The United for Consensus group that Pakistan is a part of is proposing an expansion of the non-permanent seats in the UNSC.
While agreeing that an expansion in the size of the Security Council is an imperative of greater representation, Ambassador Lodhi argued that the representative character of an enlarged Security Council needs to be balanced against the need to maintain its efficiency and effectiveness.
“As true representation is inherently linked to active and continuous accountability, any measure of effectiveness is contingent on redressing the Council’s existing dysfunctionalities, and not reinforcing them,” she said.
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/442803-Pakistan-opposes-expansion-UN-Security-Council
I am talking about expansion of permanent seats of UNSC with veto power. NOT non-permanent seats of UNSC.
No one gives a damn for non-permanent seats of UNSC.
Only permanent seats for UNSC really matter.
@AgNoStiC MuSliM read this:
A Setback for the Prospect of UN Security Council Reform!
Yeshi Choedon
Dr. Yeshi Choedon is Professor at the Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
More from the author
August 17, 2015
The reform of UN Security Council is long overdue and serious effort towards it started officially in 1992. The first phase of the effort culminated in the World Summit of 2005, when the high hope of reaching a decision on reforming the Council was shattered mainly due to the divergence of interests among developing countries. A new phase of the initiative for expanding the Council was started by the President of General Assembly in 2007 through the establishment of a new mechanism of Intergovernmental Negotiation (IGN) on Security Council reform. After intense discussions, the IGN came out with a framework text which could be the basis of negotiations to reform the Security Council. This text was introduced in the General Assembly by its president Sam Kutesa on August 1, 2015. However, the prospect of fruitful negotiation and positive outcome in the 70th Anniversary of the United Nations received a shocking blow when the United States, China and Russia came out against it.
The demand for reform arose in the context of the Council’s post-Cold War adoption of an activist role involving the deepening and broadening of its task. In this reactivated and expanded role of the Security Council, the P-5 began to frequently meet in closed-door consultations with the aim of increasing unanimity among them, thus leading to more decisions than ever before. But this process did not involve the effective participation of the Council’s non-permanent members. Many countries, especially in the developing world, expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the Council’s unrepresentative character and the P-5’s arrogant exercise of power 5. This set the stage for member states to demand reforms that would make the Council a more representative and transparent organ reflecting the changed power configuration.
The Nonalignment Movement’s Summit of September 1992 took the issue of Security Council reform as one of its central concerns. It expressed concern “over the tendency of some states to dominate the Council” and also observed that “the veto which guarantee an exclusive and dominant role for the permanent members of the Council are contrary to the aim of democratizing the United Nations and must, therefore, be reviewed.” Nonaligned countries were determined to play a leading role in the revitalization of the UN and pressed hard to get the Council’s membership reflect the increased membership of the UN as a whole. At the same time, the demand for reform gathered greater momentum when the United States showed interest in the inclusion of Germany and Japan as permanent members of the Council, mainly for burden-sharing purposes.
Reforming the UN Security Council involved two issues:
- Expansion of membership, which required a formal amendment to the UN Charter; and
- A change in working procedure, which could be carried out without a formal amendment of the Charter.
For the last more than two decades, the issue of expansion of the Security Council membership has proved to be most controversial because it is concerned with the status and power of states in the international system. The five permanent members do not want to share or dilute their clout by including new permanent members. At the same time, some countries are intent upon preventing their regional rivals from gaining the coveted permanent seat at the high table of the most powerful global political institution. Indeed, any talk of including new permanent members has the instant ability to make regional rivalries flare up.
Because of the vast diversity of views among member states, the General Assembly established on December 3, 1993 an Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) to consider all aspects of the question. Discussions in the OEWG indicated general agreement on the need for expanding the membership of the UN Security Council. However, there was considerable disagreement on almost every aspect of the issue involved such as the future size of the Council, the categories of membership, the criteria of membership, and veto power.
The High-Level Panel to examine the whole gamut of UN reforms established in 2004 proposed the A and B models for enlargement, both of which suggested expanding the Council to 24 members. Model A proposed adding six new permanent seats, but with no veto power, and three new two-year term elected seats. Model B created a new category of eight seats, renewable every four years, and one new two-year non-renewable seat. The Secretary General had urged the members of the panel to consider the two options and take a decision on this important issue before the summit in September 2005.These alternative Models and the deadline for decision generated heated debate and further sharpened the polarization among member states. Two groups emerged, fiercely contesting each other’s position. Japan, India, Brazil and Germany came together as the Group of Four (G-4) and put forward their own proposal of reform. Initially, the G-4 proposal had favoured permanent membership with veto power. But later, it dropped the demand for veto in order to gain wider support for its proposal in the General Assembly.
