New Delhi still needs to make broader efforts to mitigate criticism and address challenges to permanent membership.
Debates to reform the Security Council in 1992 and March 2005 failed. The reform of the Security Council includes several important issues of membership categories, the veto of the five permanent members, regional representation, the size of the Council and its working methods, and the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly.
India’s approach
For decades, India has been one of the most important contenders for permanent membership. Variables such as the increase in the number of member states of the United Nations from 51 countries to 193 countries, geopolitical and systematic changes, the expansion of India’s role and position and international identity in the United Nations, India’s population, nuclear capability, and effective activity in the United Nations, the largest democracy, and being the world’s fifth-largest economy has somehow increased New Delhi’s motivation to demand for a permanent seat for India.
India’s efforts to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council have been revised and strengthened, and several countries including the permanent members of the Security Council such as Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and the US have shown support for India to become a permanent member of the reformed Security Council.
India has been a non-permanent member for several terms in 2021 and 2022. India has repeatedly demanded concrete action on the reforms of the United Nations Security Council. New Delhi is worried about the long delay in the reform process and staying away from the decision-making structures of the United Nations. In this regard, it has implemented extensive diplomatic and political approaches in the direction of minimal or extensive reforms in the Security Council under its national interests.
With permanent membership in the Security Council, India seeks to gain a better international geopolitical and geoeconomic position and gain and exercise power and influence. New Delhi calls for decisive action and supports a comprehensive framework (representing today’s global outlook). The Group of Four (G4), which includes India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan – seeking permanent membership and reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) – has called for immediate reforms and has supported each other’s efforts to win permanent seats on the UN Security Council.
They have long made proposals to expand the membership to 25–26 members, with 4 more permanent members and one non-permanent member. India introduced the reform model in March 2024. Discussions about flexibility on the veto issue and deciding on new permanent seats through a democratic and inclusive election at the UN General Assembly are also considered by the group and New Delhi.
In addition, the G4 joint press release on the reform of the United Nations Security Council on September 23, 2024, also pointed to important current challenges.
Along with Brazil, Germany, and Japan, India called for reforming the United Nations, increasing the legitimacy of the Council, ensuring its effectiveness, improving the representation of groups and regions, and supporting each other’s nominations. On the other hand, India hopes that the non-binding agreement (Pact for the Future) in September 2024 will be considered an important road map for the structural reforms of the United Nations. One of the highlights of the future pact was the initial agreement on Security Council reforms since the 1960s.
From this point of view, a document of the UN leaders for the first time, which contains a detailed paragraph on the reform of the Security Council, is a “good start” and New Delhi is waiting for the start of negotiations to reform this body.
India’s challenges for permanent membership
China has said that in new reforms, factors such as the effectiveness of decision-making and the changing dynamics of international geopolitics would be considered. Among the five permanent members of the Security Council, all but China have strongly supported India’s permanent membership. It seems that China, as India’s geopolitical rival, does not want to fully support New Delhi in permanent membership in the Security Council.
China is the only Asian country with the right of veto, that has a border dispute with India, so it is likely to resist changing the composition of the United Nations Security Council in India’s favor or to make increasing of India’s role in the United Nations conditional on the cancellation of India’s support for Japan’s candidacy.
However, the United States has long since announced its support for India’s bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. And US President Joe Biden has expressed it. However, many in India do not believe the United States will support UN reforms or extend the veto to new permanent members.
In fact, despite the strategic cooperation between America and India, India’s interests are not always the same as those of the West, and the West doubts about fully supporting India. Some opponents argue that adding more permanent members with veto power could paralyze the council or create more deadlocks that will lead to less effectiveness of the council.
Some countries and groups are pursuing India’s membership in the UN Security Council without the right of veto. The opposition of the regional rivals of the G4 group to the membership of the permanent members is always important.
The Uniting for Consensus (UfC) Group (G4 regional-economic competitors) which is centered on Pakistan (against India), and even Turkey, and Indonesia, could be against India’s efforts.
Groups such as the Italian-led Union for Consensus (UfC) also support strengthening the work of the UN General Assembly and increasing the number of non-permanent members. But the fact is that India eventually wants veto power.
In addition to India-Pakistan rivalry and Pakistan’s approach in opposition to India, even if the Security Council wants to have new permanent members, many regional or growing powers such as Mexico and Argentina, Iran, Nigeria, and Egypt may have diverse approaches against any modification to their detriment.
Therefore, it will be important to find a way to increase the permanent membership of the Council and meet the goals of various regional and extra-regional groups to facilitate India’s entry into the Council. It is also possible that even the permanent members of the UN Security Council may change their positions on India’s permanent presence.
Although Britain and France are no longer the previous great powers, it seems that France will support the reform of the United Nations Security Council without expanding the use of the veto in it.
Although Russia believes that India should be permanently represented in the United Nations Security Council, it seems that Moscow does not accept the reform of the United Nations Security Council and its expansion for the benefit of NATO and the West. It seems that the Ukraine crisis can even affect Russia’s approach to full or moderate cooperation by opposing any kind of immediate change in the Security Council.
Perspective
According to many, the UN Security Council needs reforms. In fact, despite the agreement on the need for reforms, no specific time has been planned for efforts to reform the UN Security Council.
From New Delhi’s point of view, India’s membership in the Security Council will benefit many developing countries as well. India’s position is also supported by many countries. India’s geographical, political, and economic influence and other prominent structural geopolitical factors have made India’s chances of permanent membership in the Security Council more than any other player. But New Delhi still needs to make broader efforts to mitigate criticism and address challenges to permanent membership.
Farzad Bonesh ‒ geopolitical and geoeconomic analyst, researcher and writer, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
