite Obama's lying to the American public, no sales deals to India have been signed or will be signed because of what I have said below which is also responsible for his support of India's permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council :-

      1) India's njgger-slave, traitor service chiefs who are constantly talking of threats from India's 'neighbors' must be shot on the spot. The United States is EVERYBODY's neighbor. It has already invaded and occupied Afghanistan, a part of traditional India and will expand its occupation to the rest of the subcontinent.

      Was Britain India's neighbor? I am India's expert in strategic defence and the father of India's strategic program, including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan means the coast-to-coast destruction of the U.S. by India; see my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title for steps I have already taken for the nuclear destruction of New Delhi and then the coast-to-coast destruction of the U.S. and extermination of its population.

      Russia and other white countries are U.S. allies. These are the enemies to destroy. All other enemies will be taken care of automatically.

      Conventional arms are worthless for destroying the United Sates. Nuclear arms to destroy the United States with a FIRST STRIKE — this is the key — are cheap and easy to produce with technology India already has. Prepositioning by its special forces a couple of nuclear bombs in Washington and New York and letting the world know we have done so will give India freedom to test thermonuclear weapons designs, ICBMs, etc., as much as it wants, though India already has this freedom but for the njgger-slaves. Alternatively, twenty kiloton bombs can be prepositioned in the largest U.S. cities and then Washington and New York destroyed with the warning that additional U.S. cities will be destroyed if there is any retaliation. The nuclear destruction of New Delhi — without waiting — is all that is needed to make India win.

      My blog above answers all questions. The author's biography can be found in Marquis' Who's Who in the World (2010 and earlier editions). Satish Chandra

      2) I am India's expert in strategic defence and the father of India's strategic program including the Integrated Guided Missile Development Program. In my blog titled 'Nuclear Supremacy For India Over U.S.' which can be found by a Yahoo search with the title I wrote: The refusal by pieces of filth such as Advani to recognise the United States as India's number one enemy is sustained by thousands of C.I.A.-RAW-inspired headlines in India's media such as "Indian-American becomes Governor of Louisiana" which should instead say "Indian rewarded for conversion to Christianity with governorship: As reward for conversion to Christianity at age 18, as Americans themselves admit and his numerous published essays and articles on his conversion, Indian made Secretary of Louisiana's Health and Hospitals at age 24, President of the University of Louisiana system at age 27, then Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services in Bush Administration, then member of U.S. Congress and now youngest Governor in U.S. at age 36" (

      Bobby Jindal: The Story They Don’t Want You to Read CenLamar: On Life in Louisiana ). Even more important are the thousands of headlines that are missing from India's media, thanks to C.I.A.-RAW, the story they really don't want anyone to know, saying "India's greatest scientist and greatest living Indian publicly tortured in Harvard seminar, systematically and totally starved for up to 3 weeks at a time, made semi-starved and homeless and even blind for years, kept under 24-hour audio and video surveillance as well as surveillance of communications and electrical typewriter and computer use, document creation and photocopying, etc., by satellite for more than past 3 decades, systematically harassed and in poverty and neutralised and robbed of his work at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per year, robbed of crores in his money and property in India by C.I.A.-RAW, forced back into exile in the U.S., all with full cooperation and participation of India's RAW and India's C.I.A.-RAW-controlled prime ministers, politicians and media — to keep India poor, weak and enslaved: The most intelligent, most handsome man on Earth, a living Incarnation, plans nuclear supremacy for India in near future, to destroy India's number one enemy, the United States, with ten thousand nuclear-armed missiles and will machine gun and bulldoze into trenches all traitors who stand in the way." Since then I have said they will be destroyed in the nuclear destruction of New Delhi; see my blog.

      My blog above answers all questions. The author's biography can be found in Marquis' Who's Who in the World (2010 and earlier editions). Satish Chandra

    4. bob says:

      let us get out of the un and send it to china,france,russia etc and let the rest of the world pay for it. this was a progressive plan for a one world government

    5. Randy 131 from Flori says:

      Not only is Obama a socialist and communist with fascist tendacies, but he's a stupid socialist and communist with facist tendacies, and that idea and statement proves it. I never before agreed with the idea of the US getting out of the UN, but whats going on with them interfering with our domestic policies in Arizona and gun control treaties which will affect our Constitutional rights, I think now is the time to abandon that organization and remove it from our soil. American rights and freedoms are being usurped by the Democratic socialist policies now and then here comes the UN to finish off those rights and freedoms. My only thoughts of consolation to these problems is that those same Democrats that are taking apart our Constitution will be under the same tyranny of the one world government that they are selling us out to.

    6. Robert Wheatley says:

      Well, DUH!! Anything U.N. is not "in the ineterest of the U.S". 95% of the member nations of the UN are tinpot dictators that hate America.

    7. Skyhawk says:

      We should not be members of the United Nations. Having a World government, especially one that controls United States law, monitary practice, defence, social behavior or individual freedom is not in the best interest of the United States of America. At one time it offered solutions as an arbitor of disputes, but has ignored or abrogated that purpose. It is now simply a forum for other countries to abuse and abase the United States and does not fulfill a function useful to this country.

    8. neel123 says:

      In reaction to Obama's endorsement of India as a member of the UNSC, a Chinese commentator has pointed out that, the US destroyed Iraq without the approval of the UNSC, and therefore adding another member to the UNSC is not going to make a huge difference.

    9. Larry Templeton says:

      Obama only supports policy that seeks to make U S A just another country. He seeks to diminish our power and position as a world leader.

    10. Douglas, Florida` says:

      In the best interest of the United states would be to kick the UN out of America..in order to assure the rest of the World we stopped endorsing any nation…unless it is in the Best Interest Of The United States of America! The idea that this organization would like their laws to replace American Laws under Our Constitution is in itself a problem now or later! As for Obama's comments…well what would you expect of a First Term Senator come President to do on the International Stage…bow when he shouldn't, Shake hands when he should advise wife prior, or just say or do things that he say was taken out of context.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×