Pakistan seeks support for UNSC seat, US Opposes

[MilSpec]

Non-permanent seat barely has any value .. India has one till dec 2011.. what good has it done for us?

 

[Al Bhatti]

Self delete

 

[darkinsky]

if kyrghistan is selected instead of pakistan, how ridiculous will it be??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

its not your gov'ts fault your military in particular your army runs your country what they saw is law not what the gov't says if the Pak gov't actually was in control of the country your situation internally and externally would be peaceful just saying

Hogwash - the Army is not currently responsible for economic policy, domestic security through better LEA's, development schemes, allocating resources and contracts for development schemes, reforming various institutions, cutting unnecessary government expenses etc.

 

[Omar1984]

Pakistan wants a piece of the pie

In the elections against five non-permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council Pakistan is contesting for the Asia seat and Kyrgyzstan is our rival.

Something big is taking place on October 21, in the world of diplomacy. It is the elections against five non-permanent seats at the United Nations Security Council with Pakistan contesting for the Asia seat. Kyrgyzstan is our rival. The stakes are high.

First of all, let me clear the misperception that the criteria of contesting is directly linked to the internal domestic politics or economic situation prevailing in a country. It is not. The domestic environment is only important to influence the opinion of other member countries who will be voting.

Article 23 (1) of the UN charter states that in electing non-permanent members on the Security Council, “due regard….(will be paid)..in the first instance to the contributions of members of UN to the maintenance of international peace and security.” This essentially means contribution of troops from a member country in peacekeeping missions and participation record in UN in matters of peace and security.

Pakistan has been one of the top two contributors of troops in UN peacekeeping missions in the last decade or so despite the deteriorating security situation at home. In July 2011, with over 10,000 troops and police deployed, Pakistan’s contributions were just behind Bangladesh. It has served six terms at the council before. But this coming term 2012-13 will be the most important for the country so far. Here is why:

The war in Afghanistan, it’s end game, terrorism and non-proliferation are vital affairs that will be active on the agenda of the Security Council. Pakistan is a direct stakeholder in all of them. As US and Pakistan fell out recently on the issue of how to negotiate with the insurgents, discussions taking place at the Security Council may increase in value. Which insurgents are to be declared as terrorists and which insurgents are wanted on the peace table will be few of the million dollar questions.

Diplomatic circles are ripe with speculations that the US may be behind the move of supporting Kyrgyzstan. They cite that otherwise Kyrgyzstan would have withdrawn its bid just like Fiji did earlier when Pakistan approached. Even just three days before the election, our Foreign Minister is making a visit to Bishkek to make one last effort. However, despite repeated pleas, including Prime Minister Gillani’s appeal, the Kyrgyz have decided to fight it out to the bitter end. The brilliant former diplomat, Munir Akram, noted in his recent oped:

“Obviously, Kyrgyzstan cannot defeat Pakistan since it cannot secure a two-thirds majority of 128 votes in the General Assembly. But, if its candidature is, indeed, being propped up by the US, it is possible that Pakistan could be denied a two-thirds majority.”

It would not be difficult to understand why theUS might be behind the Kyrgyz. With Washington looking for an extension of Manas airbase and Kyrgyzstan willing to consider it, the US thinks it can easily influence the Kyrgyz vote in the Security Council in important matters. A paper written by Ilyana Kuziemko and Eric Werker in 2004 argued how the US aid increases to countries when they are sitting on the Security Council seats to influence their decisions.

Kyrgyzstan is certainly an easier member country to work with when compared with its ally Pakistan, who is notorious in Washington for being one of the few countries that opposes US in multilateral diplomacy.

In one of the US cables of 2006, Ambassador John Bolton, rued the lack of harmony between Pakistan and US in the multilateral fora. The cable noted:

“Pakistan effectively uses its membership in the G-77, the NAM, the Asia Group, and the OIC to project its views and achieve greater influence at the UN than its standing in the international community would otherwise suggest. Pakistan’s voting correlation with the US in the UNGA has been on a downward trend since 1996 and reached a record low of 17.4 percent last year.”

