UNSC

Apart from the relevance of size, ancient wisdom, culture and current economic strength, India’s role as a vital 21st century problem solver cannot but add weight to its claims to membership of the Security Council.

___

UNGA adopted a resolution to  use a text as the basis for discussions on UNSC reforms.

This also indicates that most countries in the General Assembly support a restructuring of the UNSC. Meaningful reform of the Security Council is overdue. The institution, formed to meet the challenges of the post-War world, has struggled to cope with the dynamics of the post-Soviet Union world order. In the past quarter century, the global order has seen massive changes, from American unilateralism to the rise of multilateral institutions such as BRICS. The developing nations, including India, now play a larger role in both the international economy and politics. But these changes are not reflected in the UN, where all critical decisions are still being taken by the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council.

Besides, the geopolitical rivalry among the permanent members has prevented the UNSC from coming up with effective mechanisms to deal with global crises. Syria is a case in point. Even as a humanitarian tragedy is unfolding in Syria, there is no consensus in the Security Council on how to tackle it. Even UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon admitted recently that the UNSC had failed Syria.

If the UN still shies away from reforming the Security Council, the possibility of the institution being side-lined by emerging powers cannot be ruled out. The resolution adopted in the General Assembly offers a chance to break the logjam.

But the road ahead is not easy. Three powerful members of the UNSC — Russia, China, and the U.S. — are opposed to any major restructuring of the Council. While Russia and the U.S. have said they would support India’s UNSC bid, when it comes to proceedings at the UN their positions represent a far cry from the promises they make at bilateral meetings. The U.S. favours only a “modest expansion” of the UNSC, while Russia doesn’t want any change in the veto arrangement. Even if the General Assembly members reach a consensus on reform, it could be shot down by the permanent members. The permanent members should realise that a more democratic and representative Security Council would be better-equipped to address global challenges, and that there are more pressing issues to be tackled at the global level than merely preserving their prerogatives. The champions of reforms — India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, or the G4 — should continue their multilateral diplomacy to build a democratically evolved global consensus on restructuring the UNSC.

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the most powerful body in the United Nations, with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has five powerful countries (US, UK, France, Russia, and China) as permanent members along with 10 non-permanent members. Despite UN has been largely successful in ending various conflicts, it is unable to address many challenges faced by raising extremism across the world.

Although UNSC can be credited for its peace-keeping missions in Haiti, Congo, etc. The big issues of world peace – terrorism, extremism, nuclear proliferation can‘t be entrusted upon a body which is more often paralytic than effective.

Russia’s intervention in Crimea and Georgia could not be stopped by UNSC as negotiations failed due to hard stands of opposing sides.

UN security council consists of two types of members: Permanent and temporary. The five permanent members: US, UK, Russia, China and France enjoy veto power. This provision has been widely criticized by different nations. Also there is voice for increasing African, South American and Asian representation in UNSC.

India has been a temporary member many times. It wants to secure permanent membership in UNSC for its growing importance in world affairs. But the Indian journey to UNSC Permanent membership seems very difficult. Following are the major roadblocks:

Permanent membership is critical for India for following reasons:

Why such move would not bring any great change: Unlikely that India would get veto power. At most Veto power might be diluted or gradually done away with. The latter seems impossible though given the stiff resistance of P5 countries. Hence it will be a waste of effort if no veto is given.

India needs to be a permanent member as it has 1/6th of world’s population, largest democracy,7th largest economy and one of the largest contributor to peace-keeping troops, leader of developing countries and has a better say in global platform and deserves a strong position too.

India needs support of 129/193 members of UNGA for a seat in UNSC. It is as obvious that Pakistan will raise Kashmir issue and China may veto against the resolution. But India should not lose hope about UNSC reforms it demanded from so long. It will be India’s foreign policy test as how much support it gains and become successful to break the dominance of P-5 in UNSC and secure its position in the most powerful body of the world.