Pakistan urges limits on veto, rejects new permanent seats at UNSC 

New York (Web Desk): Reasserting its long-held position, Pakistan has once again called for either the complete removal or strict limitation of veto authority, while categorically rejecting any move to expand the number of permanent members in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

During a resumed meeting of the ongoing Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) on reforming the 15-member Council, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, underscored Islamabad’s support for increasing non-permanent seats to help offset the dominance created by veto powers.

“Increased number of elected members will tilt the balance away from the permanent members,” he said while addressing member states in a session focused on the ‘Question of Veto’.

Drawing attention to the Council’s frequent inability to act decisively, the envoy remarked, “We firmly believe that the paralysis that we see often at the Security Council leading to inaction on crucial matters related to international peace and security stems from the misuse or abuse of the veto power by the permanent members.”

He made it clear that Pakistan strongly resists any proposal to extend veto privileges or introduce new permanent members, cautioning that such steps would worsen the current situation.

“Any expansion of the veto or addition of new individual permanent members is firmly opposed, as more vetoes would only aggravate the problem,” Ambassador Asim Ahmad said, adding, “This is a position of principle.”

Formal negotiations on restructuring the Security Council began in the General Assembly in February 2009, focusing on five major areas: categories of membership, the issue of veto, regional representation, the size of an expanded Council, and its working methods, including its relationship with the General Assembly.

Despite years of discussions, progress remains stalled due to divisions among member states. The G4 group — comprising India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan — continues to advocate for permanent seats, while the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, led by Italy and Pakistan, opposes the creation of new permanent positions, arguing that it would result in “new centers of privilege.”

As a middle-ground solution, the UfC bloc has suggested introducing a new category of members who would serve longer terms and could be re-elected, instead of being granted permanent status.

At present, the Security Council includes five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States — along with 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

The IGN process is designed to make the Council more representative, efficient, and accountable.

Emphasizing prevailing global sentiment, Ambassador Ahmad said, “There is an overwhelming sentiment against the veto, and how actually this privilege is anachronistic today, along with the permanent membership,” while noting that proposals to expand veto powers continue to surface.

He questioned the contradiction by asking, “How can this dichotomy be defended… The problem cannot be the solution.”

Pakistan, he added, backs initiatives aimed at improving transparency and accountability in the use of veto power, including mechanisms that allow the General Assembly to examine and debate its application.

“When a permanent member blocks action that was backed by a broad majority, the veto becomes more isolated and harder to justify, increasing accountability and reputational costs,” he said.

The Pakistani envoy stressed that reform of the Security Council should be addressed as a comprehensive package, covering all key aspects together.

Referring to widely shared principles, he noted, “We have repeatedly heard from colleagues … the emphasis on core and agreed principles of democracy, representation, accountability, effectiveness and transparency as the foundation for reform.”

“Veto is our view runs counter to each one of these principles; We must seriously reflect on this contradiction,” he said, ending with a clear message: “That is why we say if we want Reform for All, there should be Privilege for None.”