India Backs 15-Year Veto Delay in UNSC Reform, Opposes Two-Tier System

India has stated its opposition to creating a discriminatory, two-tier system of permanent membership in the UN Security Council. The country agrees with a G4 group proposal that new permanent members should defer using their veto power for a 15-year review period. Indian officials argue that reform must include new permanent members with veto rights to correct current imbalances and prevent entrenching the advantage of the existing five permanent members. The proposal is seen as a flexible measure to advance long-stalled negotiations on making the Council more representative and democratic.

Key Points: India Supports G4's 15-Year Veto Deferral in UN Security Council Reform

  • Opposes discriminatory two-tier membership
  • Agrees to 15-year veto deferral for new members
  • Warns reform without new permanent seats worsens imbalance
  • Aims to streamline and fast-track the reform process
3 min read

India opposes two-tier UNSC permanent membership, agrees with G4 proposal for 15-year deferral

India opposes a two-tier UNSC, agrees to G4 proposal for 15-year veto delay for new permanent members to fast-track reforms.

"Expanding the permanent category with veto is critical to real reform of the Security Council - P. Harish"

United Nations, April 15

While opposing a discriminatory, two-tier permanent membership level in the Security Council, India has agreed to a G4 proposal that would defer veto powers for 15 years in a reformed body.

"Expanding the permanent category with veto is critical to real reform of the Security Council", India's Permanent Representative P. Harish said on Tuesday.

"A new category under the framework of UNSC (Security Council) reform with or without veto would complicate an already existing discussion that involves wide-ranging views", he said at a meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) for Council reforms.

But he also said that India was in agreement with the position of the G4 put forward on its behalf by Brazil's Deputy Permanent Representative Norberto Moretti for a 15-year delay before new permanent members added to the Council in a reform use their veto.

India is a member, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan, of the group known as G4 that jointly advocates for Council reform and mutually support each other for permanent seats on a reformed Council.

Moretti said, "In order to show openness and flexibility on this issue (of permanent membership), so as to foster constructive negotiations, the G4 proposes that new permanent members would not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter is reached during a 15-year review".

Explaining the group's offer, he said the veto issues and their impact "on the Council's ability to act must not serve as a pretext to perpetuate its obsolete composition and to suggest proposals that would further entrench existing inequities favouring the (current) permanent members", he said.

In their campaign against adding permanent members, some countries, notably Italy and Pakistan, have claimed that more countries wielding veto powers would further incapacitate the Council.

Increasing the number of permanent members, Moretti said, would alter the power dynamics in the Council, making it more democratic, even if the veto rights are deferred till a review after 15 years.

Harish said that the only reform of the Council in 1965, which added four non-permanent members, in fact, gave a "relative advantage" to the five veto-wielding permanent members.

It skewed the ratio of permanent members to non-permanent from 5-6 to 5-10, and reform without adding permanent members "with veto would deteriorate this ratio further and thereby perpetuate the existing imbalance and inequities," he said.

"It's important to limit the scope of reforms to the existing framework in order to streamline and fast-track the path to reforms", he added.

Members of the Africa group, who are at the forefront of the reform movement to right the historic injustice to the continent that was shut out of permanent membership when the UN was formed and when most of them were under the yoke of colonialism, have demanded that new members should have veto powers.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
Interesting to see the G4 strategy. The 15-year review clause is crucial. It prevents the veto issue from being a permanent roadblock but also ensures the conversation continues. Hope the African group's legitimate demands are also addressed in the final framework.
V
Vikram M
Completely agree with India's stance. A two-tier system is just another way for the old powers to maintain control. The current P5 have enjoyed unchecked veto power for too long. It's time for reform that reflects the 21st century, not the post-WWII world.
P
Priyanka N
While I understand the tactical compromise, I have a respectful criticism. A 15-year deferral is a long time in global politics. What guarantees do we have that the review will actually grant the veto? We must ensure this isn't a promise that gets indefinitely postponed.
R
Rohit P
Spot on! The argument that more veto powers will paralyze the Council is a red herring pushed by those who benefit from the status quo. The real paralysis is caused by the outdated structure itself. More permanent members mean more accountability and representation. Jai Hind!
M
Michael C
The historical point about the 1965 reform actually benefiting the P5 is very sharp. It shows how incremental changes can backfire if they don't address core power imbalances. The G4 proposal seems like a well-considered step towards genuine equity.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50