India at UN: Veto Must Be Held by All Permanent Members in Reformed Council

India has called for comprehensive reform of the United Nations Security Council, saying that all permanent members of an expanded Council must have the same rights and responsibilities, including the veto. India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Parvathaneni Harish, made the statement during a UN discussion on Security Council reform.

The Security Council has five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — known as the P5. They hold the power to veto substantive resolutions. The Council also has 10 elected members serving two-year terms. India has long argued that the Council’s structure, fixed in 1945, no longer reflects today’s world and has sought a permanent seat in an expanded body.

Harish said India’s position on the veto is “principled and well known” and aligned with the Common African Position, which seeks Africa’s representation in the permanent category with veto rights. “We reiterate that as long as the 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, according to news agency ANI.

India opposed proposals to create a separate category of permanent members without the veto or with fewer powers. Harish said such an arrangement would “further complicate a discussion that is already difficult” and “further entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct.” He added that periodic elections and the concept of permanency are fundamentally contradictory.

Harish pointed to the record of veto use. He said the veto has been exercised 331 times on around 200 resolutions over the UN’s history. Two of the five permanent members have not used the veto in more than three and a half decades, he said, while most vetoes or threats to use them have come from only three of the P5.

He also questioned whether accountability measures adopted in 2022 had worked as intended. That year, the UN General Assembly put in place a mechanism requiring it to hold a debate whenever a permanent member casts a veto. Harish said continued use of the veto since then showed the mechanism had not brought the expected change.

Beyond formal vetoes, Harish highlighted what he called an “effective or de facto veto” in the Council’s working methods. Under the practice of consensus, he said, a single member can hold or block presidential statements, press statements and decisions of sanctions committees, often without explanation. “The veto is not only what is cast in the open,” he said.

The reform debate has produced competing proposals. Some countries have floated intermediate models, such as longer-term non-permanent seats or permanent seats without veto power. India argues that creating a different tier would preserve inequality. Critics of expanding the veto, however, have argued that more veto holders could make the Council even less able to act in crises. Supporters of equal rights say fairness requires that new permanent members have the same powers as existing ones.

The discussions are part of a longer process of UN reform. Any change to the Security Council’s membership or veto rules requires an amendment to the UN Charter, which needs support from two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all permanent members. That high bar has made reform difficult, even as calls for change have grown.