US Backs India’s Bid for UN Security Council Seat, Urges Negotiations for Council Reform

In a significant move to revive the stalled UN Security Council reform process, the United States has called for text-based negotiations to push forward changes, including the expansion of permanent membership. Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, reaffirmed Washington’s support for a permanent seat for India on the Security Council and urged for structured discussions to achieve reform.

“The United States supports engaging in text-based negotiations on Council reform,” Thomas-Greenfield announced on Thursday. “It’s actually a big deal. It means we’re ready to work with other countries to negotiate language, prepare amendments, and ready this resolution for a vote in the General Assembly, and ultimately amend the UN Charter.” Her statement is seen as a step forward for many nations advocating for Council reform, a process that has seen little progress for over a decade.

The call for reform has long been championed by nations such as India, Japan, and Germany, who seek permanent seats on the Council. The U.S. has backed this demand, but efforts to negotiate have been hampered by opposition from a small group of countries. These countries have resisted the adoption of a negotiating text, which would serve as a foundation for talks on Council reform. The discussions on this issue, which have taken place under the banner of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN), have largely been stuck in a cycle of inaction since they began in 2009.

A senior U.S. administration official, in an earlier briefing, expressed optimism that Thomas-Greenfield’s announcement would provide fresh momentum to the process. “We hope to jump-start this process in several ways by calling for text-based negotiations at the earliest possible opportunities,” the official said, indicating that the U.S. is eager to see a resolution put to vote in the General Assembly.

The core of Thomas-Greenfield’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations centered on the need for two permanent seats for African nations on the Security Council. She emphasized that Africa, home to 1.5 billion people across 55 nations, should have a stronger voice in the UN’s primary peacekeeping body, given that nearly half of the Council’s peacekeeping operations are located on the continent. “It’s what our African partners seek, and we believe it’s what is just,” she said.

Currently, Africa has three non-permanent seats on the Security Council, which rotate among African nations every two years. However, these temporary seats, according to Thomas-Greenfield, do not allow African countries to fully contribute their knowledge and perspectives to the Council’s work. “The problem is, these elected seats don’t enable African countries to deliver the full benefit of their knowledge and voices to the work of the Council,” she noted.

African nations have long called for two permanent seats in addition to the current rotating ones, and their demand has gained prominence as the UN approaches its 80th anniversary next year. As the world looks back on the founding of the United Nations, created after World War II, many have argued that the current structures do not reflect the modern global landscape. In 1965, minor changes were made to the Council, but the UN today, with 193 member states, bears little resemblance to the organization that emerged in the post-war world. Thomas-Greenfield acknowledged this discrepancy, saying, “The world is asking big questions about the United Nations. Whether this institution is representative and legitimate. Whether it’s built to meet the challenges of the day, as well as the challenges of the future.”

“And in particular, Member States are looking at the Security Council,” she added, noting that reforming the Council is at the forefront of these discussions. The push for change is not just coming from Africa and Asia, as Washington has also proposed giving a non-permanent seat to landlocked developing countries. Additionally, the U.S. supports a permanent seat for Latin America and the Caribbean, though Thomas-Greenfield stopped short of endorsing Brazil, which has long sought a permanent seat.

The U.S. administration is cautious about the question of veto power. The senior official who briefed reporters clarified that Washington opposes extending veto rights to any new permanent members. This stance aligns with broader concerns about the veto’s role in hampering the effectiveness of the Security Council. The current five permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—each hold veto power, which has often led to gridlock on crucial issues.

The resistance to reform is most notably led by the 12-member Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, spearheaded by Italy and supported by countries like Pakistan. This group opposes the expansion of permanent membership and insists that there should be consensus before any negotiations on the reform text can proceed. This stance has effectively created a Catch-22 situation: without a negotiating text, consensus is impossible, yet UfC demands consensus before allowing a text to be adopted.

India, Japan, Germany, and several other countries have long advocated for the adoption of a negotiating text to advance discussions. The U.S. decision to support text-based negotiations offers a much-needed boost to their efforts. However, the UfC’s insistence on consensus continues to act as a major roadblock, leaving the reform process in a deadlock.

As the UN gears up for its 80th anniversary, the call for reform has reached a critical juncture. Member states are increasingly vocal about the need for a Security Council that reflects the realities of the 21st century, not the mid-20th century. The U.S.’s endorsement of India, Japan, and Germany’s bids for permanent seats, along with the push for African representation, indicates that momentum for change is building.

But for all the rhetoric, the path to actual reform remains fraught with challenges. The Security Council, designed to maintain peace and stability in a post-war world, now finds itself at a crossroads. Nations like India and Brazil, along with African countries, are pushing for a seat at the table, while other states remain reluctant to share power.

As Thomas-Greenfield put it, the questions about the United Nations and its future are big and pressing. And the answers may well determine the shape of global governance for decades to come.