India Joins EU–Brazil–Kenya–Canada ‘Partners for Multilateralism’ Meeting as Jaishankar Arrives for UNGA

The news

New Delhi and New York. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar landed in New York on Monday, September 21, at the start of the UN General Assembly’s high-level debate, and was set to attend a meeting of the “Partners for Multilateralism” (P4M), The Hindu’s Suhasini Haidar reports. Multilateralism means countries working together through shared rules and institutions such as the UN, rather than through power or one-to-one bargains. The P4M was founded by the European Union, Brazil, Kenya and Canada, and its leaders — European Council President António Costa, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Kenyan President William Ruto and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney — set out its purpose in a joint editorial in the Financial Times. They wrote that the grouping will support the UN but push for it to be more representative and better prepared for challenges including artificial intelligence, climate change, health security and digital transformation: “P4M will support the reform of the UN and other multilateral institutions, to make them more representative, legitimate, effective and trusted.” The P4M, they said, will not create another exclusive bloc or international bureaucracy, but “a flexible, open framework for countries from different regions and political traditions that are willing to work across divides”. The co-authors noted that 2025 saw the highest recorded number of state-based armed conflicts since 1946, in 35 countries, and the highest recorded military spending, of nearly $3 trillion. The editorial cited UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who has said “superpowers are discovering their limits”; speaking to The Hindu in New Delhi during the 18th BRICS Summit, Mr. Guterres said “it’s time for superpowers to understand the limits of their power”, pointing to Russia’s war in Ukraine and the U.S. facing “difficulties” in its war in Iran. Mr. Guterres demits office later this year. The Hindu recalls that Mr. Carney spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January of “middle powers” coming together, a speech that signalled dissatisfaction with Russia and China and with the U.S. over tariffs, expansionism and the Iran conflict. It is unclear whether India was asked to join the joint message, and India is already part of groups with similar aims — the Non-Aligned Movement, BRICS, the G20 and the G-4. Mr. Jaishankar will hold bilateral and multilateral meetings and address the UNGA on September 26. The syllabus link is GS2 on important international institutions, their structure and mandate.

Static syllabus linkage

1. Changing the Security Council needs the consent of those who hold the veto. Article 108 of the UN Charter says an amendment comes into force only when adopted by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratified by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members. The only enlargement so far, in force from 1965, raised the Council from 11 to 15 members by adding non-permanent seats. Article 23 fixes the five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. — and Article 27(3) gives each a veto over substantive decisions. This is why reform groupings can build pressure but cannot change the Council without the P5.
2. Reform camps are divided on the permanent seats, not on the need for reform. The G-4 — India, Brazil, Germany and Japan — support one another’s bids for permanent seats. The Uniting for Consensus group, which includes Italy and Pakistan, opposes new permanent members and favours longer-term non-permanent seats. The African Union’s common position, the Ezulwini Consensus of 2005, demands two permanent seats with veto and additional non-permanent seats for Africa. Intergovernmental negotiations on Council reform have run in the General Assembly since 2009 without a text-based outcome.
3. India’s multi-alignment is a design, not a contradiction. India was a founder of the Non-Aligned Movement at Belgrade in 1961 and is a member of BRICS, the G20, the Quad and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The logic is to join issue-based coalitions without binding alliances, preserving what India calls strategic autonomy. India has used the phrase “reformed multilateralism” to argue that institutions built in 1945 must reflect today’s distribution of power and population. At the UN Summit of the Future in 2024, member states adopted the Pact for the Future, which included commitments on Security Council reform.
4. The Secretary-General is chosen by the Assembly on the Council’s recommendation. Under Article 97 of the Charter, the Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, which means the P5 can each block a candidate. By convention the post has a five-year term and rotates informally among regions. Mr. Guterres, who took office in January 2017, completes his second term this year, so the choice of his successor is part of the same debate about how representative the UN is.

Why UPSC loves this

1. UN reform is among the most predictable Mains themes. The GS2 syllabus lists “important international institutions, agencies and fora — their structure, mandate”. UPSC has asked about India’s case for a permanent seat and about the relevance of the UN in a multipolar world. P4M gives a new example of middle powers building reform coalitions outside the Security Council.
2. Groupings and their members are staple Prelims fare. The examiner frequently asks which countries belong to which grouping — G-4, BRICS, IBSA, Quad. A new grouping with four founders drawn from three continents is exactly the kind of fact that is tested, along with the Charter articles on amendment and the veto.
3. Useful for PSIR and the essay. The idea of middle powers and the limits of great-power hegemony feeds into PSIR Paper 2 and into essay topics on multilateralism and global governance. Guterres’ phrase that superpowers are discovering their limits is a quotable opening.

Analysis

1. P4M is a coalition of the frustrated, and its weakness is that it has no veto. The four founders share a complaint, not a programme: each has been hurt by unilateral action from one or more great powers, whether on trade, security or climate. Their answer is to strengthen the UN, but the UN’s central organ can be changed only with the consent of the five powers whose behaviour prompted the complaint. A flexible, open framework can shape debates on AI, health and climate, where rules are still being written. On Security Council reform, it can add voices but not votes, and the P5 have ignored far larger coalitions before.
2. Attending costs India little; signing up to its reform script could cost more. India’s decision to attend rather than co-found is sensible. The founders include Brazil, a G-4 partner, and Kenya, whose continent insists on the Ezulwini Consensus, including permanent seats with veto for Africa. A reform formula that satisfied the EU might favour stronger General Assembly powers over new permanent seats, which is not India’s priority. By attending, India can shape the P4M’s agenda towards representation in the Council, without committing to positions that could be used against its own claim.
3. The most striking fact is that it is unclear whether India was even asked. The Hindu notes it is unclear whether India was asked to join the joint editorial. For a country that calls itself the voice of the Global South and hosted the 18th BRICS Summit, being outside the founding message of a reform coalition is a signal worth reading. It may reflect India’s careful neutrality on the Iran war and the Ukraine war, which middle powers such as Canada and the EU have criticised more openly. Multi-alignment brings access to every room, but sometimes at the cost of leadership in any one of them.
4. Crowded forums dilute the case for any single one. India is already in NAM, BRICS, the G20 and the G-4, and each claims to reform global governance. Adding a fifth forum risks spreading diplomatic effort thin and giving great powers the excuse that the reformers cannot agree among themselves. The counter-view is that overlapping coalitions are how middle powers exert influence in a multipolar world: each forum captures a different set of partners, and P4M links Europe and Canada with the Global South in a way BRICS does not. The test will be whether P4M produces concrete proposals, as its founders promise, or only statements.
5. The succession of the Secretary-General is the first real test. Guterres leaves office this year, and the choice of his successor is made by the General Assembly only on the Security Council’s recommendation. If P4M and like-minded groupings can push for a more open and transparent selection, they would show that reform is possible within the Charter as it stands. That would be a modest but visible gain, and a more realistic target than the permanent seats that have been deadlocked for decades.

Administrator's brainstorm