India to join UNSC as non-permanent member on 17th [Update Post #40]

[Vayuu]

New Delhi: India's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has made big progress, with China forced to fall in line - for now, that is.

The nearly 200 member countries of the United Nations have agreed that over the next year, they will negotiate the wording of a document that will call for reforming the Security Council, the top decision-making body, which has 15 members. Of these, five, including China, Russia and the US, are permanent.

For the first time, different countries have submitted written suggestions for what the resolution should state. In what was seen as an attempt to thwart India's bid, the US, China and Russia did not participate in that exercise.

China has been strongly opposing the expansion of the Security Council; tonight, it reportedly wanted to force a vote on whether the UN should proceed with a one-year discussion on how the reform should be framed, but failed to muster enough support. If a vote had been called, India would have been forced to get other countries on board to support the extended negotiations.

While the US and Russia have verbally backed India's membership, neither has put that down in writing.

The draft resolution calls for next year's UN agenda to discuss the "Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council." Once the draft is agreed on, it will be put to vote at the General Assembly, where a two-thirds vote is needed to clear it.

Ahead of the UN's 70th anniversary in October, the PM has, on foreign trips and in bilaterals with the heads of other countries, strongly lobbied for support for a permanent seat on the Security Council for India.

 

[gani999]

I feel it is never going to happen.

China will veto India's candidature.

Even the US and Russia may hesitate at the last moment.

 

[Vayuu]

I feel it is never going to happen.

China will veto India's candidature.

Even the US and Russia may hesitate at the last moment.

Look china has supported india's unsc bid if india don't support Japan, of all the g4 members India so far has the best chance of getting unsc.

 

[gani999]

of all the g4 members India so far has the best chance of getting unsc.

I believe that among the G4 members, Germany has the best chance.

Their magnanimity towards the Syrian refugees will also boost their bid. A lot of countries are very impressed by it.

 

[Vayuu]

I believe that among the G4 members, Germany has the best chance.

Their magnanimity in taking in Syrian refugees will also boost their bid.

I agree that they have taken Syrian refugees, but india too provides a large peacekeeping force which is twice as big as 5 powers combined ,also in case of Germany powers like Italy and Netherlands has proposed a common Eu seat, so far barring pakistan each and every nation has supported India's bid.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India should never ever get UNSC seat. A powerless nation with a veto will be a joke.

 

[Vayuu]

India should never ever get UNSC seat. A powerless nation with a veto will be a joke.

I thought you were better than that at trolling, but alas I was wrong.

 

[JaDed]

I thought you were better than that at trolling, but alas I was wrong.

He is right our leaders aren't mature enough and the general public is more about some road naming than repairing the road.

 

[JaDed]

I think it should be taken off from China , they don't deserve it either and let just 4 have it.Its because of them that we want it if not we don't really belong in the big boys group yet.

 

[Vayuu]

He is right our leaders aren't mature enough and the general public is more about some road naming than repairing the road.

To bro pagle to har mulk main hote hai, ab Europe aur America main kya kam ghaney baawre ghoome hai.

 

[akki]

To bro pagle to har mulk main hote hai, ab Europe aur America main kya kam ghaney baawre ghoome hai.

I thought you were south indian..chora toh haryanvi bole hi

 

[akki]

I also think we dnt deserve it yet.......there is so much work still need to be done on our own population then going for this big boys gang

 

[cricketworm]

India neither can influence global stock market nor can sell large amount of fire arms! Not happening yet!

 

[KeyboardWarrior]

The P5 wont let this happen. No matter whos the candidate.

 

[gani999]

The permanent membership of the UN is a pointless relic left over from the League of Nations. No country deserves it now.

Just look at the record of the existing permanent members. USA with their warmongering, China with its human rights violations and Russia with its Soviet hangover and muscle flexing in Ukraine and other places certainly don't deserve to be calling the shots anywhere.

That leaves France and the UK - the former is opportunist to the core and is actually guilty of genocides in Algeria and other places while the latter is just a hand puppet of the US. Not much by way of 'World Leadership' by these two either.

A better idea would be to circulate the veto power among all countries, five countries at a time for a period of five years each.

 

[Vayuu]

I thought you were south indian..chora toh haryanvi bole hi

I am a delhite a delhi ka Munda and a Punjabi.

 

[akki]

Acha pher thik hai ..i am also punjabi...doing job in delhi.......

 

[JaDed]

To bro pagle to har mulk main hote hai, ab Europe aur America main kya kam ghaney baawre ghoome hai.

To un mulkon ko permanent member thodi banaya hai bhai!

 

[Vayuu]

To un mulkon ko permanent member thodi banaya hai bhai!

Banaya gya hai na, America hai na, France hai na

 

[JaDed]

Banaya gya hai na, America hai na, France hai na

Arrey bhai they both have stable governments plus France provides airplanes and nuclear energy to us . America can influence everything they defn deserve to be there as for france their contribution in terms of scientific stuff is pretty great.

 

[Yossarian]

India, Germany, Japan, Brazil or anyone else getting a 'permanent' seat on the (expanded) UN Security Council doesn't mean very much, as they would still not be given the power of veto enjoyed by the current five permanent members.

The Security Council currently consists of five permanent members (with the power of veto) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. The ten non-permanent members don't matter a zilch since it takes just one vote against from any one of the five permanent members to defeat a motion even if the other fourteen voted for it.

The current non-permanent members of the UN Security Council are:

Angola
Chad
Chile
Jordan
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Nigeria
Spain
Venezuela

So India, Germany or Japan getting a 'permanent' seat simply means that they won't need to be elected every two years. But they will still be simply making up the numbers without having the power of veto, just like those ten names above..

 

[CricketCartoons]

You get Veto power because you are powerful, you don't get powerful because you have veto power. Sadly some delusional people don't understand this and think a powerless nation will become a superpower by getting veto.

 

[JaDed]

There is no equality in UN itself and it cries about equality and freedom all the time.The world bodies are such a joke licking the boots of west all the time.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There is no equality in UN itself and it cries about equality and freedom all the time.The world bodies are such a joke licking the boots of west all the time.

All countries are not equal and should not be equal. Otherwise backward third world countries would be ruling the UN by sheer majority.

 

[JaDed]

All countries are not equal and should not be equal. Otherwise backward third world countries would be ruling the UN by sheer majority.

The literacy rate of China,America permanent memebers vs those of Scandinavian countries or New Zealand,Netherlands is pretty less but we let them decide on various world issues how is that fair?

