The US has come a long way from its position of no expansion whatsoever in the composition of the United Nations Security Council in 1979 when Ambassador Brajesh Mishra presented a proposal on behalf of the non-aligned countries that the non-permanent membership of the Security Council should be expanded.
It was not an ideological move to make the Council more balanced, but merely to maintain the proportion between the membership of the UN and the size of the Council.
The reaction of the five permanent members to the proposal was exceptionally strong, as though it was a move to encroach upon their privileged position.
The proposed expansion would not have made any difference to their privileged position. But in an unprecedented move, the five permanent members sent a high-level delegation to meet then prime minister Indira Gandhi to express their concern over the move. She was gracious enough to say that it was only a proposal and that India will not press the resolution to a vote till it was generally acceptable.
Since then, the resolution was discussed every year, but never voted upon. By proposing the addition of six permanent members this year, it may appear that it was a major concession, but in actual fact, it will make no difference to the privilege of the permanent five as the new six will have no veto, ever!
In the 45 years since a resolution on ‘Equitable representation on and increase ln the membership of the Security Council and related matters’ was introduced, the matter was discussed in various fora, including in a High Level Group which produced a report, ‘In Larger Freedom’ showing the wide differences in perspectives.
A large number of proposals were floated, but none of them had the potential to win a two thirds majority in the General Assembly and the positive votes of the five permanent members in the Security Council.
The G-4 (India, Germany, Japan and Brazil) declared their candidatures, but the impasse remained.
The Security Council failed to tackle the conflicts of the 21st century because of the continued veto of permanent members, who were themselves at the centre of some of the major wars.
The unkindest cut of all was the Chinese veto against a meeting of the Security Council to consider international cooperation to tackle the biggest existential threat to humanity, COVID-19.
It was the unified actions of the entire UN system that controlled HIV and Ebola viruses, but the same was not possible in the case of COVID-19, because China was afraid of the pandemic’s origin being traced to China. More than ever before, the paralysis of the Security Council was seen as a threat to international peace and security.
It has been established beyond doubt that the key to successful multilateralism is reform of the Council to make it reflect the realities of the world today. The only way it can be achieved is by either abolishing the veto altogether to make it democratic or add new permanent members with veto to balance the decision making process. But both these measures are anathema to the present permanent members and also to a major section of the members of the General Assembly.
The new US proposal to add six permanent members is indeed a significant shift in its position as it had opposed any category of additional permanent members.
At one time in the earlier years, the US had proposed a ‘quick fix’ by which Japan and Germany would become permanent members, because of the confidence the US had in them to take the western position. It would have also isolated China in many ways. This was rejected by the nonaligned countries for the obvious reason that Japan and Germany would not bring any diversity among the permanent members.
The addition of Germany and Japan would have only aggravated the western dominance in the Council.
The initiation of consultations on new permanent members without veto on the eve of an election may be an attempt on the part of President Joe Biden to leave a legacy of his own on this issue. For that reason itself, significant public opinion in the US is against it.
As for the Global South, some may find the move as a first step towards democratization and, therefore, welcome it. Some may be willing to accept permanent membership as something being better than nothing. They may even argue that the determination of the voting majority in the Security Council may be tweeked to make the non-veto permanent members more effective.
The strongest argument against the US proposal is that it will not change anything as far as the Security Council in its ability to prevent or stop conflicts.
A better way to enhance its ability is to make veto conditional that it should not be used by a permanent member who attacks another member or wishes to extend moral and material support to another member who is engaged in a conflict.
India’s quest for permanent membership is on the principle that its vast population, its consistent support for UN peacekeeping and its commitment to peace and resolution of conflicts, India should be a permanent member with veto.
By being a permanent member without veto, we would become a party to certain decisions of the Council which will be unpleasant to some friendly countries.
If any country seeks to take an unfriendly initiative in the Council, we will be vulnerable without veto.
To mention a mundane point, we will have to expand our mission in New York at considerable expense, without any particular benefit to us. We may also have to share the cost of peacekeeping as a permanent member.
The US representatives have just begun consultations on the proposal and it is too early to predict in what form it will come up. It may well be an empty gesture, given the history of its consideration at the United Nations so far.
