20% of the world's population lives in Europe and North America. So why is it that these two regions control 80% of the permanent seats on the UN Security Council?
This observation is one of the arguments for enlarging the UN Security Council, and last week the General Assembly took the first tentative step towards such an enlargement. It is the UN though, and many think the document is meaningless since it sets no timeline.
Any expansion of the Security Council faces opposition from countries that fear it would modify regional balances of power. The UN charter would need to be modified and this would require the assent of all five current permanent members, and two-thirds of the general assembly. India's bid for a seat is generally considered the strongest, so I'll use it as an example to discuss the history and complexity involved.
Though there are no official criteria, the general view is that expansion should serve to improve regional representation and further global security efforts. India has a population of 1.25 billion, contributes significant forces to UN peace-keeping efforts, possesses a signficant nuclear arsenal and has one of the largest armed forces in the world (though it imports much of its advanced weapons systems). Indian commentators have also suggested that moderate Islamic scholariship from India can play a role in countering Islamic extremism. So the case for membership would appear to be strong, and this has been the subject of serious discussion since the 1950s.
The US has expressed public approval for a permanent seat for India since 2010. This year's announcement is slightly different since it used the words "reaffirmed its support" rather than "looks forward to". The Indian media is all over this statement, but it has barely registered in the US.
Continued below the orange simultaneous translator:
PS. Some would argue Russia is not in Europe, but the vast majority of the population lives west of the Urals.
Obama announced in 2010 (during a visit to India) that the US would support adding India as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The US also officially supports Japan's bid to join the UN-SC as a permanent member. Brazil and Germany are the other frequently discussed candidates, and all four support each others' bids in the quaint belief that unity makes their case stronger.
The UN Security Council was designed in the wake of the second World War. The permanent members are the USA, China (Republic of China till 1971), Russia (formerly USSR), UK and France. Collectively, they are the major Allied powers that won WW-2. When the Security Council first convened in 1946, France and the UK still had significant colonial holdings. India for instance, was a member, but remained a British colony till independence in August 1947.
Forces from undivided India (Bangladesh, India and Pakistan) had also fought in World War II. The British Indian Army grew to an all volunteer force of 2.5 million during the war (driven by a regular paycheck) and almost 25,000 Indian soldiers are believed to have died during the war (90,000 total casualties). They fought on the eastern front of Burma (a million man army), in Europe, in Africa and in the Middle-East.
Incidentally, Indians also fought alongside the Axis. Thousands of Indian POWs in German/Japanese custody were recruited by Subhas Chandra Bose to fight British dominion over India. Among some in India, the army's participation in World War II is still seen as an artifact of colonialism, especially given the callous comments by Churchill and others during the Bengal famine of 1943 which claimed millions of lives. Over a million Indian soldiers had previously fought in World War I.
The UK and France support reforming the UN-SC. The US supports a modest expansion, and has voiced support for the Japanese and Indian bids. Russia and China are often seen as having the most to lose. China is generally considered the least amenable to reform since it sees both Japan and India are regional rivals. Some Chinese officials have suggested in the past that they would support a permanent seat for India conditional on India dropping support for Japan's bid. Putin expressed support for India's bid back in 2004.
As an aside, Eisenhower reportedly offered "Asia's" permanent seat on the UN-SC to Nehru back in the early 1950s in the midst of the Korean War. Hubert Humphrey voiced support for this idea in 1955 (along with adding Germany and Japan). The alleged offer was made during intense debate over whether the Beijing based communist government of China should hold the permanent seat (it was then held by the Taiwan-based government). Nehru reportedly refused, and in India this is sometimes seen as a mistake, sometimes as a smart move to keep India "non-aligned" and out of the cold war. In any event, the seat remained with the Taiwanese Republic of China till 1971, when it was turned over to the People's Republic of China.
India's bid for a permanent seat on the Security Council faces strong regional opposition from Pakistan. Pakistan and India have a long-running dispute over the status of Kashmir. Indian forces have been accused of significant and persistent human rights abuses while combatting an insurgency India alleges is armed and funded by Pakistan. Armed militia and regular forces from both Pakistan and India entered the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in 1947. Today, the territory is split between India, Pakistan and China after a number of wars. A non-binding UN-SC resolution that supported a referendum to determine the status of the territory has never been implemented.
Against all these obstacles to India's bid is the current composition of permanent members which looks increasingly archaic and heavily weighted towards Europe. Yet even if India, Japan, Brazil and Germany were to gain permanent seats on the Security Council, it would still leave glaring gaps. No nation from Africa would hold a veto, and neither would any majority-Muslim country (India has the world's second largest Muslim population, after Indonesia).