World News / UN 2.0 needed in 21st century... India opposes UfC model

World News: India has criticized a draft presented by the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group, a member of Pakistan, for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Calling it against the idea supported by the majority of member states for expansion of permanent and non-permanent seats, India stressed that the 21st century world is in dire need of UN 2.0. The UFC includes Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Spain and Turkey. Permanent members China and Indonesia are participating in the group as observers.

Opposition to making new permanent members

The UFC group opposes the appointment of new permanent members in the Security Council. The UFC format includes a Security Council with 26 seats, augmented by only 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

India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ruchira Kamboj, in response to the UFC model presented by Italy at the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) meeting on UNSC reforms on Monday, 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, reflective of the needs and aspirations of member states, and capable of maintaining peace and security.

He said the UFC, which consists of 12 countries and 2 observers including a P5 country, stands against the idea supported by the majority of UN member states, i.e. expansion into permanent and non-permanent categories. Kamboj asked how the UFC model represents Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Demand for expansion in both categories

Africa, a 54-member grouping, is calling for expansion in both categories. He said that when Africa itself is demanding expansion in both categories of membership, is it not unnecessary for someone else to take decisions on their behalf - to prevent what Africa has faced in the past? I am keen to hear your response to the rationale for deciding whether Africa, along with others, should not be represented in the permanent category?