China to share notes with Pakistan on India's efforts for UN Security Council seat

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan calls for increasing UNSC's non-permanent members​

UNITED NATIONS (updated on: July 08, 2010, 18:59 PST): Pakistan has called for increasing the number of non-permanent members of the UN Security Council in an effort to balance the power of five veto-wielding countries, while pointing out the difficulties in abolishing that power.

"Our proposals (on balancing the veto power) have been made in full knowledge of an unfortunate reality that any proposal to abolish or severely restrict veto is itself likely to be vetoed," Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon told a closed-door session of the General Assembly on reforming and expanding the 15-member council aimed at making it more representative and more effective.

"Increased number of the elected non-permanent members will tilt the balance away from the permanent members," he said during a discussion on reforming the veto right.

Full-scale negotiations to restructure the Security Council began in the General Assembly in February last year on five key areas -- the categories of membership, the question of veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged Security Council, and working methods of the council and its relationship with the 192-member assembly.

Diplomats said delegates taking part in the discussion expressed differing opinions on the blocking power of the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. As the main allies against Germany and Japan in World War Two, the five received permanent seats on the council with veto rights.

The five later acquired special status as official nuclear weapons states under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty.

India, Germany, Japan and Brazil are aspiring to become new permanent member of the Security Council in expanded Security Council.

In his well-reasoned speech, Ambassador Haroon said Pakistan and its allies have made practical proposals that steer through the emotional idealism of many Member States opposed to the concept and practice of veto. "Similarly, these proposals also soften the blow of the blunt realism of a select few Member States, who view veto as an indispensable tool for working of the United Nations System."

"In our view, the most effective and feasible way of balancing the power of veto is to increase the number of elected members of the Security Council, the Pakistan envoy added. "Accordingly, the burden of vetoing a resolution will increase markedly for a permanent member".

Similarly, he said, in an enlarged Council, a higher number of affirmative votes would be required to pass a resolution. If the council is expanded to 26 members, 16 affirmative votes would be required to pass a resolution. With a higher ratio, the affirmative votes required could be 17 or 18. "This is where the blocking power of veto can be balanced, not by another undemocratic veto, but by the combined weight of 8 or 9 or more non-permanent members of the Council who may decide to act together in collective interest".

In terms of empowering the developing world, Ambassador Haroon said this would be a situation where for example Africa with its 6 or 7 seats, Asia with an equal number and Latin America with its own can have a real say in decision making in the Council.

"Going further, a concrete way of preserving collective interests is to reach an understanding, and preferably a Charter amendment, which would require concurrence of all members of a region for adoption of any resolution relating to that region," he said.

"This may be of particular interest to Africa: We believe that such an arrangement will also be in step with the increasing emphasis being laid in recent years in the Council for adopting unified and consensus decisions for greater legitimacy and effectiveness."

Copyright APP (Associated Press of Pakistan), 2010

Pakistan calls for increasing UNSC's non-permanent members : Business Recorder | LATEST NEWS

======

Very timely article and comments in terms of addressing Pakistan's position on the issue, and it is a very principled position and one that actually reflects 'reform and progress' at the UN, instead of a regression and further increase in 'elitism' and the perpetuation of an international 'Caste System'.

 

[Fighter488]

Pak out to thwart India​

Anirudh Bhattacharyya, Hindustan Times



As the saying goes, it’s déjà vu all over again. As India tries to seek a compromise formula for early expansion of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Pakistan, fearing that India could become a permanent member, is attempting to thwart that initiative. If seats in the permanent category are increased, India is among the favourites to occupy one of them.

However, Pakistan, acting through the group Uniting for Consensus or UFC, is attempting to stymie the process of addition of permanent seats.

On Wednesday, India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Hardeep Singh Puri reiterated the position that the thorny issue of new permanent members getting the veto could be resolved by postponing it for a review later.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly, Puri said that the proposal was that “the new permanent members shall not exercise the right of veto until the question of the extension of the right of veto to new permanent members has been decided upon in the framework of the review mandated 15 years after the entry into force of the Council reform.”

This was an affirmation of the position adopted by the G-4 countries – India, Germany, Japan and Brazil.

While this part of India’s efforts to build on the momentum in favour of UNSC reform through acceptable compromises, Pakistan is one of a handful of nations that does not want to see the number of permanent seats increased.

Instead, Pakistan has proposed that rather than adding permanent seats, the number of non-permanent seats be increased from the present 10 to 20, bringing the size of the Council to 25 including the five permanent members that already exist.

That proposal also envisages that seven of the 20 non-permanent seats be of longer duration than the two-year terms that are in place.​

Obviously, India has not taken kindly to this obstructionist tactic.

Speaking at the General Assembly recently, Ambassador Puri was candid about what he thought of Pakistan’s position.

He said, “My distinguished colleague from Pakistan seems to believe that having more permanent members would make the Council more opaque and elitist! I also heard other arguments stating that only a smaller number would make an effective Council. If we were to carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion, the Council would be at its effective best when it has only one member!”

