Sunday, April 14, 2024
01:14 PM (GMT +5)

Go Back   CSS Forums > CSS Compulsory Subjects > Current Affairs

Reply Share Thread: Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook     Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter     Submit Thread to Google+ Google+    
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Saturday, October 29, 2005
sohailpkdr's Avatar
CSP Medal: Awarded to those Members of the forum who are serving CSP Officers - Issue reason: CSS 2007
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Peshawar
Posts: 79
Thanks: 0
Thanked 53 Times in 15 Posts
sohailpkdr is on a distinguished road
Default Restructuring The Un Security Council


Inam-ul-Haque *

The manifest purposes of the Charter of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security; to ensure respect for the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples; to strengthen international cooperation to resolve economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems; and, to work for the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Over the last six decades, the UN has evolved into an extremely complex system and its membership has grown to 191 states. There have been sporadic, and less than successful, efforts to improve the functioning and the effectiveness of the United Nations in terms of its structure, maintenance of international peace and security, protection of human rights and the delivery of services to improve the socio-economic well-being of the people of the developing member states.

In recent years, the issue of reform has been brought into sharper focus because of the growing feeling among member states, particularly the weak and vulnerable among them, that the United Nations has lost its effectiveness, has been marginalised and has not been able to protect their interests in the face of the overbearing and unilateralist policies pursued by some major states, particularly in the field of international peace and security. This view has gained ground particularly after the collapse of the bipolar world and the emergence of the unipolar world. The Security Council has also been seen as encroaching on the functions of other UN bodies including the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

The United Nations, despite its weaknesses and failures remains the only international forum with universal membership where the weaker nations of the world can hope for a fair hearing and can turn to for support, protection and justice for the maintenance of their independence and sovereignty.

It is generally acknowledged that the Charter, drafted primarily by the victorious Allied Powers during the Second World War, contains certain built-in inequalities among the member states, particularly in the context of the UN Security Council (UNSC), whereby five member states have been given permanent seats and the power of veto.

There has been a growing demand for the restoration of the representative character of the UNSC by an increase in its membership to reflect the growth in UN membership since 1963, when the Security Council's membership was enhanced from 11 to 15. However, there is also a general recognition that the UNSC must not be enlarged to an extent that it becomes unwieldy and is unable to react quickly and effectively to situations of crisis.

In order to address the issue, the General Assembly decided in 1993 to establish an Open Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and on the Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and other matters relating to the Security Council. The working group began its deliberations in 1994, focusing on two main clusters of issues:

Cluster-I: Issues regarding expansion in the membership and the question of Veto.

Cluster-II: Issues concerning transparency and working methods of the Security Council.

Some progress has been recorded on Cluster-II issues. However, a stalemate continues on Cluster-I matters because of lack of consensus on the composition and categories of expansion - permanent or non-permanent - and the criteria for the selection of new permanent members, should there be an agreement to create permanent seats.

The negotiations regarding the increase in the membership have not led to a universally acceptable outcome because of the ambition of certain countries to occupy permanent seats on the Security Council, which would make the UNSC more undemocratic, oligarchic, and unaccountable to the wider membership of the United Nations and would deprive a large majority of the members of any reasonable expectation of serving on the Council. These countries include Brazil, Germany, India and Japan and are referred to as the G-4.

A concerted effort is being made by these countries to dovetail the expansion of the Security Council with the review of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) at the forthcoming UNGA Summit in September 2005. The proposals for UN reforms and the MDGs are a global initiative to end poverty and promote development by 2015 and should have occupied centre stage in the preparations for the Summit. Instead the expansion of the Security Council has consumed much of the energy and effort during the discussions on the reform of the United Nations. The more important issues of development and eradication of poverty etc. have been pushed to the background.

Pakistan and a number of other countries including Italy, Spain, South Korea, Mexico and others are not in favour of creating new centres of power in the United Nations and the UNSC. They established what has come to be known as the Coffee Club to coordinate their position so as to thwart the ambitions of the aspirants to permanent seats on the UNSC. The Coffee Club has been functioning in New York at the level of permanent Representatives. The members of the Coffee Club were able to have resolution 53/30 adopted by consensus in 1998 which imposed the condition of a 2/3 majority for any resolution on the expansion of the Security Council. The G-4 have been seeking to overcome this hurdle through manipulation, financial incentives, threats of aid cuts, etc.

During 2004, the UN Secretary General established a High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, to examine the issue of the reform of the UN system including the expansion of the Security Council. There were expectations that the Panel's recommendations would give a new direction and urgency to the entire issue of reform of the System by the time of the UNGA Summit in September 2005, which is expected to review the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals. The Summit is also expected to adopt decisions for the reform of the United Nations, which appears to have been marginalised in political decision-making and has lost its direction and dynamism on issues of interest to the developing world. The Panel submitted its report in December 2004. The report is a comprehensive document of almost one hundred pages having four parts and twenty chapters dealing with all aspects of the reform of the United Nations. Only one of these Chapters deals with the expansion of the Security Council and out of 101 recommendations of the Panel, only six deal with the expansion of the Council.

During the 59th session of the UNGA in 2004, Germany, Japan, Brazil and India (the so-called G-4) made a joint declaration asserting their claims to permanent seats on the Security Council. This was designed to pool their resources and votes in pursuit of their ambitions. They also succeeded in persuading the High Level Panel to include a proposal for six new permanent seats on the Council albeit without the right of Veto. In its report, the Panel proposed two possible models for expansion. Both models propose a 24-member Security Council, with the seats equally distributed to four regional areas proposed by the panel i.e. Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe including East Europe and the Americas including North America, Latin America and the Caribbean states. The shape of the two models is briefly described below.


Six new permanent seats (two for Asia-Pacific, two for Africa and one each for Europe and for the Americas) with no Veto power, and three new non-permanent seats. The new distribution of seats would be:
Africa: Two permanent and four non-permanent seats. Africa would thus get three additional seats.

Asia-Pacific: Three permanent (China + two new) and three non-permanent members. Asia-Pacific would also get three additional seats.

Europe: Four permanent (Russia, UK, France + one) and two non-permanent seats. The region would not get any additional seats. One non-permanent seat would be converted into a permanent seat.

Americas: Two permanent (US + one new) and four non-permanent seats. Americas would also get three additional seats.


No new permanent seats but a new category of eight 4-year renewable-term seats and one 2-year non-permanent and non-renewable seat, with each of the four regions getting two 4-year seats. The distribution would be as follows:

Africa: No permanent seat, two 4-year seats and four 2-year seats. The group would be allocated three additional seats.

Asia-Pacific: One permanent seat (China), two 4-year seats and three 2-year seats. The group would get three additional seats.

Europe: Three permanent seats (France, Russia, UK), two 4-year renewable seats and one non-permanent seat. It would not get any additional seats. Two of its existing 2-year non-permanent seats would be converted into 4-year seats.

The Americas: One permanent seat (US), two 4-year seats and three 2-year seats. The region would get three additional seats.

The Panel also proposed that preference for permanent or longer term seats would be given to those states that are among the top three contributors, in their relevant regional area, to the regular budget, or the top three voluntary contributors from their regional area, or the top three troop contributors from their regional area to the United Nations peacekeeping missions. It suggested that there should be a review of the composition of the Security Council in 2020.

The UN General Assembly held an in-depth informal discussion on the report of the High Level Panel. It became clear during the debate that:

There was no consensus on either of the two models.

There were wide divergences and disagreements within the Asian, African, Latin American and West European groups on both models.

The East Europeans were opposed to both versions since they were apprehensive that the proposals made by the Panel would reduce their representation in the Council because of a reconfiguration of the regional groups.

The Caribbean Community also stated that both models did not meet its expectations and should be reviewed.

Based on these discussions and his consultations with member states, the Secretary General of the United Nations presented his own report to the General Assembly on March 21, 2005, titled: In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. On the Security Council reform, the Secretary General (SG) called upon member states to take a decision on either of the models or any other viable proposals in terms of size and balance that have emerged on the basis of either model. The Secretary General, however, insists that decisions should be taken preferably by consensus but in any case before the UNGA Summit scheduled for September 14-16, 2005, and he intends to use the time till September to garner global support for his Report.

Consultations were held on the SG's report on April 6-8, 2005, which were followed by tasking the President of the UNGA to identify elements of a possible agreement. The President produced and circulated a Draft Outcome Document on June 3, 2005, to serve as a basis for negotiations on the outcome of the 2005 summit. In the Draft Outcome Document presented by the President of the UNGA, there is no specific proposal for the enlargement of the Security Council. The Summit would merely endorse a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to make it more broadly representative and more transparent to enhance the legitimacy of its decisions and its effectiveness. The Summit would also recommend that the Security Council adapt its working methods so as to increase the involvement of states not members of the Council, enhance accountability to the membership and increase the transparency of its work.

The Coffee Club organised a Uniting For Consensus (UFC) meeting in New York on April 11, 2005. One hundred and nineteen delegations participated in the meeting including the US, Russia and China. I was the leader of the Pakistan delegation to the meeting at which Pakistan and Italy played a pivotal role. It was agreed that there should be no artificial deadlines and that efforts to build a consensus must be followed vigorously. The meeting agreed upon a core follow up mechanism to lobby support for its position.

The positions of various groups and power players as they have emerged to date are given below:


The G-4 initially circulated a draft resolution based on Model-A suggested by the High Level Panel, with two additions. They demanded the right of Veto and proposed a 25-member Council with the additional seat going to East Europe in order to attract East European votes. They indicated that they would propose the adoption of their Framework resolution by the UNGA well before the September Summit.

The Uniting for Consensus group responded by sending written comments on the draft to the G-4 with copies to the UNGA President, the UNSG and all member states. These comments pointed out the problems inherent in the G-4 text in the following areas:

Permanent Membership

Creating new permanent members would be contrary to the UN Charter's principle of sovereign equality.

It would provide permanent seats to 11 states while the remaining 180 states will have to compete for 14 seats only.


The proposal would change the ratio of permanent and non- permanent members from 1:2 to almost 1:1, thus reducing, not enhancing, the representative nature of the Council. It will inevitably concentrate power in the hands of 11 permanent members and marginalise the rest of the UN membership.


The SC reform must enhance and not reduce the accountability of its members to the general membership. The G-4 proposal would mean reduced accountability since half of the membership will no longer be accountable to the GA by virtue of permanent membership.


The need to reconcile the national interests of 11 rather than five permanent members would reduce the Council's ability to act quickly.


The draft contained a demand for Veto, which was neither feasible nor desirable.

Cascade Effect

New permanent members would demand the same privileges as the older permanent members including membership of the General Committee, de facto right to have a judge on the International Court of Justice and elections to other bodies of the UN almost as a matter of right etc. This was unacceptable.


Offering permanent privileges to an additional six countries while excluding other equally qualified member states would aggravate the already inequitable situation created in 1945 for specific historic reasons. If this divisive proposal was brought to a vote it would erode universal support for the UN, and adversely impact its credibility and legitimacy.

Legal perspective

The three-phase approach outlined in the G-4 draft raised issues regarding its legality, particularly the concept of electing members against legally non-existing seats.

The G-4 group showed no inclination to engage with the UFC in a meaningful manner to find a universally accepted solution.

The G-4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) draft Framework resolution was formally tabled in the General Assembly on July 11, 2005. It proposes an increase in the SC membership from 15 to 25, by adding six permanent (two from Africa, two from Asia, one from Latin American and Caribbean States and one from European and other states) and four non-permanent members (one each from Africa, Asia, East European States, Latin American and Caribbean states). Fourteen affirmative votes would be required for the passage of any resolution. The resolution proposes an arcane election procedure for new permanent members at a later date. All states interested in permanent membership would have to present their candidatures by a cutoff date and the new permanent members would be elected from among those states only by a 2/3 majority in a secret ballot. In the final phase, after the elections of the new permanent members the General Assembly would adopt another resolution for the required amendments to the Charter containing the names of the new permanent members.

The first draft demanded the same rights as the current permanent members but after open opposition from the US, the language was amended and it is proposed that the Veto power would remain dormant till the review of the Charter in 2020 in accordance with Article 109 of the Charter.

Uniting For Consensus

The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) core group, after intensive consultations among its members, instead of offering amendments to the draft prepared by the G-4, decided to offer its own ideas in the form of Elements for a decision on Security Council Reform to be included in the final outcome document of the Summit. The proposal was prepared by Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Italy, Spain, Turkey, Algeria, Mexico, Argentina, Colombia and Costa Rica. The counter proposal of the UFC group has the following elements:

A twenty-five member Security Council with twenty non- permanent seats.

The distribution of the non permanent seats would be: six for Africa, five for Asia, four for Latin America and Caribbean States, three for Western Europe and other states and two for East European states.

The proposal was flexible about the term of non-permanent members and the term could be extended to three years in the interest of achieving a consensus.

Each regional group would prepare its own criteria for the optimal use of its allocated seats including arrangements for reelection and rotation and equitable sub-regional representation as appropriate.

The majority required for the adoption of resolutions would be 15.

According to the UFC group their proposal has the following advantages:

It is equitable and fair. It does not discriminate between UN member states. All are eligible for election/reelection in accordance with the principle of sovereign equality.

It is representative and will enhance the ratio of non-permanent to permanent members from 2:1 to 4:1, and it increases the opportunity for larger representation of the developing countries.

It is flexible. It allows the regional groups to determine their own specific arrangements for their representation on the Council. Each regional group could decide whether it wants to be represented continuously, frequently or periodically by certain member states. Groups like the CARICOM, the Arab group and others could work out their own arrangements as sub-regional groups within the larger groups.

It enhances accountability through the provision of election/reelection/rotation.

It is realistic and could secure the support of the vast majority of member states and also would stand a better chance of an early ratification of the Charter amendments.

It can evoke the broadest possible agreement and prevent a political division among member states on the issue of the expansion of the Security Council.

Finally, it is simple and envisages a direct approval of amendments to the Charter. There would be no need to go through a complex, uncertain and uncharted process of adopting a framework resolution, selecting new permanent members against non-existent seats and then approving a Charter amendment.

On July 8, 2005, the Permanent Representative of Italy, Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, in his capacity as the focal point for UFC group, circulated the text of a draft resolution on Security Council reform based on the elements described above. In his covering letter he stated that the draft resolution aims at:

Increasing the chances of all UN members to serve on the Security Council. The model is fair, based on the principle of sovereign equality and non-discrimination among member states;

Strengthening multilateralism through an approach that seeks to preserve the unity of the membership;

Creating a Security Council based on a democratic vision of the United Nations;

Accommodating the interests of all member states and the concerns of all groups and political constituencies;

Enhancing accountability; and

Reforming the Security Council in a simple, efficient and non-divisive way.

According to the UFC draft, the Security Council shall consist, in addition to the five permanent members, as determined by Article 23.1 of the Charter, of twenty elected members of the United Nations, serving on the Council for a two-year term and eligible for immediate reelection subject to the decision of their respective geographical groups. The twenty elected members will include six from Africa, five from Asia, four from Latin American and Caribbean states, three from Western Europe and other states and two from East European states. An affirmative vote of 15 members would be required for decision making by the Security Council. Each of the five geographical groups shall decide on arrangements for reelection or rotation of its members on the seats allotted to the group, including, as appropriate, a fair sub-regional representation. The draft also includes the necessary amendments to the Charter for this simple and just formula, in sharp contrast to the contrived three-stage formula being bruited by the G-4 in a vain attempt at subterfuge.

The resolution also calls for more transparent, inclusive and accountable working methods for the Security Council, laying particular emphasis on restraint on the use of Veto, transparency in decision making, consultation, cooperation and greater exchange of information with the GA and the ECOSOC, access and better participation of non-member states in the work of the Council.

African Union

The African Union, with 53 members, has taken a position in favour of a modified Model-A, demanding at least two permanent seats, Veto power and an additional non-permanent seat. The African Union Summit held at Sirte in Libya on July 4-5, 2005, decided to support the enlargement of the Security Council both in permanent and non-permanent categories and demanded the same prerogatives and privileges for the new permanent members as enjoyed by the current permanent members including the right of Veto. It demanded two permanent and five non-permanent seats on a 26 member Security Council. In the division of the additional 11 seats, there would be two permanent members from Africa, two from Asia, one from Eastern European States and one from Latin American and Caribbean states. Of the five additional non-permanent members, two would be from Africa, one from Asia, one from Latin American and Caribbean states and one from East European states. The African group tabled its own resolution at the General Assembly on July 13.
The Sirte Declaration also calls for strengthening the leadership of the UNGA to enable it to fully play its role as the most representative and democratic organ of the UN System; strengthening of the Secretariat; establishment of a Peace Building Commission; making ECOSOC the central coordinating mechanism in the economic, social and cultural domain; establishment of a new Human Rights body as a subsidiary organ of the UNGA; and the democratisation of the Bretton Woods Institutions.


In its resolution adopted in Sana'a on June 30, 2005, at the 32nd Session of the ICFM, the OIC reaffirmed that efforts at restructuring the Security Council should not be subject to any artificial deadlines and that a decision on this issue should be made by consensus. It stresses that the UNSC reform must be comprehensive and underlines the importance of enhancing the transparency, accountability and democratisation of the Security Council through improvement of its working methods and its decision making process. It demands that the Islamic Ummah must have adequate representation in any category of membership in an expanded Security Council in proportion to their membership of the United Nations. It reaffirms that both reform and expansion of the Security Council, including the question of Veto, should be considered as integral parts of a common package, taking into account the principles of sovereign equality of States and equitable geographical distribution.

Arab League

The Arab League meeting in Algiers indicated support for a permanent seat for Egypt 'in case of an expansion in the permanent category', without tying its members to support Model-A.


The CARICOM Heads of State have declared that the Security Council reform should not diminish the importance of the other aspects of the reform process such as the development agenda, revitalisation and strengthening of the General Assembly and the reform of ECOSOC. A significant number of its members are inclined to support the G-4 framework resolution contingent on strong support for their development agenda as small and vulnerable states, inclusion of the proposals of the African Union, and acceptance of the principle of rotation of membership on the Council.

Positions of the Permanent Members


The US has stated that it is open to an enlargement plan based on a number of criteria which include GDP, military capacity, contributions to peace keeping, commitment to democracy and human rights, financial contributions to the United Nations, commitment to fight WMD proliferation and Terrorism. The US supports Japan's bid for a permanent UNSC seat, but believes that the G-4 framework resolution is flawed for a number of reasons. The US believes that the G-4 text will be highly divisive since many influential and populous nations oppose it. Wide support for UNSC reform is critical if reform is to succeed in revitalising the United Nations. A Council of 25 members, as envisaged by the G-4 would slow down the Council's deliberations, damaging the Council's ability to address security threats in a timely manner. The separation of decisions on the number and type of new seats and the names of countries which meet the appropriate criteria, as proposed by the G-4 is unacceptable. A divisive plan which does not have the support of all the permanent members of the Security Council is doomed to fail. US Senate would not approve Council expansion without significant reforms in other areas as well. Nor would any US Administration present Charter amendments for ratification to the Senate without such reforms in place. Reforms are needed to improve management, strengthen the protection of human rights, and hold UN officials accountable for their actions. Action on these reforms should not be delayed by a protracted debate on Security Council reform. The members of the UN should focus on the totality of reforms and avoid a rapid vote on the UNSC expansion.


China has expressed strong reservations on the G-4 draft and supports the position of the UFC. It has declared that there should be no artificial deadlines for the adoption of any resolution for the expansion of the UNSC and that the decision should be taken by consensus. It has stated that if the G-4 text is put to a vote China would vote against the resolution.


Russia has adopted an ambivalent position. It supports India for a permanent seat. But it has also called for consensus/broadest possible agreement and does not favour the setting of deadlines.

Thus three of the P-5 i.e. China, Russia and US have, inter-alia, called for consensus/broadest possible agreement and also spoken against the setting of any artificial deadlines.

France/United Kingdom

France has co-sponsored the G-4 draft. The G-4 also enjoy the support of the United Kingdom.

Pakistan's Stance

Pakistan's opposition to the expansion in the permanent category rests firmly on principles and extends to all aspirants. Pakistan believes that:

The objective of the reform and expansion of the SC should be to promote greater democracy, participation, transparency and accountability.

The United Nations was created on the basis of sovereign equality of states and the creation of new permanent seats would militate against that principle.

To those who point out that there are already five permanent members with the right of Veto, we respond that ideally there should be no permanent members and no right of Veto. However, most of the countries acceded to the Charter of the United Nations in its present form. We are faced with a situation whereby the status of the five permanent members or their Veto power cannot be altered unless they themselves agree to do so. We should not make a bad situation worse by adding more permanent members to the Security Council.

The world is moving towards greater democratisation but some countries are seeking to move the United Nation in the opposite direction by creating an oligarchy in the Security Council through the acquisition of permanent seats.

The principle of accountability demands that the members of the Security Council should present themselves before UNGA for election if they wish to serve on the Council. If some are made permanent members they will not be accountable for their actions.

The fundamental principle behind the demand for the expansion of the Security Council was the desire of a large number of countries to get a better chance of serving on the Council. By creating new permanent seats the very purpose of reform would be undermined and defeated.

There is no agreement within any regional group on the creation of permanent seats, or if they were to be created, the countries which should occupy them. In Europe, apart from Germany, Italy and Spain feel that they have an equally strong case to be represented at the Council on a regular or permanent basis. In Latin America, countries like Argentina, Mexico and Chile would feel discriminated against if Brazil were to become a permanent member. In Africa, apart from Nigeria and South Africa which are seeking permanent seats, countries like Egypt (representing North Africa), Kenya (representing East Africa), Senegal (representing Francophone Africa) feel strongly that they have a case as well. In Asia, apart from Japan and India which have thrown their hats in the ring, Indonesia, South Korea and Pakistan have strong credentials as well.

