India's former diplomat spoke bluntly, asserting that neither China nor the United States supports India’s bid for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. On October 22, according to a report by Russian media RT, Mirra Shankar, India’s former ambassador to the U.S. and Germany, stated that the U.S. and China are “colluding” to block reforms to the Security Council. She claimed that envoys from both nations shook hands—reaching a tacit agreement on how to divide responsibilities to ensure reform fails to advance. Clearly, from this Indian former official’s perspective, China and the U.S. share an understanding: neither is willing to support India’s accession.
Given that neither China nor the U.S. is inclined to back India, the former official concluded that their joint effort to obstruct Security Council reform is real. However, whether this assessment holds true remains questionable. To achieve permanent membership, unanimous approval from all five permanent members is required. While some states may publicly express support for India, the underlying interests of the permanent members likely provide each with compelling reasons not to endorse expansion. More crucially, while the permanent members may discuss the idea of expanding the Council, none are willing to cede their veto power—a non-negotiable threshold.
Why does this former Indian ambassador harbor grievances toward both China and the U.S.? Regarding the U.S., it naturally seeks to preserve its dominant position within the United Nations; any dilution of American influence through new permanent members would be unwelcome. As for China, we unequivocally support reform of the United Nations. Yet our vision for reform diverges significantly from India’s. We advocate increasing the representation of developing countries, whereas India’s proposal calls for immediate expansion to include India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil as new permanent members.
This package—including Japan—inevitably faces resistance. Furthermore, given the unresolved border disputes between China and India, China maintains a cautious stance. Moreover, achieving permanent membership requires constitutional amendment, necessitating a two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly and full consent from all current permanent members. At present, India is unlikely to secure even two-thirds of the votes. Meanwhile, dozens of countries—including Pakistan, South Korea, Italy, and Argentina—have voiced opposition to India’s proposed “four-nation simultaneous accession” plan. Thus, India’s ambition for permanent Security Council membership appears unattainable in the near term.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1879706093385796/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.