UNSC reform would border on failure if only non-permanent category expanded: India
India has cautioned that reform of the UN Security Council will border on “failure” if only its non-permanent category of membership is expanded.
India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni made these remarks while addressing the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) meeting on Security Council reforms.
“UNSC reform would be grossly inadequate, bordering on failure, if expansion is limited only to the non-permanent category as it would fundamentally not change the decision-making power-structure of the P5,” Parvathaneni said. “Groups and member states have waited this long for real and meaningful reforms,” he further added. Parvathaneni was addressing the meeting, with focus on the ‘Elements Paper’, a document that contains points of convergences and divergences of UN member states on reform of the powerful UN body.
Parvathaneni stressed that by advocating expansion of the permanent category, India’s consistent effort has been to bring in a “greater sense of balance and equity” in the Security Council, and change the decision-making parameters of the five veto-wielding permanent members — China, France, Russia, UK and the US.
India has been at the forefront of years-long efforts for achieving reform of the Security Council, including expansion in both its permanent and non-permanent categories, saying the 15-nation Council, founded in 1945, is not fit for purpose in the 21st Century and does not reflect contemporary geo-political realities.
Delhi has consistently underscored that it rightly deserves a permanent seat at the horse-shoe table. India last sat at the UN high-table as a non-permanent member in 2021-22.
India was critical of the ‘Elements Paper’ tabled for discussion, saying that it neither captures the overall state of play accurately nor accounts for the overwhelming sentiments of a majority of member states.
He pointed out that support of a majority for expansion in the permanent category of the Security Council has been reduced to ‘a significant number of delegations’ in the ‘Elements Paper’.
“Despite the categorical position of a majority of member states in favour of expanding the permanent category, as reflected either in the national statements delivered at the IGN or through association with groups such as L69, G4, CARICOM etc, this has not been depicted accurately,” he said. Parvathaneni also noted that the ‘Elements Paper’ mentions that the permanent category would be expanded through the Fixed Regional Seats proposal, which he said “incredibly has only been documented” in this ‘Elements Paper’. It further adds that member states elected to such seats would serve in their national capacity and not formally represent their respective regions.
“These present three inherent issues – one, the proposal does in no way expand the permanent category; two, the concept of regionality would not be served if the concerned member States act in their national capacities; and three, it weakens the case of SIDS (Small Island Developing States), a cross-regional group which India has been consistently supportive of.”
India said this whole proposal is akin to granting a veto to the 10 elected members of the Council, who sit at the horse-shoe table for two-year terms, “bereft of convoluted arguments of permanency.
