Eighteen Years, Zero Texts
On July 28, the UN General Assembly did what it has done every year since the effort began: it rolled Security Council reform talks into another session without resolving anything, this time pushing the process into the General Assembly’s eighty first session. India’s ambassador stood up and complained that member states remain stuck in general statements and cluster debates that simply restate positions everyone already holds. The complaint was accurate. It was also striking coming from India, since India is one of the four countries most eager for the very permanent seat this same gridlocked process is supposed to deliver. Almost two decades in, the effort to reform the Security Council has produced exactly one thing on schedule: another rollover.
A Process Built Never to Finish
The talks, formally called the Intergovernmental Negotiations, trace back to a 2008 General Assembly decision and began in earnest in 2009. They are organised around five clusters: membership categories, the veto, regional representation, Council size and working methods. In seventeen years they have never produced a single negotiating text, only competing models. Four camps currently hold the field. The Group of Four, meaning Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, wants permanent seats for its own members plus two for Africa. The African Group, grounded in the African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus, wants two permanent seats with full veto rights allocated to the continent as a bloc rather than to individual states. France and Mexico are not chasing new permanent seats at all; they want the five current veto holders to voluntarily set the veto aside in mass atrocity cases. Uniting for Consensus, led by Pakistan and including Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Canada and South Korea, rejects any new permanent seats and instead wants a much larger tier of elected members serving longer, renewable terms.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The Trap Inside the Charter
The reason nothing moves is not stubbornness. It is arithmetic written into the UN Charter itself. Amending the Charter requires approval from two thirds of the General Assembly and then ratification by two thirds of member states, including every single one of the five current permanent members, acting through their own constitutional processes. That gives each of today’s five permanent members an individual veto over any change that dilutes its own position, a veto that never has to be cast publicly because it can simply be withheld indefinitely at the ratification stage. The Council has had fifteen seats since 1965, when non permanent membership rose from six to ten. The UN itself has grown from fifty one founding members in 1945 to one hundred ninety three today. Structurally, the Council was never built to keep pace with its own membership, and the amendment process makes sure it does not have to.
Even the most serious reform proposal on the table concedes this reality rather than fighting it. The Group of Four has offered that any new permanent members would not exercise the veto for fifteen years, pending a formal review, an attempt to make expansion politically survivable by taking the sharpest objection off the table for a generation. Pakistan, Italy and others in Uniting for Consensus argue this only postpones the question of whether adding veto holders multiplies the paths to deadlock rather than fixing them. That argument has real evidence behind it. Between the war’s outbreak in October 2023 and the ceasefire that took hold in October 2025, the United States vetoed at least seven Security Council resolutions calling for a Gaza ceasefire, each time as the sole vote against every other Council member, including in the same September 2025 session where a panel of experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council concluded that Israel’s campaign met the definition of genocide, a finding Israel disputes. That paralysis required only one veto holder acting alone. Multiplying the states able to cast one is not an abstract risk, it is the same mechanism operating with more players.
Because Charter amendment is functionally locked, the more consequential movement has shifted to instruments that never touch the Charter at all. The clearest is the France led initiative, joined by Mexico, under which permanent members pledge to voluntarily set aside the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity or large scale war crimes. It now has 118 endorsements, closing in on the 129 needed to reach two thirds of the General Assembly, with Paris hoping to bring it to a vote during September’s high level week. Only France among the five permanent members has actually committed to the restraint; Russia and the United States have declined outright, while China and the United Kingdom have stayed on the sidelines. A non binding pledge signed by two thirds of the General Assembly would not bind a single veto holder. What it would do is make the cost of casting a veto in an atrocity situation politically explicit for the first time, without requiring the unanimous ratification that has frozen every Charter based proposal for seventeen years.
Pakistan’s role inside this landscape is worth separating from the noise around who deserves a seat. Its own proposal, an enlarged Council of roughly twenty six or twenty seven seats built entirely from a bigger elected tier, is explicitly designed to give Africa, Asia Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean more regular access to the Council without creating new permanent privilege. Islamabad has also aligned itself directly with the African Group’s Ezulwini position, describing Africa’s claim as a matter of justice rather than a request for favours, putting Uniting for Consensus and the continent’s biggest reform bloc on the same side of the argument against the G4 model. Whatever one thinks of the underlying rivalry with India that shapes Pakistan’s enthusiasm for this fight, the structural argument it is making, that adding unaccountable permanent seats entrenches privilege while expanding accountable elected seats does not, stands on its own terms.
The same self entrenching logic is not unique to the UN. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank both require existing shareholders to approve changes to voting shares, so the states whose relative power would shrink under reform hold effective control over whether it happens. The Security Council is the most visible case of a pattern running through the entire postwar multilateral order.
Three Paths From Here
Base case. The eighty first session repeats the eightieth that came before it. Clusters get discussed, models get restated, and the session rolls into the eighty second without a single negotiating text. Chairs issue another summary paper that changes no one’s position, and the co chairs for the next round are appointed on schedule regardless. We put this at roughly two in three, since it requires no institutional change and matches every session since 2009.
Downside case. Another high visibility Council failure, on Gaza, Ukraine or elsewhere, deepens the credibility gap between the Council and the wider UN membership, but instead of forcing reform it accelerates flight toward workarounds that bypass the Council rather than fix it: more resort to General Assembly action under the Uniting for Peace mechanism when the Council deadlocks, more regional groupings building their own crisis response tools, and a Council that matters less in daily practice even though its Charter powers remain formally untouched.
Upside case. France closes the gap to 129 endorsements and the General Assembly holds a vote on veto restraint during its September high level week. A non binding pledge would not amend the Charter, but a genuine two thirds vote would be the first tangible movement on Council accountability in over a decade, achieved entirely outside the amendment process that has kept the IGN frozen, and could build enough momentum to eventually pair a restraint norm with a version of the elected tier expansion that Uniting for Consensus and the African Group both already favour.
What to Watch
The real story is not which four or five countries eventually get a seat that may never exist. It is that the formal channel for fixing the Security Council has become structurally incapable of producing change, so the states most frustrated with Council paralysis are no longer waiting on it. Watch whether France reaches the 129 endorsements needed for its veto restraint initiative and brings it to a General Assembly vote during September’s high level week. If it does, the most meaningful shift in Security Council accountability in a generation will have happened entirely outside the reform process built to deliver it. If it does not, the Council will enter its next crisis exactly as it entered its last one, with five states holding a power the other one hundred eighty eight can only ask them not to use.