There may be a sense of chagrin within the Indian camp as the negotiating document that will form the framework for reform of the Council has reached an ungainly 32 pages.

India has consistently argued that the text should contain proposals that reflect the compromise view of the majority of the countries rather than outliers.

The outliers include Pakistan’s efforts to scrap expansion in the permanent category, for which it has the support of countries like Canada, Colombia and Italy.


Pak out to thwart India - Hindustan Times

 

[Fighter488]

My opinion is that instead of trying to block the permanent seat for India in UNSC, Pakistan should team up with Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia and put the case that 1.5 billion population strong OIC members, must have two permanent members with veto rights in UNSC.

This will be a better option than try to pull the leg of India. The message for Pakistan should act as being PRO-ACTIVE and forward looking than de-generative ideas with opaque policies.

My two cents!

 

[Fighter488]

Pakistan calls for increasing nonpermanent UNSC members​

* Envoy Haroon says it is an unfortunate reality that any proposal to abolish or severely restrict veto is itself likely to be vetoed

UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan has called for increasing the number of non-permanent members of the UN Security Council in an effort to balance the power of five veto-wielding countries, while pointing out the difficulties in abolishing that power.

“Our proposals (on balancing the veto power) have been made in full knowledge of an unfortunate reality that any proposal to abolish or severely restrict the veto is itself likely to be vetoed,” Pakistani Envoy to UN Abdullah Hussain Haroon told a closed-door session of the UN General Assembly on reforming and expanding the 15-member council aimed at making it more representative and more effective.

“Increased number of the elected non-permanent members will tilt the balance away from the permanent members,” he said during a discussion on reforming the veto right.

Full-scale negotiations to restructure the council began in the UN General Assembly in February, last year on five key areas — the categories of membership, the question of the veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged security council, and working methods of the council and its relationship with the 192-member assembly.

In his well-reasoned speech, Ambassador Haroon said Pakistan and its allies have made practical proposals that steer through the emotional idealism of many member states opposed to the concept and practice of veto. “Similarly, these proposals also soften the blow of the blunt realism of a select few member states, who view veto as an indispensible tool in the UN working system.” “In our view, the most effective and feasible way of balancing the power of veto is to increase the number of elected members of the council,” the Pakistani envoy said. “Accordingly, the burden of vetoing a resolution will increase markedly for a permanent member”, he added.

Similarly, he said, in an enlarged council, a higher number of affirmative votes would be required to pass a resolution. If the council is expanded to 26 members, 16 affirmative votes would be required to pass a resolution.

With a higher ratio, the affirmative votes required could be 17 or 18. “This is where the blocking power of veto can be balanced, not by another undemocratic veto, but by the combined weight of eight or nine or more non-permanent members of the council who may decide to act together in collective interest,” the envoy said.​

In terms of empowering the developing world, Ambassador Haroon said this would be a situation where, for example Africa, with its six or seven seats, Asia with an equal number and Latin America with its own can have a real say in decision making in the council. “Going further, a concrete way of preserving collective interests is to reach an understanding, and preferably a charter amendment, which would require concurrence of all members of a region for adoption of any resolution relating to that region,” he said. “This may be of particular interest to Africa... with an increasing emphasis being laid on... adopting unified and consensus decisions for greater legitimacy and effectiveness.” app


Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Ishan]

Pakistan Efforts Might not Succeed Too Far... India truly Desreves to get in UNSC Permanent Seat along with other G-4 Nations..This is Just Temporary Phase

 

[Ishan]

Pakistan Factor will not at All Matter So Much

Russia , UK, Germany , France all Have Promised Definate Support for Permanent Seat.. China will Obviously not Vote in Favour of India just like they tried in the Nuclear Deal Case But We Still got Through

America's Support is Very Crucial .And Thts wht we shud Hope For

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

“My distinguished colleague from Pakistan seems to believe that having more permanent members would make the Council more opaque and elitist! I also heard other arguments stating that only a smaller number would make an effective Council. If we were to carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion, the Council would be at its effective best when it has only one member!”

That is a poor argument, and the Indian Ambassador does not address any of the arguments made by Ambassador Haroon (posted in the subsequent article). Increasing permanent members does in fact continue to make the UNSC an elitist group, with a slightly larger 'elite' - the UFC proposal of increasing the number of non-permanent members and increasing the term of membership for those members is a far better proposal for reform in that it would allow far more countries to participate in the UNSC process and have a voice, rather than just a select few permanent members.

Permanent membership and the power of veto is an 'elitist and exclusivist' position, and to merely add a handful of more nations to the permanent members is to enhance and perpetuate that elitism and 'caste system'.

As Ambassador Haroon argues, reform should be movement away from elitist positions such as permanent membership and veto for a handful.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

On the United For Consensus Group that is opposing expansion in permanent members;

Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement (nicknamed the Coffee Club) that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of the United Nations Security Council. Recently revived by Italy, it now has about 40 members aiming to counter the G4 nations' bids for permanent seats. The leaders are Italy, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina and South Korea.[2]

...