This factor, other than anything else, will be in the minds of the US diplomats. The lobby working against Pakistan’s candidacy will be playing up the chances of a deadlock between Pakistan and India hampering the progress at the Council, since India is already sitting there finishing up the first year of its term. Pakistani diplomats need to highlight the recent rapprochement between the two countries and India’s support for the candidacy of Pakistan for this election. Further, Pakistan and India have served overlapping terms three times in the past, in 1968, 1977 and 1984. They do have a same stance on various multilateral issues.

The outcome of this election is far from predictable, as you never know what secret balloting results in on the given day. If Pakistan is able to get its way for the next two years, it will be very effective for the country to raise its voice and position on matters, which we deem important. Others may argue that it is punching above the weight.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.


Pakistan wants a piece of the pie – The Express Tribune Blog

 

[JohnyD]

in fact..all members of UN should have a permanent seat and veto right in UNSC

 

[indianspetsnaz]

Hogwash - the Army is not currently responsible for economic policy, domestic security through better LEA's, development schemes, allocating resources and contracts for development schemes, reforming various institutions, cutting unnecessary government expenses etc.

then again you guys spend money on developing nukes and missiles rather than the betterment and development of your people because that is your army's policy like it or not your woes are because your strategic policies are controlled by your military and many of your policies have to do with militarism meaning more money for that rather than human development adding on to this had the government be able to act without its hands tied the situation would be much more different in fact Ali Bhutto himself said "even if we have to eat grass" and thats what happening today more nukes less human development while the world moves on and even India moves on you guys are lagging behind and being manhandled by the terrorist proxies you use on India and Afghanistan at the same time by those who you helped in the 80's and 90's in Afghanistan all i can ask you is this was it worth it? because i sure as hell would rather stop crying over Kashmir that no way can be taken back by your country due to lack of a conventional war making ability and now the cement that keeps your security situation together is the nukes i'd rather just accept the status quo and spend more for development of the nation but whatever i do not run your country or decide how things work just my 2 cents and if i have disrespected you or offended you in anyway you have my sincere apologies peace.....

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

what were we supposed to do?????!!! allow the soviets into our backyard? a hostile entity with expansionist designs, one which armed our enemy to the teeth?

as for "manhandled" well in 2009/10 things were a lot worse. In terms of security, there seems to be at least SOME semblance of seriousness by the authorities. But still much work ahead.

a certain amount of budget is agreed upon (by parliament) for different arms/services/branches/ministries of government. Armed forces just happens to be one of them. So if you have an issue with the nuclear program, take it up with the government that allots the funding. Though you being indian and not Pakistani, I don't see why you worry and get tense over how we spend our funds.


both countries (every country actually) has a duty to work for the betterment of their people.....neither Pakistan nor india are exceptions.

 

[indianspetsnaz]

what were we supposed to do?????!!! allow the soviets into our backyard? a hostile entity with expansionist designs, one which armed our enemy to the teeth?

as for "manhandled" well in 2009/10 things were a lot worse. In terms of security, there seems to be at least SOME semblance of seriousness by the authorities. But still much work ahead.

a certain amount of budget is agreed upon (by parliament) for different arms/services/branches/ministries of government. Armed forces just happens to be one of them. So if you have an issue with the nuclear program, take it up with the government that allots the funding. Though you being indian and not Pakistani, I don't see why you worry and get tense over how we spend our funds.


both countries (every country actually) has a duty to work for the betterment of their people.....neither Pakistan nor india are exceptions.

