· Four years earlier, in March 2008, a United Kingdom-France Summit Declaration stated, “We reaffirm the support of our two countries for the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan for permanent membership (of the UN Security Council), as well as for permanent membership of Africa on the Council. We regret that negotiations towards this goal remain in deadlock.”
· A little over a year after this Declaration, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said, “The reforms of the UN Security Council are an essential component of its (UN’s) revitalisation. The time has come to speed up the search for a compromise formula of its expansion and increased efficiency of its work.”
· In September 2010, Portugal issued a statement which said, “In our view, it is illogical that countries like Brazil and India that have today an irreplaceable economic and political role, are still not permanent members of the Security Council. Africa also deserves consideration…”
· Ban Ki-moon, outgoing Secretary-General of the United Nations, remarked: “The UN Security Council reform being debated since two decades, is long overdue, and the necessary expansion must be made considering how much the world has changed.”
There are statements after statements from powerful nations and personalities not just in support of the expansion of the Security Council but also the inclusion of India as a permanent member. And yet, little headway has been made in this direction. The United Nations continues to discuss and debate, but there is no indication of a possible date of such an expansion. The irony is that even the United Nations, which wants to change the composition of its Security Council, has remained helpless. The clamour for expansion continues to this day, with the countries mentioned above, and more, demanding the change. More recently, Vietnam backed India’s candidature during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to that country this September.
It does appear strange that, despite such wide-ranging backing and compelling arguments, the Security Council’s expansion remains in limbo. Part of the reason is the complex mechanism in place to bring about the change. The UN Charter, which was shaped, incidentally, by victors of the Second World War, says: “Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified... by two-thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all permanent members of the Security Council.”
But there is also lack of agreement on those who should be included as permanent members. China, for instance, which is a permanent member thanks to Indian magnanimity of decades ago, will not want India at the high table. There is also no unanimity among the African Union on which of its nations (two is the total number being circulated) should be included in the select list. Such differences have given a handle to those who are eager to maintain the status quo. Not surprisingly, the favourite names in the race are all supporting one another — if one gets in, the others too in all probability will.
The demand for the expansion of the list of permanent members of the UNSC from the present five is being viewed in some quarters as an attempt by those left out to get a foothold in what is arguably the world’s most powerful and elite decision-making body. This is a legitimate aspiration of nations that have in the last 70 years grown to wield influence on a global scale — due to their economic performance, geo-strategic role, contribution to world peace and harmony, demographic scale, and more.
But the cry for expansion is not crude power play; it has to do with basic reforms the United Nations must undertake. Admittedly, the addition to the list of permanent members of the UNSC is not the only important reform measure, but it is certainly the most high-profile and has more than symbolic value.
A series of articles brought out by the United Nations University a couple of years ago trashed arguments in favour of an expansion in the list of permanent members. One, written by Peter Nadin, said that such an expansion did not necessarily reflect “representativeness” since the five permanent members are representative enough of the “distribution of power in the world”.
Nadin also did not believe in the Indian argument that an enlarged UNSC would address the “democratic deficit, which prevents effective multilateralism... based on a democratically evolved global consensus”. Finally, he said that newer and powerful nations would emerge over the next 20, 30, or 40 years and demand a place at the UNSC. How would the UN handle it, he wondered, hinting at the inadvisability of setting a precedent. But his views do not have many takers, even among the conservative-minded in the United Nations.
It has often been felt that, had the UNSC had more permanent members, the United Nations would have not been able to sanction actions that later backfired and worsened the problem rather than having resolved it. The lack of a broadened representation on the UNSC permanent table also led to well-founded allegations of opacity in functioning, where decisions were rigged and then presented to the UN as fait accompli.
India’s former Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York and also in Geneva, Hardeep Singh Puri, observes in his recent book, Perilous Interventions: The Security Council and the Politics of Chaos, “After the experience of two years on the Council (with India as a non-permanent member), I have good reason now to believe that very little is known about the Security Council even within the charmed circle.” He goes on to add, “Still less — and that does not amount to very much — is known about how the Council actually functions.”
Perhaps an expanded permanent membership of the Security Council will ensure that the lack of transparency is done away with and that decisions are not manipulated by a handful of member nations. Puri’s book is not about Security Council reforms but on how the United Nations (particularly the UNSC permanent members) has handled two of the world’s most remarkable developments, in Syria and libya. He also refers to the West’s pounding of Iraq and what it has left behind in the post-Saddam Hussein period. And yet, the fascinating insight he provides strengthens the need for an urgent expansion of the UNSC permanent membership. For instance, would India, as a permanent member, have allowed for “perilous interventions” by the West in favour of regime change in libya or Syria or IraqIJ Perhaps not. Puri writes, “As a non-permanent member, India played a key role in trying to warn against the consequences of the perilous interventions and attempts at regime change in Syria and libya, in the UNSC.”
The former Indian diplomat gives details of how the UNSC deliberated on the course of action against libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. While France and Britain demanded an immediate referral to the International Court of Justice, India, China, Brazil, South Africa and a few other nations favoured “a calibrated effort by merely threatening ICC referral and proceed towards referral only if compliance and good behaviour were not forthcoming”. The West’s might won and, as Puri notes, “The ICC referral was, in retrospect, the first of many mistakes made by the Security Council.”
less than a year ago, Jeffrey D Sachs, a Professor of Sustainable Development, wrote of the three reforms the United Nations needed as it turned 70. One of them was in the composition of the Security Council, “which no longer reflects global geopolitical realities”. As he pointed out, three of the five permanent members belong to the West, one to East Europe and one to Asia-Pacific. There is none from Africa or latin America.
