Pakistan Supports India’s Bid For Permanent UN Seat (Believe It Or Not!)

  • Ambassador Haroon has provided Pakistani support in the Asian Group for India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council

  • When Indian foreign minister blasted Pakistan at the UN, our envoy refused to reply to avoid criticizing India. Other diplomats call him and the Indian ambassador an ‘Inseparable Twin’

  • Pakistan has an India-sympathizer as its UN Representative

  • ‘Banana-Republic’ Pakistan under US tutelage appoints the likes of Haroon and Haqqani to crucial diplomatic posts

  • Even ZAB, PPP’s founder, had better sense when he countered India’s moves inside UN.

Finally, Pakistan has a pro-Indian ambassador at the United Nations. He refuses to respond when Indian foreign minister blasts Pakistan at the UN and is so close to the Indian ambassador that other diplomats call them the ‘inseparable twins’. The icing on the cake is that Pakistan’s envoy has supported India’s bid for a permanent UN seat. Tell me this is not a ‘banana republic’ under American tutelage?

By SHIREEN M. MAZARI

Wednesday, 6 October 2010.

The Nation.

WWW.PAKNATIONALISTS.COM

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—In these trying times, when India is hysterically accusing Pakistan of all manner of fanciful evils of terrorism to divert attention from its quagmire in Occupied Kashmir, our diplomacy has suffered an unexpected blow from an unexpected source.

On crucial matters at the UN or any other international forum one expects the most senior diplomat – the Envoy himself – to stand up and state the country’s case. Unfortunately, this is not happening in the UN in New York, especially in cases where a condemnation of India is expected.

For instance, on Wednesday 29 September, in the rights-of-reply during the high level debate in the UNGA, following Krishna’s statement on Kashmir, Pakistani Envoy Hussain Haroon did not exercise his right of reply because it he would have had to say that Indians won’t like. Instead, he let a junior foreign office official do that job while he sat in the routine UNSC debate on Afghanistan, which was not as important at that time.
Haroon and his Indian counterpart Hardeep Singh Puri are so friendly and stay so close to each other that they even travel in the same car to various functions. In the South Asian circles they are known as “inseparable twins.”

Thanks to Pakistan’s support, lined up by the India-sympathizer Pakistani Envoy with the help and support of the President himself (he was kept in culinary delight in prison in Karachi because of the home cooked meals sent to him by Haroon, a gourmet cook himself), the Asian Group at the UN has already endorsed India for the UNSC non-permanent seat in the upcoming elections for this. With Ban Ki-moon’s re-election set to take place in November 2011, for another five-year term beginning January 1, 2012, India will be one of the critical voters in the Security Council which makes the recommendation for the SG to the General Assembly. Already an extremely pro-US SG, from now on Ban Ki-moon will not do anything nor will allow the UN system to do anything that would annoy any of the present and future UNSC members. Ban will continue whipping countries like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and so on.

In this connection it is important to note that investigation into Indian human rights offences in Occupied Kashmir will also be directly affected by the Pakistan’s move to endorse India for the UNSC seat.
The Human Rights Council is mandated to investigate crises in all countries. Its teams produce reports which it adopts before they go to the UNGA. In New York, the HRC report on Kashmir – if produced – may not muster enough votes because of India’s expanding influence, especially on the commercial side. So the report on Kashmir will only have a temporary effect when it is adopted by the HRC in Geneva, i.e. if India allows its investigation team to go to the Occupied Kashmir in the first place. Israel never allows such teams into Palestine or Israel, and India will adopt the same stance. In 1975, India sought UNSC membership, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto challenged Mrs. Gandhi’s move by putting Pakistan for the non-permanent seat.
As an expert on multilateral diplomacy, Bhutto knew the UN thoroughly. He played his card brilliantly and with the able support of Agha Shahi and Iqbal Akhund, he overwhelmed India, which at that time was a leader in the 128-member NAM. Now Pakistan is not only denying itself the option of even thinking about defeating India at the UN, but its Envoy is actually supporting India at a time when the latter’s human rights abuses in Occupied Kashmir are at a peak. Is this what our diplomacy has come down to at the UN?

This column was published by The Nation.

About these ads
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Nasim  On October 7, 2010 at 9:46 am

    Who is running Pakistan?????

    • Aziz  On October 7, 2010 at 10:58 am

      Those who will soon “run away” from Pakistan

      • Arif  On October 7, 2010 at 12:49 pm

        What do you think about Castro of Cuba?

  • Zafar Akhtar  On October 7, 2010 at 9:47 am

    It is absolutely shocking and shamefull for our Rep at the UN

  • Rauf  On October 7, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Just wait and see, there is lot more to come under the current
    leadership. One should not be shocked.

