September 24, 2003	Wednesday	Rajab 26, 1424

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

ISLAMABAD, Sept 23: Pakistan is opposed to expansion of the 15-member United Nations Security Council in the permanent category and believes India does not qualify to be a member in this category.

Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan told Dawn on Tuesday: “We do not support expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council,” adding: “No new centre of privilege should be created in the UNSC.”

He was asked to comment on a statement by Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha last week urging reform of the UNSC and advocating India’s case for permanent status.

Referring to India’s size, its importance and role in international affairs, Mr Sinha said enlargement of the Security Council ought to be an “urgent” priority. “This is an issue which should be seriously discussed in the UN and a view taken,” he was quoted as saying in an interview with AFP.

Rejecting India’s plea for a permanent seat in the Security Council, Mr Masud Khan said Pakistan’s position was very clear on this. “Pakistan believes India does not qualify to be a permanent member of the council as it has violated dozens of UN Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.”

India’s External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha made a renewed call for UNSC reform the other day and argued that India deserves a seat in the permanent category.

He pointed out, however, that Pakistan favoured reform and expansion of the non-permanent membership to make the Security Council more representative. “The Security Council can be expanded in the non-permanent category to make it more representative and more democratic. Such a step will give the developing countries a great say in the decision-making process of the Security Council.”

Mr Khan emphasised that any reform of the UNSC should be based on the principle of sovereign equalities of states and equitable geographic representation.

India’s claim for a permanent seat on the basis of its size and population is not seen as a convincing argument by observers who point to other big countries who could take the same plea. Analysts believe all these issues are at an academic stage right now and say that these are not serious issues for the West.

“The existing UNSC P-5 (permanent five members) are really not focused on this issue and certainly the United States would not want to deal with another veto power,” remarked an Islamabad-based diplomat.

The five permanent members of the Security Council are China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States.

When Dawn asked the ambassador of China, Zhang Chunxiang, last week about the prospects of the Security Council’s expansion in the permanent category, he was very clear that it is not about to happen in the near future. “Not for another 10 years,” is how he put it, pointing to the sharp differences among the interested parties on this complex question.

A UN General Assembly’s open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform was set up in 1993, to review key questions including the expansion and veto power. Apparently the push came from Japan and Germany, which are also vying for council seats in the permanent category. However, no consensus has emerged on the reform so far because of regional rivalries and clear divergence of views.