India criticises 'Uniting for Consensus' Model at UN for opposing reforms to Security Council

New York [US], March 20 : India has criticised the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) model at the United Nations for opposing reforms to the Security Council, citing a lack of African, Global South representation and no change in permanent seat membership.
India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj slammed the UfC model and stated that it stands against the idea advocated by a majority of the UN member states which is an expansion in the permanent and non-permanent categories of an expanded security council.
"The UfC, which comprises 12 countries and 2 observers including a P5 country and, which stands against the idea advocated by a majority of the UN member states which is an expansion in the permanent and non-permanent categories of an expanded security council," Kamboj said in a response to the UfC model presented by Italy at the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) meeting on UNSC reforms on Monday.
Kamboj asserted that UfC is just vetoing the whole process and suggesting a my way or the highway approach. She said the UfC group has not provided any information regarding text-based negotiations within a set time frame.
"First, how does the model represent Africa, Latin America and Asia? Africa-- a 54-member group, which calls for expansion in both categories of an expanded United Nations Security Council. Without representation, without a mandate, without a seat, without a voice, which representation entails, members of the global south would just come and go. Isn't the UfC just vetoing the whole process and suggesting a my way or the highway approach? Why then? Why then has the UfC model not taken this into consideration? My question is, why is the UfC not ready to give and take on its proposal?...When Africa itself is asking for an expansion in both categories of membership, isn't it uncalled for to do just what Africa was subjected to in perpetuating the past, which is deciding on their behalf? I look forward to hearing from the UfC on the rationale as to why Africa, amongst others, should not be represented in the permanent category," she said.
She said the point on Africa also extends to the member states from the global south.
"My delegation believes that without representation, without a mandate, without a seat, without a voice, which representation entails, members of the global south would just come and go, which I am afraid will be unacceptable to a large number of global south countries in the CARICOM, in the Arab group, Africa and others. While espousing the principle of sovereign equality, my delegation would like to ask why the UfC model is content to relegate the delegations of the global south to the category of non-permanent seats. Would the UfC solution of adding only twelve more non-permanent members make any difference to the dysfunctional dynamics of the United Nations Security Council emanating from the outdated composition of its permanent category? Kamboj questioned.
Kamboj emphasised that fair representation of Africa and the Global South in the permanent category is India's "non-negotiable" goal. "African Union became a member of the G20 during India's Presidency. We hope the UN, a much older institution, takes inspiration from this change."
She underscored that the Security Council has not been able to effectively address its primary mandate of the maintenance of international peace and security.
"The model with 22 non-permanent members, including the present E10, does not provide the checks and balances to the issues related to P5-E10 dynamics. It would continue to be a binary P5 and an E22 straddling the same issues," Kamboj said.
"As things stand, a majority of the P-five members themselves agree that expansion in both the permanent and the non-permanent categories of the United Nations Security Council is the only way to redeem the council for the 21st century. Why then? Why then has the UfC model not taken this into consideration? This is something that my delegation would like to understand," she added.
Notably, the UN Security Council consists of five permanent members which includes China, Russia, France, the UK and the US. The ten remaining countries in the Council are chosen to serve two-year terms as non-permanent members, with no veto authority.
On UNSC reforms, Kamboj said, "...The current permanent members were the product of the geopolitical context of the 20th century. Times have changed and the world today is a multipolar one. There needs to be a new logic to the permanent category composition if it were to continue, and that cannot work without changes. That is an expansion in the permanent category, so as to strike, and I quote from the UfC model, the right balance between the representativeness and the efficiency of the council."
She asked, "We have not heard anything on text-based negotiations within a fixed time frame in the UfC model yet again today... no real surprise, we have the models out for all member states to see. To say let us agree before we start negotiations is like giving every member country a veto...And while vetoes may be used in the United Nations Security Council, we don't operate on the basis of vetoes in the United Nations General Assembly."
The UfC model asks for flexibility from member states, she said.