Daily Current Affairs

Permanent membership of the UNSC (GS Paper 2, International Organisation)

Context:

• There is a buzz in India about the prospects of India becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
•  India’s External Affairs Minister has been actively canvassing for the country’s candidature, meeting his counterparts from several countries.

 

P5 nations:

• The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC): China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States constitute what is the last, most exclusive club in international relations.
• Until a quarter century ago, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) had five members, the same five as the P-5. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel have since joined the club.
• The P-5 could do nothing to stop the latter countries from forcing themselves into membership of the NPT. But the permanent membership of the Security Council is another story.

 

Reluctance of the P-5:

• The inescapable fact is that none of the P-5 wants the UNSC’s ranks to be increased. One or the other of them might make some noise about supporting one or more of the aspirants. Each is confident that someone among them will torpedo the enlargement of the club.
• When delegations of 50 countries were drafting the Charter of the future United Nations at Dumbarton Oaks near Washington DC in 1944-45, the article regarding the Security Council, particularly the right of veto, was the subject of maximum debate and controversy. Many countries opposed it.
• The British representative made it clear: either you have a United Nations with veto or there will be no United Nations. The other participating nations had to lump it. The chief Indian delegate said that it was better to have an imperfect United Nations than not to have one.

 

Issue over Veto Power:

• There is considerable unhappiness among membership at large in the UN about the right of veto. The debate about veto is most often raked up when the western members of the P-5 club are not able to have their way.
• It is true that Russia, in its incarnations as the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, has cast more vetoes (estimated to be 120 times, ‘or close to half of all vetoes’) than the three western members of the club.
• But the western members have used their privileged position any number of times to protect Israel when the Palestinian question was being discussed. They also used veto to prevent sanctions being imposed on the apartheid regime of South Africa.

 

Veto power in favour of India:

• India needs to be think carefully about veto. Russia have bailed India out on many occasions on the question of Kashmir. Most importantly, Russia helped India by vetoing unfavourable resolutions during the war of Bangladesh liberation in 1971. Looking ahead, India can never rule out the possibility of the Kashmir issue being raised in the Council at some time in the future.
• India must rule out either Britain or America from casting a negative vote against Pakistan.
• Going by the Chinese position of repeatedly blocking India’s efforts to include confirmed Pakistani terrorists in the sanctions list, it can be sure of Chinese hostility towards India for a long time.

 

Candidates for permanent membership:

• There are four declared candidates for permanent membership: India, Japan, Brazil and Germany, called the G-4.
• Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are unrepresented in the permanent category at present. Africa’s claim for two permanent seats has wide understanding and support, but the Africans have yet to decide which two countries these are to be.
• India can discount Pakistan’s opposition; China will not support India nor will it ever support Japan.
• Brazil has regional opponents and claimants.
• As for Germany, Italy is firmly opposed to its claim. Italy has an interesting argument. If Germany and Japan, both Axis powers during the Second World War, and hence ‘enemy’ states were to join as permanent members, that would leave out only Italy, the third founding member of the Axis group. In any case there are already three western nations among the P-5.
• Even if India enjoyed near universal support, there is no way that India alone can be elected; it will have to be a package deal involving countries from other groups.

 

Amendment to Charter:

• Changing the membership of the Council requires amending the Charter. This involves consent of two-thirds of the total membership of the U N, including the concurring votes of P-5.
• This means that each of the five has a veto. The Charter was amended once in the 1960s to enlarge the Council by additional non-permanent seats.
• Even now, if the proposal was to add a few non-permanent seats only, it would be adopted with near unanimity or even by consensus.
• It is the permanent category that poses the problem. One can have a good idea of the difficulty of amending the Charter by the fact that the ‘enemy clause’ contained in Article 107 of the Charter remains in it even though some of the enemy states such as Germany, Japan, Italy, etc. are very active members, often serve on the Council, and are close military allies of some of the victors in the war.

 

Semi-permanent members:

• A distinguished group of experts suggested a few years ago that a new category of semi-permanent members should be created. Countries would be elected for a period of eight to 10 years and would be eligible for re-election. India ought to give serious consideration to this idea.
• Some experts are of the opinion that India should not accept permanent membership without the right of veto. Even a permanent membership without veto will be tremendously helpful in protecting our interests.
• For, there should be no illusion about how states view membership in the Council. It is all about national interest; nobody is there for any worthy cause such as human rights or even war and peace. India will be and should be no different.

