PM Narendra Modi wants concrete outcome on UNSC reforms at upcoming meet

[faithfulguy]

ICJ election: Tharoor's comments come in the wake of India failing to secure enough support from the United Nations Security Council, despite finishing far ahead, in comparison to UK, in the 193-member General Assembly in the last round on Friday.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: November 13, 2017 10:16 pm

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor. (Express Photo by Subham Dutta/File)

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...of-stalling-will-of-general-assembly-4935871/


As India battles out against the United Kingdom to get its nominee elected as the judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), former United Nations diplomat and Congress leader Shashi Tharoor accused the UK, one of the permanent members of the Security Council, of stalling the will of the majority of the General Assembly and called for a reform within the UN organ.

“The election is no longer about the judge or the country he hails from but about the GA standing up against a member of a privileged club who has lost comprehensively among the Members at large but still leads 9-6 in the SC. UK trying to stall the will of the majority of the GA,” Tharoor said in a series of tweets.

His comments come in the wake of India failing to secure enough support from the United Nations Security Council, despite finishing far ahead, in comparison to UK, in the 193-member General Assembly in the previous round on Friday.

“This time a nominee of a Permanent member of the SC has failed to get an absolute majority of the GA, for the first time in a direct contest to a major UN organ. GA vote has turned into a protest against an unwarranted extension of privilege for 70+ years. P5 lost by 40votes!,” Tharoor said, adding that the voice of the GA has been ignored for too long.

The Thiruvananthapuram MP, who is also a renowned author, observed that judges to the world court must represent the majority of the UN membership and that “cosy” permanent members club at the SC cannot keep imposing its will. “Deeply entrenched interests of a tiny select group cannot be allowed to prevail in areas where such privileges are not based in law,” he said.

India’s nominee, Justice Dalveer Bhandari who is seeking a second term, garnered 115 votes to the UK’s 74 votes in the General Assembly, but could secure only six votes in the 15-member Security Council, while the UK received nine.

As per rules, a candidate must secure a majority of 97 votes or more in the General Assembly and also a majority of eight votes in the Security Council in order to get elected to the prestigious position. India faces a major stumbling block ahead of the upcoming round as UK is a permanent member in the SC and has a vote in the General Assembly.

“Decisions at the UN must reflect the voice of the majority of Members and cannot continue to be decided by a few states with long-held privileges. Only that kind of multilateralism will inspire confidence among the international community, especially the younger generation,” Tharoor opined, while calling on SC members to vote for India’s candidate.

“This is not about India or any single country. It is about the idea of justice, of equality & fairness. It is about the future we envisage for the United Nations & the conduct of multilateralism. The time for reform is now. I call on SC members to vote for India’s candidate,” he continued.

Throwing weight behind the Indian candidature, Tharoor said, “Aside from these points of principle, India has always shouldered collective responsibilities w/our partners in our quest for a more just global order, Our ethos also leads us towards genuine & constructive rule-based multilateralism&peaceful settlement of disputes. Vote4 India!.”

The voting is on Monday and Bhandari’s re-election would assume significance as ICJ is hearing the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former naval officer, sentenced to death on espionage charges by a Pakistani military court.

There had been five vacancies in the Hague-based ICJ, which has 15 judges with a nine-year term. Judges from France, Somalia, Brazil and Lebanon were elected on Friday and the tussle is now between Justice Bhandari and UK candidate Christopher Greenwood.

India will never get into the UNSC as a permanent member with veto power. Neither US nor Russia support this for India. Instead of fighting for such a seat, India should focus on mistreatment of women, oppressed and minorities.

 

[Areesh]

We aren't the ones who marry our own COUSINS. You marry your own blood-relatives...

Yeah you simply swap wives and live happily ever after.

 

[Hindustani78]

Yeah you simply swap wives and live happily ever after.

Here its more about sharing wife of non EU legal immigrants with EU citizens, when the wife is EU citizen and then the kids of that legal non EU citizen would be made to sleep with 10 EU Citizens because International marriages and conventions are having no meaning in EU nations and these EU Citizens would not see those kids are minors which is a direct violation of UN Charter, Hague convention and even Geneva Convention. The point here would be this that relations would be hard to continue with such nations as its the violation of Hague Convention which means no marriages with such countries citizens and even the education certificates will have no meaning and no trade bonds can be issued. Trade deficit would be a legal issue and such countries wants to get food containers in the name of humanity and the Governments of such nations openly combine with the enemy nations as an excuse.

 

[newb3e]

Pakistan's birth rate (3.55) is much higher than India's (2.4). Now ythink if Indians are growing like rabbit who is like parasite!

Loser, why you forget that you are a born loser, losing is in your blood. Than why come to use rubbish about others while you are rubbish!

Coming from a someone whoes forefather was a slave! I am impressed! Modi g tv peh a keh kia rooz delusion ka bhashan daytaty hain? Aik toh ghulam aur batain aissi keh dunia modi ki g say shoro ho keh modi ki g peh khatam! You people bark louder than dog seriously!

 

[Sal12]

We aren't the ones who marry our own COUSINS. You marry your own blood-relatives...

Cousins are NOT our brothers and sister who we can't marry.

 

[Śakra]

Cousins are NOT our brothers and sister who we can't marry.

