UN Security Council (UNSC), must reflect contemporary global realities.UNSC has been reduced to a tool to serve the caprice of its five permanent members. Due to its structural defects, he UNSC has never been capable of preventing the most destructive and deadly wars, many of which are catered by the countries entrusted with the veto. Russia’s armed intervetion in Ukraine, USA’s Iraq invasion are testimonies to this fact. As long as responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security is left to the whims of only the most powerful in the international order, the world cannot expect quality peacekeeping efforts. For this purpose the reform of the UN including the expansion of the UNSC in both permanent and non-permanent categories is crucial. To this end, the Government of India has been actively working along with other like-minded countries for building support among the UN membership for a meaningful restructuring and expansion of the UNSC.
Why UNSC reform is necessary
• UNSC still reflects the geopolitical architecture of the Second World War. The Council’s five permanent members – United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China – enjoy their position, as well as the privilege of a veto over any Council resolution or decision, by virtue of having won a war 70 years ago.
• Expanded only once in 1963 to add 4 non permanent members. Since then the membership of the United Nations has increased from 113 to 193 without any change in the composition of the UNSC.
• The current composition of the Council also gives undue weight to the balance of power of at least a half century ago. Europe, for instance, which accounts for barely 5 percent of the world’s population, still controls 33 percent of the SC seats in any given year (and that does not count Russia, regarded by much of the world as another European power).
• No permanent member from Africa, despite 75% of work of the UNSC focused on Africa.
• Unable to respond effectively to situations of international conflict.
• The current Council membership denies opportunities to other states that have contributed through participation in peacekeeping operations. India and Brazil are notable examples of this.
• Any amendment requires a two-thirds majority of the overall UN membership. An amendment would further have to be ratified by two-thirds of the member states.
India’s case
India, with a population of 1.2 billion, a $ trillion economy, the third largest country in terms of purchasing power parity, a nuclear weapons power with the third largest standing army in the world, and a major contributor to the UN’s peacekeeping missions, should be a permamnent member of the UNSC . By any objective criteria such as population, territorial size, GDP, economic potential, civilizational legacy, cultural diversity, political system and past and on-going contributions to the activities of the UN – especially to UN peacekeeping operations – India is eminently suited for permanent membership of an expanded UNSC.
India’s performance as a non-permanent member of the Security Council during 2011- 2012 has also significantly strengthened India’s claim to
permanent membership. India has served as a non-permanent member of the UNSC for 7 terms, viz. in 1950 – 1951, 1967 – 1968, 1972 – 1973, 1977 – 1978, 1984 – 1985, 1991 – 1992, and 2011 – 2012. India has again put forth its candidature for the 2021-22 term.
India along with Brazil, Japan and Germany (together known as the G-4) has proposed expansion of the membership of the UNSC in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Pakistan has called the grouping a “minority” that wants to reconfigure the Security Council to secure “their national interests’’.
Separately, India is spearheading a group of around 42 developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America –called the L.69 Group – which has demanded urgent action on the UNSC reform front. With a view to harness the support of the 54-member strong African Group, the L.69 has engaged in discussions with the Committee of C-10 of the African Union to evolve a joint position on UNSC reform.
India is also pursuing the matter through bilateral channels with interlocutors. A large number of countries have supported India’s initiatives for reform of the UNSC as well as endorsed its candidature for permanent membership.
Challenges
– Opposition from Italy, Mexico and Pakistan—called the “Coffee Club” by UN diplomats as well as the reluctance of existing members that has stalled the reform.
– China is reluctant to see its stature diminished.The thought of sharing permanent status with India and Japan is not one that evokes much joy in Beijing. Though it has supported India’s bid as a permanent member, with a rider that India does not associate its bid with Japan.
– USA is conscious that a larger body would be more unwieldy and a bigger collection of permanent members more difficult to manage. USA of course likes a council which it can dominate.
– Failure to name the possible African representatives because of intense rivalry amongst them and severe criticism of their candidature within Africa. African opponents of Council reform have adroitly maneuvered the African Union into an impossible position under the label “the Ezulwini Consensus” (named after the Swaziland town in which the formula was agreed). The Ezulwini Consensus demands two veto-wielding permanent seats and five non permanent seats for Africa in a reformed Council, a demand couched in terms of African self-respect but pushed precisely by those countries that know it is unlikely ever to be granted.
Way forward
Kishore Mahbubani , a noted academic and diplomat, advocates a 7-7-7 formula for UNSC reform — seven permanent members, seven semi-permanent members and seven non-permanent members.
There is also broad support for the idea that there should be concrete outcome on the issue of UNSC reform in 2015, which will mark the 70th anniversary of the UN and the 10th anniversary of the 2005 World Summit which had called for ‘early’ reform of the UNSC. At a time when faster growing economies, more youthful populations, and the concentration of natural resources are mainly in the developing world , a reform of global political management systems to respond to crises and violence is even more imperative. If the UNSC includes India and Brazil, and also represents Africa and West Asia, it will infuse the council with a deeper understanding and enable a wiser response to the world’s cascading political crises, and not hasty and excessive militarism.
Leave a Reply