Q.(a) "India has supported the restructuring of the United Nations on several grounds." Support the statement.

UN Reform Challenges — A First Look

Imagine a club founded in 1945, with rules written right after a world war. The world has changed completely since then — new countries, new problems, new powers — but the club's rules are almost the same. That is the United Nations today. Reform means changing those rules so the UN can actually handle 21st-century problems. The challenges are the reasons why that change is so hard.

The core problem: a 1945 structure in a 2025 world

The UN was built when there were 51 member states. Today there are 193. The biggest decisions — peace and security — are made by the Security Council, which has five permanent members (the P5: US, UK, France, Russia, China). Each of them can veto any resolution. That made sense in 1945, when those five were the major Allied powers. Now it means that a single country can block action on genocide, climate disasters, or pandemics.

The three big reform challenges

1. Security Council composition

The Council has 15 seats: 5 permanent, 10 non-permanent (elected for two-year terms). Africa has 54 countries but zero permanent seats. Latin America has zero. India, the world's most populous country, has zero. Japan and Germany, the third and fourth largest economies, have zero. Every proposal to expand the Council — adding new permanent members, or more elected seats — gets blocked because the P5 do not want to dilute their power, and regional rivals cannot agree on who should get a seat.

2. The veto problem

Even if the Council were expanded, the veto remains. A single permanent member can kill any resolution, even if the other 14 members support it. Reform proposals include:

• Requiring two permanent members to veto together (instead of one)
• Banning the veto on issues like genocide or mass atrocities
• Simply abolishing it

None of these has passed because the P5 must approve any change to the UN Charter — and they will not vote to weaken their own power.

3. Funding and representation mismatch

The UN budget comes from member contributions. The US pays about 22%, China about 15%, Japan about 8%. But their voting power in the General Assembly is the same as Tuvalu (population 11,000) or Bhutan. Every country gets one vote. So countries that pay very little can block initiatives that major funders want. Meanwhile, the UN is chronically underfunded for its mandates — peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, climate action — because member states do not pay on time or in full. …

Why Reform? The Intuition

Imagine a club formed in 1945, right after a world war. Five founding members — the victors — gave themselves permanent seats and veto power. They said: "We will keep the peace." That club is the UN Security Council (UNSC).

Now it's 2025. The world has changed completely. Countries that were colonies are now independent. Economic power has shifted. New threats — terrorism, climate change, cyberwar — didn't exist in 1945. Yet the UNSC's structure is almost frozen in time.

That's the core problem: the UNSC represents the power realities of 1945, not of today. Reform means updating who sits at the table and how decisions are made, so the Council is more legitimate, representative, and effective.

The Current Structure (What Exists Now)

The UNSC has 15 members:

• 5 Permanent Members (P5): China, France, Russia, the UK, the USA. Each has veto power — any one of them can block any substantive resolution, even if all 14 others vote yes.
• 10 Non-Permanent Members: Elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms. No veto. Seats are distributed by region: Africa (3), Asia-Pacific (2), Eastern Europe (1), Latin America & Caribbean (2), Western Europe & Others (2).

What Reform Means: The Two Big Questions

Reform isn't one thing. It's a bundle of debates. The two central issues are:

1. Expansion of Membership

The argument: Africa has no permanent seat. Latin America has none. India (1.4 billion people) has none. Japan and Germany, the world's 3rd and 4th largest economies, have none. The Council's composition is grossly unrepresentative.

Proposals include:

• Adding new permanent members (e.g., India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, plus African representation).
• Adding more non-permanent seats (easier to pass, but doesn't address the core imbalance).
• Creating a new category of "longer-term" non-permanent seats (e.g., 4-5 year terms, renewable).

2. The Veto Power

The argument: The veto makes the Council paralysed on major issues. During the Cold War, the US and USSR vetoed each other's resolutions constantly. More recently, Russia's veto has blocked action on Syria; the US has vetoed resolutions critical of Israel.

Proposals include:

• Abolishing the veto entirely (politically impossible — P5 will never agree).
• Limiting the veto: e.g., no veto on resolutions about mass atrocities (genocide, crimes against humanity).
• Requiring more than one permanent member to veto (a "double veto").
• Expanding the veto to new permanent members (most existing P5 oppose this — they don't want to dilute their power).

The Precise Statement

UN Security Council reform refers to the ongoing political and diplomatic effort to change the composition, working methods, and decision-making rules of the UN Security Council — primarily to make it more representative of the current UN membership, more accountable, and more capable of acting decisively on threats to international peace and security.

Why Is Reform So Hard? The Political Reality

Reform requires amending the UN Charter. Any Charter amendment needs:

1. Approval by 2/3 of the General Assembly (129 of 193 member states). …