India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, warned on Monday that a reform of the Security Council that introduces a new class of permanent members without veto authority would effectively consign those members to a “second‑class” status. He argued that such a move would preserve the decision‑making dominance of the existing five permanent powers – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – and would not address the structural inequities the reform process seeks to correct.
India’s stance on veto and permanent membership
Speaking at the Inter‑Governmental Negotiations (IGN) plenary on the “Cluster Debate on the Question of the Veto” in the General Assembly, Parvathaneni reiterated a long‑standing Indian position: as long as the veto remains part of the Council’s framework, every permanent member must possess that power. “India’s position on the veto is principled and well known… We reiterate that as long as the veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council,” he said.
He added that creating a separate category of long‑term members without a veto would not alter the P5’s decision‑making dynamic but would instead produce a tiered system. “Creating another category of long‑term members without the veto effectively makes them ‘second‑class’ members,” the ambassador explained.
Parvathaneni also cautioned that the veto should be exercised with “great restraint,” especially on matters of international peace and security, and should not become an instrument of narrow political expediency. He highlighted the existence of an “effective or de facto veto” that can be exercised through consensus‑based procedures, such as blocking presidential statements or sanctions committee decisions, often without a formal vote.
Historical context and India’s reform proposals
The Security Council currently comprises fifteen members: five permanent members with veto rights and ten non‑permanent members elected for two‑year terms. The only expansion of the Council since its founding in 1945 occurred in 1965, when the number of non‑permanent seats grew from six to ten, leaving the permanent‑to‑non‑permanent ratio shifting from 5:6 to 5:10. Parvathaneni noted that this change “further strengthened the relative power of the P5.”
India has consistently called for an expansion of both permanent and non‑permanent categories, arguing that focusing solely on increasing non‑permanent seats would lead to “failure” of reform efforts. New Delhi asserts that the United Nations, created in the aftermath of World War II, no longer reflects 21st‑century geopolitical realities and must be updated to remain fit for purpose.
In line with its broader reform agenda, India is seeking a permanent seat at the “horse‑shoe table” while also pursuing a non‑permanent seat for the 2028‑29 term. Elections for that seat are slated for June of the following year, with India slated to contest the sole Asia‑Pacific Group seat against Tajikistan. India’s most recent tenure on the Council was in 2021‑22, its eighth term, following earlier memberships in 1950‑51, 1967‑68, 1972‑73, 1977‑78, 1984‑85, 1991‑92 and 2011‑12.
Calls for comprehensive negotiations
Parvathaneni stressed that the veto question cannot be isolated from other reform dimensions, including membership categories, regional representation, the Council’s size and its working methods. He urged the commencement of “text‑based negotiations” with clearly defined timelines and milestones, arguing that the Council’s credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness hinge on a holistic redesign rather than a narrow focus on the veto.
He also criticized the current reliance on consensus in the IGN process, describing it as a “disguised, de facto veto.” Referring to the General Assembly resolution that set the negotiation framework, Parvathaneni said the guiding principle was “the widest possible political acceptance, rather than consensus.” He lamented that after seventeen negotiation cycles, “we have no outcome to show for it.”
Concluding his remarks, the Indian envoy affirmed that the questions of credibility, legitimacy and efficacy that loom over the Security Council will only be resolved by constructing a body “fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today’s realities and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago.”
Be First to Comment