Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Did the US trade Security Council expansion for six party talks?
China was at some risk, though, of standing alone in its opposition to expansion. The United States, France, and Britain, at least, would have supported giving permanent seats to the four proposed countries. France and Britain would have done so in Euro-solidarity with Germany, and the United States would have backed the aspirations of its old ally Japan and its new ally India. Also, nine chances for a veto rather than five would have decreased the risk -- and I use the term advisedly -- for Security Council action on any particular matter. Security Council deadlocks usually increase American policy options, at least in today's world.
However, if China were standing alone it would have been under tremendous international pressure to permit the expansion of the UNSC. It needed another country to join it in taking the fall, so to speak, with the four aspirants and their allies. Fortunately for China, it had something that the United States wanted.
Over the weekend just past, Condoleezza Rice visited Beijing for a "20 hour visit." Shortly thereafter, China dispatched an emissary to Pyongyang:
Chinese State Councillor Tang Jiaxuan, a special envoy for President Hu Jintao, arrived in Pyongyang yesterday to pave the way for a new round of Six-Party Talks on nuclear disarmament.
He met with Pak Bong Ju, premier of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), on "important issues of common concern."
The three-day visit comes ahead of the expected resumption of the Six-Party Talks and two days after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice concluded a 20-hour visit to Beijing on Sunday.
Monday we learned that North Korea has in fact agreed to the demand of the United States that it return to "six party" talks.
"China can make or break North Korea," says Alexandre Mansourov of the Asia-Pacific Center, "But it is not in Beijing's interest to break. What China wants is a stable buffer between itself and US troops in the South."
Well-placed foreign sources in Beijing report that while it is unclear who has been paying Kim to participate in the nuclear talks, one of the six-party members "certainly" has been. It is generally regarded that only China and South Korea would offer Kim cash to participate.
Tuesday the United States declared its opposition to the expansion of the Security Council and recommended that the General Assembly vote against it.
The United States on Tuesday firmly rejected a resolution by Brazil, Germany, Japan and India to expand the 15-member U.N. Security Council and advised 191 U.N. members against voting for any proposal.
"We will work with you to achieve enlargement of the Security Council, but only in the right way and at the right time," said Tahir-Kheli, adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "We urge you, therefore, to oppose this resolution and, should it come to a vote, to vote against it."
To this hobbyist-blogger, it certainly appears as though the United States agreed to oppose the expansion of the UNSC and take the heat from the aspirants, and in return China agreed to ask, or more probably order, North Korea back into the six-party talks.
9 Comments:
By 
Baron Bodissey, at
Wed Jul 13, 12:39:00 PM:
Condi may have traded our help for a mess of pottage. After all, the PRK has entered and withdrawn from talks over and over again. Why should this be any different?
Expect the North Koreans to issue their usual ridiculous demands ( "respect", massive unilateral concessions, etc.) and then abruptly walk out in a huff.
Been there, done that.
By jp, at
Wed Jul 13, 06:10:00 PM:
By desert rat, at
Wed Jul 13, 08:22:00 PM:
Trade the status que for one more crack at it with the N,K's. If there is no advancement nothing is lost, expansion of the SC can occur at any time. Better that we had a representitive there, first.
By 
, at
Wed Jul 13, 08:37:00 PM:
The US does not object to Brazil, India, and Japan joining, it does object to the balance of the proposal which includes Germany, and two African states - Nigeria and Egypt. Schroeder was informed 2 months ago by Bush that we would not support German accession.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jul 13, 09:36:00 PM:
Toranagasama, good point, but when push came to shove would not the U.S. have been willing to trade a non-veto on Germany in return for support for the other three? It seems to me that we still changed our position fairly substantially?
By , at
Wed Jul 13, 10:24:00 PM:
Could be. But the U.S. holds a lot of cards it can use against China. From what I remember, the position of the U.S. has been for Japan joining the inner circle and non-commital or (diplomatically) against the other three. Thus it is not a big stretch, nor a big concession to China, to take such a stand against all four gaining entry in one fell swoop. What is important is that China is the key. I hope this means Bush is finally getting serious and applying the screws (and if needed a few rotten carrots) to China with regards to North Korea. I fear it is not the case.
By , at
Thu Jul 14, 12:21:00 AM:
It would be a better deal if it went something like this:
U.S. to China: we'll back no expansion as long as North Korea stays in the talks.
Or, better: the deal wasn't, get them back to the table, but get them to agree with certain specific things; which includes getting them to the table.
Anyway, it might be true that an expanded security council is a good thing; but not necessarily.
Putting India on might tick off Pakistan, and it's easy to see how the U.S. doesn't want that right now.
And maybe Bush really doesn't want to reward Germany NOW; maybe wait till a new party, more friendly, in power. Punishing those who cross you is worthwhile, and necessary, in politics.
And, it could be the U.S. has checked, and these additions don't help the vote count on those issues of interest, coming up in the near future; so hold off.
By Umesh Patil, at
Thu Jul 14, 02:44:00 AM:
It is a smart observation and a very plausible theory. Of course, it will be a while before true details come out. The points to note here are:
- US does not need to link acceptance of deal by North Korea to expansion UNSC. As others pointed, expansion can be always taken in future.
- Mere talk of expansion and the whole hoopla about that is power projection for the existing 5 members. So the game will continue for long.
- The actual expansion will happen due to either one or some of the big 5 want to contain or punish the other P5 member or members; or it becomes indispensable to avoid an aspiring country in UNSC.
- As of today in 2005, the fact is none of the countries in G4 or any other ones have made it indispensable to get added to UNSC. So the primary driver will be one section of P5 punishing the other.
- As long as America does not feel that it is lost against China on country-to-country basis; America will afford to play the game of UNSC expansion but not doing anything. When that threshold is crossed, or when American foreign policy makes the call that China is likely to go out of hand in terms of America's ability to influence world affairs; West (US - UK and may be France) will rush to add more members to UNSC; clearly with a preference to China’s Asian neighbors.
- Japan will be the first addition. India could have chance if India is ready to commit its large manpower of armed forces for international operations (Iraq?). As of now, this debate is not settled within Indian Polity. That is a truly important call for India and indeed things are not clear there. Besides, in order to keep alive it's candidacy; Indian economy will need continue to soar for long; which is not easy in itself.
- Brazil and Germany are weak case. Germany is weakest. What can it bring to World Order that others cannot when its economy is challenged? Watch out for Saudi Arabia. If Oil continues to boom like what it is now and Saudi's make some reasonable changes in their political structure; Saudi's could stake the claim.
- In the end implicit American approach of promoting those countries who are economically self sufficient, reasonably on way to Democracy (China and Soviet Union were historical necessities) and can contribute in terms of money or armed forces or leadership; is much more realistic approach.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Jul 14, 04:47:00 AM:
Umesh Patil, excellent comments in particular. I wish I'd thought of some of them myself!
