Despite persistent lobbying, experts say India is unlikely to gain permanent membership of the UN Security Council anytime soon for a number of reasons.
Indian politicians have argued for decades that the nation deserves to be a member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
An aspiring superpower, India believes it has been denied a seat at the high table.
Many foreign political dignitaries and international alliances pushing for UNSC reforms have also voiced their support for India’s candidacy for permanent membership of the Security Council.
However, despite India’s continued lobbying, experts are not hopeful of change in the near future.
India has to overcome four major challenges before gaining veto power in the United Nations.
India’s UN Security Council bid: China’s opposition
Of the five permanent Security Council members, all but China – the US, UK, France and Russia – have in the past unequivocally supported India’s candidacy.
As India’s closest competitor in regional and international politics, China – the only Asian country with a seat on the Security Council – is unwilling to support New Delhi’s stance.
This adds to its power and international prestige and China does not want to share this space with India. What’s more, especially amid the ongoing border dispute with India, China will resist efforts by any of the four members of the UN Security Council to change its composition.
China is also uneasy with close US ally Japan, which, like India, is a strong contender for a permanent seat.
China has informally dropped hints that it may support India, if New Delhi does not support Japan’s bid. China knows that New Delhi will not break the unity of the G-4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, four countries that support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the Security Council) and therefore, considers it safe. Conditions for India to play against Japan.
Disagreement on membership without veto power
Some parties have raised the possibility of India getting UN Security Council membership without veto power.
Groups including Uniting for Consensus (UfC) – a powerful alliance led by Italy, with other members including Canada, Mexico, Spain, Pakistan, South Korea and Turkey – have advocated strengthening the work of the General Assembly and increasing the number of non-permanent members. members.
It argues that the addition of non-permanent members makes the UN more accountable and representative by accommodating regional voices in the decision-making process. In doing so, the group argues, this solution means a select few are key protectors of the international system.
But there are questions about what would happen if India gets the top seat without veto power. Can this be considered a piecemeal approach to achieving larger goals?
While some parties prefer this type of arrangement, New Delhi is not comfortable with this proposal. India’s position is that all new permanent members of the Security Council should have a veto. Therefore, this result is unlikely to manifest.
India has Western interests that may not align with US priorities
The US has in principle supported India in getting a permanent seat on the Security Council. But not everyone believes that US policymakers will actually support such reform in practice.
Indeed, in the past, the P-5 countries have exhibited a “habit of non-commitment” when it comes to actual decision-making on veto powers. As former US Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said in 2008: “We want to preserve the veto, and we don’t want to extend the veto to new permanent members.”
Prominent American South Asian expert Ashley Tellis recently wrote a piece foreign affairs The magazine argues that the US cannot be assured of India’s support on important strategic matters. Ashley later defended this position in an interview, saying, “The current war in Ukraine is a good example … India defines its interests in ways that are not always our own”.
It is true that India has not always voted with the West in the United Nations and has maintained an independent stance on many critical issues (eg, India’s abstention from the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Because of this, many consider India a bar-sitter and view it as an unreliable partner.
The West, especially after the Russo-Ukraine war, is more cautious about the new geopolitical reality. The perception has changed that Russia may fail to secure any support in the world for its war.
Despite developing close strategic ties with the West, India remained unwavering in its support for sanctions against Russia. China’s reaction was expected, but for the West, New Delhi’s dragging its feet on Russia’s criticism was nothing short of a shock.
In these changed circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that the West, especially the US, would push ahead with a reformed Security Council with India having veto power.
India UN Security Council Bid: Territorial Disputes
India is also facing serious challenges to emerging leadership from its own region. India influences the region, but not completely. In fact, with the increase in instability in this region, the problem of New Delhi has also increased.
South Asia has become the battleground of India-China rivalry.
And while the India-Pakistan rivalry has grabbed most of the attention, major India-related issues have angered people in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and even Bhutan.
With the recent change of government, Bangladeshis are no longer on the same page. The question of India’s regional leadership calls into question its claim to be a global power.
India UN Security Council bid: Next step for India
There are strong arguments that the UN, particularly the Security Council, is in dire need of reform. The inclusion of developing countries like India in expanding the membership of the Security Council will benefit the UN and the international community.
However, New Delhi should make more concerted efforts to address the criticisms to further legitimize its demand for permanent membership.
India’s geographical, political and social influence in South Asia cannot be ignored. Recent criticism about its growing political intolerance – which is directly linked to India’s state of democracy – must be addressed and resolved.
India’s failure to improve its ranking on the Human Development Index, problems of economic inequality and lack of world-class infrastructure have contributed to the nation’s global image.
Thus, there are structural and more prominent geopolitical factors that overshadow India’s chances of gaining permanent membership in the Security Council.
Additionally, India needs better engagement with the region and more internal work to strengthen its claims.
Dhananjay Tripathi is an Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at the South Asian University, New Delhi.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360 informationâ„¢.