UNITED NATIONS: India, an aspirant for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), says the 15-member body is "completely out of tune on what is happening in the world", while pushing for its expansion.
"I have absolutely no doubt that the Council, as it is presently structured, serves no one's purpose... You need to coop other countries which carry weight," Ambassador Hardeep Sing Puri of India, which holds the Security Council's presidency for November, told a press conference at which he briefed journalists about it's programme for the month.
India's intensive bid for the Council's permanent membership seems to have come to a halt - at least for the time being - after failing to muster majority support in the 193-member General Assembly. Even a year after claiming it had the support of 80 members for its proposals to restructure it, New Delhi has failed to enact it.
The figure given by India is also well short of the two-third majority -- 128 votes - required for any proposal to succeed in the Assembly. India's two-year term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council would end at the end of the current year.
From his national perspective, Puri said there was a need to enlarge the size of the Council, given changes in the international community, advocating permanent seats for Africa, South America, and Asia. He said some of the Council's permanent members would find it "extremely difficult to justify their place on a new high table."
The Security Council currently has five veto-wielding permanent members - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.
Puri said the veto could be retained, but a discussion was needed for some sort of agreement on restraint of its use, particularly in situations when genocide was threatened and the Council was deadlocked. "There could be a veto restraint agreement."
Pakistan, which along with Italy leads the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, opposes any addition to the Council's permanent members, but seeks enlargement of the non-permanent category with longer terms.
COMMENTS (16)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713421519-0/BeFunky-collage-(4)1713421519-0-270x192.webp)
@Dr Priyanka: @Mr X from Bombay: I am sure and apparently there are no any peaceful solutions being seen to resolve Kashmir issue in the future thru peace talks and negotiations between Pakistan and India.
@Dr Priyanka: @Blithe : Pakistanis always go mum when we point out that Pakistan has violated all the UN resolution on kashmir 1. Disagreed to withdraw army 2. Did not maintain the demography. The curent major population in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is Punjabis and Sindhis rather than original Kashmiris. 3. It gifted away a disputed territory to China
So what right moral or practical does Pakistan have to ask for UN resolution on Kashmir. Pakistan should just leave Kashmir and let Kashmiris have some peace.
@Blithe: " ... India is in violation of UN resolutions . She should first stop occupation of Kashmir . ... "
Still talking of Kashmir ? The de-Islamisation/secularisation of Pakistan Project is in progress.
@Blithe: Kashmir is flourishing now. By the way what are you doing with the Pakistan occupied Kashmir. What kind of development is going on there? let us know? If you cant develop it give it back to us. And also we believe that you people have gifted a part of the illegally occupied Kashmir to China?
The whole UN serves no purposes. How much goals it has achieved for which it was formed?
All security council permanent members have committed genocides in their own countries and now veto rights of other nations. these five nations responsible for genocide of Palestinians and Bosnians. shame.India wants to be part of this elite group to give herself an unfair advantage.Veto the veto right.
This is only because India has not become the permanent member of UNCS yet.........
Mr. Puri said there was a need to enlarge the size of the Council - Its need of the time because present set up has become abusive, absolute n favors mainly five states as if they are the only ones with right to live n dictate their will on, rest of the world. Idea to add India (in same capacity) would be worse. Because, India's own record is not at par to hold such a veto power. Surely, there are many other countries who could be better qualified.
"Pakistan, which along with Italy leads the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, opposes any addition to the Council’s permanent members" -: After all, the sole identity of Pakistan is being anti-India, EVEN if it involves sacrificing its own interests!! Instead of lobbying for a permanent seat for its own, Pakistan is lobbying against Indian!
It was a Christian (Traditional and Orthdox) club of countries. That is why there are 1 billion Muslims but no seats nor veto in UNSC.
UN wont last in coming years since Israel will move to Greater Israel and the world wont accept it so US will walk out and UN will be disbanded.
India should better concentrate on Russian, Chinese alliance if it is serious and distance itself from NATO, Israel and US.
The United Nations was made only for powerful nations who solve issues when it concerns them the most. India is just trying to cash in on this phenomena.
India is in violation of UN resolutions . She should first stop occupation of Kashmir .
Having aspirations up join UNSC should be conditional on first allowing Kashniris self determination .
Misleading headline. It appears that India's stance is that UNSC in its current form does not reflect the feelings of the majority of the world populace and should be restructured so as to stay relevant. The very fact that India wants UNSC to restructure means that it does not believe it serves no purpose - for else why bother restructuring something that serves no purpose?
India doesn't need to be bothered about UNSC. No one can dare to pass resolution against India and India doesn't need to go there for any of it's need. If we are there, then also well and good, if not, then also well and good.
The Security Council was a tool in the hands of the Western Powers France, USA, UK (FUUK), till the time Russia and China decided to use their Veto Powers to Stop the Troika from taking the cover of the Security Council to commit War Crimes. Expanding the Security Council will not solve the problem. Disbanding it might ! The whole UN has become a joke. Since the late 1980's it has stood by while millions are being continuously butchered around the third world.