One suggestion that has gathered some support is that the new permanent members should not have the veto. As EAM, I had vehemently opposed this.
The United Nations was founded in 1945. At its founding the UN had 51 members. India had been made a member of the League of Nations in the 1920s. Hence, it automatically became a founding member of the UN.
The charter of the UN established the Security Council. It consisted of five permanent members. The US, USSR, UK, France and China. Each of the six non-permanent members was elected for a two-year term. The five permanent members had the veto.
Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State declared while the UN charter was being drafted, “The veto provision was an absolute condition for the USA’s participation in the United Nations Organisation. The super powers would not be subject to any collective coercion.
“The veto ensured that the General Assembly or the Security Council could not act against any of the five permanent members.”
The Mexican delegate at San Francisco said at that “under the UN Charter the mice would be disciplined, but the lions would be free”. In other words, the permanent five were and are a law unto themselves.
At the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan took the lead to emphasise at the session that it was the appropriate time to consider reforming and expanding the membership of the Security Council, bearing in mind that the world of 2005 was vastly different than that of 1945. I was the Indian representative on this committee of four. We worked hard, travelled to several countries, met dozens of leaders, including the permanent five. Each of the five opposed, reluctantly agreed for increasing the number of the non-permanent members, but the permanent five could not be part of any reform.
A meeting of the heads of government was held at the UN during the 2005 session. Present were the President of Brazil, and Prime Ministers of Japan and India. Germany was represented by its Foreign Minister.
A statement was issued at the end of the meeting, categorically asking for the reform of the Security Council. Nothing happened. However, the issue could not be brushed under the carpet. Various suggestions were made—the P5 should become P7, P9 or P11. In each formula India was included. But India would be a part of a package. What would be the package—three from Asia—China, Japan and India—two from Africa, south of the Sahara, two from the Islamic world, two from South America, one from Europe-Germany. No agreement could be reached. Which countries to include from each of the “blocs”?
China has never declared that it would support India become a veto wielding permanent member. The only concession it has made is that India as an important country should play a more active role at the UN. UK, France and Russia have supported India, and the US too has come around. There will be no change in China’s position. China is unlikely to support Japan for permanent membership.
One suggestion that has gathered some support is that the new permanent members should not have the veto. As External Affairs Minister I had vehemently opposed India becoming a second class permanent member. I now gather there are second thoughts on this policy.
At the current session, the 73rd of the UN General Assembly, the Foreign Ministers of the four countries met. Sushma Swaraj, Taro Kano of Japan, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Brazilian Foreign Minister Aloysio Nunes Ferreira issued a statement, regretting that “substantial progress had not yet been achieved” in this regard. The frustration continues and will continue. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan in his address to the General Assembly said that the significance of the UN in the 21st century is “being starkly questioned”. The President of Brazil, Michel Temer said that the Security Council, “in its current configuration reflects a world that no longer exists”.
As for President Donald Trump, he has disdain for the UN. He made that abundantly clear in his speech earlier in the week. He was addressing a global organisation, “We reject the ideology of globalisation, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”
By the way, do you know the name of the present Secretary General of the UN?