India&rsquo;s foreign policy, in its earliest avatar, was built in conformity with Prime Minister Pandit Nehru&rsquo;s vision. It remained so for the next 4 decades. The impression in post-colonial India has been that only Nehru was passionate about foreign affairs and rest in the Congress had different indulgences. If one goes through the correspondence between Patel and Nehru, the latter admits his own enthusiasm about foreign policy, and acknowledge the difference of opinion between him and his peers on many world issues.

Sardar Patel&rsquo;s image, on the other hand, is that of a prisoner of his own success like BR Ambedkar. As Ambedkar&rsquo;s career boils down to the making of the Constitution, Patel&rsquo;s repertoire comes down to the unification of India. &nbsp;

Patel passed away soon after the independence, leaving little or no public imprint of the world-view he espoused in numerous meetings of the Congress before and after independence.

Nonetheless, some of his observations on the United Nations Security Council remain pertinent even today. His views were built on India&rsquo;s early engagement with the UN-- the organisation that epitomised the new world order of the victors of World War II.

&nbsp;As observed by Sardar Patel so many decades ago, India and several other countries continue to face the same dilemma after 70 years. The member countries of the UN have to deal with an archaic and unfair Security Council which on multiple occasions has taken partisan positions on the issue of terrorism and civil conflict.

The matter was best illustrated during Justice Dalbir Singh&rsquo;s election when Britain came down to using the most archaic tool available to them. Britain bowed down under world pressure but the archaic tool persists. Despite world pressure, the United Nation Security Council continues to resist reform.

Sardar Patel&rsquo;s observation three years after its inception shows UN from a different light. We get to see the UN from the perspective of a newly independent nation which is trying to build a republic over a motley body of feudal states.

Sardar Patel in his Nagpur speech on 4th November 1948 said, &quot;You have seen what is happening in Hyderabad. The Nizam says, &#39;I do not want my case in Security Council.&#39; But Security Council says, &#39;We are seized of it.&#39; It is so because they have no other thing to do. Therefore, anything which comes before them, they go on discussing it which disturbs the security here or likely to disturb the security here and thereby it disturbs the security of the world and thus it is proper and fitting thing to call this organization an &ldquo;Insecurity Council&rdquo;. How far it is advisable to be the member of this august Organisation is a question which has to be seriously considered.&rdquo;

Sardar Patel in his speech elaborates further. &ldquo;Take Palestine, take Indonesia, take any question that has been referred to Security Council. It has not been able to dispose them and bring peace; they are all problems which they are not able to settle. So, in one way, the League of Nations was more or less a harmless organization. This organization if it does not improve itself is going to land the world into a terrific slaughter and destruction,&rdquo; he said.

Lastly, in a letter written on 28th March 1950, in response to Nehru&rsquo;s letter dated 26th March, a difference between them on a key issue was recorded. It is an issue which remains alive even today.

Nehru was upset that Sardar had discussed foreign policy with Members of Parliament, making uncharitable comments on his initiatives. Patel&rsquo;s reply was in response to it and the letter said, &ldquo;Some Muslim countries have recognized Israel but we have not done out of deference of the views our Muslim brethren.&rdquo;

Narsimaha Rao in his tenure established full diplomatic relations with Israel and it&rsquo;s no co-incidence which school of thought he belonged to in the Congress.

Coming back to the moot point, Sardar Patel&rsquo;s observation continues to be true for the UN, which behaves as a political body motivated only by national interest of big powers where interests come first and merit later. The romanticism related to the UN exists no more. It needs reforms and tough negotiation from various emerging economies.

I would end by quoting an excerpt from Sardar Patel&#39;s observation on Kashmir. &ldquo;We have seen what price we have paid by going to that Organisation. We went to UN to bring the dispute to an early end and we were maligned all over the world by the representatives of Pakistan. And people who had never seen this country and who did not understand what the problem of India and Pakistan or Kashmir was, - they began to hear the case from people who had no bone in in their tongue. They, therefore, went on talking anything that came into their mouth and for six months, it went on like that. They visited Kashmir, they visited Pakistan, they visited India, and had long and prolonged conversations and discussions. The other party did not. Eventually, they make proposals for cease-fire. The other party did not. Yet we are where we were.&nbsp; If we were to fight this out by armed forces and if United Nations Organisation is not able to do anything then instead of calling it a Security Council, it must be termed the &ldquo;Insecurity Council&rdquo; which disturbs the security of law.&rdquo;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

"...if United Nations Organisation is not able to do anything then instead of calling it a Security Council, it must be termed the ?Insecurity Council? which disturbs the security of law,? said Sardar Patel.