  • Arif  On October 7, 2010 at 9:48 am

    I still don’t believe what I am seeing.A group of traitor & BEGHAIRATS are ruling the country. We need a ruthless, sadist, cruel but
    an honest Dictator who should chop many heads .

  • Pervez Rahim  On October 7, 2010 at 9:49 am

    It is very unfortunate and I feel extremely sorry when educated and enlightened people advocate the rule of a so-called ‘honest dictator’.Sir, an honest dictator does not exist.They all eventually become power hungry and would be prepared to sell their mother to remain in power.And no dictator,after rolling thousands of heads,has ever braught happiness,peace and progress to the people.Ask the people of Russia,Yogoslavia,and Portugal how they felt under Stalin,Tito, and Salazar.

  • Tanvir Ahmed Siddiqui  On October 7, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Are we made to stoop so low? I dont believe it, i simply dont believe it. ..but i am sure India will never be able to make it..can China let it happen?

    • Khayyam Chaudhry  On October 7, 2010 at 10:28 am

      The Security Council’s five permanent members have the power to veto any substantive resolution:
      China[1]
      France
      Russia[2]
      United Kingdom
      United States
      ONE AGAINST OTHERS?
      USA WILL PUSH IT.

  • zafar Akhtar  On October 7, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Such decisions have to be approved at the highest level in the Govt so suerly if the decision is made to support India for UN, it must have been made at PM and President level and what is the Parliament doing.I think the subject should be raised and protested in the strongest term in the National Assembly and the entire opposition should reject the Govt decision to support India

  • Gulraiz Chaudhry  On October 7, 2010 at 10:24 am

    “We don’t hate india… but we hate their bad policies”

  • Pagal  On October 7, 2010 at 11:30 am

    “We stabbed china in the back, i apologise to the pakistani ppl and the chinese for loosing control of my government for so long tht it has come to this”

  • Syed Ataur Rahman  On October 7, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    This man Hassan Haroon is a die-hard Indian sympathizer and a personal friend of Asif Zardari. When he was appointed we knew we were going to be sold to our enemies. Of course it must be a government policy that he is toeing or he has made the government see his point of view regarding India’s membership as a permanent member to the security member. This news has shocked me. It seems these people are bent upon destroying Pakistan. However, we the patriotic people of Pakistan must protest vehemently and never allow our government to do so. In case Hassan Haroon has done this at his own initiative he must be called back immediately and allowed to play golf which was his past time before he left for New York as Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations.

    • Ayaz  On October 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm

      A declared policy of Zardari govt is to not to say anything against India.
      What else can you expect. But how do we undo the damage which may be sounding our death knell?
      A

  • Laila  On October 7, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    Several influential opinion leaders in leading newspapers have also advocated permanent membership for India in the UN Security Council:

    International Herald Tribune: “Clearly, a seat for India would make the body more representative and democratic. With India as a member, the Council would be a more legitimate and thus a more effective body…” — Robert Wilcox

    The Washington Post: “First, as soon as the dust settles in Iraq, we should push for an expansion of the Security Council–with India and Japan as new permanent members” — Charles Krauthammer

    The New York Times: “Sometimes I wish that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council could be chosen…with a vote by the fans… Then the perm-five would be Russia, China, India, Britain and the United States. That’s more like it. India is the world’s biggest democracy, the world’s largest Hindu nation and the world’s second-largest Muslim nation” — Thomas Friedman

    While Britain, France, Russia and many other countries fully support India’s admission to the Council as a permanent member, the U.S. has not yet endorsed India’s request . There is no question that the support of the U.S. would be necessary for India’s admission as a permanent member. Since India has a very strong case for admission as a permanent member, the lack of support from the U.S. thus far is puzzling at best. In the National Security Strategy of the United States of America released in September 2002, President Bush has said: “The United States has undertaken a transformation in its bilateral relationship with India based on a conviction that U.S. interests require a strong relationship with India. We are the two largest democracies, committed to political freedom protected by representative government. India is moving toward greater economic freedom as well. We have a common interest in the free flow of commerce, including through the vital sea-lanes of the Indian Ocean. Finally, we share an interest in fighting terrorism and in creating a strategically stable Asia.”

