THE basic architecture of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has scarcely changed since 1965 when the non-permanent membership was increased from six to 10. The element of veto power was meant to keep the great powers inside the system and to prevent open conflict among them. Eight decades later, the organisation still carries the imprint of 1945, while the UN membership has grown to 193 states. The UNSC composition, therefore, no longer reflects the inter-national community it is supposed to serve.
In 2008, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) initiated negotiations to consider reforms. The discussions have since centred on five linked questions: categories of membership, the veto, regional repre- sentation, and the size of UNSC and its working methods. Africa still has no permanent seat. Latin America, South Asia and large parts of the Muslim world remain under-represented. The debate has remained locked over the last many years.
The Group of Four, featuring Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan, seeks permanent seats for itself and two for Africa. The African Group demands two permanent seats with full veto rights. France and Mexico believe permanent members should refrain voluntarily from using the veto in cases of mass atrocity.
The Uniting for Consensus group, led by Pakistan and supported by Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Canada and South Korea, rejects any enlargement of the permanent category. The group proposes, instead, an expansion of elected seats that would be longer-term and renewable. The rival camps cancel one another’s majorities, leaving the process stalled.
Enlarging permanent membership would not reform the UNSC. In fact, additional veto-holders would only multiply the occasions on which national interests can block action. The repeated American vetoes that have shielded Israel and allowed the destruction of Gaza to continue illustrate how a single permanent UNSC member can nullify the will of the rest.
India’s claim to a permanent seat invites particular scrutiny. Permanent member-
ship requires sustained confidence in a state’s fidelity to the UN Charter. India’s refusal to implement successive UNSC resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, its rejection of a UN-supervised plebiscite and its unilateral constitutional changes in the territory sit uneasily with that standard.
Concerns about human-rights practices in the disputed region and elsewhere, the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, reports of transnational repression, the Citizenship Amendment Act, the treatment of Rohingya refugees and a foreign policy that has offered strategic comfort to Israel together raise legitimate questions. India’s status outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) adds a further layer of unease. Germany’s candidature faces a different set of objections. Europe already holds two permanent seats.
The proposal offered by the Uniting for Consensus group suggests a more measured path. Expanding the elected membership from 10 to 20 would open opportunities for Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean without creating new permanent centres of power.
Periodic elections would keep members accountable to the wider membership. Rotation would allow more states to contribute to the maintenance of global peace. Broader participation could improve the quality of deliberation on intractable questions, such as Palestine, Ukraine, occupied Kashmir and other long-standing disputes, without multiplying vetoes that have so often produced deadlock. Reforms should strengthen UNSC legitimacy without in any way sacrificing its capacity to act.
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
Islamabad
Published in Dawn, September 7th, 2026
