India’s UN engagement: A global responsibility affirmed
As a result of Russia’s aggressive invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations Security Council has been under pressure to restructure the world’s leading organization for international peace and security. These calls have been stoked once again. In his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden stoked these flames. Biden added a new twist after restarting the United States’ long-standing support for “increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives”: in addition to “permanent seats for those nations we’ve long supported” (Japan, Germany, and India), the United States now also supports “permanent seats for countries in Africa [and] Latin America and the Caribbean.”
India’s active participation in UN forums
The most recent round of global diplomacy on the enduring and apparently unsolvable problem of Security Council reform was initiated by Biden’s unexpected declaration. Security Council reform is one of the few subjects that sparks as much discussion as it does little action. An indefinite working group was established by the General Assembly in December 1992 to examine equal representation on the council. That (aptly called) organization is still meeting more than three decades later, but there have been no noticeable improvements. Intergovernmental talks on the “question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council” were formally approved by the UN in October 2008. The diplomatic deadlock that has lasted for fifteen years is partly due to the fact that member states have never consented to negotiate using a single scrolling text.
Advocacy for global issues
It makes sense that change is in need. The Security Council’s five permanent members (P5), China, France, Russia (after the fall of the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States, remain the same over eight decades after it was established. But since 1945, powerful nations like Brazil and India have arisen, not to mention the long-rehabilitated World War II aggressors Japan and Germany. Due to decolonization and the breakup of multiethnic states, the UN’s total membership has nearly quadrupled (from 51 to 193 member states). However, the composition of the council has only increased once, from eleven to fifteen members in 1965, with the addition of four elected seats.
Championing sustainable development goals
The fact that each of the P5 nations has the power to unilaterally veto Security Council measures that are detrimental to their own national interests as Russia has done with regard to Ukraine only serves to exacerbate these grievances over membership. The end effect is a regular paralysis of councils, made worse by the growing geopolitical competition between authoritarian China and Russia and Western democracies. A rising number of nations and people throughout the world believe that the council is unfair and careless, led by unrepresentative and careless authorities that would sooner abuse their position than keep the peace. Critics argue that the council’s outdated membership and unjust decision-making procedures must be updated to better reflect current changes in global power dynamics and the emergence of moral authority centers in order to restore the council’s efficacy and credibility.
Diplomatic leadership and multilateralism
Sadly, opinions among UN members differ on how any change should be shaped, not the least of which is whether it should emphasize improving the council’s competence or representativeness. The Security Council finds itself in an amber state as a result of this diplomatic impasse. Notwithstanding the council’s past setbacks, which included the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 without its consent, Russia’s blatant aggression against Ukraine in February 2022 and its power to veto any council response have escalated calls for change. The challenges facing council reform are immense. These include the steep procedural barriers to amending the UN Charter, the differing views of member states regarding the scope and acceptable dimensions of any enlargement, the dispute over the current veto provisions and their possible expansion to include any new permanent members, and the nagging doubts about whether any conceivable enlargement would enhance the council’s performance, even if it increased its level of representation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Two-thirds of UN members, including all five of the P5, would need to approve any changes to the council’s makeup or voting procedures, and any changes would also need to be supported by appropriate national law. Prospects for revising the council seem bleak given the growing political division in many nations and the escalating geopolitical competition. The program asked each author to evaluate the council’s functioning and overall health; to think about whether any modifications to the council’s membership and bylaws (particularly the veto) might help with its problems; to lay out workable diplomatic plans for carrying out any suggested reforms; and to think about the possible fallout from a prolonged lack of reform. Additionally, authors were required to summarize the official stance of their nation or regional bloc—while not necessarily endorsing it.