 

[CricketCartoons]

The literacy rate of China,America permanent memebers vs those of Scandinavian countries or New Zealand,Netherlands is pretty less but we let them decide on various world issues how is that fair?

UN is run by leaders of State, not people from their countries. The powerful States deserve the power they wield.

 

[JaDed]

UN is run by leaders of State, not people from their countries. The powerful States deserve the power they wield.

What's the difference between UK,France,China and on other hand Germany and Japan?? 70 years since the WW2 is over its a joke if they are still being discriminated.

 

[CricketCartoons]

What's the difference between UK,France,China and on other hand Germany and Japan?? 70 years since the WW2 is over its a joke if they are still being discriminated.

The difference is that they are not powerful enough.

 

[JaDed]

The difference is that they are not powerful enough.

Germany and Japan are not as strong as UK or France? On what basis really?Just Defense?

 

[Vayuu]

You get Veto power because you are powerful, you don't get powerful because you have veto power. Sadly some delusional people don't understand this and think a powerless nation will become a superpower by getting veto.

The thing is who is to determine that a nation is powerful enough or not, U.N or some delusional, also india has made its stand clear they want UNSC with veto.

 

[Vayuu]

India, Germany, Japan, Brazil or anyone else getting a 'permanent' seat on the (expanded) UN Security Council doesn't mean very much, as they would still not be given the power of veto enjoyed by the current five permanent members.

The Security Council currently consists of five permanent members (with the power of veto) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. The ten non-permanent members don't matter a zilch since it takes just one vote against from any one of the five permanent members to defeat a motion even if the other fourteen voted for it.

The current non-permanent members of the UN Security Council are:

Angola
Chad
Chile
Jordan
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Nigeria
Spain
Venezuela

So India, Germany or Japan getting a 'permanent' seat simply means that they won't need to be elected every two years. But they will still be simply making up the numbers without having the power of veto, just like those ten names above..

India has clearly said that they don't want a unsc without veto.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The thing is who is to determine that a nation is powerful enough or not, U.N or some delusional, also india has made its stand clear they want UNSC with veto.

India may keep begging for veto power, and deluded people may keep dreaming about it, but it is not going to happen. Better to bow their head and get back to work for development of its people.

 

[Vayuu]

India may keep begging for veto power, and deluded people may keep dreaming about it, but it is not going to happen. Better to bow their head and get back to work for development of its people.

India didn't beg for veto power and deluded are the one's whose life motto is to bash india just for sake of it,before advising us take care of ur lot, and regarding unsc seat, we will get it sooner or later just wait and watch.

 

[Yatoo]

A song of ice and fire : A game of thrones.

 

[CricketCartoons]

India didn't beg for veto power and deluded are the one's whose life motto is to bash india just for sake of it,before advising us take care of ur lot, and regarding unsc seat, we will get it sooner or later just wait and watch.

Bro, if by India you mean the politicians and bureaucrats then yes, I bash them, but my bashing is issue based. UNSC seat should not be a priority for them. Why do they want to become the mukhiya. They should work to cooperate with neighbouring countries so that it is mutually beneficial for all in the region.

 

[Vayuu]

Bro, if by India you mean the politicians and bureaucrats then yes, I bash them, but my bashing is issue based. UNSC seat should not be a priority for them. Why do they want to become the mukhiya. They should work to cooperate with neighbouring countries so that it is mutually beneficial for all in the region.

Look even we bash our own politicians and bureaucrats, I agree that we need to take care of our population and we are doing it ,it will take time but that doesn't mean if a opportunity like unsc is there to have we should let it go.

 

[Vulcan]

Brazil deserve more than India in my opinion. Anyways good luck

 

[Yossarian]

India has clearly said that they don't want a unsc without veto.

The chances of the current five veto power holders allowing India or anyone else to also have the veto power are zero and non-existent. The UK might agree, France may sit on the fence, the Russians may be bribed/cajoled, but can you see the USA or China, especially China, agreeing to allow India to have veto power?

 

[90MPH]

The UN at times is a laughing when certain countries use the Veto when it becomes convenient for them.

And this will continue if another country gets the power to use the veto.

 

[Extra_Cover]

India to join UNSC as non-permanent member on 17th

ISLAMABAD: Advocating the Kashmir cause at the United Nations is expected to become more challenging as India is set to be elected as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) for a two-year tenure later this month.

“On 17 June, the General Assembly is scheduled to elect five states to two-year terms on the Security Council,” a diplomatic source said, adding this year elections would be held through a changed procedure because of Covid-19, which had forced postponement of all meetings at the UN till the end of the month.

The election is normally held in the UNGA hall through secret balloting, but this time there could be multiple venues about which details would be issued by Monday. The member states would cast ballots during designated time slots and at a specified venue because of restrictions on large gatherings.

The 10 seats for non-permanent members at the UNSC are divided into regional groups: African Group, Asia-Pacific Group, Latin American and Caribbean Group, Western European and Others Group. India is running for the seat from the Asia-Pacific group, which will be vacated by Indonesia.

India’s victory is almost secured because the seat has not been contested by any of the other countries from the region. India, it should be recalled, was last year nominated uncontested for this seat by the 55-member regional group, of which Pakistan is also a part.

India will, however, still be on the ballot. Under UN election rules for principal organs it would need to get a minimum of 129 votes to be declared successful if all 193 UN members take part in the voting. This apparently may not be a difficult task for Delhi because of the group’s endorsement.

If elected, it would be India’s eighth tenure at the Security Council as a non-permanent member.

Newly elected members for the 2021-22 term would start their tenure from Jan 1, 2021.

India’s election could pose a serious challenge for Pakistan, particularly its advocacy for Kashmir, which is under India’s illegal occupation.

The timing of the election is crucial because India will be taking up its tenure at a time when tensions between the South Asian neighbours over the disputed territory of Kashmir are running high, particularly after its annexation by India last August.

Diplomatic observers in New York, while speaking over phone about the implications of India’s election for Pakistan, said it could become harder to initiate a discussion on the situation in Kashmir, much less an exclusive meeting like the one held on Aug 16, 2019. India, they feared, could exercise greater influence on the sanctions regime.

India can, moreover, possibly seek debates, either formal or informal, on different issues for embarrassing Pakistan. And in bad times, it can also team up with the US to ratchet up pressure on Islamabad, the observers believe.

In other races, Djibouti and Kenya are contesting the single African Group seat. Canada, Ireland and Norway are contesting the two seats from Western European and Others Group. Mexico, much like India, would run unopposed for the Latin American and Caribbean Group set.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1561853/india-to-join-unsc-as-non-permanent-member-on-17th

 

[Extra_Cover]

This is a good diplomatic win for India. A seat on the UNSC (albeit a non-permanent one) can ensure that the issue of Kashmir is suppressed for another 2 years.

