After the first World War, the League of Nations was established in January 1920 with the Treaty of Versailles. But the Second World War led to the death of the League. A second attempt to unite the world for peace was made with the United Nations. Formed on the 24th of October, 1945, the United Nations was a beacon of hope for the post world war geopolitics. Due to the burden of two great wars, the colonial empires of Great Britain and France were falling. Now was when the imagination of an egalitarian world could have been achieved. United Nations was presented as a pathway to that world.
According to article one of chapter one of the Charter of the United Nations –
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
Article two of the Charter states –
“The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.”
After seventy-seven years of adoption of this charter, we now need to question, is the UN that much egalitarian as it is supposed to be. The United Nations Security Council is a vital and imperative organ of the UN. Ensuring international peace and security, recommendations for the admission of new UN members in the General Assembly and approving changes to the UN Charter, peacekeeping operations, international sanctions, and military actions are under the jurisdiction of the UNSC. It will not be wrong to state that if the UN is a body, UNSC is its heart. But why a few nations have curbed the UN’s heart?
UN was instituted in the aftermath of the Second World War. The allied powers emerged victorious in the bloody war. The United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, France, and China bagged permanent seats in the UNSC on the merit of being the victors of WW2. After the dissolution of the USSR, its seat was taken by the Russian Federation in 1991. The equation at the helm of the international community remained static.
We need to ask ourselves and the world, why these countries deserve to be on the UNSC. Let us take them one by one. The United States of America is arguably the sole superpower of the post-cold war era. But what has been its contribution towards international peace? The USA invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam killing millions and leaving even more homeless. Much of the instability of the middle east can be attributed to the so-called “Land of the free, home of the brave.”
Next are the great colonial powers of modern history, or maybe we can put it simply as “The band of seafarer burglars.” What is the contribution of the United Kingdom and France to the progress of the world? They spent centuries draining the Asian, African and Latin American countries of resources and wealth, and even their cultures in some cases. They do not represent humanity or international peace. They are the representative of the history of bloodshed, misery, loot, and persecution for the sake of filling the treasury and tummies of white landlords in Europe.
Russia and China are more or less of the same breed. China’s cryptic practices of economic traps to poor nations of Africa and Asia are not unknown to anybody. China is suppressing democracy, and freedom of speech and is persecuting Uyghur Muslims in their nation. Russia, on the other hand, has invaded Ukraine, and shown reckless behaviour despite being a permanent member of the UNSC. Russia’s actions have created a whole turmoil for the world, causing problems ranging from oil price rise, and scarcity of foodgrains to the possibility of a deadly nuclear war.
So, we can conclude that none of the current permanent members of the UNSC is there because of their record of human rights protection or their attempts of ensuring international peace. They are just there because they are rich and maintain a strong army. If money and guns are the basis of deciding who will lead, then how come we can say that we are living in a modern era and not a medieval one?
So, who deserves to be onboarded with the UNSC? Well, speaking truly, there are a lot of contenders. Germany, Brazil, Japan and even South Africa are pitching for a permanent seat at the Security Council. But one contender is obvious and most powerful. The Republic of India is the largest democracy on the face of the earth. More than sixty crore votes were cast during the general elections of 2019. In its 75 years of independent history, India always remained a democracy.
Democracy is not the only merit of India. India is the 2nd largest population in the world. 17.5% of the world’s population lives in India alone. India is also a major military power. Global Fire Power Index ranked India 4th out of 142 nations in 2022. India is among the largest contributors to the UN Peacekeeping forces. Recently, India became the 5th largest economy in the world surpassing Britain. India is the fastest-growing economy and fastest-emerging regional power in geopolitics.
India’s contribution to the world during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether in the face of vaccines or food grain supplies, is not unknown to the international community. India is the only large nation, which maintains close ties with both the United States and Russia and hence can be crucial for the maintenance of world peace. Also, India can be a safe bid for the West, to counter the rising Chinese dominance and aggression.
India, the oldest civilization, and the youngest nation on the face of the earth deserve the right spot and role in the international community. India needs to be given what is due for 75 years. If India is not given a permanent seat in the Security Council, yes, it is some loss to India, but it is a larger loss for the United Nations. If the UN wants to maintain its relevance in the 21st century, then it needs to be more inclusive and open. And only then it will reflect its name, getting the nations united.