India says new UNSC permanent members without veto would be ‘second-class’

India has asserted that any reform of the UN Security Council that creates a new category of permanent members without veto powers would effectively relegate them to “second-class” status, leaving the existing five permanent powers in control of the decision-making process.

China, France, Russia, the UK and the US are the five permanent members of the 15-nation Security Council and enjoy veto powers. The Council also has 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, on Monday said the veto must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council as long as the provision exists, stressing that fairness and justice demand equal rights and responsibilities for all permanent members.

"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.

Creating a new category of permanent members, with or without veto powers, would further complicate an already difficult discussion and "entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct", he said.

"Periodic elections and the concept of permanency are fundamentally contradictory,” the diplomat said.

“History has a lesson for us,” he said, recalling that the only expansion of the Security Council, in 1965, increased the number of non-permanent members from six to 10 while retaining five permanent members.

The ratio of permanent to elected members shifted from 5:6 to 5:10, further strengthening the relative power of the P5, Parvathaneni said.

India has consistently called for expanding both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, warning that reform efforts would border on "failure" if they focused solely on increasing the number of non-permanent members.

New Delhi has been at the forefront of years-long efforts to achieve reform of the Security Council, saying the body, founded in 1945, is not fit for purpose in the 21st century and does not reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.

India has consistently underscored that it rightly deserves a permanent seat at the horse-shoe table.

New Delhi is also seeking a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term. Elections for the term are scheduled for June next year, when India and Tajikistan will contest the sole seat allocated to the Asia-Pacific Group.

India last served on the Council in 2021-22, its eighth term, having previously held seats in 1950-51, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92 and 2011-12.

Parvathaneni further stressed that the veto, currently a prerogative of the five permanent members, must be exercised with "great restraint", particularly on matters concerning international peace and security.

"It should not be an instrument of narrow political expediency,” he said.

Parvathaneni said the question of limiting the veto could not be considered in isolation from other aspects of Security Council reform, including membership categories, regional representation, the Council's size and its working methods.

“India reiterates its call for a comprehensive approach towards Security Council reforms. The starting point is early commencement of text-based negotiations, with clearly defined timelines and milestones," he said.

An "effective or de facto veto" could also be exercised by any Council member over presidential statements, press statements and decisions of sanctions committees, where the "unwritten rule" of consensus allows a single member to block a proposal, often without explanation, Parvathaneni said.

He was referring to the working of the UNSC sanctions committees that designate and de-list terror outfits and individuals.

The diplomat also criticised the use of consensus as a “disguised, de facto veto” in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) process itself.

Referring to the UN General Assembly resolution that established the framework for the negotiations, Parvathaneni said its guiding principle was the widest possible political acceptance, rather than consensus.

"Seventeen cycles later, we have no outcome to show for it," he said.

India called for text-based negotiations to begin at the earliest, with clear timelines and milestones, arguing that the Council's credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness could not be restored by addressing the veto alone.

"The questions of credibility, legitimacy and efficacy that hang over the Security Council will not be answered by managing the veto alone. They will be answered by a Council fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today's realities and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago," Parvathaneni said.