The UNSC is – theoretically – the most powerful political UN body, with a mandate to maintain international peace and security. It has 15 members: five permanent and 10 elected. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The non-permanent members are elected for a term of two years. The Security Council can establish peacekeeping operations, impose sanctions or arms embargoes, instruct human rights investigations, authorize the use of force, create international criminal tribunals and refer cases to the International Criminal Court.
The US made a proposal to India in August 1950 through the Indian Ambassador in the U.S. It expressed the American desire to remove China from permanent membership of the UNSC and possibly replace it with India. Nehru allegedly refused to take this suggestion seriously and thus abdicated India’s opportunity to become a permanent member of the UNSC. However, the complexity of the international situation might justify Nehru’s stance then.
The above events took place in August 1950 when the Cold War was in its early stages. The two superpowers were in eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation that threatened nuclear catastrophe. The People’s Republic of China had just emerged from a bloody civil war and was seen at the time as the Soviets’ closest ally. It was prevented from taking its permanent seat in the UNSC because of American opposition based on Cold War logic. Furthermore, war was intense in the Korean peninsula. The U.S. and allied troops were locked in fierce combat with North Korean forces supported by China and the Soviet Union.
Nehru, at that time, was trying to carve a policy that ensured India’s security, strategic autonomy and state-led industrialisation. He anticipated that pushing China out, as the U.S. wished to do, would result in a perpetual conflict that could engulf all of Asia. To him, the Korean War appeared a forerunner to more such conflicts in Asia that could even turn nuclear. The U.S. had dropped nuclear bombs on Japan only 5 years ago and it would possibly not hesitate to do so again in an Asian conflict. This is especially since nuclear deterrence had not become a recognised reality then. So given these, Nehru did not want India to get embroiled in hazardous Cold War conflicts as it would risk India’s own security. He understood that peace could not be assured in Asia without accommodating a potential great power like China.
To be precise, America’s proposal was not an offer but merely a vague sensor to explore Indian reactions to such a contingency. The U.S. intended the offer to be a bait to attract India into an alliance with the West against the Sino-Soviet bloc. The US aimed at pulling India into the “defence” organisations that it was setting up in Asia to contain the presumed “Communist expansionism”. Nehru was well aware of this and the fact that Washington was only interested in using India for its own ends. Had India accepted the American bait, it would have meant enduring enmity with China without the achievement of a permanent seat in the UNSC. Moreover, even if accepted, the Soviet Union, then China’s closest ally, would have vetoed such move. As, it would have required amendment of the UN Charter that is subject to the veto of the permanent members. It would have also strained the relations between India and the Soviet Union, affecting the possibility of a close political and military relationship with Moscow later. The ties, in fact, became necessary once the U.S. entered into an alliance relationship with Pakistan. Moreover, the Indo-Soviet relationship paid immense dividends to India during the Bangladesh war of 1971.
Over the years since then there has been much talk of late about the possibility of India joining the UN Security Council (UNSC) as a permanent member, while most of the current permanent members have expressed public support for expansion of the UNSC.
India has been falling far short of its domestic and international human rights obligations, and its desire to expand its role in the UN presents an opportunity to assess its record of engagement as a member of other UN political bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC).
It’s important to review India’s pattern of engagement with the human rights architecture as a whole, including with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UN human rights treaty bodies.
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 United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia – have categorically supported India’s candidature in the past. As a close competitor of India in regional and international politics, China is unwilling to endorse New Delhi’s position.
China is the only Asian country with a permanent Security Council seat. 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 U.S. ally that, like India, is a strong contender for a permanent seat. Comprising Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, the G-4 countries support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the Security Council.
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 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 U.N. 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 toward 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 U.S. Priorities
The United States has, in principle, endorsed India gaining a permanent seat on the Security Council. But not everyone believes U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S.-based South Asian expert Ashley Tellis recently penned a piece in Foreign Affairs magazine arguing that the United States 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 United Nations 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. 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 criticizing Russia was no less than a shock.
In these changed circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that the West, particularly the U.S., 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, for example, 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, the Maldives, and even in Bhutan.
With its recent change of government, Bangladesh is no longer on the same page. Queries over India’s regional leadership raises questions over its claims to be a global power.
What is Next for India?
There are convincing arguments that the U.N. 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 U.N. and the international community. However, New Delhi must make more concerted efforts to address criticisms to further legitimize 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.
India needs better engagement with the region and much more internal work to strengthen its claim further.
For getting our guidance for PSC Miscellaneous Mains, pls call or whatsapp now- 6295350330
Some notes for any descriptive paper on GS/GK/CA
https://saptarshinag.in/from-non-alignment-to-multi-alignment-indias-tactical-shift-since-independence/ https://saptarshinag.in/the-g-7-summit-and-the-world-chaos/
For WBCS 2022 Group C Interview Guidance course and mock Interviews pls call or WhatsApp us @6295350330
