India says UN veto must not be politicised, flags second-class permanent status
India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, called for comprehensive reforms, arguing that restricting the veto in isolation would not change the decision-making power of the five existing permanent members.
India has said that the United Nations Security Council's veto power must not become an instrument of narrow political expediency, while insisting that any reform creating new permanent members without veto rights would leave them with “second-class” status.
India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, called for comprehensive reforms, arguing that restricting the veto in isolation would not change the decision-making power of the five existing permanent members.
Addressing an Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) plenary debate on the veto in the UN General Assembly on Monday, Parvathaneni said the veto must be exercised with restraint, particularly on matters concerning international peace and security.
He also argued that fairness and justice required all permanent members of a reformed Security Council to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities, including veto powers for as long as the provision exists.
“India has always maintained that the veto, which is right now a prerogative only of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is a responsibility that must be exercised with great restraint, especially on matters bearing upon the maintenance of international peace and security. It should not be an instrument of narrow political expediency,” he said.
INDIA SAYS VETO RECORD SHOWS NEED FOR REFORM
Parvathaneni cited the historical use of the veto to underline India's concerns, saying it had been exercised 331 times on around 200 resolutions over the UN's existence.
“We also note that two out of the five permanent members have not exercised a veto for over three and a half decades, and most of the vetoes or threat of vetoes have emanated from only three of the P5,” he said.
The five permanent members, collectively known as the P5, are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. All five possess veto powers that allow them to block substantive resolutions, even when the other members of the 15-member Security Council support them.
The Indian envoy also referred to a 2022 initiative that mandates a General Assembly debate whenever a permanent member exercises its veto. The initiative, adopted through UN General Assembly Resolution 76/262, was intended to increase accountability and scrutiny of the veto.
However, Parvathaneni said the record since its adoption had not demonstrated the change many had expected.
“The veto initiative of 2022 was seen as a harbinger of change by mandating a General Assembly debate every time a veto is cast. However, the actual record of the large number of vetoes cast since Resolution 76-262 was adopted tells a contrary story,” he said.
While acknowledging the intent behind the initiative and efforts to address vetoes in mass-atrocity situations, he argued that incremental measures alone could not resolve the structural problems in the Council.
“The lived experience shows that piecemeal approaches, however well-intentioned, are bound to fail. Limiting the veto cannot be separated from the questions of categories of membership, regional representation, size, and working methods. We need to move forward on all five clusters together,” Parvathaneni said.
He called for a comprehensive approach to reform, beginning with text-based negotiations that have clearly defined timelines and milestones.
NEW PERMANENT MEMBERS WITHOUT VETO WOULD BE 'SECOND-CLASS'
India reiterated its opposition to any reform that expands the Security Council's permanent membership without extending veto powers to the new members.
“India's position on the veto is principled and well known. It is aligned with the common African position. We reiterate that as long as a veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council. Fairness and justice demand that all permanent members enjoy the same rights and responsibilities,” he said.
Parvathaneni warned that creating a separate category of permanent members with fewer powers would deepen existing inequalities rather than correct them.
“A new category of permanent members with or without the veto would only further complicate a discussion that's already very difficult and would further entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct,” he said.
He added that expanding the Council by creating another category of long-term members without veto powers would not alter the existing balance of power.
“A reform that expands the UN Security Council by creating another category of long-term members without the veto effectively makes them second-class members and would not change the decision-making dynamic of the P5,” Parvathaneni said.
India has consistently argued that reform must expand both permanent and non-permanent membership. It maintains that increasing only the number of elected members would leave the existing concentration of power largely unchanged.
The envoy also questioned the contradiction between permanent membership and periodic elections, arguing that the two concepts could not be treated as equivalent in discussions on reform.
INDIA WARNS AGAINST DE FACTO VETOES
Parvathaneni said the problem extended beyond formal vetoes cast by permanent members against draft resolutions. He pointed to what he described as effective or de facto vetoes exercised through other Security Council procedures.
“The veto is not only what is cast in the open. There is the effective or the de facto veto that every Council member, elected and non-elected, holds over presidential statements, press statements, decisions of sanctions committees where the unwritten rule of consensus allows a single member to hold or block a proposal, most often without explanation,” he said.
He also criticised the use of consensus as a means of delaying negotiations on Security Council reform itself.
“In the same vein, the argument of consensus has been harnessed as a disguised or a de facto veto in the IGN process as well. Resolution 62-557, the foundational decision for the IGN, is clear. The guiding principle is the widest possible political acceptance, not consensus. Seventeen cycles later, we have no outcome to show for it,” he said.
