“The only way to move forward is to explore a compromise solution that reflects the interests of all member states,” said Pakistan's permanent representative to UN Masood Khan. PHOTO: PID/FILE
“We are against the creation of permanent seats and new centers of privilege,” said Khan.
Speaking at the United Nations Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Security Council Reform, Pakistani envoy said that the G-4 countries, namely Brazil, India, Germany and Japan, are the real minority, four countries, no more no less. The G-4 wants all the other countries to support their exaltation to the Council as permanent members, as they think that they are now akin to the existing P-5.
The envoy said that the G-4 thinks that “they are now rich and powerful and therefore would want to join the rich countries' elite club”.
He further alleges that, “by entering into the Council as permanent members, they also want to qualify for unwritten advantages and privileges such as overrepresentation in UN bodies, Specialised Agencies and the Secretariat.”
Accusing the G-4 for pursuing their national interests not representing the Uniting for Consensus (UfC), the envoy said that the G-4 countries are monopolizing the discourse in many forums, including this one, and creating the illusion that they are speaking on behalf of the majority or the largely disenfranchised developing countries.
“Their minority interests have been moved to the center stage and are now being peddled as majority positions,” said Khan.
Supporting the UfC’s Italy-Colombia proposal, the envoy said, “The only way to move forward is to explore a compromise solution that reflects the interests of all member states.”
The UfC’s proposal is designed to aggregate the interests of all states - small, medium-sized and large - the entire family, not the privileged few, added Khan.
Elaborating the proposal, he said that it would increase non-permanent seats; and will create long-term seats in the Council for 3 to 5 years or six years maximum through immediate re-election of the 2-year term seats.
COMMENTS (40)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Jamal: right said jamal it's better for u to forget about kashmir.
@Jamal Khan: why don't u take look at man power provided by India to UN. and whole world laugh at this "coffe club" so called UcF. India wants permanent membership because they want to extirpate terror from South Asia. and make Hegemony in as well.
@Saif: "India should have been permanent security council member from inception since it is the largest democracy and second largest in terms of population." India was offered the seat for China when the Chiang Kai-Shek regime fell to Mao Ze Dong in 1949 but a foolish man declined to take it on the basis of high principle. The same Mao Ze Dong ordered the 1962 Chinese attack on India later to take the rug from under the same "uppity" fool.
@ vicky shah..... as you care less about present life..... you think where ever or what ever happen to muslims is a western conspiracy..... you think you own 50% of world resources........ BE AWARE IT WILL NOT TAKE TOO MUCH TO BRAIN WASH YOU FURTHER FOR "THEIR" OWN SELFISH CAUSE.
@Jamal Khan:
"if India uses the population argument then where is the representative of 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide? "
India has 200 million muslims who will represent the muslim world.
@Jamal Khan - "if India uses the population argument then where is the representative of 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide?"
You guys really struggle to get the difference between 'Nation' and 'Religion', don't you? India is a nation. Muslims are not a nation. United Nations is a group of, you guessed it - Nations. Comprendez?
Also if you are so worried about Muslims representation in UN then India has 240 million Muslims, so your concern will be automatically taken care with India's representation in UN
If G-4 had Saudi Arabia instead of India, Pakistan would be all for it. So much for taking a principled stand. Permanency to UNSC should go to the nations on the basis of economy and military strength: 1. Top 10 GDPs in PPP terms 2. Top 10 military powers (a la global firepower index)
Nothing else matters. If real powers are denied their rightful dues, it will kill the UN. The claim of G-4 is very rightful as no power in the world can coerce any of these 4 nations into any submission. So its better that they find a place in permanent council.
Many people have mentioned about human rights, poverty, developing nation, internal problems etc... all these are meaningless.
As regards to UN spending and contribution is concerned, there should be a mechanism for contribution. One is where a speciafic permanent UN office is located, that nation should bear 50% of the expenditure of that office. Secondly, the contribution should be decided depending on the nature of membership like permanency in security council etc. I was about to say that GDP should be a factor but a nation with high GDP and no influence in UNSC would be a paradox and dngerous for existence of UN.
"The envoy said that the G-4 thinks that “they are now rich and powerful and therefore would want to join the rich countries’ elite club”." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well Pkaistan has its own Polio Club with Cameroon and Syria and.......
India cannot be a permanent member untill she adress all the security council,s resulutions on kashmir. Implement those resulutions nd pakistan will campain for u to be permanent member else forget it.
The UNSC status quo cannot go on for too long. Either it adapts or it weakens and dies. Society, politics, technology and all forms of life have to adapt to the changing environment.
@Aschraful Makhlooq:correction There will be no peace in the South East Asia.....
Actually behind the scenes UNO wants to become India the permanent member of UNSC this is why UNO is trying to create a new permanent seat at UNSC and in case India is declared the permanent member of UNSC there will be peace in the South East Asia and issues would never be resolved but the problems and difficulties shall be increased more and more in South East Asia.....
Outcome will be same as ICC Big three Program & then Pakistan will blame India that Our Neighbor is not Helping us. After some time It will turn towards India for support. Come on Pakistan do you really think you can stop us what we are destined for? We are trying to develop so why you are crying? You should also try.
we indians will follow you like your shadow we want oic membership also
Great thing done by Pakistan envoy. There is no need of another permanent country in UNSC.What the other veto powers had done in dispute like Kashmir, Palisteen,Minyamar. Besides this if India becomes veto power country in UNSC than forget about Kashimir.
@Nawab: In case you missed it, Russia vetoed any action by UNSC on war in Syria multiple times, so your comment about UNSC "remaining silent" is invalid!