India’s foreign policy, in its earliest avatar, was built in conformity with Prime Minister Pandit Nehru’s vision. It remained so for the next 4 decades. The impression in post-colonial India has been that only Nehru was passionate about foreign affairs and rest in the Congress had different indulgences. If one goes through the correspondence between Patel and Nehru, the latter admits his own enthusiasm about foreign policy, and acknowledge the difference of opinion between him and his peers on many world issues. Sardar Patel’s image, on the other hand, is that of a prisoner of his own success like BR Ambedkar. As Ambedkar’s career boils down to the making of the Constitution, Patel’s repertoire comes down to the unification of India. Patel passed away soon after the independence, leaving little or no public imprint of the world-view he espoused in numerous meetings of the Congress before and after independence. Nonetheless, some of his observations on the United Nations Security Council remain pertinent even today. His views were built on India’s early engagement with the UN-- the organisation that epitomised the new world order of the victors of World War II. As observed by Sardar Patel so many decades ago, India and several other countries continue to face the same dilemma after 70 years. The member countries of the UN have to deal with an archaic and unfair Security Council which on multiple occasions has taken partisan positions on the issue of terrorism and civil conflict. The matter was best illustrated during Justice Dalbir Singh’s election when Britain came down to using the most archaic tool available to them. Britain bowed down under world pressure but the archaic tool persists. Despite world pressure, the United Nation Security Council continues to resist reform. Sardar Patel’s observation three years after its inception shows UN from a different light. We get to see the UN from the perspective of a newly independent nation which is trying to build a republic over a motley body of feudal states. Sardar Patel in his Nagpur speech on 4th November 1948 said, "You have seen what is happening in Hyderabad. The Nizam says, 'I do not want my case in Security Council.' But Security Council says, 'We are seized of it.' It is so because they have no other thing to do. Therefore, anything which comes before them, they go on discussing it which disturbs the security here or likely to disturb the security here and thereby it disturbs the security of the world and thus it is proper and fitting thing to call this organization an “Insecurity Council”. How far it is advisable to be the member of this august Organisation is a question which has to be seriously considered.” Sardar Patel in his speech elaborates further. “Take Palestine, take Indonesia, take any question that has been referred to Security Council. It has not been able to dispose them and bring peace; they are all problems which they are not able to settle. So, in one way, the League of Nations was more or less a harmless organization. This organization if it does not improve itself is going to land the world into a terrific slaughter and destruction,” he said. Lastly, in a letter written on 28th March 1950, in response to Nehru’s letter dated 26th March, a difference between them on a key issue was recorded. It is an issue which remains alive even today. Nehru was upset that Sardar had discussed foreign policy with Members of Parliament, making uncharitable comments on his initiatives. Patel’s reply was in response to it and the letter said, “Some Muslim countries have recognized Israel but we have not done out of deference of the views our Muslim brethren.” Narsimaha Rao in his tenure established full diplomatic relations with Israel and it’s no co-incidence which school of thought he belonged to in the Congress. Coming back to the moot point, Sardar Patel’s observation continues to be true for the UN, which behaves as a political body motivated only by national interest of big powers where interests come first and merit later. The romanticism related to the UN exists no more. It needs reforms and tough negotiation from various emerging economies. I would end by quoting an excerpt from Sardar Patel's observation on Kashmir. “We have seen what price we have paid by going to that Organisation. We went to UN to bring the dispute to an early end and we were maligned all over the world by the representatives of Pakistan. And people who had never seen this country and who did not understand what the problem of India and Pakistan or Kashmir was, - they began to hear the case from people who had no bone in in their tongue. They, therefore, went on talking anything that came into their mouth and for six months, it went on like that. They visited Kashmir, they visited Pakistan, they visited India, and had long and prolonged conversations and discussions. The other party did not. Eventually, they make proposals for cease-fire. The other party did not. Yet we are where we were. If we were to fight this out by armed forces and if United Nations Organisation is not able to do anything then instead of calling it a Security Council, it must be termed the “Insecurity Council” which disturbs the security of law.” (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Why Sardar Patel mistrusted the UN Security Council

Dalveer <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-need-to-do-an-effective-job-in-persuading-the-brits-to-step-down-shashi-tharoor-to-wion-24605">Bhandari was re-elected to the International</a> Court of Justice (ICJ) after Britain withdrew its candidate for election to the world court as the battle for the last seat concluded peacefully on Monday.

