Permanent Mission of India
New York
--

IGN meeting on Security Council reforms

Statement by Ambassador Harish Parvathaneni,  Permanent Representative
15 June 2026

Distinguished co-Chairs, Excellencies and Colleagues,

                Thank you so much for the facilitators.
             I thank the co-Chairs for convening today’s discussion on the Elements Paper that was circulated among the member states on the 10 June 2026, giving Delegations two working days to respond.

2. India fully aligns with the statements delivered by the PR of St. Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of L.69 and the PR of Japan, on behalf of G4. In addition, I would like to deliver the following in my national capacity.

3. India has taken note that the Elements Paper is an assessment of the co-Chairs. This implies that the characterization of IGN dynamics, in general and the five clusters, in particular in the document is a reflection of the understanding and views of the co-Chairs. In our view, it neither captures the overall state of play accurately nor accounts for the overwhelming sentiments of a majority of member states, not unlike similar Elements Papers of the last two years at least. I would like to make the following points against this backdrop.

4. First, it is not clear what constitutes convergences and divergences. It is our understanding that a convergence is not the same as unanimity. If so, a convergence could operationally be considered as a majority view. However, the working principle in the Elements Paper regarding convergences and divergences are different and ambiguous and subjective understanding and views of the co-Chairs.

5. Second, UNGA decision 62/557 clearly stipulates that the purpose behind the IGN is to garner a solution with the widest possible political acceptance based on proposals by member states. This foundational document of the IGN does not mention about or allude to bridging proposals. It has also been the firm established practice in the UN for the co-Chairs/co-facs to propose bridging proposals after floating a text, as part of text-based negotiations, and not before. It would also be contextual to highlight that the Elements Paper treats a reform of the Security Council as a “Member States driven process”. Therefore, proposals under the consideration of the IGN co-Chairs must be based on models presented by Member States and Groups thus far and not subjective understandings.

6. Third, the Elements Paper mentions that the permanent category would be expanded through the Fixed Regional Seats proposal, which incredibly has only been documented in this Elements Paper. It further adds that member states elected to such seats would serve in their national capacity and not formally represent their respective regions. These present three inherent issues – one, the proposal does in no way expand the permanent category; two, the concept of regionality would not be served if the concerned member states act in their national capacities; and three, it weakens the case of SIDS, a cross-regional group which India has been consistently supportive of. Further, this whole proposal is akin to granting a veto to the E10, bereft of convoluted arguments of permanency.  This proposal confuses veto power with permanency. 

7. Fourth, the Elements Paper proposes further discussion and clarification on the concept of ‘permanency’. The UN Charter is very clear on this question and there is no room for ambiguity. Article 23 clearly categorizes the UNSC members into two – permanent and non-permanent. Therefore, the definition of a permanent seat needs no further elaboration of classification as a divergence. Groups and member states, including the African group, the G4 and L69, treat a permanent member, serving or future, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. Further, on convergences under regional representation, there is no mention of the broad support for improving the representation of African group in the UN Security Council. The IGN meeting that focused on presentation of the African model had made the supportive views of all key stakeholders known.

8. Fifth, as also highlighted in the past, support of a majority for expansion in the permanent category has been reduced to ‘a significant number of delegations’ in the Elements Paper. Despite the categorical position of a majority of member states in favour of expanding the permanent category, as reflected either in the national statements delivered at the IGN or through association with groups such as L69, G4, CARICOM etc., this has not been depicted accurately.

9. Sixth, reflecting expansion of the category of 2-year term non-permanent category as a convergence portrays only a part of the picture. Groups and member states add qualifiers and attach other interlinked parameters as they endorse expansion in the non-permanent category. UNSC reform would be grossly inadequate, bordering on failure, if expansion is limited only to the non-permanent category as it would fundamentally not change the decision making power-structure of the P5. Groups and member states have waited this long for real and meaningful reforms.

10. Seventh, “a nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” approach must not become a tool to block progress. Status-quoists have tried to use this argument in their favour and thereby, entrench the existing inequities in the Security Council.

11. Eighth, the General Assembly is a truly democratic principal organ of the UN. However, the Security Council is fundamentally different by its very design. By advocating expansion of the permanent category, India’s consistent effort has been to bring in a greater sense of balance and equity in the Security Council, and change the decision making parameters of the P5, while being mindful that the principle of sovereign equality of states would not be applicable in its entirety, unlike the UNGA due to such foundational DNA enshrined in the Charter.

13. Finally, IGN cannot be fundamentally different from other UN processes, wherein negotiations are held on the basis of a text. Groups and member states express their views on the text under consideration. Therefore, we urge the co-Chairs to take the lead on formulating a text, with clearly-defined milestones and timelines, so that groups and member states could engage in a purposeful and outcome-oriented manner, and thereafter consider, if necessary and as appropriate, any bridging proposal.

14. In closing, it is India’s sincere hope that the co-Chairs would suitably take into account our views and amend the Elements Paper suitably in order to make it more objective. India would also like to reiterate that we will continue to support all earnest efforts by the co-Chairs and other groups and member states towards achieving real reforms of the UN Security Council.

            I thank you, co-Chairs.

***