He wrote that even the rotating seats do no justice to the current situation. “Even with two of the 10 rotating Security Council seats, the Asia-Pacific region is still massively under-represented. The Asia-Pacific region accounts for roughly 55 per cent of the world’s population and 44 per cent of its annual income, but has just 20 per cent (three out of 15) of the seats in the Security Council,” he stated.
Unlike Nadin, Professor Sachs believes that “Asia’s inadequate representation poses a serious threat to the UN’s legitimacy, which will only increase as the world’s most dynamic and populous region assumes an increasingly important global role”. He suggests the addition of at least four Asian seats, “one permanent seat for India, one shared by Japan and South Korea, one for the Asean countries and a fourth rotating among the other Asian countries”. It’s a suggestion that has often been cited as an ‘intermediate’ way out before a full-scale reform can happen.
Of course, the need for reforms in the UNSC predates Professor Sachs’ observations. Back in 1995, as the United Nations turned 50, authors Paul Kennedy and Bruce Russett argued strongly for changes, in an article published in Foreign Affairs. They said, “Even if the United Nations’ administrative and personnel weaknesses were to be corrected, the world body would still require reshaping so that it could better respond to the stresses of the early 21st century.” The authors had a host of ideas in mind, ranging from overseeing environmental accords to peacekeeping to development to representation in the UNSC.
Unfortunately, despite all the support from most permanent members and others, even as late as this year, the push for reforms in the Security Council has got nowhere. The UN General Assembly did not discuss the issue of expansion, deferring it to a later date. Not just India but also the other G-4 countries (Brazil, Japan and Germany) were disappointed, calling the development “unfortunate”. Brazil’s envoy to the UN, Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, said: “There was huge expectation that time had arrived for us to move into concrete negotiations. It is unfortunate that the 70th anniversary of the UN was not able to build up momentum with a view to reaching an agreement on this important item.” The item he was referring to is appropriately called, ‘The question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council’. The only consolation is that following the ‘technical rollover’ of the date, discussions will continue.
The fact is that countries such as China and even Russia to an extent are content with the negotiations dragging on. Both are opposed to the establishment of a time limit to bring the discussions to a satisfactory end (which means the UNSC will never be reformed soon) and want a consensus (which, given the fractious nature of world polity, is near impossible) to evolve before major restructuring is done.
Moreover, China will not support a permanent membership for Japan, with which it has territorial disputes and which has come close to India in recent years. Needless to add, as a member of the UN, Pakistan too is opposed to India’s permanent membership. Instead, it wants an expansion in the category of elected seats. It cannot get the permanent membership, and it will not want India to have it. Its envoy to the UN, Maleeha lodhi, said with reference to India’s determined bid, “A few countries have sought to promote their self-arrogated right to a privileged and unequal status. They have maintained this rigid position since the process began about two decades ago.” But Islamabad is neither a strong nor a credible voice in the UN; it rides piggyback on Chinese heft.
India has not minced words over its frustration at the slow pace of change process. In 2015, then Permanent Representative to the UN, Asoke Mukerji, lamented that “over 60 million people” had been affected by the Security Council’s “malfunctioning”. Speaking on the need for a change in the UNSC’s functioning, he stated, “We note that an ineffective Security Council has meant huge human, economic and environmental costs in terms of wars and conflicts, which the international community justifies.”
Interestingly, this remark is similar to Puri’s assertion in his book which has been published a year later. Puri spoke of the failure of the UNSC, and of the UN in general, in handling the crises in libya, Syria and Iraq, noting that some members were always in a hurry to implement their agenda regardless of the costs involved to the countries being targeted.
Mukerji linked the UNSC expansion to the prospects of the UN meeting its goal underlined in what has been called Agenda 2030: Eradicating poverty. He said, “The longer we delay reforming the Security Council, the more pressure we put on the successful implementation of Agenda 2030, especially for the developing countries.” This was smart because poverty, which challenges most developing countries including India, cannot be addressed by the patronising tones of well-to-do nations. It needs a hands-on approach by those who face it and are aware of the measures needed on the ground to combat it. If such countries have a place on the high table, it would help.
So how is the issue expected to unfold in the coming monthsIJ The Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) holds the key. The General Assembly has at least adopted a negotiating text, after consensus was reached, that now forms the basis of further discussions. New Delhi has termed it “historic” and “pathbreaking”. With a guide map in place, at least the journey can begin. The bad news is that the UN deferred the discussions on the IGN text in the General Assembly’s 70th session and instead rolled it over to the 71st session. In doing so, the General Assembly may have asserted its predominant role in determining Security Council reforms, but the ‘technical’ rollover hasn’t amused the members. It’s going to be a long haul.
Pranab Mukherjee, then not the President, had in his characteristic understatement style, remarked: “I believe that when the reforms in the UN take place and the Security Council will be expanded in the permanent membership category, India will have a place. But first it is to be expanded.” First things do come first. And for the first to come, India cannot let the momentum slacken.