Earlier, Britain as a permanent member of &nbsp;UN Security Council(UNSC) had threatened to use a mechanism of Joint Conference to thwart Dalveer Bhandari&#39;s&nbsp;re-election chances even though nearly two-thirds of members of the UN General Assembly supported the Indian candidate.

Soon after the election results were announced, India&#39;s Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin was congratulated by representatives of other countries on the floor of the General Assembly.

India&#39;s external affairs minister tweeted on India&#39;s victory, saying: &quot;Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. Hai Hind.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. JaiHind. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ICJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ICJ</a>
&mdash; Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) <a href="https://twitter.com/SushmaSwaraj/status/932716771685134338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates,&quot; Britain&#39;s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said.

&quot;If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead,&quot;&nbsp;he added.

Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York.

Rycroft, in a statement,&nbsp;said the UK had decided to withdraw Sir Chris Greenwood as a candidate for re-election as a Judge of the International Court of Justice.

&quot;The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections,&quot; he said.

Rycroft said that the UK will continue to support the work of the ICJ, &quot;in line with our commitment to the importance of the rule of law in the UN system and in the international community more generally&quot;.

The appointment to the highest court of justice became a bitter battle after the UK government sought to trigger the the Joint Conference mechanism comprising of three members each from the United Nations General Assembly(GA) and Security Council(SC) who would have used their powers to put Christopher Greenwood - the UK candidate on the hot seat instead of open voting to elect a judge to the ICJ.

However, in the end, Britain decided against using Joint Conference mechanism and pulled out of the race ensuring India&#39;s Dalveer Bhandari&#39;s candidature going through by a majority vote in the ICJ.&nbsp;

Britain&#39;s withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there won&#39;t&nbsp;a British judge on the UN&#39;s most powerful court for the first time in its history.

Based in The Hague, the ICJ has a bench of 15 judges, five of whom are elected every three years for a nine-year term.

Established in 1945, the role of the ICJ is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions.

The appointment to the highest court of justice became a bitter battle after the UK government sought to trigger the the Joint Conference mechanism

Dalveer Bhandari was re-elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after Britain withdrew its candidate for election to the world court as the battle for the last seat concluded peacefully on Monday. Earlier, Britain as a permanent member of UN Security Council(UNSC) had threatened to use a mechanism of Joint Conference to thwart Dalveer Bhandari's re-election chances even though nearly two-thirds of members of the UN General Assembly supported the Indian candidate. Soon after the election results were announced, India's Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin was congratulated by representatives of other countries on the floor of the General Assembly. India's external affairs minister tweeted on India's victory, saying: "Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. Hai Hind." Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. JaiHind. #ICJ — Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) November 20, 2017 × "We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates," Britain's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said. "If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead," he added. Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York. Rycroft, in a statement, said the UK had decided to withdraw Sir Chris Greenwood as a candidate for re-election as a Judge of the International Court of Justice. "The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections," he said. Rycroft said that the UK will continue to support the work of the ICJ, "in line with our commitment to the importance of the rule of law in the UN system and in the international community more generally". The appointment to the highest court of justice became a bitter battle after the UK government sought to trigger the the Joint Conference mechanism comprising of three members each from the United Nations General Assembly(GA) and Security Council(SC) who would have used their powers to put Christopher Greenwood - the UK candidate on the hot seat instead of open voting to elect a judge to the ICJ. However, in the end, Britain decided against using Joint Conference mechanism and pulled out of the race ensuring India's Dalveer Bhandari's candidature going through by a majority vote in the ICJ. Britain's withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there won't a British judge on the UN's most powerful court for the first time in its history. Based in The Hague, the ICJ has a bench of 15 judges, five of whom are elected every three years for a nine-year term. Established in 1945, the role of the ICJ is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions.

Britain congratulates India as Dalveer Bhandari gets re-elected as ICJ judge

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are &#39;unnerved&#39; by the prospect of India&#39;s nominee Dalveer Bhandari winning against Britain&#39;s candidate in the election to the last seat of the World Court as it would set a precedent that may challenge their power in the future, observers here feel.

Bhandari and Britain&#39;s Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice, the sources say.

The permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, Russia, France, and China -- appeared to have rallied behind Greenwood. Britain is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council.

In the 11 rounds of an election so far, Bhandari has been receiving the support of nearly two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly but is trailing by three votes against Greenwood in the Security Council.

