Pakistan opposes creation of new permanent seats at UNSC

[Abingdonboy]

Point 1: India is not powerful. In fact it is quite weak as it is technologically backward and relies on primarily Russia to supply its weapons. Would India dare offend Russia so badly in the UN that Russia stops all support for Russian weapons?

Point 2: It does not matter about what happened in the past - we are talking about making the security council a more effective organisation for the future. What matters is that Kashmir is internationally recognised as a disputed territory by the UN and so it would make little sense to give a party with an interest veto rights over this issue.

Let India be able to develop it's own weapons first and resolve it's dispute with Kashmir and then it will have earned the right to be a permanent member of the UN.

By "technologically backward" all you are talking about is in its indigenous weapons development and this is only a TINY part of what makes a country powerful. To call India weak is absurd.

 

[UKBengali]

By "technologically backward" all you are talking about is in its indigenous weapons development and this is only a TINY part of what makes a country powerful. To call India weak is absurd.

You have not answered my point about Russia.

A permanent member must be a truly independent state, otherwise there is no point.

 

[queerbait]

The problem is not pakistan which is a part of uniting for consensus block which opposes security council expansion, the problem is the African block which wants its members 2 to be precise along with the G4, without the african block it will be tricky to pass the resolution in general assembly.China which holds some power in africa alongwith U.S can stall the process for a long time by using or to be more accurate by not using their influence there to convince the african block to drop their demand.

 

[AugenBlick]

Permanent representative of Pakistan at the United Nations Masood Khan said that Pakistan opposes the creation new permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

“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.

Pakistan opposes creation of new permanent seats at UNSC – The Express Tribune

Lol You really think your opinion counts............

 

[Saradiel]

UNSC should be scrapped. what purpose does it serve? In UN that is supposedly to spread equility among all people, why do we need a UNSC?

 

[karan21]

Pakistan yet again shows that it one anti-progressive country and is failing to embrace the changing world power scenario. It is a country that lacks vision. It fails to recognizes the fact that if UN is reformed, being the only muslim nuclear power, Pakistan too has a strong chance to make it to the permanent UN seats. Pakistan is the ideal country to represent the Muslim nations in the UN.

But this nation is vision less and anti-progressive.

 

[HeinzG]

You have not answered my point about Russia.

A permanent member must be a truly independent state, otherwise there is no point.

That is not valid point. England and France are not truly independent as per the guidelines. Nor Russia or China is independent. Only US can be said to be truly independent.

The composition of the UN security council was created right after the WW2 to stop world powers from annihilating each other. AFAIK we should have at least something for the nuclear armed members of the UN to discuss important matters.

 

[UKBengali]

That is not valid point. England and France are not truly independent as per the guidelines. Nor Russia or China is independent. Only US can be said to be truly independent.

The composition of the UN security council was created right after the WW2 to stop world powers from annihilating each other. AFAIK we should have at least something for the nuclear armed members of the UN to discuss important matters.

England and France can produce the whole range of weapons, which means that they are not reliant on any other country for their weapons supply. France regularly pisses off the US and UK chooses to be a lapdog of US and is not forced to do it to preserve it's national security.

My question of would India dare offend Russia so much that Russia cuts off all support for the weapons it has already supplied and future procurements still stands.

Once India is no longer so reliant on Russia, then it's claim to UN security council permanent membership can arise again. Also let Indian at least feed it's people so that millions do not starve to death every year as they currently do.

 

[HeinzG]

England and France can produce the whole range of weapons, which means that they are not reliant on any other country for their weapons supply. France regularly pisses off the US and UK chooses to be a lapdog of US and is not forced to do it to preserve it's national security.

When the WW2 ended US, UK, France, Russia and China were the victorious super nations as they called themselves. That is why they chose themselves to the security council to prevent any major confrontation between the five of them. There were no other criteria to select any other country for the UN security council.

England and France may produce weapons as they desire but the real issue is that they cannot use them as they want. It was evident for England in the Suez crisis. Because they are not independent.

 

[Armstrong]

Pakistan yet again shows that it one anti-progressive country and is failing to embrace the changing world power scenario. It is a country that lacks vision. It fails to recognizes the fact that if UN is reformed, being the only muslim nuclear power, Pakistan too has a strong chance to make it to the permanent UN seats. Pakistan is the ideal country to represent the Muslim nations in the UN.

But this nation is vision less and anti-progressive.

Or maybe if you take off your tinted glasses you could actually understand what Pakistan is talking about 'Democratizing the UN' !

Every Nation should have equal voice - Equality for all....Privileges for None !

 

[nair]

- Equality for all....Privileges for None !

You sounds like a communist......

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Roughly one in every 6 human-beings is an Indian. If such a huge mass of humanity is not represented in the highest decision making body of the UN, such an organization has to be called out for what it is. A sham! If the UN wants to be a true representative of all of humanity (and not necessarily of the winners of a war), then the onus is on UN to include India in its Security Council.

India, being a responsible nation (a la in matters of non-proliferation) has earned its place at the table if there were to be one.

Even the idea of a having an elite club of 5 which decides for the rest of humanity, is a joke and so outdated as an idea. Why in the world, would you have UK and France as the top-5 when they are no longer the powers they were, when the club was formed.

If India is not given a representation that it truly deserves, I think it should simply walk out of the whole thing.