The United Nations represents a vast world, and it is ironic that such an important entity has just 5 permanent members. The current Security Council membership reflects post-Globe War II reality and, as a result, is out of step with the shifting balance of power in the world. At the time of the UNSC’s inception, major powers were granted privileges that allowed them to become members of the council. This was required for its smooth operation as well as to avoid a failure similar to that of the organisation ‘League of Nations. Regions such as Far East Asia, South America, and Africa are not represented on the council’s permanent membership. The rise of discussion forums such as the G4 (India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan) as major economies and developing international powers press for swift UN Security Council changes.
- The UN Security Council has no criteria for selecting nations for permanent membership.
- Concerns have been raised that the council’s growth may lead to a decrease in its efficiency and functioning.
- One country opposes another’s ambition for permanent membership in a region. Pakistan, for example, does not want India to be a permanent member of the council.
- China has severe reservations about Japan’s presence in the Security Council.
- Italy is competing in Europe with Germany for a seat on the Security Council.
- Argentina opposes Brazil’s appointment as South America’s permanent representative to the UN Security Council.
- There is still no agreement in Africa over which country should represent the continent as a permanent member.
- The five permanent members themselves do not want anyone to join them. There is no evidence in history of countries giving up such a status quo on their own.
- When the G4 proposed expanding the council in 2005, the US and China pushed extensively with African nations to ensure that they would not vote in favour of the motion.
Why India deserves to be have a UNSCC Permanent membership
- If India became a permanent member of the Security Council, it would be a more representative body.
- Given the magnitude of its economy, population, and status as the world’s largest democracy, India deserves a permanent seat on the Council.
- India has emerged as a prominent actor not just in Asia, but also globally.
Advantages of India having a permanent membership
- India will be able to operate more effectively for its own interests. There was a point when the USSR really started boycotting the UN Security Council, and it was during that time that the US was able to get the resolution authorising the Korean War passed. From that point on, the USSR understood that boycotting the UN made no sense. It must retain veto power if any resolution is passed against them.
- The appointment of India as a permanent member acknowledges the country’s growth as a global force, poised to play a vital role in the council’s goals of world peace and security.
- India will be able to enjoy the ‘prestige’ that comes with being a permanent member of the council.
- Having a veto power gives you great power. The recent instance of Masood Azhar demonstrates this. India has been attempting to have him labelled as a global terrorist since 2009. China’s veto power keeps delaying it.
The French UN envoy recently stated that India, as well as countries such as Germany, Brazil, and Japan, are “absolutely required” as permanent members of a reformed and expanded UN Security Council in order to properly represent modern reality. India has always been in the forefront of UN efforts to press for long-overdue Security Council reform, emphasising that it rightfully deserves a seat at the UN high table as a permanent member.
How to structure
- Give an intro about UNSC
- Explain the current structure
- Take a side on whether the expansion should be made or not- Support that with your arguments. Since India is trying to expand the membership, it is better to take that side