President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently advocated for the Philippines to secure a nonpermanent seat on the UN Security Council during his visit to the United Nations. While this move could enhance the nation's international standing, particularly as it chairs the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) this year, the practical impact of such a position remains largely superficial.
The Security Council, tasked with upholding global peace and security, consists of 15 members: five permanent ones with veto power—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China—and 10 nonpermanent members elected for two-year terms. The Philippines aims to win a seat in the upcoming June 3 election, having served four times previously, in 1957, 1963, 1980-1981, and 2004-2005.
UN observers generally view the Philippines' prospects favorably, citing its reputation as a model UN member. The ongoing territorial dispute with China over the West Philippine Sea might even bolster its bid, given widespread acceptance of the 2016 arbitral ruling in the Philippines' favor. However, President Marcos's opposition to rejoining the International Criminal Court could deter some UN members, though it's unlikely to derail the campaign entirely.
A Security Council seat would primarily offer reputational benefits, potentially boosting the Philippines' and Asean's credibility in global forums like the UN General Assembly. This could allow the Philippines to exert greater influence on issues such as climate action and development support for Global South nations during its term.
"The positive aspects of such a seat are mostly reputational, but they are not without some potential impact."
Despite this, the Philippines' ability to drive meaningful action on the council is severely limited by the veto power held by permanent members. This structural flaw has stalled critical initiatives for decades, including efforts to address conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, as well as enforcing the West Philippine Sea ruling and deploying peacekeepers to Myanmar.
Suggestions that a council seat could help resolve the dispute with China are unrealistic, given China's veto authority, and risk fostering false public expectations. Similarly, the Philippines' diplomatic ties with key Middle Eastern players are unlikely to overcome U.S. opposition on related issues.
In summary, while a UN Security Council seat would symbolize the Philippines' growing global role, its practical significance should be tempered by the realities of international power dynamics.