The report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, scheduled for release on Dec 2, contains two alternatives as part of its proposals to expand the Security Council. Neither of the alternatives fulfils New Delhi's long-standing position that as part of reform of the UN system, the Security Council should be expanded to include India.

Currently the Council has five veto-wielding permanent members -- the US, Russia, China, France and Britain -- and 10 rotating members.

The first alternative would expand the Council to a 24-member body, six of them as new permanent members without the veto and three new non-permanent members for a two-year-term.

The new permanent members under this dispensation would be two from Asia, two from Africa and one each from Europe and the Americas.

The second alternative would have eight states as a new class of members serving for four years each with the possibility of their tenure being renewed. They would include two countries each from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas.

While many independent observers say the alternatives constitute a lose-lose situation, Indian diplomatic sources think otherwise.

"The panel is just one instrument which has made recommendations. These recommendations are not cast in concrete. Eventually the decision rests with the General Assembly," an informed high diplomatic source told IANS.

"The panel's recommendations are what they are. But they do not in any way close the door on a decision that would satisfy India," the source said.

A statement issued jointly by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, which together form a group called G-4, joined together in their collective endeavour to expand the Security Council, said: "The expansion of both categories of Security Council membership, permanent and non-permanent, and the inclusion of developing countries in both will remedy today's structural shortcomings."

"This figures, inter alia, in the High-level Panel report and will enable the Security Council to reflect today's realities," the statement said.

It added that the four countries support "the call for a comprehensive approach" to take on interconnected threat to the international peace and security".

"The international community needs to embrace this opportunity wholeheartedly to bring about the needed change... We believe in acting with the required attention and without artificial acceleration and delays," the statement said.

While there is a widely held belief that the two alternatives essentially leave India's aspirations to be a full member in tatters, South Asian diplomats think otherwise.

"The very term permanent membership means you have to have full powers, including the veto. The two alternatives proposed by the panel are somewhat like inviting someone to a black tie dinner and asking him not to eat. Either you are a permanent member with full powers or your are not. There is no in-between," said a South Asian diplomatic source, who did not wish to be identified.

The panel was constituted by Secretary General Kofi Annan in November 2003 under the leadership of Anand Panyarachun, former prime minister of Thailand. Its 15 other members included Satish Nambiar, former lieutenant general in the Indian Army and force commander of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)

Diplomats from the G-4 countries say at the next summit of the United Nations in September 2005, member countries, while considering the panel's recommendations, would call for a Security Council that adequately represents the global power balance.

There is a possibility that India might go with either of the two alternatives if only to get on to the Security Council first and then work towards equipping permanent members with equal powers. The permanent five members have long resisted including new members with the veto power.

--Indo-Asian News Service