Why UNSC often mirrors geopolitical divides rather than global consensus

Resolving not to allow that failure to be repeated, the founders of the UN created a more powerful organisation. They gave it universal membership, wider powers, and a Security Council with actual clout. By granting veto rights to the five permanent members – the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), Britain, France, and China – they hoped to keep the major powers engaged and prevent the new organisation from suffering the same fate as the League.

Promise and power games

Liberal scholars have long characterised the UN as a bold experiment in cooperation. Institutions, in their view, can ease mistrust, establish rules, and provide states a framework for dialogue. Occasionally, the UN has lived up to this promise. It has organised peacekeeping missions, dispensed humanitarian aid, and given smaller nations a platform where their voices were heard.

There is evidence to support such optimism. UN agencies have worked on global health, food security, and refugee crises. Peacekeepers have kept conflicts in check before they spread. The General Assembly, however symbolically, has provided smaller states with the opportunity to shape debates. For liberals, even this imperfect exchange represents an advance, proof that dialogue can temper rivalry.

Realists, however, view it differently. For them, the UN is not a forum of justice but an expression of power. The veto given to the five permanent members keeps major powers at the centre while tying the organisation to their rivalries. During the Cold War, Washington and Moscow paralysed the Council. Nowadays, Russia and China veto action to defend their allies, and so does the US for Israel. From Ukraine to Gaza to Taiwan, the Security Council often mirrors geopolitical divides rather than global consensus.

The realists are not worried about this. States, they maintain, act in their interests, not morality. They will invoke the UN when it suits them and circumvent it when it does not. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003, undertaken without Security Council endorsement, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s campaign in Kosovo in 1999, launched without UN authorisation, serve as grim reminders that when power and principle clash, power usually prevails.

A view from the Global South

To most in the Global South, the UN has never delivered on its promise of equality. The Charter spoke of equal sovereignty, but in reality, the system has continued to be lopsided. Africa, Latin America, and South Asia are still underrepresented in the Security Council. No African or Latin American state has a permanent seat, and India – the biggest democracy in the world – is still outside the inner circle. Decisions are still shaped largely by the same powers that designed the system in 1945.

This imbalance is not merely one of numbers. Constructivist thinkers remind us that it is also about whose histories, identities, and voices are treated as legitimate in shaping global rules. When weaker states are subjected to intervention while stronger ones are shielded, the South perceives this as hypocrisy. Some wars are condemned, others ignored. Some human rights abuses are pursued relentlessly, while others are quietly forgotten.

The impact of all this has been corrosive. The selective application of norms has discredited and weakened the UN’s moral authority. For most of the Global South, calling for reform is not merely about securing seats or votes. It is about recognition – being recognised as rule-makers, not just rule-takers.

As the UN celebrates its 80th anniversary, the question is whether it can adapt to this demand. If it fails, countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America will turn to alternatives like BRICS and the African Union to make their voices heard.

Multilateralism in retreat

The marginalisation of the UN is a symptom of a broader shift in world politics. Power is not confined to one centre any more. The new forums, such as the G20, BRICS, SCO and other regional groupings, provide meaningful avenues for negotiation. Bilateral arrangements or loose coalitions are normally the preference of the great powers, particularly when issues of international crises, whether it is the war in Ukraine or Gaza or the South China Sea, become too contentious for the UN to manage.

Realists see nothing unusual in this. Institutions, they maintain, are instruments of states. When convenient, they are accepted; when inconvenient, they are ignored. Liberals take a more cautious view, warning that this trend undermines cooperation and makes crises harder to resolve. Constructivists introduce a complicating factor: legitimacy. If nations cease to regard the UN as equitable or representative, they will channel their efforts into other forums.

At the heart of this decline is the veto. Its defenders argue that it avoids confrontation between great powers. Its critics argue, in return, that it paralyses the Council and causes delay in facing up to pressing crises. In practice, it has too often eroded trust in collective security.

Decades of debates on UN reforms have led nowhere. Proposals to include India, Brazil, South Africa, or others as permanent members fall on deaf ears. The permanent five jealously guard their privileges, keeping the UN’s structure frozen in 1945 while the world has changed dramatically.

Balance sheet and future prospects

For all its shortcomings, the UN has made a difference. Its agencies have vaccinated millions, rebuilt societies shattered by war, and helped develop a corpus of international law. It has provided a stage where debates could replace confrontation, and where small states, often voiceless elsewhere, could speak as equals.

Yet the record is inconsistent. The UN failed to prevent the genocides in Rwanda and Srebrenica. It stood by during the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of Syria. Efforts to reform its structure have gone nowhere. Each time a major power bypasses it, the organisation’s credibility weakens further.

Looking at the future, one can think of three possibilities. One, the UN continues as it is – flawed but functional. It will continue to provide aid, monitor human rights, and serve as a forum for dialogue, though it will remain weak in addressing major crises. Two, it could decline further, sidelined by regional groupings and ad-hoc coalitions, leaving global governance fragmented and leaderless. 

Three, though least likely, is meaningful reform: expanding the Security Council, constraining the veto, and increasing the representation of the Global South. Such a change would make the UN more representative, but it would require the permanent five to surrender privileges, something history shows they rarely do.

After eight decades, the UN inspires both pride and doubt. It is still the only organisation with near-universal membership, and it remains valuable for diplomacy, especially for smaller states. But without reform, it risks sliding into irrelevance. For the Global South, the stakes are high. They view the UN not only as an arena of power but as one of the few forums where they can press for a more equitable order.

UN’s true test: Keeping pace with reality 

To sum up, the UN in its 80th year is a symbol of hope and also a reflection of power politics. It embodies the dream of collective security, yet it also reflects the persistent reality of state rivalry. Its track record is neither glorious nor insignificant. It is a story of partial successes and deep frustrations.

The coming General Assembly meeting will not resolve these contradictions. But it can remind the world that abandoning the UN is not an option. In an era of global pandemics, climate change, and economic shocks, no single power or small group can manage alone. The UN is still the sole organisation with universal membership and universal legitimacy, however imperfect.

The true test will be if it can overcome its shortcomings and reflect the world as it is today, rather than as it appeared in 1945. If it fails to do so, its eightieth anniversary might be remembered less as a tribute to resilience and more as the moment the world realised that the UN’s promise is slipping away.

Post read questions

From Ukraine to Gaza to Taiwan, the UN Security Council often mirrors geopolitical divides rather than global consensus. Do you agree? Support your answer with examples.  

Liberal scholars have long characterised the United Nations as a bold experiment in cooperation, while realists see it as not a forum of justice but as an expression of power. Evaluate. 

For most of the Global South, calling for Security Council reform is not merely about securing seats or votes. It is about recognition – being recognised as rule-makers, not just rule-takers. Comment. 

The reform process in the United Nations remains unresolved, because of the delicate imbalance of East and West and entanglement of the USA vs. Russo-Chinese alliance. Examine and critically evaluate the East-West policy confrontations in this regard.

The Global South views the UN not only as an arena of power but as one of the few forums where they can press for a more equitable order. How does this flag the urgency for UN reforms?

(The author is a Professor at MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi.)

Share your thoughts and ideas on UPSC Special articles with ashiya.parveen@indianexpress.com.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week.

Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.