The politico-economic map of the world has changed a lot since the United Nations was founded on 15 October 1945. It is a fact that the changes are not reflected in the world body. Although the status quo is being maintained, the UN body, more precisely the Security Council is no longer a fully representative body. Understandably the frustration about the ineffectuality of UN is growing and the need for the expansion of the Security Council is voiced with genuine conviction. The European lobby is asking for the inclusion of Germany; Japan's candidature as the second largest economy of the world is also being heard. India's profile is no less credible having one fifth of the world population with over one billion people, when its economy is considered as one of the prospective economic miracle of the world, and its nuclear capability is growing in strength. India has the credentials and the leverage to pursue its candidature, at least for a non-veto permanent member of the Security Council. Questions may be rightly raised about the prospect, obstacles, and the sensible course of pursuing its candidature to fruition.

Presently, it does not have any openly sympathetic global patron to sanctify its candidature and to endow it with its bite. Its traditional ally Russia does no longer have the prime profile of worldwide influence and also has to consider its ties to European Union. Russia will not want to commit its influence for India's candidature at the expense of Germany and Japan. She has more economic interest at stake with Germany and to a lesser extent with Japan to estrange these two countries. Besides as the economy of India grows it can become a competitor for Russia. It is more in the interest of Russia to further broaden and strengthen its ties with Germany. Russia alone cannot advocate India's candidature to success.

France being a lesser global power would not want a further dilution of the compact character of Security Council by increasing the number of its permanent members. As a matter of bilateral ties its goals are more in common with Germany than with India. In France, India will not find an ardent advocate of its candidature. Furthermore it may be said that it may serve to France's purpose to have a partner in Germany in the Security Council. It is also said that Germany may acquiesce to US because of past obligations, but to become a second fiddle to France is historically galling. The final scenario may be such that France would rather be content to sit on the sideline as a permanent member and unlikely to throw its lot for a prospective candidate.

Britain is perhaps on the lowest rung among the permanent members. It is going through a period of declining fortune in the world. Her integration with European Union is hesitant and is yet to accept Euro as a common currency for the fear of its economy sliding further. Britain has therefore thrown its lot with US for maintaining a semblance of international clout. China for its part is in the same sphere of influence as India is. Their frosty relationship has however improved and normal diplomatic contacts are cultivated. They are nonetheless far from being allies with similar interests and goals. China may not bellicosely oppose India's candidature but neither will they bless it. In this situation Russia also has strategic interests to take into account China's opinion.

The lone arbiter here is America. A Democratic incumbent would have been historically attentive of India's candidature. On the other hand a Republican incumbent is generally identified with a policy tilting towards Pakistan. Besides, G.W. Bush is believed to have close workable relationship with Musharraf. Furthermore another contender Japan enjoys far greater leverage with the American administration. Japan as the second largest economy of the world has important economic ties and is strategically a committed defence partner of America. It would be more compatible with American interest to have Japan as the new non-veto permanent member of the Security Council if she at all favourably considers the idea of expansion of the Security Council. America will also not want to forget the socialist and non-aligned legacy of Pandit Nehru which she at times finds uncomfortably sermonising to handle. By that standard Japan will be suitably compliant and China will be strategically resourceful for vital tradeoffs.

Considering the configuration of geo-political realities India's candidacy does not appear bright for a vigorous campaign forcing a favourable result in the immediate future. India has to wait. The groundwork has to be undertaken in the home turf to make its candidacy credible. South Asia is a region of 1.5 billion people having two nuclear countries outside the council of five big powers. India's sphere of influence may as well extend to Central Asia and under favourable condition of confidence building may also find support among Arabian Sea countries. Besides, the area in South Asia stretches over a far greater area than Japan and Germany can hope to claim as home turf with common historical and cultural ties.

Japan is still regarded as an insular society. Its immediate neighbours China and Korea have strong historical aversion of Japan as a brutal invading and occupying power. China has bitter memories of 'Rape of Nanking' during the late thirties of the last century. Koreans still bristle at the idea of forsaking the demand of an official apology from Japan for past years of brutalities. Similar things, although less bitter in its tone, can be said of South East Asian ASEAN countries. Japan's war machine of Second World War still revokes memories of brutal past. Since then although Japan has succeeded in building useful economic ties in the Far East and South East Asia, it has not been successful to that extent in building a kindly image. China for that matter is much ahead as a trusting ally.

India has to build its image in her region. China's discomfort about Tibet and NEFA border dispute should be attended with toned down benign exchanges. China's long standing ally Pakistan should be the linchpin of India's image building efforts. There never was such an invigorating time in India-Pakistan bilateral relationship. Sonia Gandhi as a foreign born leader of India is ideally suited to rise above historical animosities between India and Pakistan born out of most inept surgical operation conducted by British colonials in marking the territories of the two countries. It brings much relief that the partition bug does not haunt Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and her possible political heirs, her children Priyanka and Rahul. As for Pakistan, it is equally an important breakthrough that its people have shed the mental makeup fed on hatred of India. It was not orchestrated neither it is the bait Musharraf has offered. The goodwill was on display from Karachi to Quetta, from Lahore to Peshawar. No amount of public relations gimmick convinced the dour and straight thinking Beluchs to cheer for Indian hockey team and the Pathans to applaud the Indian cricket teams, cheerfully chanting for Balaji.

The time is ripe for making South Asia a region of peace and cooperation at all times. India alone is larger than the combined area of the rest of the members of South Asia including Afghanistan. Besides at the international level India has more to gain from this closer and trusting interaction than the other countries. She has to assuage the fears of the other countries of domination. In fact other than Pakistan, India enjoys leverage with all other countries of South Asia. Simply it is a matter of India building genuine trust among her neighbours and conducting bilateral and multilateral ties with justice and benign open-mindedness. It is a good omen that India has expressed her willingness to settle the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. For the first time a formula has been set afloat in the observations of President Musharraf. Things are no longer beyond the pale of human efforts since Pakistan appears to have a flexible stand on the status of Kashmir. It all depends on India budging from its stand of claiming the whole of Kashmir as an Indian territory or of maintaining the status quo. And for Pakistan to budge from its stand that Kashmir either has to accede to Pakistan or to India. The process can begin by taking the human approach to retrieve Kashmir from the hostility of insurgency and counter-insurgency taking human lives. Pakistan looks to have relented on shepherding the militants. India is reciprocating by reducing the number of troops in Kashmir.

The smaller neighbours deserve no less attention. Prabhakaran's Tigers are contemplating to embark on a peaceable road of resolving the Tamil issue. Fortunately India has leverage both with the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers. The Indian government is definitely aware of the tragic fate of Rajiv Gandhi to steer clear of direct involvement and instead opts for the facilitator's role of a peace broker. As for Bangladesh, one hopes the bilateral ties would overcome the hiccup of Bangladesh FMs euphoria of candid talk. India can come out of past emotional legacies and treat bilateral ties with Bangladesh as a matter of well-attended constructive engagement. The rewards are for India to take.

Turning South Asia into a peaceable region of cooperation, goodwill and justice will endow India to lay a genuine claim for a non-veto permanent membership of UN Security Council. Given an enduring friendly climate of trust her neighbours may even lend support to her candidature. It is principally India's mission and she has to grow to deserve the stature. India's largeness and past are indeed parts of her heritage but the perception of her higher standing should not constrict her bilateral ties with her smaller neighbours. India's UN prospects depend on how well they cultivate this realisation to benefit their profile and candidature.

Syed Maqsud Jamil is General Manager of Summit Group.