How India’s bid for permanent UNSC seat just got a big boost

India’s bid for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council just got a big boost.

On Thursday, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer came out in favour of expanding the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Starmer, addressing the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, said, “The Security Council has to change to become a more representative body, willing to act – not paralysed by politics.”

“We want to see permanent African representation on the Council, Brazil, India, Japan and Germany as permanent members, and more seats for elected members as well,” Starmer added.

Starmer’s speech came a day after France’s Emmanuel Macron issued a similar call.

“Let’s make the UN more efficient. That’s why France is in favour of the Security Council being expanded. Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil should be permanent members, as well as two countries that Africa will decide to represent it,” Macron said.

More from Explainers

China helps Pakistan as it tries to water down UNSC statement on Pahalgam terror attack: Report Pahalgam terror attack: UN Security Council’s cover-up for Lashkar-e-Taiba

Biden during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s trip to the United States had also support for India to get a permanent seat at the UNSC.

Biden told Modi the US recognises the need for reforms of global institutions to “reflect India’s important voice.”

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken too had endorsed India’s bid for a UNSC seat.

“The United States believes that this should include two permanent seats for Africa, one rotating seat for Small Island Developing States, and permanent representation for Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition to the permanent seats for countries, we’ve long endorsed Germany, Japan, and India,” Blinken said.

Editor’s Picks

1

PM Modi in US: From drone deal to support for India’s permanent UNSC seat, takeaways from day 1 2

PM Modi’s pitch for UNSC membership: How can India get a permanent seat?

But what are the rules of UNSC expansion? How close is India to getting this seat? Why does it want it?

Let’s take a closer look:

What are the rules of UNSC expansion?

First, let’s briefly examine the UNSC.

The UNSC is responsible for maintaining international peace and security among all 193 members of the UN.

Founded in January 1946, it held its first session at Church House in London’s Westminster.

It has since shifted base to the United Nation’s headquarters in New York.

As per the UN website, the UNSC’s first course of action when approached over a dispute is to try to broker a peaceful settlement.

With regard to this it may:

• Set forth principles for such an agreement

• Undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases

• Dispatch a mission

• Appoint special envoys

• Request the Secretary-General to settle dispute

In case of hostilities, the UNSC can

• Issue ceasefire directives

• Dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force

It can also

• Impose sanctions, embargoes and travel bans

• Cut-off diplomatic relations

• Issue a blockade

• Order collective military action.

The UNSC currently comprises 15 members – five permanent and 10 elected members which have two-year terms.

The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France are the permanent members.

Collectively, this group is called the P5.

All of these members have the power of the veto – which they, particularly the US and Russia, have frequently exercised through the decades.

This veto power essentially allows one member to unilaterally block any resolution or decision from being passed.

Algeria, Ecuador, Guyana, Japan, Malta, Mozambique, Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Switzerland are the 10 current elected members.

Now, let’s look at the rules to expand the UNSC.

Changing charter

Any changes to the composition of the UNC will involve changing the charter.

Under the rules of the general Assembly, all 193 members get a vote on any changes.

Thus, to approve an expansion, 128 countries must approve the change.

But even this isn’t enough.

After the charter is amended, it still must be approved.

This requires two-third of member-states and their parliaments to give their assent – but most importantly all the P5 members.

For each member state, the ratification process adheres to the rules of their own country – which can further complicate the matter.

Then there’s the question of the veto from any of the P5 members – which can simply block an expansion proposal.

The last time the security council was expanded was in 1963 when the number of elected members was increased from six to 10.

This was done to establish “equitable geographical distribution.”

Under this, five seats were given to African and Asian States, two seats were set aside Latin American and Caribbean States, two seats were allotted to Western European and others states, and one seat was kept for Eastern European States.

The entire procedure took a year-and-a-half.

The last time a permanent member was changed was in 1971 when the People’s Republic of China took the seat held by the Taiwan.

How close is India to getting the seat?

