One need not read too much into last week's reiteration by some world powers of their backing for India's bid for a seat in UN Security Council. One of them, the US, has been offering this support since 1950s. This is not to suggest that US President Barack Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande are hypocritical or India does not deserve a seat at the high table of the world body. The fact is that membership for India or any other country in the council is inextricably tied to the larger question of UN reforms. Such reforms are essential if UN is to discharge its responsibilities like securing peace and advancing global prosperity effectively and efficiently. A fundamental flaw is that the composition of the Security Council does not reflect the present balance of power in the world. Of the five permanent members of the council, two — UK and France — are middle powers and found a place in the council only by an accident of history. They continue in their position with veto power while more deserving ones wait outside. As India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in New York on Sept. 27, 2014, “Institutions that reflect the imperatives of the 20th century won't be effective in the 21st.” By declining to accept a seat in the council, Saudi Arabia on Oct. 18, 2013 was drawing global attention to the same basic problem. The Saudi delegate to the UN also pointed out the failure of the world body to solve the Palestinian problem, with the US always misusing its veto to protect Israeli interests. The situation remains unchanged. But India thinks next month's discussion in the UN General Assembly on a 25-page document on UN reforms including the expansion of the Security Council will facilitate its entry into the elite club. The General Assembly alone can elect new members to the council. But it will be a mistake to place too much hopes on a document, which contains the views of diverse group of countries. China, Russia and the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) countries have rejected the text and strongly opposed its introduction in the General Assembly. UFC countries include Pakistan, which is sure to oppose India's elevation to the council. But the problem is not Islamabad's objections but the attitude of the five permanent members. India has been a member of the council for six terms totaling 12 years, but the question is whether they are willing to grant the kind of membership befitting India's status and its role as the single largest contributors of troops to UN peacekeeping operations. India has always claimed it deserves a seat with veto power because, among other things, it is a democracy. An enlarged council, according to India, would address UN's “democratic deficit”, which prevents effective multilateralism based on a global consensus. But unfortunately, the structure of the UN, which considers the spread of democracy throughout the world among its missions, is anything but democratic. Decisions in the council are not taken on a democratic basis. Even if four members favor a course of action, the fifth can veto it. Many governments oppose the veto for its violation of the sovereign equality among states. Veto is also inconsistent with the concept of democracy in the UN. Some suggest the total removal of the right of veto from UN Charter. Others call for some restrictions or modifications on its use. A review of the current voting system in the Security Council has also been suggested. But nothing will be possible without the wholehearted support of all the five members. It will be naive to expect that any one of them will give up or voluntarily relinquish a position that carries so much power and prestige. This means India will have to wait a little longer to get its rightful place in the new world order.
