By Dhananjay Tripathi
Indian politicians have argued for decades that the nation deserves to be a member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
An aspirational superpower, India believes that it has been unfairly denied a seat at the high table.
Several visiting foreign political dignitaries and international coalitions that have pushed for UNSC reforms have also voiced support for India’s candidacy for permanent membership of the Security Council.
However, despite persistent lobbying by India, experts are not hopeful of change in the near future.
There are four key challenges India must overcome before it secures veto power in the United Nations.
China’s opposition
Among the five permanent security council members all except China — the US, the UK, France, and Russia — have categorically supported India’s candidature in the past.
As a close competitor of India in regional and international politics, China —the only Asian country with a security council seat — is unwilling to endorse New Delhi’s position.
This adds to its power and international prestige and China is unlikely to want to share this space with India. What’s more, particularly amid an ongoing border dispute with India, China will resist any attempt by any of the four members to change the composition of the UNSC.
China is also uncomfortable with Japan, a close US ally that, like India, is a strong contender for a permanent seat.
China has unofficially dropped hints that it may back India, provided New Delhi doesn’t endorse Japan’s bid. China knows that New Delhi will not break the unity of the G-4 (comprising Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, are four countries which support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the security council) and thus, considers it is a safe bet to pit India against Japan.
Disagreement on membership without veto power
Some parties have raised the prospect of India gaining UNSC membership without veto power.
Groups including Uniting for Consensus (UfC) — a powerful coalition led by Italy, with other members including Canada, Mexico, Spain, Pakistan, South Korea and Turkey — have advocated reinforcing the working of the General Assembly and increasing the number of non-permanent members.
Its argument is that the addition of non-permanent members will make the UN more accountable and representative by accommodating relevant regional voices in the decision-making process. In doing so, the group argues, this solution would mean there are more than a few select chief custodians of the international system.
But there are questions about what happens if India gets a high seat without veto power. Could this be considered a piecemeal approach towards achieving the larger objective?
Despite some parties saying they prefer this kind of arrangement, New Delhi is not comfortable with this proposition. India’s position is that all new permanent members to the security council must possess a veto. Thus, it is unlikely this outcome will unfold.
Western concerns that India may not align with US priorities
The US has, in principle, endorsed India gaining a permanent seat on the security council. But not everyone believes US policymakers will actually support such a reform in practice.
Indeed, in the past, P-5 countries have displayed “a habit of being non-commital” when it comes to actual decision-making on veto powers. As former US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns said in 2008: “We want to preserve the veto, and we do not want to extend a veto to new permanent members.”
Prominent US-based South Asian expert Ashley Tellis recently penned a piece in Foreign Affairs magazine arguing that the US cannot be sure of India’s support on significant strategic matters. Ashley later defended this position in an interview, saying “the current war in Ukraine is a good example … India defines its interest in ways that are not always identical to our own”.
It is true that India has not always voted with the West in the UN and has maintained an independent position on several critical subjects (e.g., India abstaining on the Russian invasion of Ukraine). Due to this, many think India is a fence-sitter and see it as an unreliable partner.
The West, particularly after the Russian-Ukraine war, is more watchful of new geopolitical reality. The understanding that Russia may fail to secure any support in the world for its war has changed.
Despite developing closer strategic ties with the West, India remained uncommitted on supporting sanctions on Russia. While China’s response was anticipated, for the West, foot dragging by New Delhi in criticising Russia was no less than a shock.
In these changed circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that the West, particularly the US, will go ahead with a reformed security council where India has veto power.
The regional conundrum
India also faces formidable challenges to its leadership emanating from its own region. India influences the region, but not in absolute terms. Indeed, as instability in the region has increased, so too have New Delhi’s troubles.
South Asia has become a battleground of India-China competition.
And while the India-Pakistan rivalry captures most attention, there are major India-related issues that agitate people in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and even in Bhutan.
With its recent change of government, Bangladeshis no longer on the same page. Queries over India’s regional leadership raises questions over its claims to be a global power.
Next steps for India
There are convincing arguments that the UN is in desperate need of reform, particularly the Security Council. Expanding the Security Council’s membership to include developing countries like India would benefit the UN and the international community.
However, New Delhi must make more concerted efforts to address criticisms to further legitimise its demand for permanent membership.
India’s geographical, political, and social influence in South Asia cannot be ignored. Recent criticism around its increasing political intolerance — which is directly linked to the state of democracy in India — must be addressed and resolved.
India’s failure to improve its ranking in the Human Development Index, the issue of economic inequality, and its lack of world-class infrastructure all contribute to the nation’s global image.
Therefore, there are structural and more prominent geopolitical factors that overshadow India’s chances to acquire security council permanent membership.
Additionally, India needs better engagement with the region and much more internal work to strengthen its claim further.
Dhananjay Tripathi is Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at South Asian University, New Delhi.
Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.