It is quite ironic considering the domestic situation of India over the past year has been in most turmoil of the past decade it ended up with a UNSC seat win. This goes to show that their diplomatic powers are very strong and they are well ahead in the diplomatic game.

On flip side, Pakistan should take this as a disappointment as they were not proactive enough to see this happening. They are always reactive rather than proactive on the political and diplomatic front and this time its no different.

 

[JaDed]

The sole purpose of this organization is politics and school kids being allowed to play Model UN.

 

[gani999]

This is a good diplomatic win for India. A seat on the UNSC (albeit a non-permanent one) can ensure that the issue of Kashmir is suppressed for another 2 years.

It is quite ironic considering the domestic situation of India over the past year has been in most turmoil of the past decade it ended up with a UNSC seat win. This goes to show that their diplomatic powers are very strong and they are well ahead in the diplomatic game.

On flip side, Pakistan should take this as a disappointment as they were not proactive enough to see this happening. They are always reactive rather than proactive on the political and diplomatic front and this time its no different.

The non-permanent members change every year. The membership rotates among countries.
Pakistan will be there too at some point, and will raise the Kashmir Issue, like they have done in the past.

 

[gani999]

And I said before, the Permanent Membership of the UNSC has outlived its usefulness. It is better to scrap it.

All the five in there presently have skeletons in their cupboards. None of them have been paragons of virtue. They all need to be stripped of their powers and treated like everyone else.

It is better if the 'permanent' membership is reduced to three years, and every country is given a chance by rotation.

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on Monday sought to tamp down fears about India’s imminent election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council saying “heavens would not fall”.

In a televised statement, Mr Qureshi talked about the upcoming elections for five non-permanent members of the Security Council and addressed the concerns that India’s imminent election could pose challenges for Pakistan’s foreign policy.

The elections are scheduled to be held on Wednesday at the UN headquarters in New York. Newly elected members would start their two-year tenure from January 1 next year.

India, whose candidature has been endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Group, is all set to be elected. There is no other contestant from the regional group. However, for getting elected India would still require 129 votes, if all 193 members vote.

If elected, it would be India’s eighth tenure at the Security Council as a non-permanent member.

Election of five non-permanent members set to be held in NY on Wednesday

Mr Qureshi recalled that Pakistan too has served seven terms on the Council and is planning to run for another term in future.

Reminding that Indian actions were posing threat for the regional peace, Mr Qureshi said that he had written to the UN Secretary General and leaders of other forums over human rights violations in India, including the maltreatment of minorities especially the Muslim, the brutal repression of Kashmiris by the Indian forces in Occupied Kashmir and its aggressive posture against neighbours.

“Which of the Indian neighbour is happy with the actions of the Modi government,” Mr Qureshi asked.

The world, he said, should see why India is not implementing UN resolutions on Kashmir and committing massive rights abuses.

The foreign minister said that Pakistan was preparing its strategy to deal with India as a non-permanent member of UNSC for next two years while adhering to diplomatic traditions.

Rejecting Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s remarks at the ‘Jammu Jan Samvad rally’ via videoconferencing, FM Qureshi challenged him to allow Prime Minister Imran Khan or him (Qureshi) to visit Srinagar and see for himself how Kashmiris respond.

He also offered Singh to visit Muzzafarabad and check people’s response.

The foreign minister said that Kashmiris have been so disillusioned with India that no example of it could be found in the past seven decades.

Singh had at the rally claimed that under PM Modi’s leadership, (Occupied) Jammu and Kashmir will touch great heights and people from Azad Kashmir will wish they were part of India.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1563848/fm-shrugs-off-indias-expected-election-as-unsc-member

 

[Pakpak]

This is a good diplomatic win for India. A seat on the UNSC (albeit a non-permanent one) can ensure that the issue of Kashmir is suppressed for another 2 years.

It is quite ironic considering the domestic situation of India over the past year has been in most turmoil of the past decade it ended up with a UNSC seat win. This goes to show that their diplomatic powers are very strong and they are well ahead in the diplomatic game.

On flip side, Pakistan should take this as a disappointment as they were not proactive enough to see this happening. They are always reactive rather than proactive on the political and diplomatic front and this time its no different.

This news is pointless. India has been elected 8 times before, we have been elected 7 times too.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Good for us albeit temporary.

 

[Abdullah719]

Pakistan plans to discredit India’s UNSC membership

Pakistan has devised a plan, envisaging a concerted diplomatic campaign to discredit the credentials of India as being the non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

India is almost certain to win a two-year term for the UNSC, when the General Assembly will elect 5 out of 10 non-permanent members on Wednesday. The term will start from January 2021.

Spoiler

India is contesting elections from the Asia-Pacific region. Its candidature was endorsed by the Asia Pacific group in June last year. Pakistan and China are part of the group.

A senior Foreign Office official, however, clarified that there was a misperception about the processes involved for the election of UNSC seats.

“India was the sole candidate from the Asia-Pacific group, therefore the question of endorsement never arose” the official explained. But eyebrows were raised in last June, when Indian Ambassador to the UN Sayed Akbaruddin, using his official twitter handle thanked Asia-Pacific countries, including Pakistan, for endorsing the candidature of India for the non-permanent seat of UNSC.

In a background briefing, the Foreign Office official told The Express Tribune that India was the sole candidate from the Asia-Pacific group and hence such endorsements were formalities. Pakistan in the past had also received similar endorsements.

But the official clarified that endorsement at the group stage had no bearing on the final outcome as every member still had to vote in the General Assembly through a secret ballot.

When asked whether Pakistan could have opposed Indian candidature at the group stage, the official responded in the affirmative. However, he added that such an approach would have opened a new diplomatic front at the UN, something that would have hurt Pakistan’s interests.

Substantiating his view, the official added that Pakistan at the moment had 8 candidatures for different forums, including for the non-permanent member seat for the UNSC. Any unnecessary opposition at the group stage would create problems for Pakistan in the long run, he said, adding that in the past Pakistan’s candidature for other UN forums was endorsed by the Asia-Pacific group of which India was also a part.

The sense gathered from the background discussion suggested that Pakistan and India despite having troubled ties might have some tacit understanding not to create obstacles at the UN as far as their respective nominations for different panels were concerned.

Pakistan and India have both got elected as members of UNSC for 7 times each. The only time both contested election against each other at the group stage was in 1970s. Islamabad had been able to defeat New Delhi at the time. After that both sides opted not to contest against each other.