The G-4’s regional rivals, informally known as the Coffee Club and later as the “Uniting for Consensus” (UfC) Group, tried to derail the G-4 proposal. They put forward a proposal favouring an increase of only the non-permanent seats. Their draft resolution called for the addition of 10 non-permanent seats and no new permanent members. Although the African group decided to oppose the veto in principle, it strongly felt that the veto should be extended to all permanent members ‘so long as it exists’. The African Union put forward its own proposal, which sought six new veto-wielding permanent members with two of these from Africa and five additional non-permanent members with again two from Africa. In total, the African Union sought a 26 member Council.
In the end, none of the three proposals was put to a vote since none had the prospect of getting passed. Thus, the high hope of reaching a decision on the expansion of the UN Security Council at the World Summit in 2005 was shattered mainly due to the divergence of interests among developing countries.
A new initiative on the expansion of the Security Council was again started by the President of the General Assembly in 2007, when she appointed five facilitators to gauge the views of member states. The facilitators suggested an interim transitional measure to bridge the gap between the proposals of the G4 and UfC. While some G4 members such as Germany and Brazil were ready to consider an interim transitional measure, India rejected it outright on the ground that any reform without expansion of permanent members is no reform. Thereafter, the discussion moved towards the need for embarking on negotiation rather than mere discussion. Under India’s leadership, the L69 group (consisting of developing countries including Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa) put forward a proposal towards the end of the 61st session of the General Assembly. The main contents of this proposal initially were:
- Expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories.
- Greater representation of developing countries, including island and small States.
- Representation of developed countries and those with transition economies reflective of the contemporary world realities.
- Comprehensive improvement in the working methods of the Security Council.
- Equitable geographical distribution.
- Provision for a review.
According to the Indian representative, the main purpose behind the L69 proposal was to generate ‘some momentum’ to an otherwise painfully slow process. The proposal met with a strong reaction and generated acrimonious exchanges among members. As a result, the L69 proposal of 2007 was withdrawn without being put to a vote. But it achieved its purpose as the General Assembly established a new mechanism of Intergovernmental Negotiation (IGN) on Security Council Reform. With that, the theatre of activity shifted from the OEW to IGN. On 25 September 2014, the G-4 Foreign Ministers said in New York that the reform process “should not be seen as an endless exercise” and appealed to all members to make the 70th anniversary of the United Nations in 2015 as the target date for reform.
Many UN member states are of the view that text-based negotiation is the best way to take the process forward. Consequently, after long and intense discussions within the IGN, the General Assembly President Sam Kutesa achieved a breakthrough of sorts by circulating a text to members that will form the basis for the negotiations. However, the prospect of smooth sailing for the reform efforts received a rude shock when Kutesa also circulated letters containing the positions of various groups and Member States. These indicated that the United States, Russia and China do not wish their own proposals to be included in the body of the negotiating text.
It is not yet a forgone conclusion that this position of the three of the five members of the P-5 would derail the prospect of fruitful negotiation in the 70th Anniversary of the United Nations. Nor is it a setback only for India, since the proposal advocates inclusion of other members as well and it is desired by other members also. The only question at the moment is whether the sponsors of the framework proposal are confident enough to insist on proceeding further with negotiations and putting the proposal to a vote. If they proceed further, that itself would be a forward movement. The concurrence of the P-5 is required only at the ratification stage. According to the UN Charter, amendments on the composition of the Security Council require the approval of two-thirds of the membership present and voting in the General Assembly. The existing permanent members of the Security Council could block it only at the stage of ratification as the Charter stipulates that any amendments have to be ratified by two-thirds of the membership, including the five permanent members, before they come into effect. Once the proposal for the expansion of the Security Council is passed in the General Assembly with an absolute majority, blocking it would involve high political cost for any member of the P-5. Doing so would mean going against the expressed desire of the majority of the members of the United Nations. Even if some members of the P-5 were to block the proposal from taking effect, the process itself would make it clear who is in which side. That would be better than endless discussion and consultation.
Dr. Yeshi Choedon is Associate Professor, Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India
Even South Korea, Italy, Mexico, Turkey, Mexico, and Canada are against UNSC permanent seat with veto power reform.
