India’s Rightful Place In UN and World Decision Making

“The UN faces a crisis of confidence without comprehensive reforms. Today’s interconnected world needs a reformed multilateralism that gives voice to all stakeholders, addresses contemporary challenges and focuses on human welfare. A structure set up in 1945 does not reflect the contemporary realities of the 21st century and is ill-equipped to handle current challenges”

“This is a country, which has hundreds of languages, hundreds of dialects, many sects and many ideologies, which was a leading global economy for centuries. The transformational changes happening here affect a large part of the world”

“For how long will India be kept out of the decision-making structures of the UN?”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, 755h Session UNGA, 26 Sep 2020

     India has been spearheading decades-long efforts seeking reforms in the Security Council, with widespread support, including the US, the UK, France and Russia – for a permanent seat for India at the Council. China has been exercising its Veto, to keep India out of permanent membership of United Nation Security Council (UNSC), on a weak argument citing lack of consensus. With the ongoing Indo -Chinese standoff on LAC, China’s support is ruled out in near future as well. So, how can the world body become more inclusive and reform itself to give rightful privileges to more nations which they deserve?

Background

   The UNSC of 1945 has not kept pace to restructure itself with the shifting geopolitical realities. The victors of World War II shaped the United Nations Charter, assigning themselves the permanent seats with veto power. Article 108 of the Charter states: ‘Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force when they have been adopted by a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members’. To maintain its relevance, it needs to be reconstituted by including influential countries of G4 (India, Japan, Germany and Brazil) and the African Union.

Comparison of P5 and G4 Nations

      According to SIPRI, the P5 members of the Security Council, the so-called Elite Club with the Veto Power, along with the G4, account for eight of the world’s ten largest defence budgets. They also account for 9 of the 10 largest economies by both nominal GDP and Purchasing Power Parity GDP. But more importantly, in terms of people’s representation, India is more than double the combined population of P5 less China. China accounts for almost 19% of the world population and India following closely with 18%. Can almost one-fifth of the world’s population be denied a voice whereas a privileged few control their fate in UNSC? Amongst these 9 countries, India is the largest contributor to UN Peacekeeping efforts and plays a substantial role in UN funding, much more than many others do in comparison to their GDP.

India’s Rightful Claim

    India is overdue to be a permanent member of UNSC. The second most powerful country in Asia and the largest democracy in the world, India is one of the founders of the UN.  Considering the factors of population, GDP and military power, India’s claim is fully justified. At the forefront of UN efforts and leading contributor of forces for Peace Keeping, India has always upheld the UN principles and credentials, even when it went to wars with its adversaries. India’s efforts have been hailed by the international community in supplying COVID 19   medicines to 150 countries and it is always quick to help nations in crisis.  India follows an independent foreign policy and follows a balanced diplomatic culture which is evident from its participation in the international forum. 

For the permanent seat at the UNSC, G-4 (India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan) campaign began in the mid-2000s. 

• Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world and is a victim of China’s fanatical objection to Japan’s entry into the UNSC. Japan, which joined the UN in 1956, is the second-largest contributor to the UN’s regular budget. Its payments had surpassed the sum of those of the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia combined for nearly two decades before 2010. 
• Germany, the third largest contributor to the U.N, next to Japan, and as such, argues for a permanent Security Council seat.  UK and France, and in particular, Spain and Italy object Germany’s entry. Germany is way ahead of France and even UK if a comparative matrix is prepared, but is weighed down by the historical baggage and even attributed being the cause for UNO to come into existence. Earlier it was decided for a combined European Union seat, but with Brexit, France should merge its seat with Germany; which it is unwilling to do.
•  Argentina and Mexico oppose Brazil’s entry due to the regional politics of South America and one-upmanship.

 Why Reforms are a Must?

•  Changing Priorities in a Dynamic World. The priorities of the world have changed since 1945, with globalization, technology disruptions and formation of new alliances. An effective response to international terrorism, reforming multilateral systems, comprehensive approach to peace, security and technology with a human face are some of the new concerns. UN is failing to update its work and adopt overdue reforms.
• Unequal representation depriving majority, contrary to the principle of equality, poses a serious threat to the UN’s legitimacy, which will only increase as the world’s most dynamic and populous regions assume an increasingly important global role. 
• There is no representation from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Germany and Japan were defeated in World War II. Later, when Germany and Japan rose to power as peaceful nations, China’s opposition to Japan stymied their entry. The rise of G4 and their influence on world affairs is being overlooked.

       Global power hierarchies are changing and the P5 needs to realize that this is high-time to initiate UNSC reforms. The declining powers should either give away their membership or should expand the size of the UNSC opening the doors for new emerging powers, in which India cannot be overlooked.