However, both sides did try to have their respective two-year term overlapped. When India was on the UNSC from 2011 to 2012, Pakistan joined the council in 2012 and served till 2013.

This time too Pakistan wanted to contest the election for 2022-2023 in order to overlap Indian 2021-22 term but couldn’t do so since South Korea had already announced its candidature for the same term. Pakistan, which launched its candidature in 2014, is vying for 2025-26 term at the UNSC. So far, Pakistan is the lone candidate from the Asia Pacific region.

Responding to a question as to what were the guarantees that India would not oppose Pakistani nomination when it would come up for endorsement in 2024, the official said India would not take that risk. “If it does that it would lead to a diplomatic war between the two countries,” the official said, explaining that Pakistan also had the tools to hit back at India in such a case.

About Pakistan’s strategy, the official said Islamabad had an elaborate plan to discredit the Indian credentials at the UNSC. “You will see in the coming days how our plan unfolds,” he said, while playing down any concerns that India might use UNSC to create more troubles for Pakistan.

“India was a member of UNSC for 7 times. Had anything changed?” he asked, saying there was misperception that India would take advantage while being on the UNSC. “We are not sitting idle, we have our strategy and safeguards in place to protect our interests.”

Each year the General Assembly elects five non-permanent members (out of 10 in total) for a two-year term. The 10 non-permanent seats are distributed on a regional basis — five for African and Asian states; one for Eastern European states; two for the Latin American and Caribbean states; and two for Western European and other states.

Out of 193 members, winning candidate needs 129 votes to get elected for the two-year term. India is likely to get the required number. The vote is cast through secret ballot. Pakistan and other countries never make their choice public. “Do you think Pakistan will vote in favour of India? You know the answer,” the official said, without replying explicitly.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2244214/1-pakistan-plans-discredit-indias-unsc-membership/

 

[Romali_rotti]

Pakistan plans to discredit India’s UNSC membership

Pakistan has devised a plan, envisaging a concerted diplomatic campaign to discredit the credentials of India as being the non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

India is almost certain to win a two-year term for the UNSC, when the General Assembly will elect 5 out of 10 non-permanent members on Wednesday. The term will start from January 2021.

Spoiler

India is contesting elections from the Asia-Pacific region. Its candidature was endorsed by the Asia Pacific group in June last year. Pakistan and China are part of the group.

A senior Foreign Office official, however, clarified that there was a misperception about the processes involved for the election of UNSC seats.

“India was the sole candidate from the Asia-Pacific group, therefore the question of endorsement never arose” the official explained. But eyebrows were raised in last June, when Indian Ambassador to the UN Sayed Akbaruddin, using his official twitter handle thanked Asia-Pacific countries, including Pakistan, for endorsing the candidature of India for the non-permanent seat of UNSC.

In a background briefing, the Foreign Office official told The Express Tribune that India was the sole candidate from the Asia-Pacific group and hence such endorsements were formalities. Pakistan in the past had also received similar endorsements.

But the official clarified that endorsement at the group stage had no bearing on the final outcome as every member still had to vote in the General Assembly through a secret ballot.

When asked whether Pakistan could have opposed Indian candidature at the group stage, the official responded in the affirmative. However, he added that such an approach would have opened a new diplomatic front at the UN, something that would have hurt Pakistan’s interests.

Substantiating his view, the official added that Pakistan at the moment had 8 candidatures for different forums, including for the non-permanent member seat for the UNSC. Any unnecessary opposition at the group stage would create problems for Pakistan in the long run, he said, adding that in the past Pakistan’s candidature for other UN forums was endorsed by the Asia-Pacific group of which India was also a part.

The sense gathered from the background discussion suggested that Pakistan and India despite having troubled ties might have some tacit understanding not to create obstacles at the UN as far as their respective nominations for different panels were concerned.

Pakistan and India have both got elected as members of UNSC for 7 times each. The only time both contested election against each other at the group stage was in 1970s. Islamabad had been able to defeat New Delhi at the time. After that both sides opted not to contest against each other.

However, both sides did try to have their respective two-year term overlapped. When India was on the UNSC from 2011 to 2012, Pakistan joined the council in 2012 and served till 2013.

This time too Pakistan wanted to contest the election for 2022-2023 in order to overlap Indian 2021-22 term but couldn’t do so since South Korea had already announced its candidature for the same term. Pakistan, which launched its candidature in 2014, is vying for 2025-26 term at the UNSC. So far, Pakistan is the lone candidate from the Asia Pacific region.

Responding to a question as to what were the guarantees that India would not oppose Pakistani nomination when it would come up for endorsement in 2024, the official said India would not take that risk. “If it does that it would lead to a diplomatic war between the two countries,” the official said, explaining that Pakistan also had the tools to hit back at India in such a case.

About Pakistan’s strategy, the official said Islamabad had an elaborate plan to discredit the Indian credentials at the UNSC. “You will see in the coming days how our plan unfolds,” he said, while playing down any concerns that India might use UNSC to create more troubles for Pakistan.

“India was a member of UNSC for 7 times. Had anything changed?” he asked, saying there was misperception that India would take advantage while being on the UNSC. “We are not sitting idle, we have our strategy and safeguards in place to protect our interests.”

Each year the General Assembly elects five non-permanent members (out of 10 in total) for a two-year term. The 10 non-permanent seats are distributed on a regional basis — five for African and Asian states; one for Eastern European states; two for the Latin American and Caribbean states; and two for Western European and other states.

Out of 193 members, winning candidate needs 129 votes to get elected for the two-year term. India is likely to get the required number. The vote is cast through secret ballot. Pakistan and other countries never make their choice public. “Do you think Pakistan will vote in favour of India? You know the answer,” the official said, without replying explicitly.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2244214/1-pakistan-plans-discredit-indias-unsc-membership/

Awww thats cute... Anyway being a non permanent member is useless, so it doesn't make any difference either way..

 

[Varun]

The United Nations should rename itself to Global White Elephant Corp. Pvt. Ltd., GWE for short. Be it wars, pandemics, border disputes or revolutions - you name it, they can't stop it.

Wate of space.

 

[MenInG]

India to share UNSC table with China

The UN General Assembly has elected India, Mexico, Norway and Ireland as the four non-permanent members of the Security Council for 2021 and 2022.

The result means India will now have a seat at the same table as China, just days after the two nations traded blame for a brawl along the disputed Himalayan border that left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead.