 

Energising India-Nepal ties, the hydropower way

(GS Paper 2, International Relation)

Context:

• In August 2022, the Investment Board Nepal signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with India’s National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) Limited to develop the West Seti and Seti River (SR6) projects,a total of 1,200 MW.
• Interestingly, nearly four years have passed since China’s withdrawal from the project before Nepal decided to grant the project to India.

Challenges:

• Historically, the 750MW West Seti Hydroelectric Projectwas thought of in the early 1980s as a 37 MW run-of-the-river scheme. Nepal issued the developing licence to France’s Sogreah, which prepared a pre-feasibility study in 1987 proposing the scheme without building a dam.
• With the project failing to see the light of the day, Australia’s Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) acquired a majority stake in the early 1990s. Between 1997-2011, attempts to make progress were affected due to investment and environmental concerns.

 

China’s involvement:

• Consequently, the China National Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation stepped in in 2009, with SMEC holding a majority stake. However, China National Machinery and Equipment Import and Export Corporation withdrew citing a poor investment environment.
• In 2011 Nepal revoked the licence of the West Seti Hydropower Company Limited in which SMEC had a majority stake, and handed it over to China.
• In anMoU in 2012, China’s Three Gorges International Corporation was assigned to develop the project, but it withdrew in 2018, citing issues of resettlement and rehabilitation.
• Subsequently, Nepal tried to develop the project by mobilising internal resources. However, increased costs resulted in further delays. Meanwhile, the project was remodelled as the West Seti and Seti River (SR6) joint storage project (1,200 MW).

 

What this project holds for India?

• The decision to involve India is a sign that Nepal is reposing its faith in India to complete the project. If completed, it is expected to provide India the much-needed leverage in future hydropower cooperation.
• The NHPC has initiated a preliminary engagement of the site with an investment of over ₹18,000 crore. It has also signed anMoU with the Power Trading Corporation Limited, India for sale of power.
• India is already involved in the Mahakali Treaty (6,480 MW), the Upper Karnali Project (900 MW) and the ArunThree projects (900 MW) in western and eastern Nepal, respectively.
• This will also help India minimise the geopolitical influence of China and firm its presence in Nepal, considering that the West Seti Hydroelectric Project was a major Chinese venture under the Belt and Road Initiative.
• The project has the potential to enhance cross-border power exchanges between the two countries.

 

Potential for Nepal & India:

• It is ironic that despite its huge hydropower potential, Nepal experiences power shortages during peak time, increasing its dependence on India to bridge the shortfall.
• With an estimated potential of 83,000 MW, Nepal’s electricity exports to India are expected to increase foreign exchange and address the power shortage.
• It is estimated that if the hydropower potential is fully harnessed, Nepal can generate revenue to the tune of ₹310 billion in 2030 and ₹1,069 billion per year in 2045 by exporting electricity to India.
• Similarly, India’s severe deficit in coal-based thermal power plants in recent years, which meet 70% of India’s electricity demand, has compelled the Government to arrange supplies through coal imports, accelerating the search for better alternatives.
• Given the growing energy demand, the West Seti Hydroelectric Project can provide an added alternative and viable way to address power deficits.

 

Needed Steps:

• For the project to be successfully completed, options and alternatives need to be explored.

 

Finance:

• First, the revised cost around the construction process has increased to $2.04 billion.
• Since investment-related constraints have delayed the project, there needs to be a careful study of investment scenarios, particularly a conducive investment environment, distribution and transmission network and cost of resettlement and rehabilitation, at the preliminary stage.

 

Demand:

• Second, Nepal is concerned that the electricity rates and supply from India is inadequate to meet the rising demands.
• To address these concerns, the new MoU has already revised the percentage share of energy that Nepal will receive free of cost from the generation projects to 21.9% from 10% (Section 6.1) and provides for discussion ‘in good faith for further modalities, including Section 6.1’ to make it commercially viable (Section 6.2).
• Further, to address domestic demand, the MoU allows Nepal to request the NHPC to sell the power generated from the projects to the domestic market before selling whole or part to the export market (Section 8.2).

