How India should approach permanent membership of the Security Council and UN reforms

In Austria recently, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar talked about UN reforms one more time, and attributed the slow pace to the unhurried approach of those that are already permanent members, or P-5. He did not stop there though. Interviewed by national broadcaster ORF, he said, “ You will have a situation when the world’s most populous country is not among the permanent members of the security council”, and asked, “What does it say about the state of the UN?” Jaishankar was referring to the US, China, Russia, the UK and China, who are permanent members at present on the one hand, and also to the UN projection of India surpassing China as the world’s most populous country this very year. “… at the end of the day, the credibility of the UN and their own interests and effectiveness are at stake,” he said about the future relevance and hold of P-5 members in the contemporary, future and futuristic world. “You have entire Africa and Latin America left out, with developing countries vastly under-represented,” Jaishankar said and pointed out the failure of the UN system to evolve with the times: “This was an organisation invented in 1945. It’s 2023,” he said, adding, “increase the feeling in the wide parts of the world that this reform is absolutely essential”. “There has been growing demand to increase the number of permanent members to reflect the contemporary global reality.” That India is serious about the UN reforms became clear when the minister touched upon the subject even while addressing the Indian Diaspora in Austria, something that an external affairs minister rarely does. The 77-year-old organisation needs a “refresh”, he said, and reiterated that pushing for a major overhaul in the top global body is an important part of New Delhi’s foreign policy. Pessimism and cynicism Alluding to the possibility of ‘mini-laterals’ at a symposium elsewhere weeks earlier, India’s Permanent Representative (PR) Ruchira Kamboj hit the nail on the head when she said that other organisations like the G-20 may step up and take a more prominent role in international affairs if the global body failed to introduce reforms in the UN Security Council (UNSC). Yet, she underlined that the reform required not just the P-5 but also smaller groupings within the UN structure to be engaged in the broader discussion on the reform. “There are many who aspire to be in a reformed council but there are many who would not like to see those in the council. Therefore, the process is indeed very complex,” she said, without naming nations one way or the other, but stressing all the same that the complexities, however, do not mean that “change cannot happen”. Of course, India does have a selfish interest in the matter, as it has been aspiring to be a permanent member of the UNSC, and many nations have been supporting its bid, some even volunteering their backing. In the last month of India’s membership of the UNSC, when the nation also was the monthly president of the 15-seat grouping of five permanent members and 10 elected, non-permanent members, France and the UK reiterated their support for India. Both nations also support Germany, Brazil and Japan, along with ‘permanent’ and/or ‘strong’ representation for Africa, too. Momentous and yet momentary For years now, the annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session and also bilateral engagements on the side-lines or otherwise, have all been occasions when India has had its say, and nations, possibly barring only China and Pakistan, have endorsed India’s claims to permanent membership of the security council. It has been momentous from an Indian perspective, but they have also remained momentary, as nothing has come out of it at all. Even four of five P-5 members barring China that are backing India’s bid have not done anything substantial in the matter. It is one thing for them to back India’s bid, and also those of such other nations, but it is an entirely different matter when it comes to initiating the reforms process. To tell the truth, EAM Jaishankar’s more frequent assertions in the matter that are also louder than those of his predecessors, have remained just that and nothing more. In the current form and format, they are not going to produce results. This is so, despite India as the only nation rising to the occasion stood by other third world nations in Covid-assistance. It funded and also fed other South Asian nations during the pandemic, and shared the vaccine with them and also distant friends like Brazil and whoever sought it. So complete and compassionate was the Indian approach that it gave away vaccines free to neighbouring nations like Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka first, even before releasing them for injecting it to its own nationals. India thus lived up to its ancient dictum, Vasudeva Kudumbakam in Sanskrit and Yaadhum Oore, Yavarum Kelir in Tamil – two of the world’s oldest languages. As Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not tired of referring to them time and again over the past years, the two mean one and the same: “The world is one and all humans are family.” Yet, there is every chance that the world will forget it all once normalcy is restored, and the outsider’s praise for India may become fading memory, only to be mentioned in the UNGA and bilaterals, whenever New Delhi