UNITED NATIONS, Oct 7: Pakistan on Tuesday called for the demoractization of the UN Security Council and declared it would continue to resist proliferation of the “centres of privilege” in the council.

“We will continue to advocate against the power of veto which robs the Security Council of democratic legitimacy,” said Pakistan’s Ambassador to the UN, Munir Akram, while addressing the General Assembly during its debate on the “work of the organization” and “implementation of the millennium declaration”.

Referring to Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s report on the situation in South Asia, in which he expressed hope that India and Pakistan would resolve their issues peacefully, Mr Akram said: “Unfortunately, such hopes have not been realized due to India’s refusal to resume dialogue with Pakistan, especially on the core issue of Kashmir.”

Saying that President Pervez Musharraf proposed from the UN rostrum an action plan for peace between the two countries, he lamented that India lost an opportunity for peace when it summarily rejected Pakistan’s action plan.

He, however, said: “We hope India would yet reflect and respond positively.”

Noting that “the crisis over Iraq has severely tested the principles of collective security in the UN”, Mr Akram said the Security Council’s refusal to authorize the use of force led some to unfair judgments about the adequacy and effectiveness of the council as the primary instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security.

“The council did not ‘fail’; in accordance with the charter, it set a high bar for the use of force,” he observed.

On the global war against terror, Mr Akram said: “The fight against terrorism has become more comprehensive. Pakistan remains in the vanguard of the global coalition confronting terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.”

He, however, warned: “At the same time, we must not allow exaggeration of this threat. There has only been one incident in Japan where a terrorist group (non-state actor) actually resorted to the use of a chemical weapon. Otherwise, (the) WMDs have been used only by states and by state-terrorism. For the most part, the terrorism of non-state actors is perpetrated with varied and mostly conventional methods. Our attention must not be diverted from the fact that there are two separate dangers “terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and both must be dealt with effectively and largely separately.”