■ Can peacekeeping operations be repaired so the protection of civilians is ensured?
■ Can the United Nations persuade countries to come up with new ways to handle the new reality of mass migration?
General Assembly on September 14, 2015 to move from Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) to a Text-Based Negotiations (TBN) process for reforming the United Nations Security Council.
Welcoming this General Assembly Decision 80/560 and calling it a “significant development,” India’s Ministry of External Affairs (2015) struck a very optimistic note: “We look forward to early commencement of text-based negotiations with a view to securing concrete outcomes during the 70th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
For the rest of the session, the General Assembly is the arena where largely symbolic diplomatic jousts are won and lost. While some of them earn a great deal of attention — like one in 1975 that equated Zionism with racism — they are not legally binding.
The United Nations Charter was signed at a conference in San Francisco in June 1945, led by four countries: Britain, China, the Soviet Union and the United States. The event offers plenty of star power, but critics contend that it is little more than a glorified gabfest.
Its five permanent members are the victors of World War II: the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia.
The other 10 members are elected for two-year terms, with seats set aside for different regions of the world.
The United Nations Security Council has emerged as the key arena and barometer for evaluating the promise and progress of accommodating new, rising powers in the international system.
The case of India provides one of the best examples of a rising power coming to terms with its increased power, role and expectations of itself and of other powers, great and small, in negotiating its place in the reformed Council as a permanent member.