The IGN framework is the intergovernmental process through which UN member states negotiate possible changes to the Security Council. India has repeatedly called for the process to move towards formal, text-based negotiations rather than remain stalled by disagreements over procedure.
Parvathaneni also cited the Council's only major expansion, in 1965, when the number of non-permanent members increased from six to 10 while the five permanent members retained their positions and veto powers.
“The only expansion of the Council in 1965 enlarged the non-permanent category alone. The ratio of permanent to elected members moved from five to six to five to ten and further strengthened the relative power of the P5,” he said.
He argued that future reform must address the Council's composition and working methods alongside the question of the veto, rather than treating them as separate issues.
INDIA SEEKS SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM
India has long maintained that the Security Council, established in 1945, does not adequately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. It has sought permanent membership, arguing that the composition of the Council must account for the changing global balance of power and provide greater representation to regions that remain underrepresented.
The Council currently has 15 members: five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. India has warned that reform efforts focused solely on adding non-permanent members would fall short of addressing the underlying imbalance.
India is also seeking a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term. Elections are scheduled for June next year, when India and Tajikistan will contest the sole seat allocated to the Asia-Pacific Group, according to PTI.
India last served on the Council in 2021-22, its eighth term. Its previous terms were 1950-51, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92 and 2011-12.
Concluding his remarks, Parvathaneni said the objective should be a Security Council capable of responding to contemporary challenges rather than one shaped by the geopolitical settlement that followed the Second World War.
“The Security Council will not be reformed by managing the veto alone. The answer lies in a Council fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today's realities and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago. India stands ready to contribute to that endeavour,” he said.
India has said that the United Nations Security Council's veto power must not become an instrument of narrow political expediency, while insisting that any reform creating new permanent members without veto rights would leave them with “second-class” status.
India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, called for comprehensive reforms, arguing that restricting the veto in isolation would not change the decision-making power of the five existing permanent members.
Addressing an Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) plenary debate on the veto in the UN General Assembly on Monday, Parvathaneni said the veto must be exercised with restraint, particularly on matters concerning international peace and security.
He also argued that fairness and justice required all permanent members of a reformed Security Council to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities, including veto powers for as long as the provision exists.
“India has always maintained that the veto, which is right now a prerogative only of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is a responsibility that must be exercised with great restraint, especially on matters bearing upon the maintenance of international peace and security. It should not be an instrument of narrow political expediency,” he said.
INDIA SAYS VETO RECORD SHOWS NEED FOR REFORM
Parvathaneni cited the historical use of the veto to underline India's concerns, saying it had been exercised 331 times on around 200 resolutions over the UN's existence.
“We also note that two out of the five permanent members have not exercised a veto for over three and a half decades, and most of the vetoes or threat of vetoes have emanated from only three of the P5,” he said.
The five permanent members, collectively known as the P5, are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. All five possess veto powers that allow them to block substantive resolutions, even when the other members of the 15-member Security Council support them.
The Indian envoy also referred to a 2022 initiative that mandates a General Assembly debate whenever a permanent member exercises its veto. The initiative, adopted through UN General Assembly Resolution 76/262, was intended to increase accountability and scrutiny of the veto.
However, Parvathaneni said the record since its adoption had not demonstrated the change many had expected.
“The veto initiative of 2022 was seen as a harbinger of change by mandating a General Assembly debate every time a veto is cast. However, the actual record of the large number of vetoes cast since Resolution 76-262 was adopted tells a contrary story,” he said.
While acknowledging the intent behind the initiative and efforts to address vetoes in mass-atrocity situations, he argued that incremental measures alone could not resolve the structural problems in the Council.
“The lived experience shows that piecemeal approaches, however well-intentioned, are bound to fail. Limiting the veto cannot be separated from the questions of categories of membership, regional representation, size, and working methods. We need to move forward on all five clusters together,” Parvathaneni said.
He called for a comprehensive approach to reform, beginning with text-based negotiations that have clearly defined timelines and milestones.
NEW PERMANENT MEMBERS WITHOUT VETO WOULD BE 'SECOND-CLASS'
India reiterated its opposition to any reform that expands the Security Council's permanent membership without extending veto powers to the new members.
“India's position on the veto is principled and well known. It is aligned with the common African position. We reiterate that as long as a veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council. Fairness and justice demand that all permanent members enjoy the same rights and responsibilities,” he said.
Parvathaneni warned that creating a separate category of permanent members with fewer powers would deepen existing inequalities rather than correct them.
“A new category of permanent members with or without the veto would only further complicate a discussion that's already very difficult and would further entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct,” he said.
