January 10, 2024 
Bengaluru, 10 January 2024
The failure of the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) to act on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reignited a long-smouldering demand to reorganise the highest world body dealing with international peace and security. Its inability to play a meaningful role in the on-going Israel-Hamas conflict reemphasised the urgent need for reform.
So, what is the UNSC? It is one of the six main agencies of the United Nations with the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. It has 15 members, five permanent (P5) and ten elected non-permanent, each with a single vote. Under the UN Charter, all member states are obligated to comply with the Council decisions. The P5—China, France, Russia, UK and USA—have been granted special voting power called ‘the right to veto’, which when cast, even individually by one P5 nation, neutralises any resolution or decision of the Council.
Few topics generate so much discussion and debate, and so little action, as the need for UNSC reform. In December 1992, the UN General Assembly created a working group to review the Security Council and recommend equitable representation. More than three decades later, the group has produced no tangible results. The quest for equitable representation in the UNSC received an impetus when a formal authorisation to negotiate was given in October 2008—the initiative only led to fruitless negotiations.
The demand for reform is understandable. More than 80 years after its creation, the Council still has the same five permanent members, while in the same timeframe other nations have emerged as powerful entities—Brazil, Germany, India, Japan. Although membership of the UN has quadrupled from the initial 51 to 193, the Council composition was changed only once, in 1965, when four elected, non-permanent members were added to increase the strength to 15.
More contentious is the unilateral use of veto by P5 nations that blocks Council resolutions that are inimical to individual national interests, resulting in paralysis of action. The increasing geopolitical rivalry between the West and Russia and China is now played out in the Security Council. Majority of nations across the world believe that the Security Council is biased and discriminatory, controlled by countries that no longer truly represent today’s ground realities and is incapable of safeguarding world peace. The Council does not reflect the on-going shifts in the global power balance and through repeated inaction has lost its moral authority.
The inability of the Security Council to act has cast a shadow on the UN, with its relevance being increasingly questioned. The security equation of 1945 on which the constitution of the Council was based is redundant and irrelevant today; the nature of security threats has undergone a sea-change. Its repeated failure to live up to expectations, especially in recent times, underlines this point and undermines its legitimacy. Today the UNSC faces a stark choice: reform to reflect the current realities or be discarded as irrelevant, taking the UN down with it. The stakes are very high.
As a corollary, although beset with shortcomings, the Council remains a cornerstone of international order with nothing else on the horizon to replace it and little chance of a new organisation rising out of its ashes, if it self-destructs or is burned down. This remains its enduring strength.
Reform in two crucial areas—representation and P5 veto power—is the need of the hour, although member countries are not in agreement whether the priority should be harnessing great power capabilities or ensuring equitable representation. Further, the obstacles to meaningful reform are daunting: two-third of members, including all P5 nations, need to approve any reform—an impossibility in the intensifying global geopolitical rivalry and domestic political polarisations in many member countries.
Improving representation, especially revamping P5 membership, is an urgent need to stem the spread of disillusionment about the Council. The perceived lack of legitimacy of the UNSC, brought about by the indiscriminate use of veto by the P5, could easily and rapidly escalate to open defiance and non-compliance of Council decisions by member countries. Such a situation would be disastrous. Staying relevant requires the Council to become globally representative. However, there is an inherent and complex friction between representation and effectiveness. The expansion of Council membership will, no doubt, improve legitimacy and buttress its authority, although it would commensurately reduce its efficiency and effectiveness. The original intent of the Security Council was to harness great power capabilities while representation was to be provided by the General Assembly. Attempting to merge the two disparate aims, to cater for changing geopolitical circumstances, may not be an ideal solution. Legitimacy and representation are two sides of the same coin, while effectiveness stands apart. Balancing the two optimally will be a conjurer’s act.
The most contentious issue is the veto power granted to P5—the most resented bias. Veto, as currently enacted, not only blocks collective action but shields P5 nations from accountability. Currently there is no prospect of eliminating this prerogative—P5 will not agree to or accept the dilution of this privileged position, where UN’s coercive powers could be used against them. Essentially, veto ensures that great power privilege will always trump the national sovereignty aspirations of smaller nations. Currently suggestions to laydown guidelines for the use of veto by P5 nations remain just that, suggestions. Sadly, there is no light visible at the end of the tunnel on this controversial and provocative issue. For any reform to move forward, P5 must show some flexibility on the matter of their veto powers—currently this is not forthcoming.
The topic of UNSC reform is highly charged since it has the potential to alter the existing world order: it could lead to changing national interest priorities, alter how global security is defined, and how the world chooses to defend the concept of peace. To add to the complexity of enacting reforms, the P5 have different views on equitable representation, although they remain united in protecting their permanent seats and veto privileges. China opposes new permanent members since it would mean accommodating Japan and India. However, they advocate expanding non-permanent elected members by 10 to improve equitable representation. In a strange but familiar twist, China has consistently opposed any concrete moves that may have led to a breakthrough.
France and UK have been championing interim measures such as a new category of longer-term membership that would eventually become permanent but without veto powers. The US supports a modest expansion that would restrict membership to a total of 21, a caveat that almost immediately curtails any further reform. Russia, in relative decline as a world power and diplomatically isolated, opposes adding any new permanent members, fearing further decline in their global status.
Viewed holistically, the reality is that P5, as a body or individually, will in some way or the other stop any real reform from being enacted. It is not surprising that cynicism pervades any discussion of Security Council reform. The current gridlock will be enduring. There is no ready-to-hand fix for what ails the Security Council and the UN. Failure to reform fundamentally stems from the prevailing conflict of interest within the P5 nations. Paradoxically, the same conflict of interest that paralyses the Council is what makes reform so urgently required.
Th writing is on the wall: devoid of critical and earnest reform, the Security Council will continue to hurtle towards irrelevance, fading into history as so many other well-intentioned entities of the past. History teaches one constant lesson—adapt or perish.
Sanu Kainikara
© [Sanu Kainikara] [2024]
All Rights Reserved
No part of this website/Blog or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied, modified or adapted, without the prior written consent of the author. You may quote extracts from the website or forward the link to the website with attribution to http://www.sanukay.wordpress.com/. For any other mode of sharing, please contact the author @ (sanukay@hotmail.com)
Sanu Kainikara 
Hey Sanu, Excellent analysis.