How long should the wait continue

The United Nations, the so-called international government, is looming towards its 80th anniversary celebration. The organization, formed in 1945 to ensure peace, stability, and democratice countries, is unfortunately in limbo. The creation of the UN was one of the watershed events of the 20th century. However, the body and its subsidiaries failed to change according to the changing world order. The body is currently misrepresented, undemocratic, sans accountability and transparency. Widespread human rights violations and conflicts between states are prevailing.

When Woodrow Wilson, a stalwart of idealist principles, brought his 14 principles of idealism, it included room for multilateralism. He desperately exhorted for an international association where nation-states can sit together and find solutions through dialogue and diplomacy. However, with power politics taking charge in the form of the United Nations Security Council, the scope of dialogue and diplomacy has plunged over these eight decades. Hence, it is high time to evaluate the UN in general and the UNSC in particular comprehensively.

India has been a member of the UN since its inception. As a country that is always embracing multilateralism and international rule-based order, we have faith in the UN and its organs. Yet, the lacunae inside them are urging us to demand reform, where the current geopolitical scenario will be reflected. We will be dealing with India's claims, limitations, and impediments deeply here.

United Nations Security Council

The San Francisco Conference of 1945 laid the foundation for the United Nations and its organs, including the United Nations Security Council. The conference was more or less under the leadership of the winners of the Second World War, the Allied Powers, comprising the USA, UK, France, and the erstwhile Soviet Union. Thus, the nature of the bodies was also in favor of these superpowers, giving them an extra edge. Currently, the UN has 193 member countries. The UNSC is the apex body of the UN, and it will not be wrong to say the apex body of the world. It has two tiers: Tier 1 is the permanent five members, namely the United States of America (USA),United Kingdom (UK), France, Russia (erstwhile Soviet Union), and China, and 10 non-permanent members elected for a two-year term. This was made through an amendment in 1963; earlier, it was six non-permanent members. The Peoples Republic of China(PRC) became an official member by replacing Republic of China (ROC,Taiwan) in 1971. A significant feature of the UNSC is that the P5 countries enjoy veto power, thus enabling them to negate any resolution against their interests.

Need for reforms

The foremost among the criticisms is the misrepresentation in the UNSC. It has failed to keep pace with the changing global order. With permanent membership restrained to just five members, it has hindered the voice of a large share of the population. Countries like India, the most populous state, Japan, a technological powerhouse, Brazil, a growing economy, and Germany, an economic giant (widely known as the G4 countries), are not represented. There is absolutely zero representation from the African continent. Inside the UNSC itself, the countries are divided on lines of different interests. The power play inside the body has diminished its effectiveness. There are numerous incidents in the past and present that clearly depict the division inside the UNSC. The best example will be the ongoing Ukraine-Russia war. Russia and China are on one end, and the rest are on the other. A body mandated to prevent war and ensure peace and tranquility has thus failed miserably. The ongoing Israel-Palestine issue is also not different. While US-led West countries are backing Israel, Russia and China have shown hints of siding with Iran. The Syrian civil war also has serious implications in the UNSC. Putin has offered full-fledged support to autocrat Bashar Assad, and the withdrawal of US troops in 2019 is evidence of that. The issues hovering around Taiwan are manifesting tensions between the USA and China. Thus, it is clear that power politics inside the body is an obstacle for reaching consensus to find solutions, which is quintessential for making any change.

The discord inside the UNSC has a ripple effect. One prime example is Saudi Arabia rejecting a non-permanent seat after winning the election in 2013, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the UNSC in bringing peace in Syria and Israel-Palestine. Similarly, the UNSC faced severe criticism during the days of the Rwandan genocide for their frivolous nature in dealing with the issue. It has also fallen short of finding solutions in places like Kashmir, Georgia, and Cyprus, and many more. Another flaw of the body often noted is its inability to hamper the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. Today, countries like India, Pakistan, Israel (denied), and North Korea possess nuclear weapons and are also not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which restricts the spread of nuclear technology and hardware. Additionally, Iran and Russia, two NPT signatories, have failed to adhere to the norms under NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

With the advancement in technology and trade becoming a crucial aspect of international relations, the UNSC is failing to keep pace. This has given origin to regional organizations and private entities becoming more important. Regional groupings like the European Union (EU)and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has achieved significant milestones, enabling the countries inside them with better returns. Private entities have also risen to a level where they can demand and decide what, when, and how things to happen. This, to an extent, is undermining the role played by the UN and its agencies, thanks to globalization.

