UNSC: A PARALYZED BODY. SEEKING ITS SEAT FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED

India should Leverage its Soft Capabilities to Establish Its Unchallengeable Global Leadership. Champion UNSC Dissolution & GA Restructuring.

The journey of India's stance on Security Council membership tells a compelling story of strategic foresight. When offered a permanent seat in the 1950s, India displayed remarkable diplomatic maturity by declining the opportunity, instead advocating for China's inclusion. This decision, made by a newly independent nation, reflected deep political wisdom and an understanding of global dynamics.

However, the geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically for India between the 1960s and 1970s. Military conflicts with Pakistan and China highlighted the strategic vulnerability of India's position, transforming its perspective on Security Council membership from one of principled restraint to active pursuit. The seat was no longer just a symbol of prestige but a potential shield for national interests.

Today's global order bears little resemblance to the post-World War II era. India has emerged as a pivotal global player, and its aspirations for Security Council membership stem from a position of strength rather than the security concerns. Yet this raises two critical questions about the contemporary value of such membership.

Is the prestige and supremacy of the security council the same as what it was at its inception?

The Security Council's prestige has significantly declined since its inception. While still the UN's premier decision-making body, its effectiveness faces mounting challenges. The veto power often paralyzes action on crucial issues, and its structure increasingly appears anachronistic in a rapidly changing world order. One of the many questions that we look to address in this essay is what options are available to make UN more effective.

Is the Security Council the most effective vehicle available to India for exercising global leadership in the 21st century?

As regards India's global standing, permanent membership would certainly formalize its position among the world powers. However, India has already established itself as a significant global voice through other channels – its economic might, diplomatic reach, and leadership in international forums like the G20. The country commands respect in global affairs regardless of its Security Council status.

This essay looks at routes other than the Security Council, available to India to establish its leadership.

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

The Security Council stands today as a stark example of institutional paralysis in the face of global crises. This paralysis isn't merely a contemporary phenomenon but has deep historical roots stretching back to the UN's founding moments in 1945. While the UN remains vital in areas like development, humanitarian assistance, and climate action, its premier security organ has increasingly revealed its structural flaws.

At the heart of this dysfunction lies the veto power wielded by the permanent five members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). This mechanism, designed to ensure great power cooperation, has instead become a tool for protecting national interests at the expense of global security. The consequences of this structural weakness have never been more evident than in recent global crises.

The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza powerfully illustrate this dysfunction. Russia's ability to veto any meaningful response to its invasion of Ukraine, and the United States' initial blocking of resolutions regarding Gaza, demonstrate how national interests can trump humanitarian imperatives. Even when resolutions eventually pass, as in the case of Gaza after 30,000 deaths, or in Sudan, they often remain unimplemented, highlighting the gap between the Council's pronouncements and actual impact.

The Council's effectiveness has been further eroded by its anachronistic structure, which reflects the power dynamics of 1945 rather than today's multipolar world. This misalignment extends beyond mere representation – it manifests in the Council's inability to address modern security challenges effectively, from cyber threats to climate security.

The peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo serves as a sobering example of this ineffectiveness. Despite a 25-year presence, the mission has struggled to fulfil its basic mandate of civilian protection, underlining the disconnect between the Council's intentions and its operational capabilities.

The UN's broader relevance hinges significantly on reforming or reimagining its security apparatus. Without substantial changes to align with contemporary global realities, the Security Council risks becoming an increasingly ceremonial body, unable to fulfil its fundamental purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

WHY SHOULD INDIA RECONSIDER PURSUING A PERMANENT UNSC SEAT?

As an Indian, I believe it is deeply ingrained in our mindset that power stems from holding a position—an idea that is fundamentally flawed. While a position may grant short-term authority, true and lasting power lies in the ability to influence the minds of those who matter and through the value, consistently delivered.

India's pursuit of a permanent UNSC seat may not justify the associated costs and challenges. UNSC membership represents symbolic power, unlikely to significantly impact the world's most pressing issues. While prestigious, a permanent seat offers limited real influence. Even permanent members often struggle to exert their will, as the veto system has crippled the UNSC, rendering it largely dysfunctional. This ineffectiveness could be counterproductive for India.

Breakthroughs and consensus require persuasion, not force. India has mastered this diplomatic "soft power" over decades, contributing to its current global standing. China's approach, based on the principle of "power coming from the barrel of a gun," has yielded limited success despite its attempts to leverage power for influence. A focus on economic value delivery, like Japan's global impact through its electronics industry, would have been more effective.

Achieving permanent membership involves navigating complex geopolitics, requiring immense diplomatic effort and potentially creating a backlash, straining relationships with other contenders like South Africa, Japan, Germany, and Brazil.

India should instead channel resources and diplomatic efforts into strengthening its global influence through economic growth, regional stability, and leadership in addressing global challenges like climate change, technology, and trade.

Furthermore, the UNSC primarily addresses global peace and security, areas not always aligned with India's current priorities. India risks having its interests sidelined in a body dominated by power politics. As a permanent member, India might face pressure to align with specific blocs, jeopardizing its non-aligned and independent foreign policy.

Finally, India remains a developing nation with pressing domestic issues—poverty, infrastructure, and healthcare—that should take precedence over investing in a potentially controversial and ultimately symbolic seat.

Soon to be published next section of this essay addresses the following questions – “Should India Champion UNSC Dissolution and General Assembly Restructuring?” And “How Can India Become a Soft Power”.