UNITED NATIONS, Nov 26 (APP): Pakistan has challenged India’s qualifications for permanent or non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council, saying that New Delhi was in “blatant” violation of the 15-member body’s resolutions aimed at settling the decades-old Kashmir dispute.
Without naming India, which along with three other countries — Brazil, Germany and Japan (known as G-4) — has been campaigning for a permanent seat in an enlarged Council, Ambassador Munir Akram told the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday that India was now perpetrating a “reign of terror” in a territory occupied with 900,000 troops — obviously referring to the deteriorating situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
India, he added, had imposed a complete curfew and lockdown on 8 million people for over a 100 days and it is perpetrating massive violations of human rights against them and against its own minority communities.
It is the first time Pakistan has challenged the India’s eligibility for membership of the Security Council.
“The size and power of a state does not in itself, qualify it for a permanent membership of the Council or other privileges within the United Nations – a United Nations which requires the sovereign equality of all states,” the Pakistani envoy told the 193-member Assembly during a debate on the Security Council reform.
“At least one of the G-4 does not, in our view, qualify for membership of the Security Council, permanent or non-permanent,” Ambassador Akram added.
Full-scale negotiations to reform the Security Council began in the General Assembly in February 2009 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 General Assembly.
Despite a general agreement on enlarging the Council, as part of the UN reform process, member states remain sharply divided over the details.
The G-4 countries have shown no flexibility in their campaign to expand the Security Council by 10 seats, with six additional permanent and four
non-permanent members.
On the other hand, the Italy/Pakistan-led Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group firmly opposes any additional permanent members, saying that such a move 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.
In his remarks, Ambassador Akram said the rationale for reforming the Council was to make it more representative, transparent, accountable and effective.
The Uniting for Consensus position is well ‘known, offering the most promising basis to achieve consensus, particularly on equitable representation. Its proposal does not discriminate among States and will enhance accountability through the election and potential re-election of members.
The UfC proposal is realistic and likely to secure the required ratification of the five permanent Council members, if it is approved by the Assembly, the Pakistani envoy said.
Pakistan, he pointed out, respects Africa’s collective desire for representation; its absence is a historical injustice. Rotation was the best way to achieve regional interests, he said adding that a regional approach could also attract the support of sub-regional groups.
Through the provision of possible re-election, the Uniting For Consensus proposal offers the potential for continued — and even long-term — representation of some States if they are elected by their respective regions, the Pakistani envoy said.
Conversely, Ambassador Akram said, the G-4 proposal has no support, adding that they have nominated themselves to represent their representative regions. “While decrying that the Security Council is unrepresentative, they seek permanent membership for themselves.
There have been many occasions in history when the seekers of power and privilege have come forward to declare that they have come not to praise Caeser but to bury him.”