Cousins are no different that your real brother or sister. You grow up with them, you share blood with them.

Yeah you simply swap wives and live happily ever after.

Clutching at straws. You called us inbred and I proved you practice inbreeding.

 

[Sal12]

Cousins are no different that your real brother or sister. You grow up with them, you share blood with them.

.

No. Cousins are different from brothers and sisters. We treat them differently. They don't get share in your father or mother's property.

If you don't, its your choice. But don't force your choice on us

 

[faithfulguy]

No. Cousins are different from brothers and sisters. We treat them differently. They don't get share in your father or mother's property.

If you don't, its your choice. But don't force your choice on us

Cousins could be 10 generations apart or one generation. Marrying first cousin is a form of incest. To me, no marriage unless it's 3 generation removed. But that is still kind of close as it could produce recessive gene diseases.

 

[Sal12]

Cousins could be 10 generations apart or one generation. Marrying first cousin is a form of incest. To me, no marriage unless it's 3 generation removed. But that is still kind of close as it could produce recessive gene diseases.

For you, this can be incest. For us, this is Not.

 

[Pindi Boy]

what are the updates?

 

[Makarena]

or what?

 

[Hindustani78]

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...-says-india/article24817244.ece?homepage=true
United Nations, August 30, 2018 12:17 IST
Updated: August 30, 2018 13:02 IST

U.N. and other concerned actors
Mr. Akbaruddin said as recognised by the U.N. Charter, pacific settlement of disputes can be through a variety of mechanisms and today, there are numerous actors and many forms of pacific settlement that may be better suited to address different issues.

“Instead of putting the United Nations at the centre of mediation efforts and exhorting States to support them, perhaps, the international community should lend encouragement to those most motivated and having the capacity to do so to settle these, as appropriate,” he said.”

“Of course, there could be many forms of division of tasks of pacific settlement of disputes between the United Nations and other concerned actors that can undoubtedly be devised. It is important, however, not to charge the United Nations with responsibilities that it maybe ill-suited to perform. Mediation, in every circumstance, is one such task, it is not geared to fulfil,” he said.

Mediation, on the face of it, is based on the interest, consent and commitment by all parties for a peaceful settlement. He stressed that the issue is not whether mediation is a useful tool for peaceful settlement.

“Where acceptable to all parties, it is, in a manner of speaking, settled international law,” he said.


Mediation unencumbered
Mr. Akbaruddin said the questions to be addressed are whether the apparatus of the United Nations, as currently constituted, can perform many of the basic functions required for effective mediation and are the mechanisms at the disposal of the United Nations coherent and flexible to guide dynamic negotiations with an effective strategy.

He pointed out that the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council, does not come to mediation unencumbered. The problems of the United Nations apparatus as a mediator are ingrained in the nature of inter-governmental organisations.

“Inter-governmental organisations are hindered by complex decision-making procedures. Add to it the specificities of the U.N. Charter, that is premised on cooperation amongst the permanent members. That cooperation is clearly not evident. Where it does manifest, it invariably takes the form of the lowest common denominator,” he said.

Further, policy-making within an international organisation adds another layer of bargaining and trade-offs, he said adding that it requires a time-consuming and uncertain process of consultation and coordination among a multiplicity of actors.

“Such tortuous decision-making process, imbued with political trade-offs, saps the United Nations of necessary dynamism and flexibility in pursuing mediation. Once the U.N. authorised entities agree on a mediating proposal or framework, it cannot easily be modified in response to changing circumstances. Modification requires renegotiation,” he said.

‘Resolutions remain unimplemented’
In her remarks, Ms. Lodhi said the “Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains a long-standing issue” on the agenda of the Council. She said through its various resolutions, the Security Council has provided that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people “expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite” conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.

She said the Security Council also instituted several mechanisms including the U.N. Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP), the deployment of the U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) and the appointment of U.N. representatives.

“Sadly, these resolutions remain unimplemented to date. The international community cannot succeed in its efforts to strengthen conflict prevention and promote pacific dispute settlement if the Security Council’s own resolutions are held in abeyance, by some.

“What is, at stake is both the Council’s credibility as well as the objective of durable peace in our region. We must not fail these tests,” she said.


India’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin’s remarks came during the UNSC debate on Mediation and Settlement of Disputes.

Pakistan’s new government must not indulge in “polemics” but work to build a South Asian region free of terror and violence, India has said after Pakistan raked up the Kashmir issue at the U.N. Security Council.

“I take this opportunity to remind — Pakistan — the one isolated delegation that made unwarranted references to an integral part of India, that pacific settlement requires pacific intent in thinking and pacific content in action,” Mr. Akbaruddin said at the debate yesterday.

Pakistan’s Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi raked up the Kashmir issue during the debate, drawing a sharp reaction from Mr. Akbaruddin who said Pakistan is “regurgitating a failed approach, which has long been rejected, is neither reflective of pacific intent nor a display of pacific content”.

“We hope that the new government of Pakistan will, rather than indulge in polemics, work constructively to build a safe, stable, secure and developed South Asian region, free of terror and violence,” Mr. Akbaruddin said, a reference to the government in Pakistan under newly-elected Prime Minister Imran Khan.