Rising China is another angle of the whole issue. India particularly reckons China as an impediment in its growth in regional and international levels, which we will deal with later. China's ambition to be a hegemon and the next superpower is not only remaining in paper now, with its ambiguous projects like the Belt and Road Initiative, String of Pearls, and large-scale investment in third-world countries, the clout has been manifested. In addition to being a permanent member, China is strengthening its dominance via increasing troops for peacekeeping missions and funds for UN missions. In 2020, China contributed over $1.2 billion to the UN's regular budget and over $400 million to the peacekeeping budget. Above these, they are also owning the presidency in UN organs, which was something unusual in the past. At the same time, the renegade country faced serious allegations and criticism during COVID-19 days for lack of transparency. Still, many believe if China had acted wisely, the impact of COVID-19 could have been scaled down. China's penetration has to be read along with the USA showing less interest in multilateral forums, especially during the Trump administration days. Trump's America First policy led to scaling down financial contributions to UNRWA, UNDP, UNESCO, WHO, etc. They even crossed the line and took a leap backward by withdrawing from the Paris Agreement in 2019 and JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal). At a time when the USA is going through another presidential election and chances of Trump returning still prevailing, the UN's future is in a conundrum.

Lack of consensus has been escalating for some time now, and it has entered new arenas like trade and health, catalyzing concepts like the weaponization of trade and intellectual rights on pharmaceuticals. The current Russia-Ukraine war can be the best example of the weaponization of trade. The US-led West has imposed a good amount of sanctions on Russia intended to suffocate them by crippling the economy. In an interconnected world, it is common sense to understand any hit on a country like Russia will have a rippling effect. The sanctions have risen oil prices, food security challenges, and inflation globally.

Emerging countries like India and South Africa are battling for TRIPS waiver on drugs and other pharmaceuticals; however, this is resisted by private firms in the USA and Western Europe. The inefficacy and power politics inside the UN and UNSC in particular have given birth to a number of minilaterals. Similar to earlier-mentioned regional blocs, these minilaterals also have their own objectives, which may confront a wider audience. The like-minded countries accrete together to achieve a single aim. BRICS, QUAD, I2U2 are some fine examples. India, being a member of all three, uses the platforms to achieve goals and embrace strategic autonomy simultaneously. However, in the long run, these minilaterals can face serious impediments, so it's better to reform multilateral institutions.

India and UNSC

At the time India joined the UN in 1945, she was under British colonial rule. After getting independence in 1947, India became a sovereign nation-state. From then, India played a crucial part in UN functioning. It is found that India was offered a permanent seat in the UNSC by the two major powers of the 20th century, the US and USSR. But both times, the then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru rejected it, showcasing Chinese interest in the UNSC, and he was not interested in a seat at the cost of China. However, it is important to note that there are no evidences of official written offers.

India claims, albeit we were not interested in the UNSC permanent seat during the initial days, now we are all into such a position. We are relentlessly speaking and working for reforms in not only the UN but also forums like WTO, WHO, World Bank, etc. Our argument is that the current status doesn't reflect the contemporary world and fails to accomplish the aspirations of a large-scale population. Being out of the UNSC P5 with a diverse population of 1.4 billion is abhorrent. How can such huge chunks of voice be not heard? The Indian economy is growing with an average of 8% and has surpassed the UK to reach the fifth-largest economy. India's absence in the UNSC indicates the misrepresentation of the body.

The country is the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions with over 2,00,000 troops in 49 missions. India also provides financial support to various UN agencies. In 2017, under the leadership of India, the United Nations Development Fund was commenced for the least developed states and small island developing states. The world recognized India's efforts during the pandemic period. India, under its Vaccine Maitri initiative, delivered essential drugs for 150 countries, eventually turning into the pharmaceutical hub of the world.

In the diplomatic sphere also, India has been doing well compared to so-called superpowers. For instance, in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, without taking any side, India has professed peace and stability to be ensured. During the SCO summit 2022, where Russia is a part, Prime Minister Modi said this is not an era of war. Simultaneously, we have improved our diplomatic relations with both countries. The grade relation with Russia has burgeoned thanks to the Western sanctions, and for Ukraine, a humanitarian package including drugs and food are sent. Sans much gap, Prime Minister has visited both Moscow and Kiev in 2024 July-August months. In the G20 summit held in Delhi 2023, another testimonial of India's diplomatic skill is achieved. A joint declaration, which was herculean to happen because of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, was achieved by the country. Our motto too, "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam," which means the earth is one family, bolstered the faith we put on multilateralism and international rule-based order.

Indian efforts

Apart from the above-mentioned general efforts, have made initiatives solely focusing on UN and UNSC reforms. The G20 declaration dedicated 7 paragraphs solely for dealing with much-needed reforms in multilateral institutions. During the 75th General Assembly, Modi vowed about reformed multilateralism that reflects today's realities, gives voice to all stakeholders, addresses contemporary challenges, and focuses on human welfare. India organized a "New Orientation for Reformed Multilateralism" event on December 14, 2022. The event's goal was to envision reforms to the three pillars of the current multilateral architecture: development, human rights, and peace and security, with the United Nations at its center.

While we assumed a non-permanent seat for the 8th time (2021-2023), we made efforts and moved papers for bringing reform in the apex body. We used the platform to discuss global topics such as terrorism, human rights, and democracy, which can pull like-minded countries. A collaborative effort is needed; sans that, a membership permanent seat is impossible.

Challenges

The major challenge comes from the Security Council. Even when individual countries in the Security Council embrace reforms and expansion of permanent seats, no country really wants reform. From India's point of view, except China, has assured support for a permanent seat; however, it is often recognized as mere lip service. Let us look at the five countries one by one.

Let's begin with the current superpower, USA. America is the first country said to offer a permanent seat to India in the 1950s, even though it is not in written form. In all these years, many American officials have backed India's dream of a permanent seat. The rising tension in the Indo-Pacific and Chinese challenge has put both countries in the same boat to an extent. Keeping aside some skirmishes in the Trump period, US-India relations have improved in different domains, including defense, space, and energy. Hence, US officials delivering statements supporting UNSC reforms and Indian seats will continue. Even private players like Elon Musk have questioned India's absence in UNSC. However, what will the US stance be when it counts is mercurial.

United Kingdom nowadays doesn't poses a distinctive foreign policy; they just adhere to US orders. Similar to the US, UK officials also have reiterated their support for reforms and Indian membership. The current Labour Party government seems to have good relations with India, so the application for reforms can be moved further.

France might be the best supporter among the P5. Having a similar kind of foreign policy strategy, France is among the least to lose. We understood the quality of the relationship during our nuclear test in 1974 and 1998, when France didn't condemn the actions unlike the West. During the 2003 General Assembly, French President Jacques Chirac himself supported India's permanent council entry.

Russia, being an all-weather friend, can be trusted and has also ensured support when it comes to a permanent seat. It has to be noted that even under the backdrop of the Ukraine war, the relationship has not deteriorated. Russia is currently the prime source of oil due to discounted rates and Western sanctions.

