Pakistan opposes creation of permanent seats on expanded UNSC
35
UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan has reaffirmed that it opposes the creation of new permanent seats as it is contrary to the universally agreed principles of democracy, accountability and transparency.
Pakistan’s UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi told the UN General Assembly on the “Question of Equitable Representation in the membership of Security Council” on Friday that the Council needed to be expanded in the category of elected seats, i.e., the non-permanent seats.
This would allow more representation from member states, which had become necessary in view of the increase in UN membership since the council was last expanded, Pakistan’s envoy said.
Also read: Pakistan urges world to take notice of Shiv Sena activities
She said: “Pakistan distinguishes between the demands motivated by selfish ambitions and the collective demand of an entire continent. In this regard, we have always respected the African Common Position, the Ezulwini consensus and the Sirte Declaration”.
It was a reference to the African continent which is not represented on a permanent basis on the 15-member council.
Published in Dawn, October 31st, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
Read more
On DawnNews
Comments (35) Closed
Oct 31, 2015 07:37am
Pakistan opposes creation of permanent seats on expanded UNSC
Unless Pakistan is included as permanent member with veto rights
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 07:58am
What is the use of UN when it cannot resolve the world issues? It is become a political battle ground for 2nd grade nations. The the big ones move on their own and seldom do they need an OK from the UN. Most leading economies of the world have used UN as a 2nd track diplomacy. Keeping people on tax payers money at UN does not make any economic sense.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 08:07am
india will joing unsc as permanent member with veto rights within couple of years
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 08:25am
It is a old quote that nobody can stop an idea whose time has come. Therefore when time will be ripe and right this will automatically happen. At that time it will be felt that it was not coveted but deserved.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 08:32am
Bravo Maleeha Lodhi, you are spot on.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 08:53am
I think the current 5 permanent seats should be abolished too. This veto business is junk.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 08:54am
@auginpk well said!!
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 09:02am
Well whenever the time ripe and whoever becomes the permanent member, Pakistan should resist anymore expansion of UNSC in principle as much as it can. UNSC even in its current form is undemocratic and feudalist organisation. Every country who is member of UN should have an equal right and value of their vote.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 09:06am
"selfish ambitions" covers it all.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 09:24am
@rish Yes, I agree. But that is not going to happen. The current 5 permanent members are never going to vacate their power. It is very difficult to fire yourself. The next option is to add new 5 permanent members based on many attributes and a minimum of 2 permanents votes are needed for effecting a veto, as against current 1.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 09:27am
India and 3 others asking for permanent seats should just quite the UN. They are not contributing anything to the world and nobody would miss them at UN. P-5 is really running the world and P-5 can talk to them at G-20 summits and other regional meetings.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 09:49am
@vijay salem not so!
Old quotes are often outdated
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 09:51am
@YS-USA sounds like a winner!
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:03am
UNSC should either change or perish. New powers like India, Germany, Japan would start ignoring UNSC if it remains unchanged.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:06am
@YS-USA Stay with facts. India is on of the largest contributor of peace keeping forces in the UN
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:14am
within next 3-4 years germany,japan and india will join unsc with veto rights.if these 3 new powers are not in unsc will have no relevance
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:19am
Bravo Madam Maleeha, keep it up, don't look towards Islamabad, till PML-N is at the Helm.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:42am
permenent seats should be totally removed it is dictator mentallity
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:48am
@manav UNSC veto power is symbol of status only. On the ground realities veto has done nothing to forestall an undesirable events for long, even for the super powers. US engaged in Iraq against UNSC resolutions. India is denying right of self determination against UNSC resolutions. UNSC is the soft cover for the real power at its back, when the real power has a divergent agenda, then the the soft cover of UNSC resolutions is made irrelevant. The purpose of veto power was to provide the real power a mechanism of face saving through peaceful means. India or any country would be given this status if they become real power (in terms of the size of economy, military and regional sphere of influence.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:50am
@rish The veto business avoids friction on ground between the states concerned.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 10:57am
If UNSC is Democratic then the voice of 1.25 billion people with a 2 trillion economy should be heard.
I think in about 5-8 yrs India will be a permanent member.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 11:06am
The word " permanent members " doesn't mean permanent peace for the entire world. It only means permanent bullying. This is what the so called big five have been doing for decades.
UNO has always been a dummy organisation dancing to the tunes of the so called big five nations. If at all UNO should play a proper role, the veto power should be completely abolished in U.N Security Council. The decisions should be purely taken on the basis of majority voting and not purely depend upon the whims and fancy of a few nations.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 11:31am
If population was the only factor in choosing members to the SC then there should be atleast 2-3 Muslim states once it is expanded (if it is) to 10 members....those 3 ... then one can think of giving one seat to India....however, this veto business is crap to begin with....this is not an autonomous, independent and fair body of all nations unless this veto right things is abolished!
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 11:36am
@YS-USA Indians constitute largest portion in UN Peace keeping force.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:02pm
@think_then_speak
india is worlds largest democracy,with 2.3 trillion dollar economy only behind usa and china with more than 1/6th of the worlds population living in india.if india is not there in unsc unsc will does not have any importance.un has also understood this recently and initaed the task of including 2-3 members.tou should also not forget that india was first offered unsc permammenent seat by usa/russia/eu but nehru made a mistake and askes them to give it to china.in that way china got seat courtesy india.but this india is demanding the seat based on its capability and not asking any favour.india will get it sooner.it is just a matter of time.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:06pm
@YS-USA, very strange observation - you mean Germany, Japan, India and Brazil do not contribute to world's economy and the system it runs! Think of the world in today's context the world system minus these countries and its supporters..... The result is no UN.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:11pm
a veto by UNSC permanent member should be over riden by two third members of UNGA and any matter concerning PERMANENT members veto should not be allowed
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:22pm
If india joins the Big 5 of the Security council it will be like the Big three of ICC.Look where that has gone.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:26pm
Veto power to P-five is derogatory of the very principles of UN. It is shameful of it to get hostage to five bullies in this age of so-called democracy.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:36pm
UN expansion is inevitable.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 12:59pm
There is a dire need of reforms in UNSC. Doesn't it ironical that the states who laud for values such as democracy, equality and fair justice are found backers of this 5-member hegemonic council? Isn't it a sheer injustice to continents like Africa and South America having no representation? UNSC should be attributed to democracy: more admission of non-permanent members will ensure greater representation. Furthermore, Indian will remain deprive of permanent seat until and unless it doesn't come to have Chinese and Pakistani endorsement.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 01:29pm
This very undemocratic body is a hostage of the American and it's European stooges. There should be no permanent seats for anyone. All issues should be decided on consensus.
Recommend
0
Oct 31, 2015 07:11pm
Concerned, if they contribute so much, let them start their own rival UN and many countries opposed to p-5 will join them.
Recommend
0
Nov 01, 2015 08:36am
UK and France's seats at the UNSC should be replaced by a combined EU seat. India should not even request UN Security council permanent membership, the big five will need to bestow the same to India voluntarily on the basis of Indian economy hitting more than 5 trillion within 3-5 years and ten trillion within 2025.
Recommend
0
Nov 01, 2015 08:20pm
Stupid debating club which resolutions of un have been honored
Recommend
0
