Along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, India has been pushing for reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC) since 2005. From New Delhi's point of view, there are three aspects to this issue. First, India's membership of the Council. Second, the nature of the membership. Third, reforming the Council to make it more representative and effective. India is among the founding members of the United Nations, but this alone does not qualify it for a seat at the high table. There are more compelling reasons. For one thing, with a population of more than 1.2 billion, India will soon overtake China as the most populous country in the world. It is the 10th largest economy in the world and its army is the third-largest globally. More important, it is the third-largest contributor of troops (close to 160,000 soldiers) to more than 40 UN peacekeeping efforts. More than 150 Indian soldiers have lost their lives while serving in UN missions. The US and UK have said they will support India's quest for permanent UNSC membership. France and Russia are also not averse to supporting India. Until recently China was considered the real stumbling block, but during his recent visit to India, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that he would support India's Security Council bid. The same cannot be said of India's neighbor Pakistan. But right now, the problem is not Islamabad's objections, but rather the five permanent members' attitude to the kind of membership befitting India's status. India has been a member of the Council for six terms totaling 12 years, but the question is whether New Delhi is willing to settle for a membership without veto power. Although permanent seats for countries like India would be an improvement on the present state of affairs, it does not appear to be materially different from current rotating Security Council membership. Even if India is granted veto power, it does not solve the ills afflicting the world body. The fact is that the Security Council as it is constituted lacks credibility and legitimacy which reduces its effectiveness. As India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in New York on Sept. 27, “Institutions that reflect the imperatives of the 20th century won't be effective in the 21st.” By declining to occupy its recently won seat at the Security Council, Saudi Arabia on Oct. 18, 2013 drew global attention to the same basic problem. Current working methods, mechanisms and double standards of the Security Council have prevented it from shouldering its responsibilities in maintaining international peace and security, the Saudi Foreign Ministry told a stunned world. It specifically referred to the failure of the UN to resolve the Palestinian question over the past 65 years and to declare the Middle East a nuclear weapon-free zone. We have seen how the US veto prevents the UN from playing an effective role in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict and how it allows Israel to escape the consequences of its actions, including war crimes charges. But the veto power and its misuse is only one aspect of a larger problem. A fundamental flaw is that the composition of the Council does not reflect the present balance of power in the world. Or “the world is bigger than five,” as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan put it succinctly. Of the five, two are middle powers. To allow them to continue as permanent members with veto power is to ignore the post-World War II changes in global power dynamics. The inherent paradox is that the five nations holding ultimate power have to vote to give some of it up or voluntarily relinquish a position which carries so much power and prestige. Nation states are not known to engage in such self-abnegation. This means Asoke Mukerji, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, will have to wait much longer than next year's 69th session of the UN General Assembly to see “a clear roadmap to UNSC reforms.”