speaks about UN reforms and others reiterate their support for India’s bid, in an boringly repetitive way. The UN has failed, but…. Whatever may be said of the UN’s contributions to global peace and security, including non-traditional security involving food and pandemics, in the early years, it has become increasingly less relevant and is seen even less in instilling confidence in peoples and nations. Its perceptible impotence against a domineering US on the non-existent ‘WMD threat’ from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and its inability to stop the war leading up to Saddam’s execution at the hands of a kangaroo court — not that he deserved sympathy otherwise, maybe – all spoke of the way the global body would turn out in the future. Sadly, the UN has not failed those sooth-sayers who predicted gloom. Today, on multiple issues, the UN has sided with one or the other of the parties, depending on which way the funding, or whatever is trickling in, comes from. Or, based on perceptions of democracy, which is only one of the many ways of governance that the world has seen. A larger global debate on what is good between the two, ‘Democracy or Development?’ needs to be taken up before selecting players with deep pockets and guns in their hands continuing to dictate terms to the world body. The rest of them, all sovereign states, all made to feel naked and impotent against such unilateral decisions. The UN’s position on the Ukraine War is well known, and it is not wholly unjustifiable, either. But it has not said a word on Russia’s expressed concern over the past two-plus decades, and the US rubbishing it by saying that it never ever gave a firm commitment against admitting Ukraine into NATO. Satellite UNs That way, it is not just G-20, which has a fair representation from across the globe, if not perfect, that is becoming an alternate centre-of gravity for the 21st century world. The re-emergence of NATO, as has happened over the weaponization of Ukraine since the war with Russia exploded last February, is another power-centre, where membership is restricted to US-friendly nations. In comparison, the EU is a cross-breed but is neither here, nor there, in matters of a collective foreign and security policy for Europe. Yet, in the G-20, the EU collectively represents its member-nations. In comparison, the African Union with 55 member-states has emerged as a parallel UN, though only at the continental level. That is more than a quarter of the UN’s total membership of 193. The world knows that the AU member-nations vote only at a bloc-level in the UN and other international fora. What the world has denied them, the UN has failed to do for their cause, the African nations have done it for themselves. They have actually cocked a snook at the world and the world body, but given the abject poverty in many member-nations, they are seemingly going slow at it. Ironically, even the G-20 has only South Africa as its African member, a nation that represents native African ethnicity, however divided it may be. This is so despite the fact that most other G-20 members count on one African nation or the other as a future and futuristic ally, a source for minerals. The same may not be wholly applicable to South America, from where Argentina and Brazil find a place in G-20. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), ASEAN, et al, are also satellite UNs, like the AU, but the same cannot be said about the failed SAARC with India at the centre. Should India have tried more, given and given in more? Seeking out aspirants A quick look at the G-20 membership says a lot: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the UK, the US and the EU. It is as representative or non-representative like the UNSC. Nations that want to be heard should either be at the invisible head-table already, or has to be aggressive and be heard – not listened, too. Suffice is to point out even China and Russia are ineffectual, so are most Asian nations, thus leaving it all for the traditional West to run the show, either from behind the scene or the wide open. India having acknowledged that non-global organisations like G-20 have a greater say in world affairs than possibly the UN, and it is also the only grouping in which all P-5 members sit, it may be time that New Delhi took up the UN reforms and its own membership within for debate and discourse, now that it is also the current chair. Yes, someone may throw the rule-book at it, but India can then assemble the defence, by seeking out other aspirants like Brazil, Japan and Germany that are already in the list of probable permanent members, to chip in together. Together, they should also include South Africa, too, to the list, or seek the views of the more powerful AU, to name their nominee or nominees. Even if it may lead up to nothing much, the P-5 members would at least get the message that they cannot prolong and prevaricate for long, and hope the rest of the world will listen. This is especially so because India is the voice of the Global South, and is seen as being one, after a break. The G-20 cannot ignore the needs, aspirations and demands of the Global South, and there is no fixed representation out there in the UNSC. And that could only be a beginning! The writer is a Chennai-based policy analyst and political commentator. Views expressed are personal. Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook,  Twitter and  Instagram.