India - which has been trying unsuccessfully to win a permanent seat in an expanded Security Council - ran unopposed to win 184 votes out of the 192 countries that participated in the election.

 

[MenInG]

ISLAMABAD: Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Friday rejected the impression that Pakistan gave India a walkover in the latter’s election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Speaking on the floor of the Senate, he clarified that Pakistan didn’t abstain from voting but voted against India because of its unconstitutional steps in occupied Jammu and Kashmir, including the Aug 5 move of Kashmir’s annexation.

Qureshi said India’s steps are in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and international norms.

He said the neighbouring country stands diplomatically isolated and is on the verge of bankruptcy because of the pandemic. India strained ties with all regional countries, including China and Nepal, he added.

Shah Mahmood Qureshi once again cautioned that India could resort to a false flag operation against Pakistan. However, he added, Islamabad will give a befitting and quick response if New Delhi casts an evil eye on Pakistan.

He said the entire nation is united for security, sovereignty, and dignity of the country.

The foreign minister explained that the non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council is given on a rotational basis for a period of two years. He recalled both Pakistan and India have held this seat for seven times each.

He said India had been campaigning to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council since 2013. He cleared that India’s election as a non-permanent member of the UNSC will not change the stance of the United Nations on outstanding Kashmir dispute.

He said Pakistan has also started its campaign to become a non-permanent member of the UNSC in 2025-26.

https://arynews.tv/en/shah-mahmood-qureshi-unsc-elections-india/

 

[Abdullah719]

'India’s election to UNSC a travesty of justice'

Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) President Sardar Masood Khan said India’s election to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a travesty of justice and a mockery of the international rule of law.

In an interview to Canada’s specialty television network, Omni Television, he said that when a delegation of the fascist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) regime would be sitting on the Council in January 2021, Indian occupation forces’ hands would be drenched in the blood of Kashmiris.

India, he said, would have no qualifications to uphold the mandate of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Spoiler

With India’s entry into the Council, the international order will fray further. The world is slowly moving towards anarchy because the worst violator of human rights and a trampler of peace and security is being giving a seat on a prestigious multilateral forum like the Security Council, President Masood Khan said.

The BJP-RSS regime, he said, is a colonial power that in front of the whole world is killing and brutalising Kashmiris, blinding them, mowing down youth in fake encounters, and raping and objectifying women. “Such a regime, known for its despotism and chicanery, deserves to be sanctioned and stockade, not rewarded with a seat in the Security Council.”

“India is a predator in the region which has chosen to violate international law with impunity. It is occupying en masse a disputed foreign territory – Kashmir – and calls it an internal matter,” the president said, adding that it is no more the old practice of legal and military salami slicing of the past 73 years in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir but gobbling up of the entire state in one go without the consent of its owners.

India has invited and fuelled disputes with all its neighbours and made the entire neighbourhood volatile by its intimidation and aggression. “For that should it not be in the Security Council’s dock rather than on a horseshoe seat?” he asked

President Masood Khan said that India has revived the Nazi Party’s Nuremberg laws of the last century and imposed them on the Kashmiri population in the form of new domicile rules.

Non-native Hindus would be settled in Jammu and Kashmir and qualify for half a million jobs and Kashmiris will run from pillar to post to prove that their homeland is theirs and that they too can qualify for these jobs which used to be reserved for them.

“This is the most brazen land grab through the barrel of gun in the 21st century. Those who would oppose these war crimes and genocide will be exterminated and erased. Demographic changes in Kashmir today are no less grave than the cases on ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and the Great Lakes region in the 1990s. Why is the Security Council not, this time around, shocked round the clock? Are the screams of Kashmiris not reaching their closed and open chambers or their virtual conference space?” the president further inquired.

President Masood Khan appealed to the international civil society to block the passage of India to the Security Council for the sake of humanity because it is entering into that body only to indemnify its crimes against humanity in the Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, glorify its lebensraum in the region and hide its religious apartheid against Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Dalits and tribes in India.

The president warned: “Make no mistake. India is going into the council to promote its own heinous agenda of occupation, irredentism and expansionism; and to make a bid for a permanent seat. But even within the council its diplomatic bullying would be so obnoxious that no permanent member will be sincerely ready to consider giving them a seat around that table.”

He asked, “Will India dare to put Kashmir on the active agenda of the council for a just and lasting resolution of the issue in accordance with the existing decisions of the council. There is every possibility that it would either stymie the debate on Kashmir or attempt to guillotine the issue altogether.”

He warned that during India’s presence in the council, the funding and mandate of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) would be at risk. “We need to remain vigilant,” he said.

The AJK president said that the dysfunctional electoral system of the UN sends a known warmonger like India to the hallowed council chambers without any scrutiny. How can India be given a seat when its violent extremist prime minister openly, twice, threatened to wipe Pakistan off the map of the world by the use of nuclear weapons, he asked.

And their ministers talk of attacking Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan militarily and intensify proxy wars, inducing terrorism, in Pakistan. Would such a country in any way contribute to peace and security anywhere in the world? President Masood Khan said that in the council “India would be there to stoke, not douse, fires”.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2247378/1-indias-election-unsc-travesty-justice/

 

[King_Kohli]

India’s emphatic win at UN Security Council -UNSC India wins 184 out 192

Terming India’s winning of a non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council one of its “best performances” ever, the Union government said the majority of votes it received in the General Assembly demonstrated the “goodwill” the country enjoyed.

Several countries, including the permanent Security Council members, the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia and China, congratulated India.

India scored a major diplomatic victory to enter the non-permanent category of the UN Security Council when elections were held for the five non-permanent members on Wednesday. India won 184 votes out of 192 valid votes cast.

India ran unopposed to win in the Asia-Pacific region, while Mexico also ran unopposed.

The terms for new members start on 1 January 2021.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...-nations-security-council/article31856470.ece

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-un-security-council/articleshow/76435650.cms

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53087650

 

[King_Kohli]

Others that won were Mexico with 187 votes,
Norway 130
Ireland 128

 

[King_Kohli]

Canada loses out to Ireland and Norway in Security Council vote.

Canada managed just 108.

This is the second time in a row Canada has lost its bid for a UN Security Council seat.

 

[King_Kohli]

It was Canada’s second failed attempt to win the seat, and experts believe it raised serious questions about the messaging and clarity of the country’s foreign policy.

But in the final days, the PM and his team mounted a frantic effort, phoning leaders in India, Pakistan, Mexico, North Macedonia and Fiji, to secure votes

 

[King_Kohli]

Neither Kenya (113 votes) nor Djibouti (78), both contesting for one seat from Africa, won a two-thirds majority.

