India Warns UNSC Reform Will ‘Border on Failure’ Without Permanent Seat Expansion

India has warned that efforts to reform the UN Security Council (UNSC) would amount to a near “failure” if changes are restricted to expanding only its non-permanent membership category.

India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, made the remarks on Monday during the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) meeting on Security Council reform.

"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 speaking during discussions centred on the ‘Elements Paper’, a document outlining areas of convergence and divergence among UN member states on reforming the powerful UN body.

He said India’s long-standing push for expanding the permanent category is aimed at bringing a “greater sense of balance and equity” to the Security Council and altering the decision-making structure currently dominated by the five veto-wielding permanent members — China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.

India has remained at the forefront of efforts to reform the Security Council, advocating expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. It has consistently argued that the 15-member Council, established in 1945, no longer reflects present-day geopolitical realities and is not equipped to meet 21st-century challenges.

New Delhi has repeatedly maintained that it deserves a permanent seat at the horseshoe table. India most recently served as a non-permanent member of the Council during 2021–22.

India also criticised the ‘Elements Paper’, saying it does not accurately represent the current state of discussions or reflect the overwhelming sentiment among member states.

Parvathaneni noted that support for expanding the permanent category had been reduced in the document to merely “a significant number of delegations”.

“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.

He further objected to the paper’s reference to expanding permanent membership through a Fixed Regional Seats proposal, saying the concept had “incredibly” appeared only in this version of the document.

The proposal also states that countries elected to such seats would serve in their national capacity rather than formally represent their 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 argued that the proposal effectively resembles granting veto-like influence to the Council’s 10 elected members, who currently serve two-year terms, while obscuring the distinction between veto power and permanent membership.

The country also objected to suggestions in the Elements Paper for further debate over the concept of “permanency”. Parvathaneni pointed out that the United Nations Charter already clearly defines the distinction.

He referred to Article 23, which classifies Security Council members into only two categories — permanent and non-permanent.

“Therefore, the definition of a permanent seat needs no further elaboration of classification as a divergence. Groups and member states, including the African group, the G4 and L69, treat a permanent member, serving or future, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Charter,” he said.

Parvathaneni also argued that presenting expansion of two-year non-permanent seats as an area of convergence reflects only part of the broader reform debate, as many member states link such expansion with additional conditions and structural changes.

India further stressed the need to move towards text-based negotiations to make UNSC reform discussions more substantive and result-oriented.

“IGN cannot be fundamentally different from other UN processes, wherein negotiations are held on the basis of a text. Groups and member states express their views on the text under consideration,” Parvathaneni said.

India urged the co-chairs of the IGN to draft a formal negotiating text with “clearly-defined milestones and timelines” so member states can engage in more meaningful discussions and consider bridging proposals if necessary.

With Security Council reform continuing to move slowly after decades of negotiations, India warned against using the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” as a means to stall progress.

“Status-quoists have tried to use this argument in their favour and thereby, entrench the existing inequities in the Security Council,” Parvathaneni said.

(with PTI inputs)