Need for UN 2.0 in 21st century…India opposes UfC model of UNSC reform

India has criticized the draft submitted by the United for Consensus (UFC) group on Pakistan's membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Countering the idea supported by the majority of member states to expand the permanent and temporary seats, India asserted that the 21st century world desperately needs UN 2.0.

The UFC includes Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, Korea Republic, San Marino, Spain and Turkey. Permanent members China and Indonesia are participating as observers in the group.

Opposition to creating new permanent members

The UFC group opposes the appointment of new permanent members to the Security Council. The UFC format includes a Security Council with 26 seats, augmented only by non-permanent, elected members. It is proposed to create nine new long-term seats with the possibility of immediate re-election.

India is against this model

Responding to the UFC model presented by Italy at the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) meeting on UNSC reform on Monday, India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ruchira Kamboj said threats to international peace and security have become more complex, unpredictable and undefined. The 21st century world desperately needs a United Nations 2.0 that is credible, representative, reflects the needs and aspirations of member states, and is capable of maintaining peace and security.

He said the UFC, which consists of 12 countries including the P5 country and 2 observers, is against the idea supported by most of the UN member states, namely expansion into permanent and temporary categories. Kamboj asked how the UFC model represents Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Demand for expansion in both categories

Africa, a 54-member group, is calling for expansion in both categories. He said that while Africa itself is seeking expansion in both categories of membership, is it not unnecessary that what Africa has faced in the past is not repeated – that someone else make decisions on their behalf? I am curious to hear your reaction to this fairness, along with others, should Africa not be represented in the permanent series?