 

[MenInG]

Pakistan has reaffirmed its opposition to adding new permanent members to the UN Security Council (UNSC), adding that India does not qualify for a seat on the 15-member body.

India — along with Brazil, Germany and Japan — has been campaigning for a permeant UNSC membership.

Speaking to the UN General Assembly (GA) on Monday, Pakistan's Permanent Representative Ambassador Munir Akram, in an apparent reference to India, said one country has waged 20 wars since independence and fomented terrorism and instability across the region, especially in Pakistan.

Source Dawn

 

[rhony]

India can never get into UNSC as long as China is the veto member. I don't think India should even lobby for it. They will just be embarrassed with the result. UNSC is a highly useless org that hasn't done much in decades. I believe it will continue to be a useless org because of the bickering between the US and the Chinese for decades to come

 

[MenInG]

- Foreign Office on Saturday expressed the hope that India after assuming Presidency of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) would abide by the relevant rules and norms governing the global body and implement resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.

“We hope that India will abide by the relevant rules and norms governing the conduct of the Security Council Presidency. As India assumes this role, we would also like to once again remind it of its legal obligation to implement the UNSC resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir,” Foreign Office Spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said in a press release.

Responding to media queries regarding India’s assuming of presidency of the UNSC for the month of August, the spokesperson said that the presidency of the UNSC was held by each of the members in turn for one month, following the English alphabetical order of the member states’ names. “The President is responsible for the conduct and running of meetings of the Security Council and is bound to act in accordance with the Rules of Procedures,” it was added.

US swimmer Dressel breaks world record for 3rd Tokyo Olympics gold
Also, Pakistan on Saturday strongly condemned India’s politicisation of cricket by preventing international players to participate in the Kashmir Premier League (KPL). Foreign Office Spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said “India’s politicization of cricket cannot be condemned enough”. He termed as “unfortunate and regrettable” the reports where Kashmiri players were denied to share the dressing room with renowned cricket players.

“Depriving young Kashmiri players of the opportunity to share dressing room with big names in cricket is unfortunate and regrettable,” he wrote in a tweet.

The reaction came as former South Africa batsman Herschelle Gibbs accused the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) of “trying to prevent” him from participating in KPL and bringing their “political agenda with Pakistan into the equation”.

COVID-19 spirals out of control in Asia-Pacific region


“Completely unnecessary of the BCCI to bring their political agenda with Pakistan into the equation and trying to prevent me playing in the KPL,” he said. “(They are) also threatening me saying they won’t allow me entry into India for any cricket related work. Ludicrous.” Gibbs, who is a part of KPL franchise Overseas Warriors, in a tweet said the BCCI had also threatened of denying him entry in India if he participates in the league.



Pakistan hails EU Parliament members

Pakistan welcomes the letter on human rights and humanitarian situation in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir addressed by members of the European Parliament to the President and Vice President of the European Commission.

In response to media queries regarding the letter, Foreign Office Spokesperson Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said this letter is another demonstration of the continuing global censure of the ongoing human rights violations and humanitarian crisis in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

Gov't decides hike in existing prices of petroleum products
He said despite India continuously peddling false propaganda in futile attempts to push the sham narrative of so-called normalcy in IIOJK, the global censure and condemnation of the Indian atrocities in IIOJK continue and have increased in the wake of the egregious violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in IIOJK after India’s illegal and unilateral actions of 5 August 2019.

Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri said India must realize that it cannot ignore the international community’s continuing calls to end its grave and systematic human rights violations of the Kashmiri people.

The Spokesperson said India will have to ultimately give in to global conscience, end its unabated human rights violations in parts of Jammu and Kashmir under its illegal occupation and take steps for peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and wishes of the Kashmiri people.

Shop till you drop at Ideas azadi online sale
Sixteen members of the European Parliament on Friday expressing concerns over the alarming human rights situation in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOK) urged the European Union to raise its voice against the unchecked abuse.

“As a champion of universal human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule-based international order, the EU must raise its voice against the violations of human rights affecting the people of Jammu and Kashmir,” they said in a letter sent to Ms. Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission and Josep Borrell, Vice President of the European Commission/High Representative.

https://nation.com.pk/01-Aug-2021/p...ules-and-norms-after-assuming-unsc-presidency

 

[MenInG]

Pakistan, Italy, Argentina and other like-minded countries have once again thwarted plans by the so-called Group of 4, comprising India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, who are seeking the expansion of the UN Security Council.

The UN General Assembly on Tuesday decided to roll over the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform to the next General Assembly session, something that is seen as success for countries part of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC), which is against the UNSC expansion in permanent seats.

The UfC, unlike the G4, has proposed additional non-permanent seats with longer duration in term and a possibility to get re-elected.

Brazil, India, Germany and Japan on the other hand have been pushing for expanding the current five permanent members of UNSC to 11. They have been laying claims to become permanent members of the UNSC, while proposing two other members from the Africa.

The process of reforms in the UNSC began in the General Assembly in February 2009 on five key areas that include the categories of membership, the question of veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged Security Council, and working methods of the council and its relationship with the General Assembly.

Despite general consensus on expanding the UNSC, member states have not agreed to the specifics delaying the process.

A Foreign Office official told The Express Tribune on Wednesday that the process of reform in the UNSC had to kick start from the UNGA. For any reforms it requires a vote of the two-thirds members of the 193-strong UNGA. At present, the official said, neither side have the required number.

But the official was of the view that unlike the G4, the UFC is not merely seeking reforms through the two-thirds vote but wider consensus in order to avoid any hiccup in the reform process, which involves several delicate and complicated steps.

The official said the G4 had been pushing for years to move from “oral negotiations” to “text-based negotiations”. But Pakistan along with other countries of the UfC have been opposing this move since agreeing on “text-based” negotiations means locking the proposals and discussions, which the G4 desperately wants.

In the latest round of intergovernmental negotiations, the G4 pushed for “text-based” negotiations but the UfC successfully thwarted the move. “I consider it as a major success for Pakistan and other like-minded countries,” the official insisted.

The official said that Pakistan was not opposed to the UNSC reforms but those had to be “democratic” and based on “principles.” The official explained that the UfC had shown flexibility in its stance by proposing the enlargement of the UNSC with additional non-permanent seats having longer duration in term and a chance to get re-elected.

“A non-permanent member term can be from 3 to 5 years and it can get re-elected,” the official said. At present, the UNSC has five permanent members with veto powers and 10 non-permanent members who are elected for a 2-year term.

The push for reforming the UNSC first came in 2004, when Brazil, India, Japan and Germany launched a joint campaign to get the permanent seats. But the process never took off since consensus could not be achieved on how to reform the UNSC.

The latest decision by the UN to roll over discussion for the next UNGA session set to begin this September has angered India. New Delhi termed the move as a "wasted opportunity" to instil a breath of life into a process that has shown no signs of life or growth in over four decades.

Indian Charge d’Affaires at UN R Ravindra said that India had been consistent in its position that the roll-over decision of the intergovernmental negotiations simply could not be reduced to a “mindless technical exercise”.

"We see this technical roll-over decision as yet another wasted opportunity to instil a breath of life into a process that has shown no signs of life or growth in over four decades," Ravindra added.

According to APP, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to UN Ambassador Muni Akram said that slow pace of progress in the Security Council reform “is not due to any deficiency in the procedure or process; it is due to the inflexible position adopted by a few individual states which have come into the negotiations with the pre-determined goal of fulfilling this ambition to become new permanent members of the Security Council, regardless of the principles of sovereign equality”.

In contrast, he said the UfC has demonstrated the greatest flexibility in these negotiations and shown its willingness to explore imaginative ways to reconcile divergent positions.

The Pakistani envoy said the UfC looked forward to continuing its constructive participation in the intergovernmental negotiations process at the next session in order to further broaden the areas of convergence and narrow the areas of divergence.

“We hope all member states and groups will demonstrate similar flexibility. If so, we can reach agreement on Security Council reform in the near future,” he said.

However, Ambassador Akram expressed surprise at the reference in the Assembly president’s letter forwarding the draft decision and “encouraging” the member states to move gradually towards “text-based negotiations”.

He said that this advice was gratuitous and it did not reflect the consensus or even a majority sentiment within the UN membership. “It is beyond the PGA’s [president of General Assembly] mandate to convey such advice,” he added.

“We see this only as an expression of your personal view which has no bearing on the continuing work of the IGN [intergovernmental negotiations],” Ambassador Akram said in remarks aimed at the UNGA President Abdulla Shahid, who is from Maldives.

“Any precipitate move to move to so-called ‘text-based negotiations’ will lock in positions and accentuate differences and freeze, if not reverse the progress we have made in expanding areas of convergence.”

Express Tribune

 

[daytrader]

Pakistan blocks Indian bid to get permanent UNSC seat
Pakistan has insisted on a definite period of UNSC permanent membership and its election after every two or five years

NEW YORK: Pakistan blocked Indian attempt to win permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and New Delhi also lacked support of even half of the required number of states at the global forum.

India’s dream of becoming a permanent member of the UNSC dashed as Pakistan’s stance was accepted by the global forum for the continuation of debate on the criteria of the membership.

Pakistan has opposed the awarding of UNSC’s permanent membership to India. Pakistan has insisted on a definite period of UNSC permanent membership and its election after every two or five years.

Pakistan gave its stance that India has always violated the UNSC resolutions. India lacks getting a two-third majority in the UN Charter, whereas, the Indian group also loses the backing of the United States (US), say media reports.

Moreover, India has also failed to meet the criteria for becoming a UNSC permanent member despite claiming to be a secular and strong economy.

India needs the support of 129 member states for becoming a permanent member. Diplomatic sources said that New Delhi has even failed to get the support of even half of the required number of states.

Sources added that Pakistan’s stance was supported by the Arab League and the African Union. Earlier in April, Pakistan had underscored the need for flexibility to achieve the required consensus among all United Nations member states to overcome the stalemate in the long-running negotiations to restructure the UN Security Council.

“The admittedly slow pace of progress in Security Council reform is not due to any deficiency in the process or procedures,” Ambassador Munir Akram said Wednesday in a resumed session of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) aimed at making the 15-member Council more effective, representative and accountable.

The reason, he added, was “the inflexibility in the positions of a few individual states which have come into these negotiations with a pre-determined end goal of fulfilling their national ambitions to secure an elevated and privileged position within the Security Council, regardless of the principle of sovereign equality of states”, obviously referring to the relentless campaign by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, known as G-4, for permanent seats in an expanded Council.

Full-scale negotiations to reform the Security Council began in the General Assembly in February 2009 on five key areas, the categories of membership, the question of veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged Security Council, and working methods of the council and its relationship with the General Assembly.

Progress towards restructuring the Security Council remains blocked as India, Brazil, Germany and Japan continue pushing for permanent seats in the Council, while the Italy/Pakistan-led Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group firmly opposes any additional permanent members.

As a compromise, UfC has proposed a new category of members, not permanent members, with longer duration in terms and a possibility to get re-elected.

The Security Council is currently composed of five permanent members; Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, and 10 non-permanent members elected to two-year terms.

The News PK

 

[daytrader]

Pakistan opposes UNSC membership to India: Bilawal
Bilawal said that Pakistan opposes any reforms that expand the United Nations Security Council to bring India into the fold

WASHINGTON: Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said on Thursday that Pakistan opposes any reforms that expand the United Nations Security Council to bring India into the fold.

Pakistan’s UN mission and its allies have worked to foil such efforts repeatedly and even quite recently as well, the foreign minister said adding that the UN reforms are a possibility but expanding the Security Council membership would not be a correct reform.

Addressing a press conference at the Pakistan Embassy, Bilawal also said climate crisis would be one issue where Pakistan would be willing to work with India and other countries. He said that the 10 climate stressed nations should become one voice to press developed countries to form a green financing mechanism.

Responding to a question about forming a regional bloc for the purpose, the foreign minister said, “With all the caveats that I have already given, principally it’s right, that on climate change issue we should work together. When I urge the US and China to work together on this, I should have the moral strength to admit that whatever the differences, India and Pakistan should work together on this topic too.”

He further said, “We have difficulties, we don’t have a reciprocal partner over there, August 2019 has made it impossible for us to engage, a whole host of reasons, but if there is any one area where on a principal basis, not only Pakistan and India -- but other powers and other countries that don’t necessarily get along -- this is perhaps the one issue that we should regardless of everything else be working towards combating [climate change], because whatever have seen, what we have experienced, I would not wish this upon my worst enemy.”

Bilawal said that Imran Khan government’s policies had hurt Pakistan, its people and its foreign policy but over the last six months the country’s relations with other countries, including the US, had significantly improved.

He said that Imran Khan’s demands were not about restoring democracy or that civil supremacy should prevail, his demands had been that the establishment should not play its constitutional role but a controversial role to bring him back into power.

