US lawmakers have renewed calls for India to be considered for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council during a congressional debate on reforming the global body. The discussion highlighted growing concerns that the council’s current structure reflects the post-Second World War era rather than today’s geopolitical landscape…reports Asian Lite News Desk
India’s long-standing campaign for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council received fresh attention in the United States Congress, where lawmakers argued that the structure of the powerful UN body no longer reflects current global realities.
During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on United Nations reform, Congressman Ami Bera said any meaningful restructuring of the organisation must address the composition of the Security Council, specifically naming India among countries that deserve consideration for permanent membership.
“If we were designing a United Nations that was reflective of today’s world, we would design it very differently,” Bera said, pointing out that the council’s permanent membership continues to reflect “what the world looked like in 1945.”
He referred to proposals from the G4 grouping, which calls for the inclusion of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan as permanent members of an expanded Security Council.
The remarks were made during a hearing titled United Nations Accountability and Reform: Advancing an America First Foreign Policy Through Strategic Diplomacy and Burden Sharing. The session examined reforms proposed by the Trump administration and featured testimony from US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz and Ambassador for UN Management and Reform Jeffrey Bartos.
Responding to Bera’s comments, Waltz acknowledged concerns over the current composition of the Security Council but said reform remained politically challenging.
“I do worry about the P5 not reflecting today’s world,” Waltz said, referring to the five permanent members: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China.
“There has been proposals to have more elected members. There have been proposals to give some permanent but not have a veto. It’s really kind of all over the map in terms of Security Council reform,” he said.
Waltz said discussions on Security Council changes were separate from the UN Secretary-General’s “UN80” reform initiative. He added that there was “very little consensus” among major powers on expanding permanent membership.
Instead, he suggested that changes within the UN General Assembly could deliver quicker results, arguing that the body had accumulated decades of mandates without enough review.
“We could make the most gains… by what happens in the General Assembly,” Waltz said, referring to efforts to reduce bureaucracy and improve efficiency.
Bartos highlighted US-backed management reforms at the UN, including changes to budgeting procedures. He said the United States had worked with other member states to reform the UN credit system after previous unsuccessful attempts.
“With US leadership reformed the credit system,” Bartos said, describing it as an example of how negotiations could lead to institutional changes.
The hearing also focused on the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce UN spending, streamline peacekeeping operations and refocus the organisation on what officials described as its core mission of maintaining international peace and security.
India has consistently sought permanent membership of an expanded Security Council, arguing that the current arrangement does not represent the modern distribution of global influence.
New Delhi has highlighted its status as the world’s most populous country, a major economy, the largest democracy and one of the leading contributors to UN peacekeeping operations as reasons for inclusion.
India is part of the G4 group, alongside Brazil, Germany and Japan, which supports expanding both permanent and non-permanent seats on the council.
Although many UN member states support reform, negotiations have remained stalled for years due to disagreements among countries over the structure of expansion and the question of veto powers held by the existing permanent members.