    Representative Frank Pallone (founder, India Caucus in the US Congress) introduced House Resolution 108 in the United States House of Representatives , supporting a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council on February 26, 2003. Rep. Pallone stated, “I believe it is morally wrong to ignore the voice of over one billion Indian people in security decision-making that affects them, and the rest of the world. India’s location, its large population, its history of participating in U.N. peacekeeping operations, and its leadership in the non-alignment movement all justify its bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. All five members of the UN Security Council must realize that having India as a permanent security council member will give the South Asia region a stabilizing force, helping peace efforts in Central Asia and all parts of our increasingly connected world. The United States should follow the lead of one of its most important allies and endorse a permanent seat for India in the United Nations Security Council.”
    Bharat (aka India) has always opposed Pakistan getting the United Nation’s Security Council seat. In fact, the Asian giants have contested the seat on many occasions, and many a times Pakistan supported by the Muslim bloc, OIC and other friendly nations won against India.

    This year, in a strange twist of fate, the Zardari government has chosen to support India in her quest for the United Nation’s Security Council Non-permanent seat. Bharat has never supported Pakistan.

    Why is the compliant and obsequious Zardari Administration supporting Bharat (aka India)?

    NEW DELHI: In a coincidence that may augur well for India-Pakistan talks scheduled for later this week, Pakistan joined 52 other Asian states to endorse India’s candidature for non-permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

    The Asian group’s endorsement of India is virtually the final stamp for India’s election to the seat in October this year. Pakistan’s support came along with a nod from all the Saarc countries, but while it was not unexpected, sources said, more than half the countries actually spoke out in India’s favour as opposed to merely signing on.

    India needs 128 votes to get the seat in October. In January, Kazakhstan, the only other candidate, withdrew from the list after it became clear that India had already had about 122 votes in its kitty. Although it’s theoretically possible that another Asian candidate could pop up between now and October, diplomats consider that unlikely, particularly after Friday’s vocal endorsement of India’s candidature. This will mean that India’s lobbying efforts cannot slacken until the election to prevent attrition of support or the emergence of another rival. If India wins, it will avenge its humiliating defeat in 1996, when Japan wrested the seat from India, which got just around 40 votes.

    On longer term project of getting itself a permanent seat in Security Council, India expects a text to be circulated in a couple of weeks on structure of the UNSC reform and new members. Times of India. Pakistan backs India for a non-permanent UNSC seat. PTI, Feb 23, 2010, 01.43am IST

    This has to be another low of the PPP government. While Bharat does not waste an opportunity to berate Pakistan, attempts to destroy Islamabad’s relations with other countries, and sabotage Pakistan by sending mercenary terrorists to Pakistan–Mr. Zardari’s government chooses to support Delhi for the UNSC. This flies in the face of Pakistan’s principled and determined stance to oppose a permanent seat for Delhi on the UNSC.

    L

  • Idrees  On October 7, 2010 at 1:24 pm

    Arif,
    His excellency, the great and honourable comrade Fidel Castro, is an exception to prove the rule. He is quite incomparable as are Mao Zedung, Imam Khomenie, Ho Chi Min, Nelson Mandela, etc. All of them being to my mind much greater men than F D Roosevelt, W Churchill, Stalin, Gorbechev, Gandhi etc.
    That’s my take.
    id

  • Zubair  On October 8, 2010 at 2:54 am

    With the present regime I can believe anything including officially withdrawing our cliam on Kashmir. If we can give transit facilities to an enemy, we can do anything. THAT is democracy for you . Zinda hai BB zinda hai. Her bather broke the country and her husband is selling it piece by piece.
    Zubair

  • Syed Bilgrami  On October 8, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Not a surprise from this government. Another Khomaini is needed to take over.
    It is a bitter truth that in Pakistan, Dictatorship have always given to the people of Pakistan. Look Back and review development of Ayubs era, when world was closely watching the devlopment and were expecting to see Pakistan as a most developed country in the region. ZA Bhutto & Mujeeb’s Lust for Power reversed the development processand threw pakistan 50 yrs back. Than Zia-ul- Haq, Atleast in his times, with Russia in Afghanistan (at our borders) we were at peace and secured and trade and Industrial development again started. Musharraf. atleast Pakistan was again getting back to the path of development, peace and propsperity. Democracies, all theives and Dacoos, snatched what ever the people had.

  • Ram  On October 9, 2010 at 9:01 am

    Actually, this is very good for the South Asian race. If we don’t get together and fortify the region against outside intruders, our children may well be under a foreign colonial boot in the future as global wars for remaining resources heat up. Whether we like it or not, we are family.

  • Zubair  On October 9, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Regardless of what our UN REP’s affiliations, he has to follow policies of our Govt. Having said than don’t we remember what ZAB did in UN security council during 1971 war. Against the instructions of the President, he tore the resolution of immediate cease fire thus clearing all hurdles for the Indians to occupy Dacca. This is not the first time will it the the last for the PPP to compromise Pakistan’s interests. Long live democracy.
    Zubair

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers

%d bloggers like this: