1. (U) In what was billed by the MEA as an important policy
speech, Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran set forth India's
"preliminary" views of the High Level Panel Report on UN
Reform in a December 30 address. Prior to Saran's speech,
MEA Joint Secretary (UN Political) BS Prakash advised us to
pay close attention to the remarks as they would offer the
"authoritative" GOI view on the Panel Report. During his
speech to prominent members of the New Delhi foreign policy
community, including former Foreign Secretary Muchkund Dubey,
MEA Additional Secretary Meera Shankar, and High-Level Panel
member General Satish Nambiar, Saran emphasized:

-- The UN must realign its priorities with those of the
developing world if it is to retain its relevance. It should
safeguard the interests of developing countries instead of
taking punitive actions against them.

-- The international order is not democratic enough because
it does not adequately reflect the views of developing
countries, which constitute most of the world's population.

-- Multilateralism is the mechanism through which democracies
can function. Citing the recent tsunami as an example, he
said that today's collective challenges require a collective
response.

-- The UN needs its own budget so that it can act
independently. Most UN activities are funded by donors,
rather than from the UN budget, giving donor countries a
disproportionate influence over UN priorities.

-- The Panel Report did not focus enough on disarmament. The
Chemical Weapons Convention could be used as a model to
eliminate nuclear weapons.

-- The UN is not the only vehicle to deal with issues of
international security. The international community can also
use bilateral and regional mechanisms (where appropriate) to
resolve problems.

-- The international community should deal with crises in a
democratic way, "without intervention."

-- Criticizing "political expediency," Saran said the current
international system is too focused on punishing the
recipients of nuclear proliferation and not focused enough on
the sources of proliferation.



2. (U) Saran downplayed the issue of Security Council
expansion, never once even mentioning the word "veto." He
reiterated previous GOI comments that India views Security
Council expansion as only one part of broader UN reform.

Comment


--------------------------





3. (C) Saran's reticence on the mechanics of Security
Council expansion, along with conflicting signals from other
GOI officials on the subject (reftel), suggest a continued
lack of consensus in New Delhi on whether India would be
prepared to accept a Security Council seat without a veto.
The internal GOI line is highly pragmatic, but Indian public
opinion is unprepared to accept what many would see as
second-class status. Saran's emphasis on the need to deal
with the sources of nuclear proliferation, echoes comments in
our recent non-proliferation dialogue and reflects the GOI
view that the international community has not satisfactorily
dealt with A Q Khan or Islamabad's alleged support for the
network.
MULFORD