The 12th round of elections has been scheduled for Monday.

Britain on Friday in an informal consultation of the UN Security Council members mooted the idea of joint conference mechanism as it feels that this could be their only face-saving exit strategy, informed sources said.

As shared with other members of the Security Council during informal consultations, Britain would prefer to stop voting on the ICJ elections&nbsp;after the first round as it fears that otherwise, India could well cross the two-thirds mark. In that scenario, it would be very difficult for the UN Security Council stop India&#39;s candidate from being elected to the ICJ.

However, the prospect of India winning against a P5 member through democratic means is something that this elite club of veto-wielding countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - are unnerved with, because this would set a precedent that they do not want to be repeated.

&quot;Today it is Britain, tomorrow it could be any one of us&quot; is the argument which has brought all these five countries together, sources say.

&quot;If the one (of the P5) is going to be knocked off today, the other fear that they might be knocked off tomorrow,&quot; according to a source.

Such an assessment of the UN insiders is based on informed sources, as voting for the ICJ election in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are based on secret ballots and there is no way to know who voted for whom.

In all the rounds of the election so far, Greenwood has consistently got nine votes and Bhandari five in the Security Council. It is likely that on Monday India might increase its tally.

It is understood that both New Delhi and Permanent Mission of India to the UN have been working overtime to convince the members of the Security Council on the need to go by the voice of the majority of the General Assembly.

But by Sunday evening it appeared that Britain was ready to execute its plan, as per which after the first round of voting they would call for a meeting of the Security Council and would seek a mandate to stop any further round of voting, and would call for adoption of joint conference mechanism, which was last adopted in 1921.

However, this might come as a silver lining for India, sources said.

This is because the Security Council vote to stop further rounds of the ICJ election would be open and not through a secret ballot.

As a result, countries, many of whom have been pledging friendship with India but secretly voting against its candidate would be exposed in the open of raising their hands against India. This is something that members of the Security Council would avoid.

Of the Permanent Five members, the US under President Donald Trump has just come out a 100-year plan of friendship with India and renamed Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region.

Incidentally, hours before the ICJ election, Trump would be meeting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley at the White House.

It is not sure if Trump plans to weigh in on this issue in favor of India.

Trump has repeatedly called himself as the &quot;best friend of India and Indian Americans&quot; in the White House.

Russia is an all-weather tested friend of India. Over the past several decades, France has emerged as a reliable friend of India.

The stand of China on a lot of issues is well known including India&#39;s membership to the Security Council and Beijing vetoing a move to designate Azhar Masood as a global terrorist by the UN.

So, it would be quite a surprise, if China favored an Indian candidate.

&quot;When chips are down, you always get support from developing countries,&quot; commented one India watcher at the UN.

The voting in the General Assembly which overwhelmingly favors India is reflective of the new global order, which is not pleasant to the world powers.

Despite best of the British effort, their vote tally in the General Assembly has decreased with every other round of voting.

