Recently, Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) were held at the United Nations (UN) Headquarters in New York for reforming the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). At the IGN, the Group of Four (G4) member countries, which include India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, strongly lobbied for expanding the permanent membership of the council. Plans for reforms in the UNSC have been under discussion since the early 1990s, while in 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also proposed two models for expanding the council back. The proposed models were considered controversial by a large number of UN member states, and due to that very reason consensus became unattainable. The United for Consensus (UFC) Group, formerly known as the Coffee Club, is the most vocal group that is currently opposing G4’s plans for the expansion. The group is led by Italy, and Pakistan is one of its most active members for opposing G4’s bid for permanent UNSC seats. Italy has concerns over Germany’s inclusion, while Pakistan seeks to block India’s entry into the club. Although the G4 members seem united in their stance, each member seems to be individually lobbying for the expansion without due consultation with one other. This is one indication that the members may be working in their individual capacity for their own vested interests, primarily for the sake of attainment of the veto power. Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN Dr Maleeha Lodhi has rightly pointed out at the meeting that the expansion of UNSC solely on the insistence of the G4 members clearly serves their regional self-interests. This is ostensibly in contrast to the interests of not only the UN but also the wider international community. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin claimed that the majority of the members of the L69 group — a group of developing countries from multiple regions — are willing to proceed with the reforms. However, it remains unclear how many states agreed upon the plan, and this ambiguity hints at a lack of transparency. On the other hand, Africa also demanded a permanent seat with veto powers on the basis of regional representation. If the issue were to be looked upon either on the basis of regional representation or global influence, seats would be disproportionally represented, as other regional states would not be able to have a fair chance of participation. The best plan for the reformation of the UN is to expand the membership of non-permanent members in the council for it would balance representation from all parts of the world. This plan has complete backing of Pakistan, and is also supported by other member states, which have concerns regarding the future of the UNSC. The Permanent Five Members of the UNSC already played a controversial role in pursuing their goals over the decades, and the inclusion of the G4 would lead to nothing but constant bickering that may dent the essence of the UN as an international peace-making organisation. During the early 20th century, the League of Nations as the UN’s predecessor failed due to agendas of vested interests. The period between the Paris Peace Treaty in 1919 and the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 was supposed to bring peace and prosperity in Europe and other parts of the world. However, the rise of fascist and dictatorial regimes led by the likes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini made the League of Nations redundant for fulfilling its dream of providing adequate measures for global peace. During the 1930s, multiple territorial disputes and conflicts arose around the world, and the most significant ones were those in East Asia, North Africa and Europe where armed conflicts and political fights became a dreadful sight for the League’s committee members. Hence, it failed to establish peace, and eventually closed down before emerging as the UN in 1945. The point is that some demands of the G4 members eerily resemble the nationalistic goals of regimes that dominated world politics almost eight decades ago. Since the issue of terrorism and regional geopolitical goals dominate global discourses today, an oligarchic form of governance that could lead to the collapse of the multipolar global society must not influence the UN. It is hoped that the UN shall pursue appropriate measures before proceeding with any plans regarding the expansion as in the agendas personal interests of the aspirants of permanent membership of the UNSC largely dominate the bigger, global good. The writer is a geopolitical analyst at Business Plus. He can be reached at hassankhan440@gmail.com and tweets @mhassankhan06