From Veto Politics to Global South Aspirations: Rethinking Multilateralism at VK 4.0

At a time when global institutions face mounting criticism for their inability to prevent conflict or respond decisively to humanitarian crises, Session 8 of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam Ki Oar 4.0 turned attention to the relevance, legitimacy and future of multilateral institutions.

The discussion unfolded against a backdrop of wars, polarisation and the rising assertiveness of the Global South, prompting panelists to ask not whether multilateralism has failed, but whether it has been allowed to evolve with changing global realities.

Opening the discussion, Dr. Prashant Sharma, Founder Dharma Alliance observed that the current multilateral system is under immense strain, but that this very strain offers an opportunity to rethink multilateralism itself. He noted that the success of multilateral organisations is increasingly being questioned, especially as conflicts persist despite the existence of institutions originally created to secure peace and collective security.

Echoing this concern, His Holiness Yugbhushan Suriji Maharaj reflected on the paradox at the heart of global governance: multilateral institutions were established to prevent war and promote harmony, yet conflicts continue unabated. His remarks framed the session’s core dilemma; whether the problem lies in the idea of multilateralism or in how it is practised.

Providing historical context, Ruchira Kamboj Former President UNSC traced the evolution of multilateralism from a world dominated by empires and colonies to the emergence of rules-based institutions. She recalled that prior to the League of Nations and later the United Nations, global order was governed by unequal power relations, imposed rules and bilateral treaties that were often dishonoured.

The devastation of two world wars, she said, left the international community exhausted and convinced that power without rules inevitably leads to ruin, making a rules-based multilateral system not merely desirable but necessary.

Ambassador Kamboj highlighted that the United Nations, which began with a limited membership, today comprises 193 member states, with its membership having increased fourfold since its inception. This expansion, she argued, reflects widespread acceptance of multilateralism as a legitimate framework.

The core problem, in her assessment, is not multilateralism per se but the failure to reform its institutions to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. She emphasised that many of the issues deliberated upon in the Security Council directly affect the Global South, yet decision-making power remains concentrated in the hands of a few.

Addressing the frequent criticism that the UN has failed in its primary mandate of maintaining peace, Kamboj acknowledged that if the organisation is unable to prevent wars, it must confront hard questions about its effectiveness, even if it continues to perform well in other spheres such as development and humanitarian assistance.

At the same time, she stressed that no single country, however powerful, can address borderless challenges such as climate change, pandemics or global security threats on its own, making multilateral engagement unavoidable.

Adding a strategic perspective, Prof. Rajiv Nayan pointed out that India has a long civilisational history of formulating rules for trade and interstate conduct, underscoring that rule based interaction is not a Western invention. He argued that while the UN Charter is a legally binding document ratified by 193 countries and represents the closest approximation of multilateralism, its functioning has been distorted by the abuse of power, particularly through the veto system.

According to Nayan, the manner in which veto power is exercised undermines the claim that the current global order is genuinely rules-based, making lofty ideas such as a one-world government appear deeply disconnected from reality.

Intervening in the discussion on security and conflict, representatives from the Israel Consulate reflected on the historical context that led to the creation of the United Nations, noting that it emerged in response to the atrocities of the Second World War and the desire of states to protect themselves from existential threats.

Drawing parallels between historical persecution of Jews and the displacement of Kashmiri Pandits, the Consulate highlighted the limitations of international mechanisms in addressing refugee crises and selective global responses to conflict. They also pointed to what they described as the politicisation of multilateral institutions, questioning why certain crises, such as blockades or alleged genocides, fail to evoke consistent international condemnation.

Returning to the institutional challenges facing the UN, Ambassador Kamboj noted that its history has never been smooth. Almost immediately after its formation, the Cold War ushered in deep polarisation, making consensus-building extremely difficult. Despite these challenges, she argued that the UN’s universality remains its greatest strength. Even when consensus breaks down, the fact that 193 countries continue to engage within a single forum confers legitimacy that no alternative structure has yet matched.

The question of reform, particularly of the Security Council, emerged as a recurring theme. Kamboj candidly acknowledged that discussions on reform have been ongoing for over four decades without yielding concrete outcomes, largely because the permanent five members are unlikely to voluntarily relinquish their veto power.

She suggested a pragmatic approach, allowing new permanent members to join without veto rights initially, with the possibility of reviewing this arrangement in the future, arguing that outright rejection of compromise risks perpetual stalemate.

Mr. Sameer Patil, Director Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology, Observer Research Foundation, observed that while the spirit of multilateralism still exists, the consensus that once sustained it has fractured. He noted that the Global South has become more assertive, demanding not just representation but real agency in global decision-making. This shift, he argued, reflects broader changes in global power distribution that institutions have yet to adequately accommodate.

As the session drew to a close, panelists broadly agreed that while multilateral institutions are imperfect and often politicised, they remain indispensable. Calls for minilateral and plurilateral arrangements were framed not as replacements for multilateralism, but as complementary mechanisms to address specific challenges.

Ultimately, the discussion underscored that reforming multilateralism is no longer optional; it is essential if these institutions are to retain credibility and relevance in a rapidly changing world.