India's nominee Dalveer Bhandari and Britain's Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are 'unnerved' by the prospect of India's nominee Dalveer Bhandari winning against Britain's candidate in the election to the last seat of the World Court as it would set a precedent that may challenge their power in the future, observers here feel. Bhandari and Britain's Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice, the sources say. The permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, Russia, France, and China -- appeared to have rallied behind Greenwood. Britain is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council. In the 11 rounds of an election so far, Bhandari has been receiving the support of nearly two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly but is trailing by three votes against Greenwood in the Security Council. The 12th round of elections has been scheduled for Monday. Britain on Friday in an informal consultation of the UN Security Council members mooted the idea of joint conference mechanism as it feels that this could be their only face-saving exit strategy, informed sources said. As shared with other members of the Security Council during informal consultations, Britain would prefer to stop voting on the ICJ elections after the first round as it fears that otherwise, India could well cross the two-thirds mark. In that scenario, it would be very difficult for the UN Security Council stop India's candidate from being elected to the ICJ. However, the prospect of India winning against a P5 member through democratic means is something that this elite club of veto-wielding countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - are unnerved with, because this would set a precedent that they do not want to be repeated. "Today it is Britain, tomorrow it could be any one of us" is the argument which has brought all these five countries together, sources say. "If the one (of the P5) is going to be knocked off today, the other fear that they might be knocked off tomorrow," according to a source. Such an assessment of the UN insiders is based on informed sources, as voting for the ICJ election in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are based on secret ballots and there is no way to know who voted for whom. In all the rounds of the election so far, Greenwood has consistently got nine votes and Bhandari five in the Security Council. It is likely that on Monday India might increase its tally. It is understood that both New Delhi and Permanent Mission of India to the UN have been working overtime to convince the members of the Security Council on the need to go by the voice of the majority of the General Assembly. But by Sunday evening it appeared that Britain was ready to execute its plan, as per which after the first round of voting they would call for a meeting of the Security Council and would seek a mandate to stop any further round of voting, and would call for adoption of joint conference mechanism, which was last adopted in 1921. However, this might come as a silver lining for India, sources said. This is because the Security Council vote to stop further rounds of the ICJ election would be open and not through a secret ballot. As a result, countries, many of whom have been pledging friendship with India but secretly voting against its candidate would be exposed in the open of raising their hands against India. This is something that members of the Security Council would avoid. Of the Permanent Five members, the US under President Donald Trump has just come out a 100-year plan of friendship with India and renamed Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region. Incidentally, hours before the ICJ election, Trump would be meeting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley at the White House. It is not sure if Trump plans to weigh in on this issue in favor of India. Trump has repeatedly called himself as the "best friend of India and Indian Americans" in the White House. Russia is an all-weather tested friend of India. Over the past several decades, France has emerged as a reliable friend of India. The stand of China on a lot of issues is well known including India's membership to the Security Council and Beijing vetoing a move to designate Azhar Masood as a global terrorist by the UN. So, it would be quite a surprise, if China favored an Indian candidate. "When chips are down, you always get support from developing countries," commented one India watcher at the UN. The voting in the General Assembly which overwhelmingly favors India is reflective of the new global order, which is not pleasant to the world powers. Despite best of the British effort, their vote tally in the General Assembly has decreased with every other round of voting.

UNSC permanent members unnerved by prospect of India's nominee winning ICJ election: Observers

India and other G4 members -- Brazil, Germany, and Japan -- have offered to forgo veto powers initially if they are made permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The G4 group -- formed to support each other&rsquo;s bids for permanent seats on the UNSC -- has made the offer as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving, agencies reported.

&quot;The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself,&quot; said India&#39;s Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reforms.

Akbaruddin said that in principle, the new permanent members would have veto powers that the current five have but they would not exercise them &quot;until a decision on the matter had been has been taken during a review&quot;.

The G4 nations are regularly elected to two-year terms as non-permanent members on the UNSC by their respective regional groups.

The G4 said the allocation of non-permanent seats had outlived their relevance since the UN was formed and its subsequent reform in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10.

Italy&#39;s Permanent Representative Sebastiano Cardi opposed the addition of permanent members and instead suggested creating a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years.

G4, which lobbies for Council reforms on an expanded body, rejected the suggestions as a ploy to block adding new permanent members.

Syed Akbaruddin said expanding the non-permanent categories would only worsen the imbalance of influence in the Council and reinforce an outdated set-up.

Cardi made the proposal on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan and has been blocking the reform process since decades.

The UfC had suggested adding 11 seats to the Council, with nine of them having longer terms.

Deriding the UfC proposal as &quot;old hat&quot;, Akbaruddin cited the the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference in Washington which had rejected suggestions for the longer-term Council membership.

He said any proposal for reforms without expanding the number of permanent membership would do injustice to Africa&#39;s aspirations for equality.

The five permanent members with veto powers at the UNSC are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.&nbsp;

Akbaruddin said that the 53 members of the Asia-Pacific group had only two elected seats on the UNSC while the 26-member Western Europe group also had the same number. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

India and other G4 countries have made the offer as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving

India and other G4 members -- Brazil, Germany, and Japan -- have offered to forgo veto powers initially if they are made permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The G4 group -- formed to support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the UNSC -- has made the offer as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving, agencies reported. "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 on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reforms. Akbaruddin said that in principle, the new permanent members would have veto powers that the current five have but they would not exercise them "until a decision on the matter had been has been taken during a review". The G4 nations are regularly elected to two-year terms as non-permanent members on the UNSC by their respective regional groups. The G4 said the allocation of non-permanent seats had outlived their relevance since the UN was formed and its subsequent reform in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10. Italy's Permanent Representative Sebastiano Cardi opposed the addition of permanent members and instead suggested creating a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years. G4, which lobbies for Council reforms on an expanded body, rejected the suggestions as a ploy to block adding new permanent members. Syed Akbaruddin said expanding the non-permanent categories would only worsen the imbalance of influence in the Council and reinforce an outdated set-up. Cardi made the proposal on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan and has been blocking the reform process since decades. The UfC had suggested adding 11 seats to the Council, with nine of them having longer terms. Deriding the UfC proposal as "old hat", Akbaruddin cited the the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference in Washington which had rejected suggestions for the longer-term Council membership. He said any proposal for reforms without expanding the number of permanent membership would do injustice to Africa's aspirations for equality. The five permanent members with veto powers at the UNSC are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Akbaruddin said that the 53 members of the Asia-Pacific group had only two elected seats on the UNSC while the 26-member Western Europe group also had the same number. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India offers to forego veto powers initially to become permanent member of UNSC