     China’s doublespeak is for all to see, saying yes to reforms, but putting conditions as a delaying tactic. It endorses increase in representation of developing countries and allowing more small and medium-sized countries to enter the Security Council, thus participate in the decision making, but opposes the entry of India and Japan, two most deserving countries supported by four other members of the UNSC. China did not reciprocate the benevolence of Prime Minister Nehru when the so-called American “offer” to India of a permanent seat in the Security Council replacing China was refused by Nehru which may be real politics or wishful thinking. People who argue and wait for a change in the Chinese heart, are naïve. 

 Reason for Delay   

    The lack of commitment by P5, especially China and its Veto power is the prime reason delaying India’s permanent seat in UNSC. The need of the hour is to keep aside the mutual differences and put concerted efforts in resolving the looming threats.      

Most of the United Nations Organisation heads, Antonio Guterres, Ban Ki-moon, Kofi Annan and Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as other prominent world leaders, have advocated and proposed a change in the constitution of UNSC, but little has happened due to the veto.  The UNSC “power of veto” which is a Bramhastra without limit can be used any number of times against anything, right or wrong and this needs to be removed or diluted. It was established by Chapter V of the UN Charter. By wielding it any of the five permanent members can prevent the adoption of any (non-“procedural”) UNSC draft resolution at will. Even the mere threat of a veto or “Pocket Veto” may change the course of an essential resolution.

     “The Security Council we have now does not correspond to today’s world.   I want to continue this dialogue at the UN General Assembly, but the permanent members do not agree.”

                                                 — António Guterres, Russia.

     The Veto Power enjoyed by the P5 essentially scuttles the democratic character of the international body. The best example is the denial of the UNSC seat to India even when four out of five permanent members endorse it and even the majority of the nations in UN General Assembly also support India’s position. 

    The fact that the UNSC passed no resolutions on most major Cold War conflicts (Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Vietnam War, and the Soviet-Afghan War), or recent/current problems (Israel vs Palestine or Iran’s suspected development of nuclear weapons) due to lack of consensus amongst P5 and exercise of veto by one or more of them. It covers the amendment to the UN charter and even appointment of Secretary-General, thus, giving the P5 great influence. China’s repeated veto on India’s resolutions to declare Masood Azhar head of Jaish-e-Mohammed, an UN-designated terrorist group, a global terrorist is a shining example of its misuse.

Proposals      

    Any reform of the veto will be very difficult. Articles 108 and 109 of the United Nations Charter grant the P5 veto over any amendments to the Charter, requiring their approval. The proposals to make the functioning of UNSC more relevant and inclusive are: – 

(a)      Limiting veto use to vital national security issues only. 

(b)      Support from a minimum of 02 permanent members / 30 %   member states before exercising the veto. 

(c)      Abolishing the veto entirely; and embarking on the transition stipulated in Article 106 of the Charter, which requires the consensus principle to stay.

Recommendations

Taking a holistic and practical approach to reform the UN and restructure it to be of relevance to a new or emerging world order would be of great significance. Few recommendations for the same are:-

• Review of Veto power, legally and as described above.
• Increase the number of Permanent Members to 10 (P5+G4+ 01 African Nation and Non-Permanent members to 14 (10 + 01 each from Africa, South America. SE Asia and the Middle East.
• India should enter into different multilateral agencies like the Nuclear Suppliers Group and be inducted into permanent membership of UNSC.
• Options if Veto power continues to block any amendment:
• Special UNGA Session to urge consensus amongst the five permanent members for reforms in a specific time frame. 
• Gandhian Non-Cooperation. India must lead the deprived countries to get their legitimate concerns addressed by the UN and its charter. 
• Separate UN body representing the majority of the population. 

Conclusion

     While anyone of P5 can keep India out by wielding the veto, astute diplomacy and rise to a $4-5 trillion economy will make its entry easier.  The G4 collectively are bigger than China in terms of economic clout and in 21st century, economy will be one of the drivers in decision making. India needs to focus on strengthening itself economically, militarily and diplomatically in order to play a major role in global decision making. The UNSC would lose credibility and relevance if it continues to obstructing/delaying urgent reforms.

Selected References

“Security Council Reform”. Global Policy Forum. Retrieved 21 May 2013. 

Weiss, Thomas G. The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform, Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2003

 Laskar, Rejaul Karim (26 June 2004). “Amending the UN Charter”. 

“Archive: UNSC Reform is Too Long Overdue: Ban Ki-Moon”.  

 “German Hopes for U.N. Security Council Seat Dampened”, Deutsche Welle, 20 August 2004. Retrieved 14 May 2006.

“Archive: UNSC Reform is Too Long Overdue: Ban Ki-Moon”. Outlook. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 1 November 2016. 

  “Country Comparison: Population — The World Factbook – Central Intelligence Agency”. www.cia.gov. Retrieved 10 August 2020.

 “GDP (current US$) | Data”. data.worldbank.org. Retrieved 10 August 2020.