Table of Contents
The aspiration of India to secure a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council has been vehemently resisted by China and Pakistan with whom India has had poor relations for some time. The United Nations Security Council is the highest organ within the UN, and it works toward achieving peace and security at the international level. Its permanent members, which include China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have veto power, and this gives them a high degree of influence over issues on international security.
G4 consists of:
The G4 consists of India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan—all aspirants to permanent membership of the UN Security Council. These governments are of the view that the present structure of the Security Council is out of date and no longer valid for the modern world, with changed geopolitics and economic dynamics all over the world since 1945 when the United Nations was formed. These G4 nations are major contributors to the UN system and thus want the restructuring of the Council to make it relevant and effective in handling global problems of the contemporary world.
Reasons for China’s Reluctance: Rivalries in the Regional Level and Strategic Concerns.
China, being a permanent member of the UNSC, has consistently opposed India’s candidacy for a permanent seat, again because of the reasons of regional rivalry and strategic concerns. The rapport between India and China, two giant nations in Asia, is a complicated one; while rivals in many ways, they are also partners in many contexts. Beijing remains adamant about opposing India because of border tensions like those in the Himalayas, other than the broader cause of Asian rivalry.
The Beijing objection can be explained through the aim of counterbalancing the growing influence of the United States and its allies in the region, and to hold the leading position that it occupies in Asia. Expanding the Security Council with India’s becoming a permanent member may minimize China’s influence, especially if India comes out to conduct its policies in tandem with those of the West. Moreover, Beijing has demonstrated an interest in the preservation of the status quo within the UN system, wherein there lies a substantial amount of influence for any one nation because of the stature it enjoys as a permanent member—out of the five permanent members.
Pakistan’s Dithering: Deep-seated Confrontations and Strategic Goals
It shouldn’t come as a surprise, however, that Pakistan rejected India’s offer because of the troubled past between the two nations ever since their independence in 1947. India and Pakistan have engaged in several wars, many of which have been over the land of Kashmir. In general, besides territorial issues, the rivalry of the two countries is based on matters of influence and strategic dominance in South Asia.
It is only when India becomes a permanent member of the UNSC that the regional balance of power will radically alter for Pakistan.
Hence, Islamabad is apprehensive that an emboldened India would attempt to politically and diplomatically isolate Pakistan through its new status. And Pakistan has not spared any opportunity to openly oppose India’s candidature on grounds that India does not merit permanent membership in light of its human rights record vis-à-vis Kashmir.
Moreover, Pakistan perceives its relationship with China as a balance against Indian pretensions in the region. Referred to as an “all-weather friendship,” this alliance has endured over the years because of shared geopolitical objectives, one of which is to prevent Indian dominance in South Asia. The Chinese stance on the Indian UNSC bid resonates with Pakistani interests and, through this resonance, underscores the closeness between Beijing and Islamabad all the more.
The Way Forward: Challenges and Opportunities for UNSC Reform
The proposal by India for a permanent seat on the UNSC is part and parcel of the overall scheme of the G4 countries toward restructuring and improving representation on the Council. But, opposition from China and, surprisingly, even Pakistan reflects the bigness of the problems ahead. Change within the Security Council requires not only an international consensus in broad terms but also the current permanent members’ agreement since all of them enjoy veto power.
This makes it extremely hard for India to push ahead with its claim, even if it had the support of many other countries such as the US, France, and Russia, among others, while China is a member and vetting power. The general question of whether India will finally gain a permanent seat in the UNSC is complicated and contentious given the dynamics of regional rivalries and geopolitical interests even considering pure preservation of the present status quo in the balance of power.
Conclusion
In short, it was openly clear that the challenge put up by China and Pakistan made regional politics and global politics deeply enmeshed with the question of UNSC reform. The dispute over what the Security Council should look like in the future will likely be one of the most contentious issues in international diplomacy for as long as India continues to press for a greater voice in world affairs.