He added that expanding the Council by creating another category of long-term members without veto powers would not alter the existing balance of power.
“A reform that expands the UN Security Council by creating another category of long-term members without the veto effectively makes them second-class members and would not change the decision-making dynamic of the P5,” Parvathaneni said.
India has consistently argued that reform must expand both permanent and non-permanent membership. It maintains that increasing only the number of elected members would leave the existing concentration of power largely unchanged.
The envoy also questioned the contradiction between permanent membership and periodic elections, arguing that the two concepts could not be treated as equivalent in discussions on reform.
INDIA WARNS AGAINST DE FACTO VETOES
Parvathaneni said the problem extended beyond formal vetoes cast by permanent members against draft resolutions. He pointed to what he described as effective or de facto vetoes exercised through other Security Council procedures.
“The veto is not only what is cast in the open. There is the effective or the de facto veto that every Council member, elected and non-elected, holds over presidential statements, press statements, decisions of sanctions committees where the unwritten rule of consensus allows a single member to hold or block a proposal, most often without explanation,” he said.
He also criticised the use of consensus as a means of delaying negotiations on Security Council reform itself.
“In the same vein, the argument of consensus has been harnessed as a disguised or a de facto veto in the IGN process as well. Resolution 62-557, the foundational decision for the IGN, is clear. The guiding principle is the widest possible political acceptance, not consensus. Seventeen cycles later, we have no outcome to show for it,” he said.
The IGN framework is the intergovernmental process through which UN member states negotiate possible changes to the Security Council. India has repeatedly called for the process to move towards formal, text-based negotiations rather than remain stalled by disagreements over procedure.
Parvathaneni also cited the Council's only major expansion, in 1965, when the number of non-permanent members increased from six to 10 while the five permanent members retained their positions and veto powers.
“The only expansion of the Council in 1965 enlarged the non-permanent category alone. The ratio of permanent to elected members moved from five to six to five to ten and further strengthened the relative power of the P5,” he said.
He argued that future reform must address the Council's composition and working methods alongside the question of the veto, rather than treating them as separate issues.
INDIA SEEKS SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM
India has long maintained that the Security Council, established in 1945, does not adequately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. It has sought permanent membership, arguing that the composition of the Council must account for the changing global balance of power and provide greater representation to regions that remain underrepresented.
The Council currently has 15 members: five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. India has warned that reform efforts focused solely on adding non-permanent members would fall short of addressing the underlying imbalance.
India is also seeking a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term. Elections are scheduled for June next year, when India and Tajikistan will contest the sole seat allocated to the Asia-Pacific Group, according to PTI.
India last served on the Council in 2021-22, its eighth term. Its previous terms were 1950-51, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92 and 2011-12.
Concluding his remarks, Parvathaneni said the objective should be a Security Council capable of responding to contemporary challenges rather than one shaped by the geopolitical settlement that followed the Second World War.
“The Security Council will not be reformed by managing the veto alone. The answer lies in a Council fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today's realities and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago. India stands ready to contribute to that endeavour,” he said.
India has said that the United Nations Security Council's veto power must not become an instrument of narrow political expediency, while insisting that any reform creating new permanent members without veto rights would leave them with “second-class” status.
India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni, called for comprehensive reforms, arguing that restricting the veto in isolation would not change the decision-making power of the five existing permanent members.
Addressing an Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) plenary debate on the veto in the UN General Assembly on Monday, Parvathaneni said the veto must be exercised with restraint, particularly on matters concerning international peace and security.
He also argued that fairness and justice required all permanent members of a reformed Security Council to enjoy the same rights and responsibilities, including veto powers for as long as the provision exists.
“India has always maintained that the veto, which is right now a prerogative only of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is a responsibility that must be exercised with great restraint, especially on matters bearing upon the maintenance of international peace and security. It should not be an instrument of narrow political expediency,” he said.
INDIA SAYS VETO RECORD SHOWS NEED FOR REFORM
Parvathaneni cited the historical use of the veto to underline India's concerns, saying it had been exercised 331 times on around 200 resolutions over the UN's existence.
“We also note that two out of the five permanent members have not exercised a veto for over three and a half decades, and most of the vetoes or threat of vetoes have emanated from only three of the P5,” he said.
The five permanent members, collectively known as the P5, are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. All five possess veto powers that allow them to block substantive resolutions, even when the other members of the 15-member Security Council support them.
The Indian envoy also referred to a 2022 initiative that mandates a General Assembly debate whenever a permanent member exercises its veto. The initiative, adopted through UN General Assembly Resolution 76/262, was intended to increase accountability and scrutiny of the veto.