China said on Thursday it needed &quot;solid evidence&quot; for it to back efforts to get Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar designated a terrorist by the UN.

China&#39;s statement came ahead of its strategic dialogue with India on February 22.&nbsp;

&ldquo;China upholds principles of objectivity, impartiality and professionalism and takes part in relevant discussions. Whether last year&rsquo;s application by India or this year&rsquo;s by (the) relevant country, our position is consistent,&rdquo; Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said.

&ldquo;Our criteria is only one, we need solid evidence. If there is solid evidence the application can be approved. If there is no solid evidence there is hardly consensus,&rdquo; he said.

China recently put a technical hold on the recent US move to designate Masood Azhar a terrorist in the 1267 committee of the UN Security Council, the third such time that it had put a technical hold.

The foreign ministry spokesperson said China has reiterated its stand on the matter several times.&nbsp;

&ldquo;On (the) 1267 committee, the latest development is that relevant countries have made another application with the committee. Relevant members of (the) committee are in consultation and relevant parties have failed to reach consensus so far.&rdquo;

Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar and China&rsquo;s executive vice foreign minister Zhang Yesui will hold a new round of strategic dialogue where the two sides will exchange views on the international situation and other regional and global issues of mutual interest, Geng Shuang said.

The two sides will &nbsp;in the strategic dialogue which is an important communication mechanism between India and China, he said. Commenting on reports of &ldquo;friction points&rdquo; in the bilateral relationship, including the Azhar issue and India&rsquo;s admission into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Geng said &ldquo;differences are only natural&rdquo;.

&ldquo;Through all kinds of conversation and exchanges, including (the) upcoming Strategic Dialogue, (the) two sides can step up communication to narrow differences and reach new consensus on achieving cooperation,&rdquo; he said. 
 
(WION with inputs from PTI)

China's statement comes ahead of its strategic dialogue with India in Beijing on February 22

China said on Thursday it needed "solid evidence" for it to back efforts to get Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar designated a terrorist by the UN. China's statement came ahead of its strategic dialogue with India on February 22. “China upholds principles of objectivity, impartiality and professionalism and takes part in relevant discussions. Whether last year’s application by India or this year’s by (the) relevant country, our position is consistent,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said. “Our criteria is only one, we need solid evidence. If there is solid evidence the application can be approved. If there is no solid evidence there is hardly consensus,” he said. China recently put a technical hold on the recent US move to designate Masood Azhar a terrorist in the 1267 committee of the UN Security Council, the third such time that it had put a technical hold. The foreign ministry spokesperson said China has reiterated its stand on the matter several times. “On (the) 1267 committee, the latest development is that relevant countries have made another application with the committee. Relevant members of (the) committee are in consultation and relevant parties have failed to reach consensus so far.” Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar and China’s executive vice foreign minister Zhang Yesui will hold a new round of strategic dialogue where the two sides will exchange views on the international situation and other regional and global issues of mutual interest, Geng Shuang said. The two sides will in the strategic dialogue which is an important communication mechanism between India and China, he said. Commenting on reports of “friction points” in the bilateral relationship, including the Azhar issue and India’s admission into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Geng said “differences are only natural”. “Through all kinds of conversation and exchanges, including (the) upcoming Strategic Dialogue, (the) two sides can step up communication to narrow differences and reach new consensus on achieving cooperation,” he said. (WION with inputs from PTI)

China says needs ?solid evidence? to back UN move to ban Masood Azhar

China today defended its decision to block the US&#39; proposal in the UN Security Council to designate the chief of the terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar a global 
terrorist, saying the &quot;conditions&quot; have not yet been met for Beijing to back the move.

Asked about the significance of US pushing for a ban against Azhar, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang clarified that &quot;the committee has its own set of discussion rules&quot;.

Lu Kang told the press that Beijing had put a technical hold for the third time on the attempt to designate Azhar a terrorist since it wanted to allow &quot;relevant parties&quot; to reach a consensus.

Lu also claimed that the decision to put a technical hold on India&#39;s applications to designate Masood Azhar a terrorist was done after &quot;several rounds of consultations with India&quot;.

&quot;We put out technical hold after we had several rounds of consultations with India. We hope relevant parties have enough time to consult with each other to make sure that the decision made 
by the Committee will be based on consensus representing the broad international community,&quot; he said.

&quot;Last year 1,267 Committee of the UN Security Council discussed the issue regarding listing Masood (Azhar) in the sanctions list. There were different views with no consensus reached,&quot; Lu 
said.

&quot;As for the submission once again by relevant countries to list him in the sanctions list, I would say the conditions are not yet been met for the Committee to reach a decision,&quot; he said.

&quot;China has put the request on technical hold, to allow the relevant parties more time to consult with each other. This is also in line with rules of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council 
and the rules of the discussion of the Committee,&quot; he said.

&quot;So, whoever submitted the request we believe all the members of the committee will act in line with regulations of the Security Council and its affiliations,&quot; he said. 
&nbsp;

<center><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xlfsP3yzZJk" width="560"></iframe></center>

 
 
Asked about whether China&#39;s relations with India would be impacted, he said, Beijing and New Delhi &quot;have exchanged views&quot; on the issue. &quot;We don&#39;t hope it will have a negative impact on our 
relationship.&quot;

The foreign ministry spokesperson also defended the criticism that his country was continuously blocking the move at the behest of Pakistan.

&quot;China&#39;s action in the Security Council and its affiliations are in line with the regulations and procedures,&quot; Lu said.

China has put a &quot;hold&quot; on the US-initiated proposal, which comes barely weeks after India&#39;s bid to get Azhar banned by the UN were scuttled by Beijing last December. This has prompted India to take up the matter with the Chinese government.

On whether the issue on the ban on Azhar can be resolved this year since it has dragged into the second year, Lu said, &quot;It is not the length of time.&quot;

&quot;It is a matter of time whether a consensus can be reached on the basis of full consultations.&quot; Asked to identify specific reasons for blocking Azhar&#39;s ban, Lu said, &quot;Consultations in the 
Security Council and internal discussions of its affiliations has its own set of discussion rules.&quot;

The US, supported by two other permanent members of UN Security Council -- UK and France- moved the proposal at the UN&#39;s Sanctions Committee 1267 to proscribe Azhar last month.

The proposal, which was finalised after &quot;consultations&quot; between Washington and New Delhi, said since JeM is a designated terror outfit, its leaders cannot go scot-free.&nbsp;It was submitted just a day before the inauguration of US President Donald Trump.&nbsp;The JeM was designated a terrorist outfit by the UN in 2001.&nbsp;

India wrote to the UN last year in February calling for immediate action to list Azhar under the al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, after the attack on the IAF base at Pathankot in January 2016.

It met with stiff opposition from China which twice put a &quot;technical hold&quot; on India&#39;s efforts in March and October last year before blocking India&#39;s request in December 2016.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

China's foreign ministry spokesperson said it was waiting for 'relevant parties' to reach a consensus on the matter

