INDIA is confident that "if not this time then next time," it would become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Announcing this in the upper house of Indian parliament on Thursday, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said New Delhi would have all the powers including the veto enjoyed by the five permanent members of the council (US, Russia, UK, France and China). Nobody in the house seems to have questioned her about reports that India, together with Brazil, Japan and Germany, had offered to forgo the privilege of veto power in return for a permanent seat. Swaraj also chose to ignore reports that the US and UK were against extending veto to new members. This means India has three options before it. One, accept the council membership without veto power. Second, insist on all the privileges including the veto power if it is to become a member. Third, throw its weight behind the campaign to have the veto system abolished or its use restricted. Choosing the first option will be endorsing what in Indian context may be described as a caste system in the council. Accepting membership with veto power (second option) will be lending legitimacy to an iniquitous system. The failure of the council has been attributed to its undemocratic nature where any one of the five nations has the power to override the will of the majority of countries on earth. The experience so far shows that the permanent five are using their veto for their own interests or to help their allies. During the Cold War (1947-1991), 68 and 61 vetoes were used by the Soviet Union and US respectively, leading to the worsening of the ongoing conflicts. The US vetoed a resolution in 2011 that would have condemned the building of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. And in 2014, the US opposed a draft resolution demanding Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank within three years. Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has unconditionally supported Israel and shielded it from accountability for war crimes or building settlements and targeting civilians in Gaza. The only exception was in December 2016 when Washington allowed a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to be adopted. We should also remember that the world of 2017 is a vastly different place than that of 1945. The composition of the Security Council no longer reflects global geopolitical realities. There are no African or Latin American states among the permanent members. India, despite its vast population and increasingly powerful economy, is still not admitted. But France and the UK, who are no longer great powers, retain their seat and power. UN considers promotion of democracy in the world as one of its missions. But in the Security Council, decisions are not taken democratically. Any one of the permanent five can block a decision even if the other four favor it. India should consider whether it should help continue this state of affairs by accepting a seat in the Security Council, whether permanent or nonpermanent or with or without veto power. Approximately 109 nations have already expressed themselves in favor of abolishing or at least limiting the use of the veto. New Delhi should be in the forefront of those calling for such fundamental of reforms. It should also insist that all seats in the council should be filled by elections. This will be a built-in guarantee for ensuring that the council reflects the geopolitical realities of the day and the wishes of the people it claims to represent. "We should not allow it (the issue of veto) to have a veto over the process of council reform itself," India's permanent representative at the UN said at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Council Reforms last month. The question is how can one reform an institution without touching something which is at the heart of all that is wrong with it.