However, Parvathaneni said the record since its adoption had not demonstrated the change many had expected.
“The veto initiative of 2022 was seen as a harbinger of change by mandating a General Assembly debate every time a veto is cast. However, the actual record of the large number of vetoes cast since Resolution 76-262 was adopted tells a contrary story,” he said.
While acknowledging the intent behind the initiative and efforts to address vetoes in mass-atrocity situations, he argued that incremental measures alone could not resolve the structural problems in the Council.
“The lived experience shows that piecemeal approaches, however well-intentioned, are bound to fail. Limiting the veto cannot be separated from the questions of categories of membership, regional representation, size, and working methods. We need to move forward on all five clusters together,” Parvathaneni said.
He called for a comprehensive approach to reform, beginning with text-based negotiations that have clearly defined timelines and milestones.
NEW PERMANENT MEMBERS WITHOUT VETO WOULD BE 'SECOND-CLASS'
India reiterated its opposition to any reform that expands the Security Council's permanent membership without extending veto powers to the new members.
“India's position on the veto is principled and well known. It is aligned with the common African position. We reiterate that as long as a veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council. Fairness and justice demand that all permanent members enjoy the same rights and responsibilities,” he said.
Parvathaneni warned that creating a separate category of permanent members with fewer powers would deepen existing inequalities rather than correct them.
“A new category of permanent members with or without the veto would only further complicate a discussion that's already very difficult and would further entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct,” he said.
He added that expanding the Council by creating another category of long-term members without veto powers would not alter the existing balance of power.
“A reform that expands the UN Security Council by creating another category of long-term members without the veto effectively makes them second-class members and would not change the decision-making dynamic of the P5,” Parvathaneni said.
India has consistently argued that reform must expand both permanent and non-permanent membership. It maintains that increasing only the number of elected members would leave the existing concentration of power largely unchanged.
The envoy also questioned the contradiction between permanent membership and periodic elections, arguing that the two concepts could not be treated as equivalent in discussions on reform.
INDIA WARNS AGAINST DE FACTO VETOES
Parvathaneni said the problem extended beyond formal vetoes cast by permanent members against draft resolutions. He pointed to what he described as effective or de facto vetoes exercised through other Security Council procedures.
“The veto is not only what is cast in the open. There is the effective or the de facto veto that every Council member, elected and non-elected, holds over presidential statements, press statements, decisions of sanctions committees where the unwritten rule of consensus allows a single member to hold or block a proposal, most often without explanation,” he said.
He also criticised the use of consensus as a means of delaying negotiations on Security Council reform itself.
“In the same vein, the argument of consensus has been harnessed as a disguised or a de facto veto in the IGN process as well. Resolution 62-557, the foundational decision for the IGN, is clear. The guiding principle is the widest possible political acceptance, not consensus. Seventeen cycles later, we have no outcome to show for it,” he said.
The IGN framework is the intergovernmental process through which UN member states negotiate possible changes to the Security Council. India has repeatedly called for the process to move towards formal, text-based negotiations rather than remain stalled by disagreements over procedure.
Parvathaneni also cited the Council's only major expansion, in 1965, when the number of non-permanent members increased from six to 10 while the five permanent members retained their positions and veto powers.
“The only expansion of the Council in 1965 enlarged the non-permanent category alone. The ratio of permanent to elected members moved from five to six to five to ten and further strengthened the relative power of the P5,” he said.
He argued that future reform must address the Council's composition and working methods alongside the question of the veto, rather than treating them as separate issues.
INDIA SEEKS SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM
India has long maintained that the Security Council, established in 1945, does not adequately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. It has sought permanent membership, arguing that the composition of the Council must account for the changing global balance of power and provide greater representation to regions that remain underrepresented.
The Council currently has 15 members: five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. India has warned that reform efforts focused solely on adding non-permanent members would fall short of addressing the underlying imbalance.
India is also seeking a non-permanent seat for the 2028-29 term. Elections are scheduled for June next year, when India and Tajikistan will contest the sole seat allocated to the Asia-Pacific Group, according to PTI.
India last served on the Council in 2021-22, its eighth term. Its previous terms were 1950-51, 1967-68, 1972-73, 1977-78, 1984-85, 1991-92 and 2011-12.
Concluding his remarks, Parvathaneni said the objective should be a Security Council capable of responding to contemporary challenges rather than one shaped by the geopolitical settlement that followed the Second World War.
“The Security Council will not be reformed by managing the veto alone. The answer lies in a Council fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today's realities and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago. India stands ready to contribute to that endeavour,” he said.
