FOR years, the debate regarding the expansion in the United Nations Security Council has been underway, yet no reform framework is concluded because of the ongoing vertical and horizontal polarization on this issue.
The debate surrounding the expansion of the Security Council, including the addition of new permanent members and the potential for limiting the veto, reflects diverse perspectives and geopolitical interests. While some argue that the current structure of the Security Council is not representative and needs reform, others believe that expansion could disproportionately benefit certain countries or regions, potentially undermining the Council’s effectiveness and fairness. Holding sufficient pragmatic grounds, Pakistan’s stance is clear that it does not favour the UNSC permanent expansion agenda.
The UN Security Council (UNSC) is under pressure to reform and expand its membership to better serve all member states and people. Undeniably, expansion of permanent and non-permanent memberships without addressing reform concerns, risks misrepresenting member states. The expansion debate involves discussions about representation and the potential for misaligned agendas within the Council. Arguably, an expansion campaign driven by geopolitical interests, could lead to a power struggle between countries vying for permanent seats, potentially undermining the Council’s ability to act decisively. Thus, finding a mutually acceptable formula for expansion has proven challenging, with different proposals often facing strong opposition.
The debate on UNSC expansion is ideologically characterized by two distinct approaches; Pragmatism and experimentalism. Pragmatists argue that expanding the UNSC’s permanent membership would complicate the decision making process and potentially paralyze the Council, given the diverse interests of the new members. They advocate for incremental reforms focusing on improving working methods and efficiency of the Council rather than structural changes. In contrast, the experimentalists believe that the expansion will enhance the Council’s legitimacy and efficiency, advocating that new members would bring fresh perspectives and ideas, enabling the UNSC to better address the emerging global challenges.
For Experimentalists, expanding the Council could address the historical underrepresentation of certain regions, such as Africa, and ensure more equitable participation in international peace and security decision-making. By including more voices in the decision-making process, the Council could gain greater legitimacy and support among member states. Conversely, the pragmatists fear that adding more permanent members with veto power could paralyze the Council, making it difficult to reach consensus on important issues.
On other hand, the claim that expansion is a utilitarian agenda of Western authoritarianism reflects concerns about the influence of Western powers within the UN. Ultimately, the decision on whether or not to expand the Security Council will depend on the ability of member states to find a mutually acceptable formula that addresses their diverse interests and concerns. Some argue that Western countries have historically exerted significant influence within the UN and that expansion could further solidify their dominance. Western countries have been known to support specific candidates for permanent membership, such as Germany, Japan and Brazil, which some see as a form of Western favoritism. The veto power wielded by the P5 is often criticized as a tool for blocking action on issues that are important to other member states and some argue that expansion could further entrench the power of the P5.
Needless to say, the UN Security Council expansion could potentially increase polarization within the EU as UNSC reform discussions involve diverse interests that may not align with traditional North/South divides. These differing interests, driven by political alliances and security concerns, could exacerbate existing tensions between Northern and Southern European States within the EU. It is important to note that the sources provided do not directly link the UNSC expansion to the EU’s polarization.
While India–representing the G4 reform Group, Brazil, Japan and Germany–supports the UNSC expansion to increase its global influence and to secure its geopolitical interests, Pakistan, a prominent member of the uniting for consensus (UFC), advocates for a more democratic, equitable and effective UNSC that prioritizes the interests of all member states, rather than perpetuating a system that favours a select few. Pakistan actively participates in discussions and negotiations on UNSC reform, advocating for the UfC’s position. The UfC group includes countries like Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, South Korea, Spain and Turkey, instead of adding new permanent members, the UfC proposes creating a category of longer-term, non-permanent members with the possibility of re-election.
Moreover, Islamabad opposes India’s bid for a permanent UNSC seat, citing several legitimate concerns: Firstly, India’s history of hegemonic, aggressive and terrorist designs against its neighbours, including Pakistan raises concerns about its ability to act as responsible regional and global actor. Secondly, India’s inconsistent commitment to multilateralism, international law, and its tendency to prioritize its national interests over international cooperation, and thirdly, its poor record, particularly its HR atrocities in IIoJ&K, which contradict the values of justice, equality and human dignity that the UN seeks to uphold.
Yet quintessentially, the developing world’s voice against expansion in the UN Security Council (UNSC) is linked to concerns about the Council’s effectiveness and representation. The current structure, seen as paralyzed by divisions, particularly regarding veto power, is under pressure for reform. Developing nations, while often critical of actions like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, also express dissatisfaction with sanctions-based approaches, hinting at a broader unease with the UNSC’s power dynamics and decision-making processes. Thus, the polarization of UNSC reforms reflects the complexity of balancing competing interests and priorities among member states. In crux, any reform or expansion requires a P5 agreement, which is difficult to achieve. Therefore, the argument that holding a status quo in the UNSC permanent membership holds ground.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law.
(rizvipeaceresearcher@gmail.com)
