海角大神

President Obama on Monday wowed the Indian Parliament with a strong US endorsement of India鈥檚 bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

But Mr. Obama鈥檚 flattering justification for India to join one of the world鈥檚 most exclusive and powerful clubs 鈥� he said India is no longer an 鈥渆merging鈥� nation, but rather has 鈥渁lready emerged鈥� 鈥� does not mean the booming South Asian democracy should expect to see its name engraved on a Security Council seat in New York any time soon.

Just ask Japan.

Japan has had its hopes set on a permanent Security Council seat since at least the early 1990s. President Clinton endorsed the idea of Japan and Germany joining the Council鈥檚 five permanent and veto-endowed members: the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France. A decade later, in 2005, the Bush administration made supporting Japan鈥檚 accession to a permanent Council seat US policy 鈥� (Germany ... not so much).

But time and again Japan has seen its hopes dashed, as a global security body that largely retains a configuration dating from its post-World War II creation finds reform bids stymied by regional suspicions, geopolitical calculations, and plain old power-mongering.

Virtually everyone seems to agree, at least publicly, that the Security Council needs to change to reflect a 21st century of diffused power and new global players. It last saw reform in 1965, when the number of nonpermanent, non-veto-wielding seats was expanded to reflect the UN鈥檚 expanding membership in the postcolonial era.

But getting from consensus to actual reform is not going to be easy, for both practical and political reasons, says Michael Doyle, a former UN official now specializing in international relations at Columbia University in New York.

First, there are the 鈥渆xtensive and demanding processes of reforming the UN club,鈥� Mr. Doyle says, noting that it takes not only avoiding any veto by one of the Council鈥檚 permanent members, but a two-thirds vote by the full Council and approval of the General Assembly.

鈥淭hat alone is a considerable bar to clear,鈥� he says.

But perhaps even more daunting are the political hurdles, Doyle says. 鈥淢any countries, in particular some of the original permanent members, don鈥檛 want to dilute their power in this way,鈥� he says. 鈥淎nd then any time you propose a new member or new countries for the Council, you have others immediately objecting. If it鈥檚 India,鈥� for example, 鈥渢hen what does Pakistan think? If it鈥檚 Japan, right away China is there questioning the idea, not to mention South Korea. And Mexico and Argentina have their own questions if anyone proposes a permanent seat for Brazil,鈥� he adds.

China has also been leery of any reform that boosts the global status of countries to its south and to its east 鈥� India and Japan 鈥� in one fell swoop.

Doyle worked with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on two options he proposed in 2005 for reforming the Council 鈥� one that called for adding six new permanent members, and a 鈥淧lan B鈥� that proposed adding 鈥渟emipermanent鈥� members that would face reelection. Neither proposal gained much traction.

Another plan was put forward by the so-called Group of Four 鈥� Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil 鈥� who called for permanent membership for themselves, with the prickly veto issue to be put off for consideration only after the four had been on the Council for 15 years.

In endorsing India鈥檚 bid for a Council seat, Obama certainly stroked a few feathers, but he also hinted at a realism about prospects for reform, saying 鈥淸I]n the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.鈥�

After Obama鈥檚 speech, the State Department鈥檚 top career diplomat, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns, said in New Delhi that the road to Council reform would be arduous. 鈥淭his is bound to be a very difficult process and it鈥檚 bound to take a significant amount of time,鈥� he said.

In the meantime, Doyle notes, Obama doesn鈥檛 risk much 鈥� OK, maybe a few questions from an injured Pakistan 鈥� in making India feel good with a gift that delivers on its promise in years at best. 鈥淭he reality is that it doesn鈥檛 cost the president very much to say, 鈥業鈥檓 going to India, I can say India should have increased status in this way,鈥� because it鈥檚 probably something for way, way down the road.鈥