@vicky shah: Which Islamic unity are you talking about? Where Saudi Arabia is planning to tacitly support Israel in its attack on Iraq! Where not a single country is a representative democracy! Where no country outright supports us on the Kashmir issue! Whose collective net output to humanity is nothing more than the children we produce. Muslim share of PhD’s is almost nonexistent. We lag behind in female education. Never mind education, some of our Muslim brethren are scared of the prospect of even women driving. I mean why someone would listen to a bunch of people like that. We just need to grow up here. In foreign relations it is every country for itself. And countries only pay attention to countries that are powerful. Might is definitely right in international politics. It used to be that military power mattered more than anything else but today it is increasingly financial stability and clout that makes anyone pay any attention to what you have to say. Why don't we recognize that fact and make something out of a country that clearly has the resources to become one. But no, we are waiting for our “Muslim brothers” to come to our rescue. Give me a break.
I don't see any of them getting in any time soon. Having India and Japan as permanent members would weaken China's position considerably.
None of the G-4 should be on the UNSC for various reasons.
GERMANY: Contributes 7% of UN funding. However, its E.U. state and already France & U.K., both E.U. members, are on UNSC making Europe overrepresented in UN. INDIA: Contributes only 0.6% towards UN funding and its only accomplishment is a population of 1.2 billion. BRAZIL: Contributes only 2% towards UN funding and only claim to power is its inclusion in 'BRICS' bingo word. JAPAN: Contributes 10% towards UN funding but it was an aggressor of WW2 and still hasn't owned up to its war crimes.Hence, if India uses the population argument then where is the representative of 1.7 billion Muslims worldwide? If Brazil uses the 'representative of Latin America' argument, then where is the Africa, Central Asia, and Middle East representative? Essentially all arguments by G-4 are invalid.
Its also important to note that Uniting for Consensus is supported by 120 UN members while Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Spain, and Turkey are the core members.
@Jibran:
what is the meaning of 'naqar khanay mein tootee' ?
India doesn't have toilets for 70% of its population but wants a permanent seat at UNSC? Why? Does the seat come with a attached toilet?
Humor aside, Pakistan is doing the right thing. There is no need to create new veto powers that can be abused. Look at Syria, 200,000 dead and UNSC remained silent. In Palestine, thousands have died and U.S. continues to veto everything to protect Israel. Ergo, Mo Veto, Mo Problem!
@Jibran: Your neighbours will not be on throats in the next four years. By that time, Pakistan will implode itself out for thinking Islam was made by Pakistan in 1947.
I like this envoy of ours. He knows how things work. Perception becomes fact.
It is good that he is speaking frankly. We rarely see that among Pakistanis who like to brag about diplomatic speak. Well, here is a career diplomat showing you how to speak.
@Jibran: You did not accord anything to India at ICC. There was a vote which Pakistan abstained from. Of those that voted, there was unanimous agreement to the Big 3 proposal
I thought Pakistan will agree to the UN security council expansion and then demand a seat based on the fact that its only Islamic nuclear power in the world. This play is a losers play since Pakistan is not in a position to veto the expansion.
@vicky shah:
In case you have been asleep ... Muslim unity is a myth and the vast majority of violence on this planet is Muslim on Muslim.
India don't qualify for permanent membership of Security Council due to "significant human rights problems" as reported by Human Rights Watch. They identified lack of accountability for security forces and impunity for abusive policing including "police brutality, extrajudicial killings, and torture" as major problems. In 2011, Margaret Sekaggya, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, expressed concern that she found human rights workers and their families who "have been killed, tortured, ill-treated, disappeared, threatened, arbitrarily arrested and detained, falsely charged and under surveillance because of their legitimate work in upholding human rights and fundamental freedoms. Here are the mind-boggling facts mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanrightsin_India. . Besides this India seriously need to cater issues like Poverty, Lack of proper Sanitation, Corruption, Religious violence specifically the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, Terrorism, Naxalite Maoist insurgency, Caste related violence, Dowry deaths, Health, Suicides, Domestic violence, Sexism, Rapes and Debt Bondage issues before even considering itself righteously entitled for permanent membership of Security Council which is not possible with these "Medals of Dishonors".
Failed state pakistan will never change.
pakistan is right in opposing the G4 proposal- the Italy/columbia proposal has some merit- and we should carefully examine all possibilities so as to ensure a future-proof UNSC. The current UNSC 5 members are not really the best representatives of the world- Maybe we should have a new UNSC body comprising of the top 10 countries by population and the top 10 countries by GDP at PPP prices. This list will produce about 15 members- because many of the top in the first list will also be in the top ten of the second list- These 15 members should be supplemented by the remaining 5 members- the latter 5 should be selected on a rotation basis every 3 years by region and other criteria to ensure the most perfect geographical representation. But the veto power should be abolished for even these 5 permanent members at present. No more veto-power for anyone- all decisions should be binding once the UNSC of 20 members vote for anything on a majority basis.
Why not we all Muslim countries announce a common representative from OIC and apply for permanent membership of Security Council to obliterate the monopoly of big powers?
Oh Pakistan. Always caught up in acceptance problems. All your issues begin and end with India. Please accept that you have been left far behind by India. Please understand that granting India permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council is in the best interests of the region of which Pakistan is a part. Don't be a regional menace. Let the big guys do their work.
Looks similar to the opposition of the Big 3 at the ICC, inshallah with the same result.
Aman ki aasha. We already accorded India a warm seat in ICC. What is stopping this government from not doing the same for the UN SC? After 4 more years we will notice that we are neck deep in debt, militants are in the Raiwind, and our neighbors are at our throats.
Don't see any concrete point, why this shouldn't be done. Besides Pakistan has become a naqar khanay mein tootee. I wonder why world would still listen to it.
Is this just about India that Pakistan is scared of? Why would they oppose Germany, Brazil and Japan ??