Does It Really Matter Whether New Permanent UNSC Members Have Veto Rights?

It’s undeniable that the UNSC in its present form doesn’t accurately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities, which is why there’s an effort to reform that global body through the expansion of its permanent members, but the devil’s in the details as they say since this is a lot easier said than done.

The Washington Post cited sources in the Biden Administration to report on Monday that the US is trying to win support for its plan to expand the UNSC by around six more permanent members. These countries wouldn’t have veto rights, but their inclusion in that body is intended to more accurately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. The report mentions Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan as new potential members alongside perhaps one or two unnamed African countries.

The latest talk about expanding the UNSC comes after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, former US National Security member Fiona Hill, and Goldman Sachs’ President of Global Affairs Jared Cohen all coincidentally argued on the same day last month for the West to strengthen ties with the Global South. The past fifteen and a half months since the start of Russia’s special operation exposed the limits of this de facto New Cold War bloc’s influence after every developing country refused to sanction Moscow.

It therefore appears as though the Western elite have agreed that they need to at least superficially engage with those states in order to avoid irreversibly losing hearts and minds among them to their rivals in the Sino-Russo Entente. Withholding those potentially new permanent members’ veto rights could be meant as a compromise to remove resistance from existing members who either don’t want to dilute their power or think that more equal members could make it impossible to ever reach consensus.

There’s a certain logic to that since China might oppose India and Japan being granted those privileges out of fear that they’ll team up against it due to their territorial disputes with the People’s Republic. Furthermore, the British and French could be offended at the thought of their former African colonies having equal rights as them on the world’s most important stage. Regardless of however one feels about these aforementioned concerns, they arguably exist and thus pose a challenge to expanding the UNSC.

That said, it’s also the case that these same new potentially permanent UNSC members might reject joining if they’re unable to veto the group’s resolutions, especially since the bifurcation of this body into two separate tiers takes away the prestige that they hoped to receive through their participation. Furthermore, those Global South countries that are invited to join under these conditions might conclude that they’re being discriminated against by some existing members for ethno-racial reasons.

For instance, it’s difficult to imagine India agreeing to terms that would legally institutionalize a junior relationship to China in the UNSC after it’s already that country’s legal equal in BRICS and the SCO. In fact, its diplomats would likely react with fury if any existing permanent member’s representatives dare to make such a condescending proposal to their face. The only realistic scenario where they might calmly listen to them is if equal rights are promised after completing a transition towards full membership.

That compromise might suffice for beginning the process of incorporating new potentially permanent members, but only if all existing members agree, which can’t be taken for granted in the example of India due to its rapidly deteriorating relations with China. In that scenario, their already fierce battle for hearts and minds across the Global South would intensify even further if India then paints China as an obstacle to developing countries receiving equal representation on the world’s most important stage.

Even in the unlikely event that China approves India’s potentially permanent membership with full veto rights without any resistance whatsoever, the earlier mentioned concern about more veto-wielding permanent members making it impossible to reach a consensus would still stand. It’s already difficult enough for them to agree on anything considering the New Cold War divisions between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente, however, so this is actually a moot point.

Nobody seriously expects either side to ever endorse those of the other’s resolutions that they consider to be against their interests, nor is it reasonable to predict that one of them will soon undergo such radical political changes at home that they all of a sudden agree with their rival’s worldview. The most likely forecast is therefore that the UNSC’s present dysfunction will indefinitely persist and nothing of tangible substance will be achieved except in those rare instances where both sides’ interests align.

Considering this, it really doesn’t matter whether new potentially permanent members have veto rights or not since that won’t change the aforesaid dynamics. Those existing members who oppose granting these rights to others would thus inflict major damage to their own soft power by going against something irrelevant because developing countries might regard them as arrogant for wanting to keep this powerful privilege all to themselves or even bigoted against them for ethno-racial reasons.

Regardless of the terms with which new potentially permanent members join, the expansion of the UNSC is still controversial for those comparatively medium- and smaller-sized countries that aren’t eligible for this since it could be seen as reinforcing existing international hierarchies. While some might feel that their interests are better represented by their larger regional partner joining, others might feel left out if they aren’t closely partnered with whichever larger regional country might be given this seat.

Since two-thirds of the UNGA’s total members (128/193) must approve the UNSC’s expansion, these perceptions among that first-mentioned body’s majority could become a serious bone of contention that prompts yet another battle for hearts and minds in the Global South. The forthcoming debate might therefore involve not only the questions of which countries should be invited to join and with which rights, but even whether the number of permanent seats should be expanded in the first place.

It’s undeniable that the UNSC in its present form doesn’t accurately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities, which is why there’s an effort to reform that global body through the expansion of its permanent members, but the devil’s in the details as they say since this is a lot easier said than done. Hopefully a compromise that’s acceptable to the largest number of countries can be agreed to in the coming future in order for the Global South to finally receive the representation that it deserves.