Before September 2005’s UN General Assembly (UNGA) session, the G-4 group had lobbied to become members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and had held a summit before the session. After the opposition by the majority of the countries against new islands of power by Group Four — Brazil, Germany, Japan and India — the G-4 went into hibernation. Now, after a decade, before the UNGA meeting, a meeting of G-4 was hosted by Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi, which was attended by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe. A joint statement was issued by the G-4, which among other things stated: “The leaders noted with concern that no substantial progress had been made since the 2005 world summit where all the heads of state and government had unanimously supported the ‘early reform’ of the Security Council as an essential element of the overall effort to reform the United Nations.” The induction of new members in the UNSC is not easy. First of all, the five permanent members have to unanimously decide on increasing the seats on the Council. Then the UNGA has to approve the decision of the five members by a two-thirds majority of the members of the UN, which is not easy. Though former US President George W Bush and later President Obama have been assuring India of the US’s support to India to make it a permanent member of the UNSC, India and its allies failed to muster the world body’s support, obscuring the prospects of India becoming a permanent member of the UNSC. With the end of the Cold War era, indeed there was demand for reforming the UN, including the UNSC, and the idea was to neutralise the effect of the veto and not to create more islands of power. However, the aspirants for this ‘enviable’ slot gave it a different colour and suggested an increase in the permanent membership of the UNSC. In 2005, a group of likeminded members of the UN held a meeting in the Roosevelt Hotel near UN headquarters to chalk out a line of action when the matter would come up before the UNGA in September 2005. In total, 119 member countries, including three permanent members of the UNSC, participated in the meeting. The group had resolved that reforms should be made on the basis of a unanimous decision and not on the basis of population of a country or any other specific characteristic to accommodate particular countries that did not merit membership. Pakistan and Italy moved the resolution, whereas Angola, Cameroon, Spain, Mexico, Kenya, the Latin American countries and a host of others supported the move. Many proposals were floated but the above countries were in favour of ‘model B’ suggested by the 16-member panel, which was formed to submit its recommendations for reforming the UN. According to this model, there should be no addition of permanent members in the UNSC and a new category of ‘additional permanent member’ with a four-year term was suggested. However, Germany, Japan, Brazil and India were reported to be lobbying to get permanent membership of the UNSC with veto power. Pakistan took the position of increasing non-permanent members by giving representation to several other regions to help democratise the UN. It has to be said that Muslim countries face a crisis. Afghanistan and Iraq are still in turmoil. The people of Kashmir and Palestine have suffered repression and they have been denied their right to self-determination acknowledged through UNSC resolutions, which have not been implemented by India and Israel. There is a general perception that prospects for world peace can be further obscured if the veto power is given to the new permanent members of the UNSC, as misuse of the veto power in the past was the reason for the UNSC’s inability to maintain international peace. Glaring examples could be found in the use of veto power on various resolutions on Kashmir and Palestine by the former Soviet Union and the US respectively. During the Cold War era, the veto power was used for advancing the interests of the superpowers to the detriment of a nation like Pakistan. Therefore, even if permanent membership of the UNSC is increased, no country should be given veto power; rather, the existing permanent members should also be stripped of this symbol of absolutism. Secondly, veto power negates the very concept of a democratic approach and contradicts the principle of equality amongst members of the UN. The developed countries or big powers should not give importance to the size of the market or to the so-called biggest democracy in the world, as it will amount to giving special consideration to the big and mighty. India has, however, found some support in European countries like the UK, France and Germany, which went out of their way to lobby for India. Developing countries should take a firm stand to not allow big powers to have their ‘nominees’ in the UNSC.In April 2015, PM Narendra Modi made a strong pitch for a permanent seat for India in the UNSC, saying it should get it for its immense contribution towards global peace. But contribution to global peace is not confined to providing troops but in implementing the UN’s resolutions and also living in peace with neighbours. In January 2015, Pakistan said that India did not qualify to become a full member of the UNSC given its record of violations of UN resolutions, particularly pertaining to Jammu and Kashmir. However, during his visit to India, US President Barack Obama stated that he supported India’s candidature for a permanent seat in the UNSC. However, the US cannot influence the majority of countries to vote for India to make it a permanent member of the UNSC. The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com