For India, an arduous journey ahead to UNSC
While India on Monday welcomed the United Nations General Assembly's decision to adopt “text-based negotiations” for reforms of the Security Council as “significant”, it may be too early yet to celebrate. Technically, for the first time in its history, this is a concrete assent of the entire UNGA to a defined instrument of negotiation for the Council's reforms. It is a logical step to Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's 1992 initiative to address the imbalances that had crept into a UNSC of 1945 vintage. Monday's development is due recognition of the increased membership of the UN (presently 200) as also the current geopolitical and economic environment which make the Permanent 5 grouping anachronistic and arithmetically skewed. India, a legitimate claimant of permanent membership, has for the past seven years argued for a text to define the reforms negotiations; there is movement on that front now. Arguably, India as the second largest nation in terms of population has grown from strength to strength in the intervening decades of the Council's formation, compelling even the World Bank to take note of its growth as one of the most significant developments of our time. However, its entry into the UN's elite club must overcome several hurdles, some of which seem insurmountable at the present juncture. The legitimacy of its claim apart, India is still to emerge on the right side of the debate on the composition and size of a reformed Council. UNSC reforms primarily relate to categorisation of membership, size of the Council (permanent and non-permanent), regional representation, and the oft-contested issue of veto powers, so far an exclusive preserve of the P-5. That the United States, China and Russia, three P5 members, did not contribute to Monday's text indicates their misgivings over the hypothetically reformed and expanded Council. While India's claim has found varying degrees of resonance in the P5, unequivocal support for its entry is yet forthcoming. For instance, while China may speak of India's worthiness as a candidate, it is against the Council's expansion per se; its veto could instantly abort the process as also India's entry. Individual support from all five members, therefore, does not guarantee India's inclusion, if and when the Council is expanded.
For the moment, India's is only one, albeit the most powerful, voice in a global clamour for permanent and non-permanent seats at the Security Council. Japan, Germany and Brazil, alongside India, have staked their candidature through the G-4. This has been predictably contested by respective regional rivals Italy, Argentina, Mexico, Pakistan and South Korea, through the ‘Uniting for Consensus' grouping. Italy opposes Germany while South American countries rally against Brazil; in Asia, Pakistan opposes India while South Korea contests Japan's claim. Added to this is the African chorus for regional representation. Given that the number of candidates far outstrips the seats to be made available in an expanded Council, India must prepare for an arduous journey ahead to the United Nations high table.