China is reckoned as the only obstacle for India's entry currently. Having territorial disputes in borders, expecting any change to Beijing's mind will be a daydream. Supplementing the challenges is the Pakistan factor. We have seen this bonhomie restricting our missions, especially in passing resolutions against terrorist actors and groups where Pakistan often vetoes. Pakistan diligently hinders any progress in India's permanent seat entry. However, Pakistan's economy is facing a severe economic crisis, and the ambitious China-Pakistan economic corridor is facing issues; there can be a change of attitude from China.

Another challenge will be our foreign policy stand itself. The strategic autonomy and multialignment we enjoy now can be curtailed if we are part of UNSC permanently. There, we will be forced to take decisions that might violate our traditional ethos or put us as part of a bloc which we are not interested in. The abstaining history, which we followed during dilemmas, won't be appreciated, and even if we abstain, that will convey a very different message than abstaining as a normal member.

Another question that arises is whether it is the right time for a permanent seat. As our economy is doing well with a demographic dividend, many experts are requesting to give attention to economic performance.

In addition to the above-mentioned challenges faced, some others also persist. Foremost is which all countries should be included if an expansion happens. Albeit G4 countries consisting of India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan are forerunners, the rest of the countries always face opposition similar to India, majorly from the Coffee Club. Brazil is being opposed by Mexico and Argentina, Japan by China, and Germany by Italy. China's opposition to Japan is pretty much stronger, to an extent where they may allow India but not Japan. Italy opposes Germany's entry, claiming they will be the only axis country left if both Germany and Japan enter the council. In 2005, there were discussions to replace the UK and France with the EU; however, since Brexit has happened, that possibility is dead. The African continent also faces a similar quagmire. There is no consensus on who should represent the continent in the apex body. Claims of South Africa and Nigeria are hearing, but they too face challenges from countries like Egypt. Thus, an absence of consensus is a serious impediment to any reform in UNSC.

Amending the UN charter is also not less hectic work. It requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly, and countries have to ratify that in their domestic assembly and finally pass UNSC. In history, there is only one article that has been amended, which was made in 1965, to increase the membership of the Security Council from 11 to 15 members, among other changes. Some experts also point out the inefficiency that might burgeon if an expansion takes place. They argue that the resolution can remain pending if the Security Council represents more countries.

Despite all these, UNSC has achieved certain things. UNSC has successfully maintained peace and security through interventions like authorizing the Gulf War ceasefire (1991) and establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (1993). In 1999, the UNSC authorized a peacekeeping mission to help end the Sierra Leone Civil War, leading to a stable peace and democratic elections. It is important to understand that the Security Council represented the then world order. The UN wouldn't have performed or continued if a body like UNSC with veto powers was established. It was evident with the fall of the League of Nations.

Way ahead

For India, it is crucial to continue its efforts. Deploying more diplomatic capital to persuade member countries in support is vital. The position we assume now as the unofficial leader of the Global South through initiatives like the Global South Voice will definitely help us in that. Our current cooperation efforts with Pacific island countries like the Forum of Pacific Island Countries are in the right direction. Another aspect is finding an answer to one of the earlier mentioned challenges, whether we should take a stand in dilemmas. Without taking clear-cut stands, it will be difficult to project ourselves as a major global power.

An alternative is to focus on ourselves and improve our economy and military, thereby ensuring our growth. People suggesting this believe that if India continues its growth story, the UN will be forced to include it in UNSC. They desire a global situation where the UN cannot move forward without India being a UNSC permanent member.

The UN can consider limiting veto use by implying mandatory explanation for its usage in the General Assembly. It can also consider restricting veto use in serious issues like genocide, terrorism, human rights violations, etc. As the world is evolving, it is necessary to invite other stakeholders to the negotiation table, such as NGOs, civil society organizations, and the scientific community.

Conclusion

Revamping the body through reforms has become inevitable for its redemption. The reforms should happen on the basis of new realistic foundations. The future development pathways can be determined by the P5 members. More equitable representation along with mitigations in administrative and management levels is the need of the hour. The body determined to establish a democratic rule-based order has established the same inside the body before anything else.

Open for criticism
nithalrahman@gmail.com
Nithal S Rahman