The growing number of world leaders pushing for India to get a permanent seat at the UNSC is a good sign.

India has elected as a non-permanent member of the UNSC eight times – most recently in 2021-2022.

However, the voting structure of the UNSC demonstrates that India still faces an uphill task when it comes to gaining a permanent seat.

There are also geopolitical obstacles — from both foes and friends.

Though in the past, four of the P5 members have come out in favour of India getting a permanent seat on the security council, China remains opposed.

This is because Beijing sees New Delhi as a potential rival in the region.

Even allies of India, like the US, who have pushed for New Delhi to get a permanent seat on the UNSC have in the past mused about new members being denied the power of the veto.

In 2008, then US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said the states “do not want to extend a veto to new permanent members,” as per The Week.

This is perhaps to safeguard their own power on the world stage.

India, of course, finds such a proposition unwelcome.

‘China will resist’

Dhananjay Tripathi, writing in The Diplomat, laid out four main challenges to India getting a permanent seat on the council – beginning with China.

“China is the only Asian country with a permanent Security Council seat. This adds to its power and international prestige, and China is unlikely to want to share this space with India. What’s more, particularly amid an ongoing border dispute with India, China will resist any attempt by any of the four members to change the composition of the UNSC,” Tripathi wrote.

He also raised the question of the veto power and New Delhi’s insistence that all new additions to UNSC’s permanent membership be granted the same.

Tripathi also questioned the depth of US’ support for India.

He pointed to a piece in Foreign Affairs Magazine by prominent US-based South Asian expert Ashley Tellis who argues that Washington cannot take New Delhi’s support on strategic affairs as a given.

“The current war in Ukraine is a good example … India defines its interest in ways that are not always identical to our own,” Tellis later remarked in an interview.

“India needs better engagement with the region and much more internal work to strengthen its claim further,” Tripathi concluded.

Why does India want the UNSC seat?

India has been highlighting the need for reforms at the UNSC to make it more diverse and equitable.

India has warned that global institutions need to reform or risk ‘facing oblivion.’

Rohan Mukherjee told Carnegie Endowment that India sees the current world order as inherently unfair.

“It is dominated by a great power club comprising the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council—who often flagrantly violate the very rules and standards to which they hold all other countries. It is also obsolete, privileging a group whose claim to centrality—being the victors of World War II—is outdated,” Mukherjee said.

“For India, the distribution of power and moral authority in the world has shifted substantially since 1945. The core issue, then, is one of equity, a vital precondition for the Security Council’s continued legitimacy in the eyes of those who aspire to join the great power club.”

India has called for membership to be increased from the current 15 to 25-26, by adding six permanent and four or five non-permanent members.

India has also proposed making permanent members elected democratically by the General Assembly and flexibility on the veto issue.

Former Indian diplomat TP Sreenivasan, writing for Rediff, said India points to its large population, its support for the UN and peaceful resolution of disputes as the reason for it seeking to become a permanent member.

‘Reform is path to relevance’

Modi and India have consistently pushed the need for the UN to reform.

Modi, addressing the United Nations Summit of the Future at the UN General Assembly in New York, this week, called for reforms as a key to the UN maintaining its relevance.

“For global peace and development, reforms in global institutions are necessary. Reform is the path to relevance,” he stated.

In September 2023, Modi, ahead of India hosting the G20 Summit, remarked, “Today’s world is a multipolar world where institutions are extremely important for a rules-based order that is fair and sensitive to all concerns. However, institutions can retain relevance only when they change with the times.”

“A mid-20th century approach cannot serve the world in the 21st century. So, our international institutions need to recognise changing realities, expand their decision-making forums, relook at their priorities and ensure representation of voices that matter.”

Before a two-day trip to France in July 2023, Modi, in an interview with French newspaper Les Echos  asked, “How can we talk of it as a primary organ of a global body, when entire continents of Africa and Latin America are ignored ? How can it claim to speak for the world when its most populous country, and its largest democracy, is not a permanent member?”

With inputs from agencies