Indian media recently reported that India has rejected the United Nations' "two-tier" reform proposal, demanding permanent Security Council membership with full veto power; New Delhi has instead proposed a compromise solution within the G4 group to extend veto rights for 15 years.
The UN's "two-tier" reform proposal refers to maintaining the current five permanent members and their right of veto, while adding several quasi-permanent or long-term seats (such as Germany, Japan, India, and Pakistan). These new seats would have no veto power but limited authority.
India has clearly rejected this "two-tier" reform plan, insisting that the G4 countries should directly obtain full permanent seats along with full veto rights—though the veto power could be temporarily suspended for 15 years, with a future review by the General Assembly on whether to reinstate it after that period.
India overlooks two critical realities: first, the establishment of the United Nations was a direct outcome of the victory in World War II. Granting full veto power to Japan—a nation that has never fully reflected on its wartime atrocities—would betray the original purpose of the UN. Second, the decision-making mechanism of the UN Security Council is already inefficient due to the existing full veto power held by the five permanent members (i.e., the one-vote veto). Adding four more votes with full veto power would undoubtedly further undermine its ability to function effectively.
India's desire to become a permanent member is understandable, but threatening to withdraw from the UN at will is hardly rational.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862942565202956/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone.