Pak slams India’s demand for expansion of UNSC permanent membership
Pakistan’s envoy to the UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi said the objective of the Council’s expansion should be to respond to the concerns and “aspirations of all, not just a few.”world Updated: May 10, 2016 15:16 IST
Pakistan has criticised the demand made by India along with other G4 countries of adding more permanent seats to the UN Security Council, saying it was based on “poor logic” and reflected the “self-serving national ambition” of a few.
Pakistan’s envoy to the UN Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi, at the informal meeting of the General Assembly on Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Security Council reform, said the objective of the Council’s expansion should be to respond to the concerns and “aspirations of all, not just a few.”
A statement issued by the Pakistan mission here claimed that Lodhi last week “exposed” the G-4 position on Security Council expansion.
India’s Permanent Representative to the UNAmbassador Syed Akbaruddin, speaking on behalf of the G4 nations --Brazil, Germany, India and Japan -- had said at the meeting that the problem of “imbalance of influence” in the Council cannot be corrected if only non-permanent members are added to the powerful UN body.
The statement by the Pakistan mission said Lodhi “exposed the poor logic of India and its allies” by saying that the G4 formula of adding more permanent seats “reflected the self-serving national ambition of a few at the expense of the world body’s wider membership.”
“To propose allocation of 4-6 seats permanently to that many countries, while handing over only 4-5 seats to the rest of the membership is not only poor mathematics but also poor logic and even poorer rationale for a just and meaningful reform,” Lodhi was quoted as saying by the statement.
India had said at the meeting that the problem lies in the “imbalance of influence” within the Security Council between the permanent and non-permanent members and expanding members only in the non-permanentcategory is not going to solve the problem.
Opposing the proposal that sought expansion in permanent membership, Lodhi argued that this runs contrary to the principles that all member states agree on -- to make the Council “more representative, democratic, accountable, transparent and effective”.
She stressed that only additional electable seats, on the basis of periodic elections and fixed rotation, would allow equal, fair and increased opportunity to all states to aspire for Security Council’s membership.