PM Narendra Modi wants concrete outcome on UNSC reforms at upcoming meet
- Thread starter samlove
- Start date
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
RazorMC
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 3,888
- Reaction score
- 1
They are the same countries that defeated the Axis Powers.
Makaramarma
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
LOL...People had livelihood even before Industry. Did you think people in the past sat doing nothing waiting for maana from heaven ? Even animals make their livelihood.
The point was not about who's on top but about income disparity..... have you not yet figured that out Mr. top 1% ?
I have already told you, only you are too thick to get it. Go back to re-read my posts as many times as required, till you finally get it.
Only in the real world, I will continue to excel wile you will live on your privileges till it whittles down to nothing as it has happened for 1000's of years.
Why is MY personal Jealousy so important ?
Just so that we all understand, does Rahul Gandhi live in that same intersection too ?
Again, does this apply to Rahul Gandhi ? ..... best education, best training etc. etc... so that must mean he is on his path to Greatness
Yes, before industry, people slaved away for 18 hours out of the day in agriculture. Such amazing lives they must have led, we are poorer for only being middle class with food, water, healthcare etc readily available. Who needs a life expectancy greater than 35 anyway?
I've not made a claim of being a part of the 1% to you. But I would like to know WHY exactly, you find it so unpalatable that some people earn a lot more money than you ever will? So far you have only been able to communicate that there EXISTS an income disparity, you have not been able to explain WHY this is bad? You brought up the fact that they have a far higher quality of life than you will. You still haven't said why this is a BAD thing.
Rahul Gandhi certainly does. He's not meant to be a politician, but if he was left untrained by the tutors/etc his parents got for him, he would be a moron not fit to make it through high school. What is your point here?
We are Indian, as such it is our birthright and responsibility as founders of much of Eastern philosophy, to adopt the best of our histories. I suggest you adopt a more dialectic mode of conversation in order to quieten doubts that you are not completely full of yourself.
Last edited:
Luca1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2014
- Messages
- 2,237
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
No one is supporting veto power to India.this is a mute point anyway as no one would get any permanent seat. Stop dreaming.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Permanent UNSC seat means full powers like the rest of P5.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
UNSC membership: India, Brazil, Germany and Japan constitute the G4, which lobbies for Council reforms and they mutually support each other's candidatures for permanent seats on an expanded body.
By: IANS | United Nations | Published:March 8, 2017 1:38 pm
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...dia-offers-to-temporarily-give-up-veto-power/
India and other members of the G4 have offered to initially forgo veto powers as permanent members in a reformed Security Council as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving.
“The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself,” said India’s Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin, who was speaking on Tuesday on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reforms.
While the new permanent members would in principle have veto powers that the current five have, Akbaruddin said, “they shall not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review”.
India, Brazil, Germany and Japan constitute the G4, which lobbies for Council reforms and they mutually support each other’s candidatures for permanent seats on an expanded body.
The G4 group rejected suggestions to create a category of longer-term elected members of the Council as a ploy to block adding new permanent members.
Expanding only the non-permanent categories would only worsen “the imbalance of influence” in the Council and “tilt the scales” in favour of an outdated set-up, he said.
Akbaruddin was responding to Italy’s Permanent Representative Sebastiano Cardi, who opposed expanding the permanent membership and instead suggested creating a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years.
Cardi made the proposal on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan. The group has been waging a decades-long battle against expanding permanent membership and blocking the reform process.
Approaching reforms from a narrow national perspective of ensuring that certain countries do not get permanent membership – for example, Pakistan’s opposition to India – through the reform process, the UfC suggested adding 11 seats to the Council, with nine of them having longer terms.
Deriding the UfC proposal as “old hat”, Akbaruddin said that the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference held in Washington to negotiate the shape of the UN had rejected suggestions for the longer-term Council membership.
Any proposal for Council reforms without an expansion of the number of the permanent seats does “grave injustice to Africa’s aspirations for equality”, he said.
The G4 also pointed out that the number and allocation of non-permanent seats have outlived their relevance since the UN was formed and the reform in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10.
Akbaruddin said that 53 members of the Asia-Pacific group of nations have only two elected seats on the council, while the 26-member Western Europe group also get two.
7 October 1944 || Dumbarton Oaks
For this purpose, representatives of China, Great Britain, the USSR and the United States met for a business-like conference at Dumbarton Oaks, a private mansion in Washington, D. C. The discussions were completed on October 7, 1944, and a proposal for the structure of the world organization was submitted by the four powers to all the United Nations governments and to the peoples of all countries for their study and discussion.
A Proposal for the World Organization
|| Structure
According to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, four principal bodies were to constitute the organization to be known as the United Nations. There was to be a General Assembly composed of all the members. Then came a Security Council of eleven members. Five of these were to be permanent and the other six were to be chosen from the remaining members by the General Assembly to hold office for two years. The third body was an International Court of Justice, and the fourth a Secretariat. An Economic and Social Council, working under the authority of the General Assembly, was also provided for.
|| Roles and Responsibilities
The essence of the plan was that responsibility for preventing future war should be conferred upon the Security Council. The General Assembly could study, discuss and make recommendations in order to promote international cooperation and adjust situations likely to impair welfare. It could consider problems of cooperation in maintaining peace and security, and disarmament, in their general principles. But it could not make recommendations on any matter being considered by the Security Council, and all questions on which action was necessary had to be referred to the Security Council.
|| Method of Voting
The actual method of voting in the Security Council -- an all-important question -- was left open at Dumbarton Oaks for future discussion.
|| Armed Forces in the Service of Peace
Another important feature of the Dumbarton Oaks plan was that member states were to place armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council in its task of preventing war and suppressing acts of aggression. The absence of such force, it was generally agreed, had been a fatal weakness in the older League of Nations machinery for preserving peace.
By: IANS | United Nations | Published:March 8, 2017 1:38 pm
http://indianexpress.com/article/in...dia-offers-to-temporarily-give-up-veto-power/
India and other members of the G4 have offered to initially forgo veto powers as permanent members in a reformed Security Council as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving.
“The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself,” said India’s Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin, who was speaking on Tuesday on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reforms.
While the new permanent members would in principle have veto powers that the current five have, Akbaruddin said, “they shall not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review”.
India, Brazil, Germany and Japan constitute the G4, which lobbies for Council reforms and they mutually support each other’s candidatures for permanent seats on an expanded body.
The G4 group rejected suggestions to create a category of longer-term elected members of the Council as a ploy to block adding new permanent members.
Expanding only the non-permanent categories would only worsen “the imbalance of influence” in the Council and “tilt the scales” in favour of an outdated set-up, he said.
Akbaruddin was responding to Italy’s Permanent Representative Sebastiano Cardi, who opposed expanding the permanent membership and instead suggested creating a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years.
Cardi made the proposal on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan. The group has been waging a decades-long battle against expanding permanent membership and blocking the reform process.
Approaching reforms from a narrow national perspective of ensuring that certain countries do not get permanent membership – for example, Pakistan’s opposition to India – through the reform process, the UfC suggested adding 11 seats to the Council, with nine of them having longer terms.
Deriding the UfC proposal as “old hat”, Akbaruddin said that the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference held in Washington to negotiate the shape of the UN had rejected suggestions for the longer-term Council membership.
Any proposal for Council reforms without an expansion of the number of the permanent seats does “grave injustice to Africa’s aspirations for equality”, he said.
The G4 also pointed out that the number and allocation of non-permanent seats have outlived their relevance since the UN was formed and the reform in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10.
Akbaruddin said that 53 members of the Asia-Pacific group of nations have only two elected seats on the council, while the 26-member Western Europe group also get two.
7 October 1944 || Dumbarton Oaks
For this purpose, representatives of China, Great Britain, the USSR and the United States met for a business-like conference at Dumbarton Oaks, a private mansion in Washington, D. C. The discussions were completed on October 7, 1944, and a proposal for the structure of the world organization was submitted by the four powers to all the United Nations governments and to the peoples of all countries for their study and discussion.
A Proposal for the World Organization
|| Structure
According to the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, four principal bodies were to constitute the organization to be known as the United Nations. There was to be a General Assembly composed of all the members. Then came a Security Council of eleven members. Five of these were to be permanent and the other six were to be chosen from the remaining members by the General Assembly to hold office for two years. The third body was an International Court of Justice, and the fourth a Secretariat. An Economic and Social Council, working under the authority of the General Assembly, was also provided for.
|| Roles and Responsibilities
The essence of the plan was that responsibility for preventing future war should be conferred upon the Security Council. The General Assembly could study, discuss and make recommendations in order to promote international cooperation and adjust situations likely to impair welfare. It could consider problems of cooperation in maintaining peace and security, and disarmament, in their general principles. But it could not make recommendations on any matter being considered by the Security Council, and all questions on which action was necessary had to be referred to the Security Council.
|| Method of Voting
The actual method of voting in the Security Council -- an all-important question -- was left open at Dumbarton Oaks for future discussion.
|| Armed Forces in the Service of Peace
Another important feature of the Dumbarton Oaks plan was that member states were to place armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council in its task of preventing war and suppressing acts of aggression. The absence of such force, it was generally agreed, had been a fatal weakness in the older League of Nations machinery for preserving peace.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-akbaruddin/article17437687.ece?homepage=true
Will accept no-veto rule for first 15 years
India is ready to accept a United Nations (UN) permanent Security Council seat without using a veto for the first 15 years, the MEA confirmed here on Thursday.
Answering questions on the stand taken by India’s Ambassador to the UN on Wednesday where he addressed the General Assembly’s Inter Governmental Negotiations on behalf of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (called the G-4), MEA spokesperson Gopal Baglay said there had been “no change in the government’s position” on securing veto power at the UNSC, but India did not wish to “impede” the process.
In his submission Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin had said that India and other G-4 countries were ready to accept a moratorium on using the veto.
“While the new permanent members would as a principle have the same responsibilities and obligations as current permanent members they shall not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review [expected after 15 years],” Mr. Akbaruddin said. “The Indian Ambassador’s statement merely stresses that the matter of veto need not be made into something to protract urgently needed reforms of the Security Council,” added Mr. Baglay. According to officials, India is hopeful that the Chairpersons of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) will now put out a text recording every country’s views to take the reforms to the next step.
Showing flexibility
“This is one way of keeping the process going, and to show some flexibility on our part,” explained Chinmaya Garekhan, former Indian Ambassador to the UN.
However, Mr. Garekhan said that he doubted India could uphold the moratorium if there were any resolutions at the UNSC that affected India directly.
Will accept no-veto rule for first 15 years
India is ready to accept a United Nations (UN) permanent Security Council seat without using a veto for the first 15 years, the MEA confirmed here on Thursday.
Answering questions on the stand taken by India’s Ambassador to the UN on Wednesday where he addressed the General Assembly’s Inter Governmental Negotiations on behalf of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (called the G-4), MEA spokesperson Gopal Baglay said there had been “no change in the government’s position” on securing veto power at the UNSC, but India did not wish to “impede” the process.
In his submission Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin had said that India and other G-4 countries were ready to accept a moratorium on using the veto.
“While the new permanent members would as a principle have the same responsibilities and obligations as current permanent members they shall not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review [expected after 15 years],” Mr. Akbaruddin said. “The Indian Ambassador’s statement merely stresses that the matter of veto need not be made into something to protract urgently needed reforms of the Security Council,” added Mr. Baglay. According to officials, India is hopeful that the Chairpersons of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) will now put out a text recording every country’s views to take the reforms to the next step.
Showing flexibility
“This is one way of keeping the process going, and to show some flexibility on our part,” explained Chinmaya Garekhan, former Indian Ambassador to the UN.
However, Mr. Garekhan said that he doubted India could uphold the moratorium if there were any resolutions at the UNSC that affected India directly.
coffee_cup
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,383
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
No, the condition should be "end obsession with Pakistan and solve Kashmir first".
Otherwise, no-vote for even "1500" years is not gonna help.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
No, the condition should be "end obsession with Pakistan and solve Kashmir first".
Otherwise, no-vote for even "1500" years is not gonna help.
Here its more about getting Permanent UNSC seat with full Veto powers for Republic of India and Republic of Turkey who are having backing of Arab nations + African nations.
League of nations was changed and new world order was established in shape of United nations to keep up the world peace but now again the changes have to be made in United Nations. Should some of the Permanent members be removed or two more members should be added in United Nation security council with full Veto powers Republic of India and Republic of Turkey ?
coffee_cup
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 5,383
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
I can live with Turkey but definitely not India.
India is biggest sponsor of terrorism in the neighborhood for more than the last half century and is well known for bullying her smaller neighbors. To top this all, her obsession with Pakistan (and to some extent China) is mind boggling.
Indians from top govt officials to an average guy on the street are hyper-sensitive, irrational and fantasy loving delusional people who act mostly based on emotions rather than logic.
So why would neighboring countries, especially victims of Indian sponsored terrorism would ever want to see India getting a role in UN which could give her even more immunity to carry on with her outrageous terrorism activities in the region?
Sorry mate, not gonna happen!
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Relations between Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of India and Republic of Turkey are more strong and they are having good relations with United States of America.
Republic of India, Republic of Turkey and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are all victims of terrorism and since the last 7 decades showing solidarity and standing together shoulder to shoulder on all the international platforms and are working to liberate thier Holy lands which are under occupation and because of which millions of innocent people of our nations have be slaughtered due to the wrong policies of the colonialists.
1912 Shimla Accords and 1916 Balfour Declaration.
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
http://zeenews.india.com/india/size...oice-of-all-for-all-by-all-india-1993113.html
United Nations: The UN Security Council's size is inextricably linked to the need for equitable geographical distribution, India has said underscoring that the size of a reformed Council is a "choice of all, for all, by all".
"The Council's size is a choice of all, for all, by all. It cannot be allowed to falter on the altar of difficulty in adaptation of current working methods."
"...We cannot stave off change for want of the provisional rules of procedure (which have proved flexible on so many counts) not being able to accommodate aspects of size," India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin said.
He was speaking here yesterday at an informal meeting of the General Assembly on Inter-Governmental Negotiations on equitable representation and increase in membership of the Security Council.
He said the size of a reformed Council is inextricably linked to both the need for equitable geographical distribution and a desire for all stakeholders to have a greater opportunity to participate in it.
"...The increase in the number of states and population of the world, since the adoption of the Charter, has been more than three-fold. Yet, all expansion models have projected an increase that is less than that number. It reflects a willingness of all of us to be realistic," he said.
He noted that member states have a preference on every issue and so is the case with size.
However, working in the context of the General Assembly's mandate, "we also accept the sovereign equality of States as the basis of decision making."
"Issues of linkages are complex. They need to be addressed as part of a negotiation process that has detailed proposals available on paper, not through general statements. The earlier we go down that path the greater are chances of clarity. Until then the scope of our discussion will remain limited," he said.
On regional representation, Akbaruddin said a call from States from various regions for representation in a Council that is mandated to represent all states and regions is a "cry of frustration and dissatisfaction" with the existing state of affairs.
"This call is made by some on the basis of historical injustice; by others because entire regions are not equitably represented or even unrepresented in a key category; and by yet others who hope to move beyond the nation-state as the primary actor on global issues. In all cases, it symbolises the belief that the system as it exists has failed the membership," he said.
Akbaruddin noted that while member states represent themselves, yet on the Council they act on behalf of the entire membership.
"This principle, while being the basis for functioning of the Security Council, is also a reflection of what are perceived imperfections of our current system where a large diversity and divergences of opinions and views exist between and within regions on many crucial issues."
"Clearly, we need to work with the imperfect systems we have. At the same time, we need to recognise that different regions may have different approaches to address this situation," he said.
He cited the example of Africa, which has expressed a desire to have a regional approach to address the issues affecting that region.
It has established region-wide mechanisms for consultation, cooperation and resolution.
While other regions such as the Asia-Pacific, may not move in that direction for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons.
"We need to respect this diversity of perspectives and be open to examine all positions, including the approach of regions like Africa, who collectively ask for their uniqueness to be acknowledged," he said, adding that if Africa wants a consultative arrangement of its own between an African representative and the rest of the region, that is its own choice and UN members need to respect that.
"Approval and agreement of a representative from a region by all Member States is a sine qua non at the UN. All members of the Council act on behalf of all States and on all issues.
They do not merely act on behalf of a specific region and are also not limited to action on issues of a region.
"In essence, we stand ready to examine any supplemental arrangements that are offered by an established geographical region but do not think these can supplant the established process of equitable geographical distribution.
It goes without saying that while we ought to be respectful to the unanimous desires of a region, we cannot replicate it elsewhere where such desire does not prevail," he said.
First Published: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - 14:15
United Nations: The UN Security Council's size is inextricably linked to the need for equitable geographical distribution, India has said underscoring that the size of a reformed Council is a "choice of all, for all, by all".
"The Council's size is a choice of all, for all, by all. It cannot be allowed to falter on the altar of difficulty in adaptation of current working methods."
"...We cannot stave off change for want of the provisional rules of procedure (which have proved flexible on so many counts) not being able to accommodate aspects of size," India's Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin said.
He was speaking here yesterday at an informal meeting of the General Assembly on Inter-Governmental Negotiations on equitable representation and increase in membership of the Security Council.
He said the size of a reformed Council is inextricably linked to both the need for equitable geographical distribution and a desire for all stakeholders to have a greater opportunity to participate in it.
"...The increase in the number of states and population of the world, since the adoption of the Charter, has been more than three-fold. Yet, all expansion models have projected an increase that is less than that number. It reflects a willingness of all of us to be realistic," he said.
He noted that member states have a preference on every issue and so is the case with size.
However, working in the context of the General Assembly's mandate, "we also accept the sovereign equality of States as the basis of decision making."
"Issues of linkages are complex. They need to be addressed as part of a negotiation process that has detailed proposals available on paper, not through general statements. The earlier we go down that path the greater are chances of clarity. Until then the scope of our discussion will remain limited," he said.
On regional representation, Akbaruddin said a call from States from various regions for representation in a Council that is mandated to represent all states and regions is a "cry of frustration and dissatisfaction" with the existing state of affairs.
"This call is made by some on the basis of historical injustice; by others because entire regions are not equitably represented or even unrepresented in a key category; and by yet others who hope to move beyond the nation-state as the primary actor on global issues. In all cases, it symbolises the belief that the system as it exists has failed the membership," he said.
Akbaruddin noted that while member states represent themselves, yet on the Council they act on behalf of the entire membership.
"This principle, while being the basis for functioning of the Security Council, is also a reflection of what are perceived imperfections of our current system where a large diversity and divergences of opinions and views exist between and within regions on many crucial issues."
"Clearly, we need to work with the imperfect systems we have. At the same time, we need to recognise that different regions may have different approaches to address this situation," he said.
He cited the example of Africa, which has expressed a desire to have a regional approach to address the issues affecting that region.
It has established region-wide mechanisms for consultation, cooperation and resolution.
While other regions such as the Asia-Pacific, may not move in that direction for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons.
"We need to respect this diversity of perspectives and be open to examine all positions, including the approach of regions like Africa, who collectively ask for their uniqueness to be acknowledged," he said, adding that if Africa wants a consultative arrangement of its own between an African representative and the rest of the region, that is its own choice and UN members need to respect that.
"Approval and agreement of a representative from a region by all Member States is a sine qua non at the UN. All members of the Council act on behalf of all States and on all issues.
They do not merely act on behalf of a specific region and are also not limited to action on issues of a region.
"In essence, we stand ready to examine any supplemental arrangements that are offered by an established geographical region but do not think these can supplant the established process of equitable geographical distribution.
It goes without saying that while we ought to be respectful to the unanimous desires of a region, we cannot replicate it elsewhere where such desire does not prevail," he said.
First Published: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 - 14:15
Hindustani78
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 40,471
- Reaction score
- -47
- Country
- Location
Dalveer Bhandari, a file photo | Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...-to-face-uk/article20112991.ece?homepage=true
NEW DELHI, November 10, 2017 22:38 IST
Updated: November 10, 2017 22:38 IST
With Kulbhushan trial now in international court, India wants to see Bhandari in
The government is putting “all efforts in” to ensure the election of its nominee Judge Dalveer Bhandari for the International Court of Justice, after receiving a setback at the United Nations on Thursday.
Officials said on Friday that India failed to secure enough support in the first few rounds of voting for the court where the Kulbhushan Jadhav case is being heard.
The next round of voting will be on Monday, when Mr. Bhandari will face off with the United Kingdom candidate Christopher Greenwood, who also lost in the vote, in what is being described as a close contest. While India finished far ahead in the 193-member United Nations General Assembly, Britain got more votes in the United Nations Security Council.
The judges who won were from France, Somalia, Brazil and Lebanon, which was India’s rival in the Asia bloc.
If the next round of voting proves inconclusive, the U.N. would hold a “joint conference” made up of members from both the Assembly and the Council, after which the elected judges may be asked to decide.
Handsome lead
“In the Security Council, the permanent members (U.K., U.S., France, China and Russia) have disproportionate influence. So that is an issue. But in the General Assembly, we have a handsome lead,” a senior MEA official told The Hindu on Friday. Another official said the government, including MEA officials in Delhi and at the U.N. in New York, will be working the phones “over the weekend” to bring more members of the U.N. Security Council around.
To be elected, any candidate must obtain a majority of 97 votes or more in the UN general assembly and also a majority of eight votes in the Security Council. During the last unsuccessful round on Friday, India won 115 to U.K.’s 74 votes in the UNGA, but won only six out of 15 U.N. Security Council members, while U.K. won 9. India’s task is made more difficult, given the U.K. is a permanent member and has a vote in both the UNSC and the UNGA.
As a result, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had himself taken up the issue of support with countries that he has held bilateral meetings with since June this year, when India declared its nomination bid.
PM’s intervention
When asked if PM Modi would himself make calls in the next few days, an official said “all efforts will be put in”. “It depends on how many of the U.N. Security Council members we manage to [bring] over to our side over the weekend,” the official added.
India has a particular interest in the ICJ spot, given the trial of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the man convicted of spying in Pakistan, which is now in the international court at The Hague.
In October, Pakistan nominated an ad-hoc judge Tassaduq Hussain Jillani according to ICJ rules to sit on the bench.