no of course not the U.S pulled a Vietnam on the USSR by having them fight its backed proxies in Afghanistan what i meant was that those proxies the ISI and USA supported against the soviets are now coming back to bite you in the a$$ the same militants you armed to fight the Russians are now fighting you area wise Waziristan

lets look at it from this perspective if Pakistan give up its claim on Kashmir and accepted the status quo (which is reasonable) there would be no tensions in South asia however the civilian gov't let alone the people's representation in the legislative branch get no say because your military controls all strategic policies don't see why to this day you stake your claim onto J&K because there is no way you can take it from us as you lack the conventional ability to do so adding on your nation stays militarized rather than conventionally tries to put up a smokescreen in Kashmir by using proxies like LeT, JeM, HuJI, etc and today those proxies are failing militants cannot even infiltrate safely without being picked off and being gunned down the minute they cross LoC

due to periods of military rule political instability i guess thats how the situation got to where it is today your nation faces poverty illiteracy corruption and while India has these problems on arguably to a much bigger scale it has made strides to break free from these things and for India it gets better while for you guys it gets worse i don't mean to troll or offend anyone here but i am just saying your mindset on Kashmir is the reason for your problems your refusal to evict foreign terrorists from your own territory add to your woes e.g drone strikes covert operations through CIA black water commandos roaming your streets doing who knows what had it not been for the situations i mentioned above Pakistan would be like Turkey a prosperous nation with a faithful and loyal populace

as for India we are moving forward at a rapid pace we have our problems and issues 10x the number of problems that you face like 37% of population living in poverty, insurgencies in the most impoverished parts of the country, caste and religion related violence etc everything you name it we have to deal with it still with all this we are moving forward and by 2050 India will be a superpower 100 years after the birth of our nation we will be a superpower however let me ask you this where will Pakistan be in 2050? i guarantee you guys would be prosperous just let go of Kashmir and get rid of the terrorist SOB's on your soil all of them....


to sum it up basically for you having the military control your strategic policies rather than a civilian elected gov't is the reason for your woes.

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

I think the real problem for pakistan is its over dependence on other countries for everything. when US was allied with pak, they were totally dependent on it and played into US hands and ended up doing significant damage to themselves. Now when that alliance is breaking, pakistani military is coming closer to china. dont think china is a fool and it will supply u all the military equipment for free. the actual goal of china is to buid a trade route from china to arabian sea via *** and they are supplying to pak so that it will allow them to do so. its high time now that pak should break itself free from the control of other countries and try to take the responsibility of its people, itself. over dependence on other countries can only result in harm in the long run

 

[ziaulislam]

bhutto said that because he knew without nukes 71 incidence of clear violation of soveriengty and intiating a war without provokation will be repeated...
nukes dont cost as much as the amount of conventional weapons we would have required for maintiang peace

and army has only intervened in our politicals when the country was at verge of doom by ridiculously idiotic politicians..thats why they say that it was jinnah one man show in creating pakistan.....

 

[Shadow_Hunter]

bhutto said that because he knew without nukes 71 incidence of clear violation of soveriengty and intiating a war without provokation will be repeated...
nukes dont cost as much as the amount of conventional weapons we would have required for maintiang peace

and army has only intervened in our politicals when the country was at verge of doom by ridiculously idiotic politicians..thats why they say that it was jinnah one man show in creating pakistan.....

dude u still dont get it. by interference of army we dont only mean martial law. pakistan's army interference in foreign policy is also very high as compared to other countries. today when clinton is coming to pakistan, her most important meeting will be with general kayani. actually it should have been with zardari. he should have been at the helm at of foreign policy. idiot or no, a politician is far better than a general with respect to foreign policy.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Pakistan is ever-changing now and Inshallah we will expand our ''portfolio''

I think we should work closer with Eurasian, Latin American countries and should also work closer with developing at least close commercial ties with the immediate regional countries.

i think our biggest priority right now is to solve the supply-demand gap in our power generating industry; it's ridiculous that a nuclear power faces power shortfalls....Pakistan functions despite the government, not because of it. That needs to change.

 

[chauvunist]

Good News
Pakistan wins UN Security Council’s non-permanent seat....

 

[IceCold]

So much for US opposition. What did they gain out of it other then alienating Pakistanis more. Instead of that so called billions of dollars of aid, they should use their heads for a change. A single vote in favor of Pakistan could have won them more hearts then any dollars ever did. But then again we are talking about the US of A.