Referring to the cipher message that was sent from the Pakistani Embassy here that Imran Khan later termed “foreign conspiracy to topple his government”, the foreign minister said that Asad Majeed, the former ambassador to the US, was merely doing his job by sending a telegram, whereas it was Imran Khan who did an irresponsible thing.

“I expect my ambassadors to tell me facts, and they should have confidence that whatever they’re reporting through telegram communication would remain classified and secret between the ministry and embassy,” Bilawal said, adding when Imran Khan is at fault and punishing Asad Majeed would be unfair.

Earlier, Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in a meeting with Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, lauded the US assistance for flood relief, saying that magnitude of the disaster necessitated sustained and long-term cooperation.

The foreign minister shared with Chairman Menendez impact of the devastation caused by the floods. He underscored that it was a compound crisis with humanitarian, health, food security and economic dimensions.

He urged personal leadership of Chairman Menendez in mobilising support in the US Congress, which historically had stood by the people of Pakistan during such natural disasters. The foreign minister said that the flood crisis provided an opportunity to Pakistan to build back better, greener and resilient infrastructure.

Given the huge investment required, Pakistan viewed the US government and private sector as important partners in this task. Chairman Menendez conveyed his condolences and sympathies to the people and the Government of Pakistan on the devastation caused by the floods.

He assured his support in enabling Pakistan to overcome this challenge. He said the 75th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic ties between Pakistan and the US was an important milestone.

Both countries had achieved a lot working together. Chairman Menendez praised the Pakistani diaspora’s role in strengthening Pakistan-US ties. He underscored the importance of Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s regular engagement with the foreign minister.

Both sides also discussed peace and stability in the region, including Afghanistan, Indian repression in IIOJK and its illegal actions of August 5, 2019. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari in a meeting with Senator James Risch, Ranking Member US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, highlighted the ongoing devastating impact of the floods in Pakistan, which resulted in more than one-third of the country being submerged in water.

The floods affected 33 million people, more than the population of Australia, the foreign minister stressed. Appreciating the $66.1 million US assistance, he highlighted “Pakistan needs much more as initial estimates indicate damages of more than $30 billion.”

The foreign minister underscored the challenges being faced by the affected population, including impending health catastrophes, particularly outbreaks of malaria, dengue and water-borne diseases in the affected population, food insecurity and more.

He emphasised Pakistan is a victim of climate change despite being minimally responsible for greenhouse emissions. Pakistan is committed to building back better and greener climate resilient infrastructure but the scale of calamity necessitated international support, Bilawal said and added that the US Congress had historically stood by Pakistan in natural disasters and urged continuing cooperation.

Referring to people in waist-deep waters searching for signs of their devastated towns, the senator empathised with the foreign minister on the devastation wreaked by the floods. Both sides also discussed regional issues, including the need for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. The foreign minister invited the senator to visit Pakistan to witness the first-hand impact of the floods.

The News PK

 

[MenInG]

Pakistan has made a strong case against creating new permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, saying an increase in the number of non-permanent members would make the 15-member body more representative, democratic and effective.

“The only criteria for Security Council membership set out in the UN Charter is for the election of non-permanent members,” Pakistan Ambassador to UN Munir Akram told delegates when the deadlocked Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) aimed at restructuring the Council resumed on Thursday.

The Pakistani envoy also underscored the need for flexibility to achieve the required consensus among all UN member states to overcome the stalemate in the reform negotiations.

“Unfortunately, consensus on Security Council reform has been impeded, from the outset, by the demand of four countries that they be selected as new permanent members in an expanded Security Council,” he said, referring to the relentless campaign by India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, known as the Group of Four, for elevated status.

“Their demand violates the principle of sovereign equality of States; it ignores the reality that permanent membership and the veto are often the cause of the Council's inaction,” Ambassador Akram said.

Full-scale negotiations to reform the Security Council began in the General Assembly in February 2009 on five key areas – the categories of membership, the question of veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged Security Council, and working methods of the council and its relationship with the General Assembly.

Progress towards restructuring the Security Council remains blocked as G-4 countries continue pushing for permanent seats in the Council, while the Italy/Pakistan-led Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group firmly opposes any additional permanent members.

As a compromise, UfC has proposed a new category of members – not permanent members -- with longer duration in terms and a possibility to get re-elected.

The Security Council is currently composed of five permanent members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – and 10 non-permanent members elected to two-year terms.

In his remarks, Ambassador Akram drew attention to UfC proposal for a 26-seat Council, with the additional seats being distributed proportionally among the five regions.

As regards the criteria for Security Council membership, as set out in the UN Charter, is the members' contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security as well as the other purposes of the Organization, it was pointed out.

“The four seeking permanent membership have not really distinguished themselves by their contributions to peace and security in the ‘contemporary world’,” Ambassador Akram said.

In the current war in Ukraine, apart from the parties directly involved, the State which has contributed the most to promoting a peaceful solution is Turkey, he said, adding, “In the Afghanistan conflict, apart from the parties directly concerned, the country which made the most significant contributions to peace and dialogue, and in addressing the humanitarian fallout, is Pakistan.”

The four – India, Brazil, Germany and Japan – were largely “missing in action,” the Pakistani envoy remarked.

“One of the four States seeking permanent membership has repeatedly refused to declare that it is committed to implement the resolutions of the Security Council,” Ambassador Akram said, referring to India.

“Indeed, it has - through force and fraud - prevented, for 75 years, the implementation of the Security Council resolutions demanding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir,” the Pakistani envoy said. “Instead,” he added, “it (India) has embarked on a campaign of massive oppression and human rights violations to deny the recognized right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination.”

These remarks drew a response from India.

Indian delegate Pratik Mathur, speaking in exercise of his right of reply, said that Pakistan's reference to Jammu and Kashmir was “unwarranted”, and claimed that the disputed territory was an integral and inalienable part of India.

Pakistani delegate Bilal Chaudhry countered by saying that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral or inalienable part of India, nor has it ever been, adding that the Indian claim was “factually incorrect.”

Through several resolutions, he said, the Security Council has recognized Jammu and Kashmir as disputed territories where a final disposition will be determined through a free and impartial plebiscite under the Organization's auspices.

India’s continued assertions negate the principle of the right of self-determination and are a direct affront to the Charter and the Council, said Chaudhry, a counselor in the Pakistan Mission to the UN.

“We wonder how India, who is seeking permanent membership, will add to the effectiveness and transparency of the Council when India has blatantly proven over the last 74 years that it could not care less about the Council's resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir,” he added.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2387101/pakistan-pushes-to-increase-non-permanent-un-members