The OIC, a grouping of 57 states has demanded appropriate representation on the Council. CARICOM, a grouping of 14 states feels left out as well. Model-A has been designed to satisfy the ambition of a small group of countries and would run contrary to the interests of the vast majority of the membership of the United Nations. Thus, the idea of creating permanent seats is extremely divisive.

If a number of large and middle sized countries feel discriminated against and marginalised while their regional rivals and competitors are represented permanently on the SC, they are bound to be frustrated and unhappy. This could create tensions within regions and the Security Council could lose its authority and effectiveness. This would be a most undesirable outcome of the exercise of the reform of the United Nations.

Recent Developments

After the presentations of draft resolutions by the G-4, The African Union and the Uniting for Consensus group, the G-4 made concerted efforts to persuade the African group to join them and to drop the demand for Veto power and an additional non-permanent seat. The African group in New York could not change the position adopted by the Sirte African Union Summit and referred the matter back to their leaders. A hastily convened Summit was held at Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on August 4, and it was decided to maintain the decision taken at the Sirte Summit. Faced with this situation, the G-4 concluded that there was no chance for the adoption of their text and did not press for a vote on their text. It is unlikely that the matter would now be put to a vote before the UN Summit to be held on September 14-16, 2005. However, the G-4 countries are not likely to give up the pursuit of their ambition and despite the setback are determined to continue their efforts to occupy permanent seats on the UN Security Council at the forthcoming regular session of the UNGA.


It is clear from the foregoing narration that the idea of creating new permanent seats is extremely divisive and if pushed, will lead to long term damage to the United Nations as an organisation. Surely, that cannot be the objective of the reform of the UN.

The issue needs to be looked at dispassionately. The implications of the demand for new permanent seats are stark. The proposal shows a complete lack of respect not merely for the principle of sovereign equality but equally importantly for 180 large, medium sized and small, poor and developing, weak and vulnerable countries of the world. They are being asked to support the subversion of the basic principle of equality of all sovereign states, large or small, and to sanctify the pernicious and unacceptable principle of inequality of states in order to satisfy the ambitions of a small coterie of countries. The aspirants to permanent seats are telling the rest of world in no uncertain terms that the 180 countries comprising the rest of the membership of the United Nations are not their equals and should accept and endorse an inferior status for themselves. They want the rest of the humanity to be subservient to them. They are willing to undermine or even destroy the fundamental principles of the Charter and international law so as to promote their overweening and arrogant self-image of being great powers.

The world is being asked to accept that might is right, that some bigger, richer, or militarily powerful nations should not be accountable to the membership of the United Nations through the democratic process of periodic elections. I believe that we must oppose this most vehemently. The UN was created with the ideal of equality. Equality of all human beings and equality of all states large or small. We may never achieve that ideal in all its fullness. But we must never allow that ideal to be destroyed at the altar of the ambitions of a few.

I believe that the best option for the international community would be to adopt the resolution proposed by the UFC group. This would also be in accord with the NAM Summit decision to enlarge the Security Council only in the non-permanent category in the absence of a consensus on any other formula.


* Mr. Inam-ul-Haque is Former Minister of state For Foreign Affairs, Pakistan.
Sohail Ahmad

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. " (Soren Aabye Kierkegaard)
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sohailpkdr For This Useful Post:
DILRUBA G (Friday, September 02, 2011), IMTIAZ AHMAD KHAN (Sunday, December 30, 2012), Naveed_Bhuutto (Wednesday, June 04, 2014)
Old Friday, July 29, 2011
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mardan Pakhtunkhwa
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
NAEEM KHATTAK is on a distinguished road
Default the restructured UNSC

thanks kid for discussing such a valuable issue in length. I'll suggest to be a bit brief to retain the intrest of readers and charity in penning down an articles. Regards
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arms Control And Non-proliferation: The Role Of International Organizations sayed khan International Relations 0 Friday, September 28, 2007 03:33 PM
United Nations Naseer Ahmed Chandio International Relations 0 Thursday, December 14, 2006 02:15 PM
Essay Competition! Satan Essay 7 Wednesday, April 12, 2006 01:37 PM

CSS Forum on Facebook Follow CSS Forum on Twitter

Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of (unless is specifically identified as the author of the message). The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback. This forum is not monitored 24/7.

Sponsors: ArgusVision   vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.