Involving regional partners:

• Third, the project can also be extended to other regional partners under the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) framework for cross-border energy cooperation.
• For example, if the combined estimated hydropower potential in Nepal and Bhutan, along with the potential of Northeast India, is effectively harnessed, a cross-border energy market can be created and optimally operationalised. It will be a win-win at the bilateral and regional levels.

Supreme Court live-streaming

(GS Paper 2, Judiciary)

Why in news?

• The Supreme Court recently began live-streaming proceedings of all constitution bench hearings in a bid to enhance transparency and accessibility in its functioning. 

Background:

• This comes a month after the apex court, for the first time since its inception, live-streamed its proceedings of a bench headed by then chief justice NV Ramana through a webcast portal.
• A unanimous decision was taken by the 30 judges of the apex court in the full court meeting headed by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit to implement an apex court verdict of 2018 in the SwapnilTripathi case.

 

Why live-streaming of cases?

• The Supreme Court wants to increase transparency and accessibility.
• These include the validity of the 103rd constitution amendment granting 10 per cent quota to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and pleas challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act.
• The rationale was spelled out on 26 September, 2018, when the apex court headed by then chief justice of India DipakMisra in a path-breaking verdict and a major leap in imparting transparency in the functioning of the judiciary allowed live-streaming of court proceedings of cases of “constitutional and national importance”.The court said this openness was like “sunlight” which is the “best disinfectant”.
• An apex court bench had said it will soon make the necessary rules for balancing the rights of the public and protecting the dignity of litigants.

 

Public right to know:

• Live-streaming of court proceedings will effectuate “public right to know” and bring in more transparency in judicial proceedings.
• The verdict was passed on a batch of petitions, including those filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising, law student SnehilTripathi and NGO ‘Centre For Accountability and Systemic Change’ on the issue.
• In March 2018, the apex court sought the view of  Attorney-General of India, who in return suggested live-streaming of important cases in the CJI’s court can be started on a pilot basis.
• He gave his support on the basis of decongesting the courts and improving physical access to courts for litigants who have to otherwise travel long distances to come to the court.
• The Attorney-General had said the process can be adopted in other court rooms depending on the success of the pilot project.
• The Supreme Court then approved a set of guidelines suggested by the A-G, which included allowing transcripts and archiving the proceedings.

 

Guidelines by the Attorney-General:

• As per the report the then A-G suggested that the court must retain the power to withhold broadcasting, and to also not permit it in cases involving:

• Matrimonial matters
• Matters involving interests of juveniles or the protection and safety of the private life of the young offenders
• Matters of National security
• To ensure that victims, witnesses or defendants can depose truthfully and without any fear. Special protection must be given to vulnerable or intimidated witnesses.
• It may provide for face distortion of the witness if she/he consents to the broadcast anonymously,
• To protect confidential or sensitive information, including all matters relating to sexual assault and rape,
• Matters where publicity would be antithetical to the administration of justice, and
• Cases which may provoke sentiments and arouse passion and provoke enmity among communities.

 

Other courts livestreaming:

• Six High Courts in India – Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Patna, and Madhya Pradesh –  already have their own channels on YouTube where they live-stream proceedings.
• In April 2020, the Bombay High Court joined a live-streaming virtual courtroom on an experimental basis.
• During the streaming, Justice Gautum S Patel heard nine listed cases and one urgent matter during the public video-conferencing held through the Zoom application.
• The US Supreme Court does not allow video broadcasts, however, audio recordings and oral transcripts of arguments are permitted.
• While Canada, South Africa and United Kingdom court proceedings to be broadcast, Australia and Brazil place certain limitations which vary depending on the courts.

 

Copyright Issue:

• The Supreme Court said it will have its own “platform” to live-stream its proceedings and the use of YouTube for the purpose is temporary.
• A bench headed by Chief Justice UdayUmeshLalit said this when former BJP leader KN Govindacharya’s counsel argued that the copyright of apex court proceedings cannot be surrendered to private platforms like YouTube.
• Referring to a 2018 judgment, the lawyer said it was held that “the copyright over all the material recorded and broadcast in this court shall vest with this court only”.
• The lawyer also referred to the terms of use of YouTube and said this private platform also gets the copyright.

What’s next?

• The apex court may live-stream proceedings through YouTube and later host them on its server. People would be able to access proceedings of the apex court on their cell phones, laptops, and computers without any hassle.