In a new push to their joint bid for speedy UN Security Council reforms, India and the other three G-4 nations (Brazil, Germany and Japan) have sought to drum home the point that an overwhelming majority of member-States have made submissions to expand the council in both permanent and non-permanent categories.
A joint statement, delivered on Monday by India’s Permanent Representative to United Nations Syed Akbaruddin on behalf of G-4, highlighted the fact that as many as129 out of 152 member-States who have made submissions (around 85 per cent) favour expansion of both categories. Speaking at the Inter-governmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Akbaruddin said the categories of both permanent and non-permanent members must be expanded to bring about “an equilibrium that reflects the current situation”.
“We have heard some oft-repeated arguments that expansion in the permanent category would be ‘undemocratic’. let me explain why, in our view, expansion in both categories particularly in the permanent category is essential to reform the Security Council and make it democratic, legitimate, representative, responsive and effective,” he said, stressing that the Security Council as constituted now does not reflect contemporary realities.
Regretting that discussion on UNSC reform that started back in 1993 but has not resulted in any concrete outcome yet, he noted, “While we were busy in our debates, around 1.7 billion people were added to ‘we the peoples’ — in whose name the Charter was adopted and the UN membership increased from 184 to 193.”
“During this period, major shifts in the geo-political and economic order have gained further momentum thereby rendering the structure and composition of the Council out of date in terms of the present day realities,” he said, pointing out that the Security Council has become “less and less representative and more and more out of date with current realities thus eroding its legitimacy and effectiveness”.
Expanding only the non-permanent category will not solve the problem, he said, adding: “It will actually widen the difference between permanent and non-permanent members even more, tilting further the scales in favour of a dispensation that was valid in the special situation in 1945 but is no longer now. This is why a balanced enlargement in both categories is necessarily the only way to ensure an equilibrium that reflects the current situation.”
A larger permanent membership will ensure enhanced representation and say in the decision making from the regions and members which are currently not represented or under represented compared to their role and input so far, he said, adding it would increase the legitimacy and effectiveness and responsiveness of the Council by ensuring that the decisions taken reflect the interest of the broad membership and thus will be better implemented.