Demanding intensified efforts by the United Nations General Assembly to expand the Security Council to reflect current realities of the world, India has slammed a 'small group of countries' for trying to scuttle the process.
In his hard-hitting maiden address to an informal session of the 192-member Assembly on reform of the 15-member Council, Indian ambassador Hardeep Singh Puri lambasted a 'small group' of countries for trying to derail the process by insisting that expansion be limited to non-permanent category.
Though Puri did not name the small group of countries, he was apparently referring to 'Uniting for Consensus', a group of 'like-minded' countries, including Pakistan, South Korea and Spain among others.
India, Japan, Germany and Brazil, known as group of four, are strong contenders for permanent Council seats in the event of an expansion.
Making a strong case for moving towards reform, Puri said: "If the status quo were representative, effective, responsive or fair, we could have lived with it."
"But as is clear to all, this is not the case, and the Council is in urgent need for reform to gain credibility and reflect the modern day realities," Puri said.
"This is crucial also to ensuring its legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness," he said.
Pakistan opposes India and tries to block the expansion in the Council's permanent category, which now has five members who were victors of the Second World War.
After more than a decade of discussions, the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) of the Assembly has failed to throw up any solution, with member States repeating their respective positions in each session.
The Assembly then decided to go for inter-governmental negotiation on specific proposals so as to achieve progress on expansion which is gaining strong support by the day.
Puri questioned the purpose of small group countries for repeatedly using the term 'flexibility'.
"In reality, the flexibility they espouse is anchored on one real position that is there should be no new permanent members. It is crucial that we institute a robust process of review of the Council as part of reforms that we undertake. Moreover, such a review must be mandatory," he said.
"In this context, we would also look favourably at the concept of periodic reviews, say every 15 years. This would ensure that UNSC continues to reflect realities as prevalent," he added.
But he rejected the intermediate approach as articulated by a 'small group of countries' which advocates that the Council be expanded in the non-permanent category initially and issue of expansion in the permanent category is held over until first review which could take place 15 years or so.
However, Puri pointed out that such a proposal does not enjoy the support of 53-member African group and the proposal which has such overwhelming support cannot be 'placed at the same level as that supported by one country'.
In this context, Puri offered to 'engage in discussions on the concept of challenge to permanent members provided the bar for such a challenge is commensurate with and not less than the bar for permanent membership of the Council'.
Any real change, Puri said, must involve greater representation for Africa, including in the permanent membership.
During the first round, the African Group, like most other delegations, had highlighted their preference for an expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. They had also reiterated other demands of the Ezulwini consensus, including the right of veto for new permanent members, Puri said.
