| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Pakistan calls for flexibility on reforming UNSC |
| 2010-11-14 |
| Pakistain, which opposes new permanent seats on the UN Security Council and strongly supports an expansion of non-permanent members on Friday, called for "flexibility and compromise" on part of countries pushing competing proposals for enlarging the 15-member body so as to move the stalled reform process forward. Speaking in the General Assembly's annual debate on achieving equitable representation in the 15-member council, Pakistain's Acting Ambassador Amjad Hussain Sial said his country was committed to reform, that would make it more representative, transparent and effective. Despite a widespread agreement that the Security Council needs to reflect the 21st century world, the 192-member assembly has been unable for three decades to agree on a reform proposal. The deadlock was evident during the assembly debate, which wrapped up on Friday: The supporters of the three rival proposals to reform the council showed no signs of budging. The two-day debate took place in the wake of the United States support for India's bid for a permanent seat on UN's high table. Five permanent members hold veto power; China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States and 10 non-permanent members, with no veto, are elected for two-year terms. Most countries have argued that this structure does not represent the realities of today's world. Key issues under discussion are the category of membership, the question of veto, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council, and the Council's working methods and its relationship with the General Assembly. In his speech, Ambassador Sial stated Pakistain's position as set out by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani that an effective, feasible reform could only be achieved through consensus decisions that were endorsed by the wider UN membership. Pakistain remained constructively engaged in the ongoing negotiations, and its position was structured around four pillars; that reform should be comprehensive; based on principle of sovereign equality; should enhance the council's accountability to the general membership, and result in a more united, strengthened UN. The Pakistain envoy said that the 'Uniting for Consensus' group, which is led by Italy and Pakistain, had shown flexibility by moving from its 2005 position. Its proposals allowed for variable arrangements and different options, providing relevance to representation for regions, as well as for small states. The proposal, he said, also took into account the concept of equitable geographic distribution, as envisaged in article 23 of the charter. That concept would make little sense if a seat allocated to a region were to be occupied permanently by one country, which was why he respected Africa's position. "Africa's just demand for permanent presence in the council is for the entire region and is, therefore, different from those who seek a seat for themselves," Ambassador Sial said in reference to the aspirants of permanent membership, India, Brazil, Germany and Japan. "Similarly, we support the position of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), demanding adequate representation of the Mohammedan Ummah in the Security Council," he said. Commenting on the Security Council's report on its meetings, correspondence and decisions, the Pakistain envoy said that it could be reinforced by analytical explanation of its work and decision-making. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #1 * ION PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > PAKISTAN: ARAB + ISLAMIC COUNTRIES/STATES SHOULD HAVE SECURITY COUNCIL SEATS [UNSC, wid full Veto powers]. ARTIC > many PAKIS, Civilians + Govt, believe that what the US does for Pak-rival INDIA + former WW2 enemy JAPAN, i.e. suppor their bids for Permanent Seats on UNSC, THE US CAN DO SAME ALSO FOR PAKISTAN, ESPEC GIVEN HOW MANY PAK SOLDIERS ARE FIGHTING + DYING FOR THE US ANTI-TERROR AGENDA IN PAK = AFPAK??? * SAME > [CFR Report]US EXPERTS: LeT HIDEOUTS SHOULD BE HIT BY DRONES, espec iff PAK = Islamabad fails to attack + destroy same. ARTIC > CFR REPORT/PERTS = ANOTHER 26/11 = MUMBAI-STYLE ATTACK COULD LEAD TO FULL-SCALE WAR BETWEEN INDJUH + PAKISTAN. IMO "PAKISTAN" also read, PAK ALLY CHINA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2010-11-14 23:13 |