Some of the members of the Uniting For Consensus group are:

- Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil
- Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany (wishing for a seat for the whole European Union)
- South Korea - opposed to a bid for Japan
- Pakistan - opposed to a bid for India
- Canada - opposed in principle to expansion not achieved by consensus or near-consensus


Uniting for Consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


========
If giving various regions a 'voice' in the UNSC is the issue, then increasing rotating seats from those regions (for example 5 from South America, 5 from Asia, 5 from Africa, etc.) is a far more representative proposal, in which only one nation will not have the ability to protect its interests and thwart those of others, as would be the case with the increase in permanent membership.

 

[prototype]

On the United For Consensus Group that is opposing expansion in permanent members;

Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement (nicknamed the Coffee Club) that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of the United Nations Security Council. Recently revived by Italy, it now has about 40 members aiming to counter the G4 nations' bids for permanent seats. The leaders are Italy, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina and South Korea.[2]

...

Some of the members of the Uniting For Consensus group are:

- Argentina, Colombia, Mexico - opposed to a bid for Brazil
- Italy, Netherlands, Spain - opposed to a bid for Germany (wishing for a seat for the whole European Union)
- South Korea - opposed to a bid for Japan
- Pakistan - opposed to a bid for India
- Canada - opposed in principle to expansion not achieved by consensus or near-consensus


Uniting for Consensus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


========
If giving various regions a 'voice' in the UNSC is the issue, then increasing rotating seats from those regions (for example 5 from South America, 5 from Asia, 5 from Africa, etc.) is a far more representative proposal, in which only one nation will not have the ability to protect its interests and thwart those of others, as would be the case with the increase in permanent membership.

but how many of this coffee club nation oppose India directly except Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but how many of this coffee club nation oppose India directly except Pakistan

There are four countries vying to become UNSC permanent members, not just India, and the process of adding permanent members (if that is the route taken) will revolve around all four nations becoming permanent member, not just one, otherwise the remaining three would oppose the process as well.

Therefore, the opposition of the UFC nations, to one or more of the candidates for permanent membership, results in the UFC acting as a group opposing the entire process of increasing permanent membership of the UNSC, and instead proposing the reforms outlined by Ambassador Haroon in his speech posted above.

 

[Lankan Ranger]

UNSC reforms: India for compromise solution on Veto power

Pressing for UN Security Council reforms, India has suggested a compromise solution on the tricky issue of what kind of Veto power the new permanent members should hold.

The G-4 - Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - hold the view that the new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members the US, the UK, Russia, France and China.

However, the new permanent members will hold off wielding the Veto power for fifteen years after the reforms come into place.

"The new permanent members shall not exercise the right of Veto until the question of the extension of the right of Veto to new permanent members has been decided upon in the framework of the review mandated fifteen years after the entry into force of the Council reform," said Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN.

UNSC reforms: India for compromise solution on Veto power

 

[oct605032048]

Well he is just telling the truth.

Unless there is another world war, the five permanent holders in the UNSC will not allow their power to be 'diluted'. They may 'support' one or two in the four countries group but actually they are happy to see the victory of the 'coffee group' and the failure of india and her mates.

grim and ruthless as the world always is.

 

[airuah]

There are four countries vying to become UNSC permanent members, not just India, and the process of adding permanent members (if that is the route taken) will revolve around all four nations becoming permanent member, not just one, otherwise the remaining three would oppose the process as well.

Therefore, the opposition of the UFC nations, to one or more of the candidates for permanent membership, results in the UFC acting as a group opposing the entire process of increasing permanent membership of the UNSC, and instead proposing the reforms outlined by Ambassador Haroon in his speech posted above.

yup there it is the only nation thet is weary of india is pakistan.....


though i agree that all four nations want to be permanent members and hence you have to look collectively....no one has strictly proposed the expansion of the SC to be limited to or be exactly increased by 4....which means the SC can be increased to any number based on consensus...just because the four nations are vying
together for a SC expansion does not mean the rest of the world would vote for increasing the SC by 4 or none.....that exactly means that india has the possibility of getting in even if the other nations do not.....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

just because the four nations are vying
together for a SC expansion does not mean the rest of the world would vote for increasing the SC by 4 or none.....that exactly means that india has the possibility of getting in even if the other nations do not.....

The rest of the world could possibly support a larger number (than 4) of nations being made permanent members, but if any of the four nations currently vying for permanent membership is left out, it will likely oppose the process. The only reason these nations are supporting expansion in permanent membership is because they are benefiting from it, why would they support India's bid alone if they are left out? They stand the best chance of becoming permanent members if they negotiate it as part of the 'UNSC reform' collectively, not individually.

Just adding one more permanent member to the UNSC is not 'reform', which is what this entire process in the UNSC is about, so you won't have just one State being made a permanent member.

 

[navtrek]

go google it and u will see india supported china for the un seat is a myth or rather is just a indian fabricated lie

ha ha not true i can give u credible links and books but its of no use and off-topic so lets be happy with whatever we believe is true