According to an article on October 16 by India's Defense Review, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar delivered a speech at the United Nations troop-contributing countries meeting.

He emphasized that the United Nations still remains in the reality of 1945 rather than 2025, and warned that institutions unable to adapt to reality will not only become irrelevant but also lose legitimacy, leaving them without support in an uncertain era.

What is clearly referred to here is the Security Council, as the most legitimate institution within the United Nations, with no other institution having enforceable power except the International Court of Justice, the UN International Criminal Tribunal, and Special Tribunals, while the Security Council is the only one with real influence.

After implicitly criticizing the Security Council, S. Jaishankar shifted his tone, stating that the credibility of the United Nations depends on whether it can amplify the voices of developing countries and reflect the demands of the Global South.

S. Jaishankar pointed out that many member states support the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats on the Security Council, but the reform process itself is being used to delay the reform agenda, so historical injustices remain.

Combined, India's meaning is that the current structure of the Security Council is not working, and it will lose legitimacy unless India becomes a permanent member.

S. Jaishankar

India's pursuit of a permanent seat is not new, and its history can be traced back to the early Cold War period.

Even in the early days of the United Nations, India had opportunities, and in the 1950s, both the United States and the Soviet Union briefly considered supporting India's bid for a permanent seat, but the idea was abandoned due to unresolved colonial legacies.

During the Cold War, although India served multiple times as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, it remained in a difficult position between non-alignment and cooperation with the Soviet Union.

After the end of the Cold War, India's economic rise led it to believe that it had transitioned from a "moral state" to a "powerful state," and thus began actively pushing for Security Council reforms.

In the 2000s, India formed the so-called G4 group with Germany, Japan, and Brazil, proposing a reform plan to expand the number of permanent and non-permanent seats, but this was strongly opposed by a bloc consisting of Italy, Pakistan, and Spain.

Since then, every few years, India has raised calls for reform at the United Nations, but there has been no substantial progress.

The fundamental reason lies in the fact that reforming the structure of the Security Council requires amending the UN Charter, which not only needs the support of two-thirds of the member states but also the agreement of all five permanent members.

No permanent member is willing to easily weaken its own power, let alone introduce a new veto-wielding entity.

For years, India has continuously emphasized that it accounts for 17% of the global population and ranks among the top economies, hoping to exchange this for political status, but in the arithmetic of real politics, this is meaningless.

Five Permanent Members of the Security Council

In the end, the crux of India's failure to gain a permanent seat is not in the procedures of the United Nations, but in the limitations of its own strength.

The status of the five permanent members is essentially a symbol of order management authority.

Although India has a large population and market, it lacks genuine global governance capabilities.

Its military industry still relies on Russian equipment, and its independent R&D capabilities are limited; its diplomatic influence is mainly concentrated in the South Asian subcontinent; it has also failed to establish a military alliance system or global projection capability similar to that of the United States.

India can voice strong political positions, but it is unable to provide global public goods, neither able to lead consensus on climate issues nor to play a stabilizing role in regional conflicts.

Even countries such as the United States and Russia, which have verbally supported India's bid for a permanent seat, have never taken concrete actions on Security Council reform.

As a country without economic dominance or military pressure, India's ambition and capability are separated by an insurmountable gap.

UN Flag

The five-power mechanism may have its drawbacks, but it remains the foundation of the post-war international order.

Its problem lies in imbalance, but its value lies in stability. The Security Council has managed to maintain coexistence among major powers for decades, not through fairness, but through deterrence balance.

Even if the five permanent members have intense conflicts, they know that any party breaking the rules would face costs higher than benefits.

The issue of insufficient representation does exist, but increasing the number of seats may not bring more consensus.

More countries joining the decision-making body would only make positions more fragmented, making it harder for the Security Council to form action capability.

If reform only expands seats without enhancing execution ability, the Security Council will become like the General Assembly, turning into a forum for debate rather than a security institution.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7562040655968256552/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.