|
Pakistan News Home ->
Top ->
News Details
|
Muslims be given permanent seat at UNSC: Pakistan
31 March, 2005
|
| Pakistan has demanded a permanent seat for Islamic countries in the United Nations Security Council. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK, April 01 (Online): Pakistan has demanded a permanent seat for Islamic countries in the United Nations Security Council.
Talking to a private television, Munir Akram, Islamabad's permanent representative in the UN, said there should be a permanent berth for Islamic states at the UNSC and if this happens, the Organization of Islamic Countries should decide which country would represent Ummah at the forum.
He said Pakistan still believed UN resolutions provide a just solution to the Kashmir conflict.
He, however said Pakistan and India might consider more options for sorting out the dispute peacefully to bring in peace and stability in South Asia.
He said, "state-terrorism in the Indian controlled valley can not be permitted in any case."
Munir Akram said international community should come forward in thwarting Indian bids to brand freedom struggle by Kashmiris a terror movement. He said Kashmiris had put up arms to get freedom from Indian occupation and calling the movement terrorism would be a grave injustice to them.
He said Pakistan wanted comprehensive reforms at the UN and would oppose moves to create more centres of privilege there in the name of restructuring.
He, however said Pakistan had some reservations on the reforms presented by UN secretary-general Kofi Annan. He said the UN is not an institution without weaknesses and therefore, Pakistan has a right to object to them.
He said, "powerful nations should end their interferences in political and military affairs of weaker states. Double standards on matters relating to genocides should also end".
He said getting a permanent seat at UNSC would not be an easy task for India, and any move to give the seat to India on the basis of its being a strong nation would be opposed by Pakistan.
End.
|
Reader Comments:
|
Hmm |
I have differing views on the UN and UNSC and I certainly have NO PROBLEM with a Muslim permanent seat. However, I think its really silly to propose one in this recent wake of UNSC seat grabs. How would a Muslim seat work? Who would represent it? Druze? Shia? Sunni? Sufi? There is so much communal conflict within Islam, that I don't see how it is possible. I hope the Ambassador gave a little clearer vision to the UN.
Ethan, United Kingdom - 01 April, 2005
|
UNSC Membership |
I think the UNSC should be limited only to secular, countries, like it is today. Muslims were the first to establish nations on a religious theme, obviously leading to disaster. I don't think any religious group deserves to have a seat at the UNSC, simply because they are exclusionists, and therefore are best served a good dose of exclusion. The world is heading towards rational decision-making, and we don't need theists to increase the mess they have already created.
Vinay, Hungary - 01 April, 2005
|
Keeping UN a Secular body |
I do not approve of Pakistan's intentions of addiing a permanent seat in Security Council based on a Religion. Let's keep it secular. Otherwise it would another1 billion Hindus and another billion Buddists also asking for a seat. The UN with all these religious seats would become infested with religious bigots.
Bob, United Kingdom - 01 April, 2005
|
Don't Expand - Dismantle! |
Funnily enough, the Permanent 5 (P5) is usually considered an anachronism that has no role in modern international affairs. It's veto power has hindered numerous important developments, such has the Humanitarian Intervention (or Human Security) Doctrine. In the past, India has decried the P5 a gross example of hegemonic arrogance. Now, India wants a part of that same hegemony? Strange. The P5 has no real logic to it: some claim that membership was granted to those who developed nuclear weapons prior to 1967 (or '64: I forget); others claim it was devised to minimize tensions during the Cold War. Either way, we should be removing the P5's privileges over the rest of the UNSC. The P5 have stalled nuclear arms reduction measures and global humanitarian schemes to serve vested interests of individual states. Instead of expanding it, we should be dismantling the P5. Secondly, the "secular" argument is a farce. India's former government, the BJP was a fundamentalist Hindu party with no pretensions of secularism. How on earth could this have played out if India had possessed a permanent seat on the UNSC at that time? And India's main arguments for a permanent seat are (i) it's population size, and (ii) it's growing economic strength. Well, the OIC represents over one billion muslims and certainly accounts for a larger share of international trade than India will accomplish within this century. So, the logic of having representatives of various global groups on the P5 should be equally applicable to groups who wish to be represented in the manner of their choosing, rather than limiting it to states alone. Africans certainly deserve to be represented as well. Such groups will continue to pop up, and it's best to just do away with the P5 than deal with the headaches of expanding it as populations and demographics change over time. The reality is that the Cold War is over, and that should effectively negate the need for a P5 at the UNSC.
Saad, Canada - 02 April, 2005
|
reality check... |
first of all UNO was established by the countries who mainly colonized muslim lands. These were the same countries who got into world war after failure of "league of the Nations". The purpose of UNSC was the representation of the world body on a same table. Now, there are only 5 permanent members as we know. and stage is being set to expand the world body. Here's the thing.. same countries who divided muslim lands under "divide and conquer" strategy, are representing and supporting the idea of temporary representation of one two or three muslim countries at a given time- let alone a permanent representation. Catch is- religious or not, its an internal problem of islamic countries. If 1.5 billion muslims seek a permanent representation, they do it because they have more than a lot in common in all aspects of their lives. religious or not (as i said) its their internal matter.. thats how they want to live etc. OR should i say... why they were divided in small countries at the first place by the colonists. And now the whole arguement one can give is that it should not be due to a religion- the membership that is or otherwise alll religious groups will persue the same course. Thing is that muslims believe that Islam is a complete set of decipline and thats how they spend their lives. Question is .. WHY AND WHO thinks and feel that they are being threatened by the life style of a group of 1.5 Billion people. If your only answer is that muslims believe in terrorism.. well its about time you did the reality check. you check with those colonists of mid 20th century and those "installed" governments on muslim people. THEY HAVE A RIGHT OF REPRESENTATION BECAUSE THEY ARE ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE ALL AROUND THE WORLD REGARDLESS OF THEIR LANGUAGES AND ETHNICITIES. Thats it and thats all.
Zia Khan, United Kingdom - 05 July, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