The United for Consensus group that Pakistan is a part of is proposing an expansion of the non-permanent seats in the UNSC.
While agreeing that an expansion in the size of the Security Council is an imperative of greater representation, Ambassador Lodhi argued that the representative character of an enlarged Security Council needs to be balanced against the need to maintain its efficiency and effectiveness.
“As true representation is inherently linked to active and continuous accountability, any measure of effectiveness is contingent on redressing the Council’s existing dysfunctionalities, and not reinforcing them,” she said.
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/442803-Pakistan-opposes-expansion-UN-Security-Council
Even in your own article it says Pakistan and Italy are against expansion of UNSC permanent seats with veto power.
Pakistan opposes expansion of UN Security Council by adding to a 'privileged clique'
Last Updated On
07 June,2018 11:10 am
Full-scale negotiations to restructure the Security Council began in the General Assembly in 2009.
UNITED NATIONS (APP) - Pakistan has warned the international community that any “ill-conceived reform of the Security Council would be the greatest disservice to the rules-based international order whose pivot is the U.N.”
“A large, unwieldy and inefficient Security Council, characterized by an enlarged, privileged clique, is an end-state that Pakistan neither desires, nor will ever support, ” Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi, Permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN, told the long-running Intergovernmental Negotiations aimed at reforming the 15-member body to make it more representative, efficient and effective.
Full-scale negotiations to restructure the Security Council began in the General Assembly in February 2009. Despite a general agreement on enlarging the Council, as part of the UN reform process, member states remain sharply divided over the details.
Known as the “Group of Four,” India, Brazil, Germany and Japan ” have shown no flexibility in their campaign to expand the Security Council by 10 seats, with 6 additional permanent and four non-permanent members.
On the other hand, the Italy/Pakistan-led Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group say that additional permanent members will not make the Security Council more effective and also undermine the fundamental principle of democracy that is based on periodic elections.
The Security Council is currently composed of five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — and 10 non-permanent members that are elected in groups of five to two-year terms.
While agreeing that an expansion in the size of the Security Council is an imperative of greater representation, Ambassador Lodhi argued that the representative character of an enlarged Security Council needs to be balanced against the need to maintain its efficiency and effectiveness.
“As true representation is inherently linked to active and continuous accountability, any measure of effectiveness is contingent on redressing the Council’s existing dysfunctionalities, and not reinforcing them,” she said.
Emphasizing the need to strengthen the representation of elected members on the Council, rather than emasculate their existing role, Ambassador Lodhi said that the only satisfactory outcome to meet the twin objectives of efficiency and effectiveness is through an expansion in the elected non-permanent category of seats.
Ambassador Lodhi emphasized that consensus only exists for enlarging the Council by more elected, non permanent members, adding that any claim to the contrary is a fallacy, and deserves to be treated, as such. “We can , therefore, only marvel at the ingenuity or disingenuity of those who offer solutions that reduce the margin of representation between the permanent and elected members, yet, promote them in the name of a more representative and effective Council,” she said while criticizing those member states who aspire to securing permanent seats in the Council.
Opposing any addition of permanent seats to the Council, the Pakistani envoy said that when a third of the membership has never served on the Council, such “solutions” aim to further the self interests of a few, at the expense of the many who may, in consequence, be deprived from ever serving on the Council.
Ambassador Lodhi called for reinvigorating the vital institutional relationship between the two core organs of the UN, the Security Council and the General Assembly. In this regard, she called for strengthening the Council’s accountability and transparency through greater participation and access to the work of the Security Council and its subsidiary organs by all members of the General Assembly.
“We believe that this ideal can only be achieved if democratic principles are placed at the heart of, and define, the Council’s composition”, she said while emphasizing that the best way to ensure a responsible and accountable Council is to strengthen the role and authority of the General Assembly in determining its representation in the Council.
The Council she said, can be made more broadly representative of the general membership by adding electable non-permanent seats which would reflect the interests of all member states’ small, medium and large.
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/442803-Pakistan-opposes-expansion-UN-Security-Council
Stop boring the People Iqbal. its cold outside. lets Grab some Mate tea to get the juices running the brain
This so called group of four: "Brazil, Japan, India, and Germany" will never get UNSC.
Because China will veto Japan's entry in UNSC,
Because USA will veto Brazil's entry in UNSC,
Because Russia will veto Germany's entry in UNSC
Because China will veto India's entry in UNSC.
Share
Tweet
Email
