Kishore Mahbubani, former Singapore ambassador to the UN, has called for the United Kingdom to vacate its permanent membership in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in favour of India. Delivering a lecture in Singapore on August 27, he said that the UK, despite its historical significance, no longer represented the 'great powers of the day.' The former envoy also pointed out that India's economy has already surpassed the UK's and by 2050, it is expected to be four times bigger than the British's.
"So the British, perhaps, as a nice act of atonement for the colonisation of India, should voluntarily give up their permanent membership seat to India," the veteran diplomat said. "Britain today represents a country of the past. India represents a country of the future, and the past must give way to the future."
India has long pressed for reforms to make the UNSC more representative. New Delhi has argued that the Council, still shaped by the power equations of 1945, does not reflect present-day realities. India has repeatedly sought permanent membership alongside other aspirants such as Japan, Germany, and Brazil.
Mahbubani, who served as Singapore's Permanent Representative to the UN from 1998 to 2004, described the Security Council as "the most powerful international political organisation by far" and pointed out that although it is made up of 15 members, in practice, only the five permanent members - the US, Russia, China, UK and France - hold real power.
The former diplomat, who is known for his incisive analysis on global affairs, noted that while the UK and France together account for 40% of permanent seats, Europe's share of the global economy has fallen sharply. "Europe now has 17% of the global GNP, but in terms of permanent membership seats, they have 40% because the UK and France make up two-fifths of the five permanent members."
He recalled that efforts to reform the Council began in 1993 with the creation of the "Open-Ended Working Group on Security Council Reform" but, three decades later, no progress has been made. "Someone said, let's change the name of the working group from 'Open-Ended Working Group on Security Council Reform' to 'Never-Ending UN Security Council Group for Reform.'"
According to Mahbubani, European countries have perfected the art of blocking reforms. "Of course we are for change. Yes, we are for change," they declare in public, he said, but "behind the scenes they know exactly what levers to pull, what to do to ensure that change doesn't happen."
He highlighted that by 2050, India's economy will be four times larger than Britain's. Mahbubani recalled that Financial Times columnist Martin Wolf aptly described: "The UK has failing politics, a failed state, and a failing economy." Against this backdrop, he argued, it is "irrational" for Britain to hold onto its privileged position.
"So why are you clinging onto the permanent membership? Why not give way? That's the rational, logical thing to do. But sadly, it is not happening," Mahbubani said. He warned that unless the UNSC evolves, it risks becoming irrelevant. "You can keep your composition, with the British and French as permanent members, and you lose your credibility. But if you want to keep your credibility, then you got to change your composition. That's the dilemma."
When an audience member pointed out that the UK has backed India's entry into the Security Council while China remains the roadblock, Mahbubani cautioned against taking such claims at face value. "My first response to you is whenever countries say in public that they support India, be careful. Because it's often the countries that are supporting you that are the ones that are best at undermining you," he said.
The former envoy recalled his own days and explained how reforms are stalled at the UN."I have seen with my own eyes, countries in public would say ofcourse we support India's inclusion. But then what you do, the way you prevent reform, is that you introduce what I call 'poison pill amendments'. And when you put in a poison pill amendment, you ensure that nobody can accept it, and, therefore, there can be no reform, and therefore India cannot get in. There are ways and means of your real position is not what your public position is."
On China's stand, Mahbubani said: "I don't think China has opposed India's admission. I don't know whether or not China has publicly supported also. But I do believe that it is in China's national interests to see a different UN Security Council." He concluded by stressing that the UNSC's credibility mattered more than its composition. "Bring in the new powers, and certainly bring in the powers that are rising."