While there are flaws in the working of United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC), it is by no means a guarantee that increasing its permanent membership is the remedy. There is a perception, not misplaced one, that the UNSC is merely a tool in the hands of the permanent five members to protect their vital interests in any part of the world. We frequently witness Russia and America invoking veto power to discard resolutions of UNSC on Kashmir and Palestine respectively. Such perceptions and apprehensions of the smaller nations are confirmed considering the civil war in Syria that is yet to end, as America and Russia are poles apart on finding a solution. UNSC ‘s most recent failure is its inability to stop Rohingya genocide.
Considering such a flawed Security Council, Pakistan’s fears are genuine that “permanent seats are contrary to the universally agreed principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. The real concern for Pakistan is India’s aim to get a permanent seat on the council.
There is a wide range of issues that need solutions between India and Pakistan, including the Kashmir dispute, Siachen glacier, Runn of Kutch and Water management. Some of these problems cannot be solved bilaterally. For such issues, international arbitration and mediation are required. Without these problems being solved, any change in the composition of UNSC will prove detrimental to the regional stability and peace. Though India will not get Veto power if it becomes a permanent member still India will be in a better position to cover up its abuses in Kashmir and present its position more forcefully on disputes with Pakistan.
Before allowing any state to secure a permanent seat on UNSC, a state’s human rights records and illegal occupation of territories is what the UN needs to look into. For if a country with a dark history of human rights abuses is allowed, then the objectives of SC will be further tarnished. Instead of a reformed UNSC, it will be an addition to the flaws that the body has already in its structure. Ms. Lodhi, while arguing along these lines rightly said in General Assembly that because few states were reluctant to find a way of more representative, transparent and accountable Security Council, that the task of reforming it was unfulfilled till this day.