China today defended its decision to block the US' proposal in the UN Security Council to designate the chief of the terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar a global terrorist, saying the "conditions" have not yet been met for Beijing to back the move. Asked about the significance of US pushing for a ban against Azhar, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang clarified that "the committee has its own set of discussion rules". Lu Kang told the press that Beijing had put a technical hold for the third time on the attempt to designate Azhar a terrorist since it wanted to allow "relevant parties" to reach a consensus. Lu also claimed that the decision to put a technical hold on India's applications to designate Masood Azhar a terrorist was done after "several rounds of consultations with India". "We put out technical hold after we had several rounds of consultations with India. We hope relevant parties have enough time to consult with each other to make sure that the decision made by the Committee will be based on consensus representing the broad international community," he said. "Last year 1,267 Committee of the UN Security Council discussed the issue regarding listing Masood (Azhar) in the sanctions list. There were different views with no consensus reached," Lu said. "As for the submission once again by relevant countries to list him in the sanctions list, I would say the conditions are not yet been met for the Committee to reach a decision," he said. "China has put the request on technical hold, to allow the relevant parties more time to consult with each other. This is also in line with rules of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the rules of the discussion of the Committee," he said. "So, whoever submitted the request we believe all the members of the committee will act in line with regulations of the Security Council and its affiliations," he said. Asked about whether China's relations with India would be impacted, he said, Beijing and New Delhi "have exchanged views" on the issue. "We don't hope it will have a negative impact on our relationship." The foreign ministry spokesperson also defended the criticism that his country was continuously blocking the move at the behest of Pakistan. "China's action in the Security Council and its affiliations are in line with the regulations and procedures," Lu said. China has put a "hold" on the US-initiated proposal, which comes barely weeks after India's bid to get Azhar banned by the UN were scuttled by Beijing last December. This has prompted India to take up the matter with the Chinese government. On whether the issue on the ban on Azhar can be resolved this year since it has dragged into the second year, Lu said, "It is not the length of time." "It is a matter of time whether a consensus can be reached on the basis of full consultations." Asked to identify specific reasons for blocking Azhar's ban, Lu said, "Consultations in the Security Council and internal discussions of its affiliations has its own set of discussion rules." The US, supported by two other permanent members of UN Security Council -- UK and France- moved the proposal at the UN's Sanctions Committee 1267 to proscribe Azhar last month. The proposal, which was finalised after "consultations" between Washington and New Delhi, said since JeM is a designated terror outfit, its leaders cannot go scot-free. It was submitted just a day before the inauguration of US President Donald Trump. The JeM was designated a terrorist outfit by the UN in 2001. India wrote to the UN last year in February calling for immediate action to list Azhar under the al-Qaeda Sanctions Committee, after the attack on the IAF base at Pathankot in January 2016. It met with stiff opposition from China which twice put a "technical hold" on India's efforts in March and October last year before blocking India's request in December 2016. (WION with inputs from PTI)

'Technical hold' on Masood ban done after consultations with India: China

UN Security Council (UNSC) member France has backed India&#39;s proposal to designate Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as an international terrorist, days after China blocked India&#39;s move.

French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that since Masood Azhar&#39;s JeM had already been designated a terrorist organisation, there were &quot;very strong arguments in favour&quot; of such a move.

&nbsp;&quot;Jaish-e-Mohammad is already included in the (Sanctions) Committee&#39;s list of terrorist organisations, therefore, there are very strong arguments in favour of listing its chief, as India has requested,&quot; the French foreign minister, who is on a four-day visit to India said.

Without naming China directly, he said: &quot;The international community&#39;s determination to combat terrorism must be the same everywhere, regardless of the threat.&quot;

&quot;That&#39;s why&quot;, he said, France not only supported but also co-sponsored the Indian request at the UNSC.

In February 2015, India submitted a proposal to the 15-member 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UNSC to list Azhar as an international terrorist for allegedly masterminding the attack on an airbase in Pathankot in 2015.

China imposed a &quot;technical hold&quot; on the Indian proposal twice before blocking it on December 30, the only country to do so.

&quot;We regret that, despite our joint efforts and wide support from the Committee, unanimity could not be reached,&quot; said Ayrault, whose country is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

He said France will now discuss with India what should be done. &quot;India knows it can count on our support,&quot; he added.

The French foreign minister, whose country has faced a number of terror attacks over the last few years, pitched for a &quot;decisive action&quot; against &nbsp;Pakistan-based terror groups like LeT, JeM and Hizbul Mujahideen which are &quot;targeting&quot; India.

&quot;France has very firmly condemned the terrorist attacks against India, including the recent one in Uri, and reiterated its full solidarity with India in its combat against terrorism,&quot; he said.

He emphasised that all countries should fight effectively against terrorism &quot;originating from their territory or territories under their control&quot;.

&quot;We particularly want to see decisive action taken, in keeping with international law, against terrorist groups targeting India, particularly the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen,&quot; he said in an obvious reference to Pakistan from where these outfits are believed to have been operating.

The French minister also defended the Indian Army&#39;s &#39;&quot;surgical strikes&quot; against terrorist camps across the LoC in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in September 2016.

&quot;Nothing can justify terrorism, which must be fought everywhere with equal determination. When a country is faced with a terrorist threat of this nature, it has the 
right to defend itself,&quot; he said.

Ayrault also spoke about the scope of cooperation between India and his country in combating terror. &quot;France and India are both victims of terrorism, and they are in full solidarity vis-a-vis this scourge,&quot; he said, adding that the fight against terrorism is one of the cornerstones of India and France&#39;s strategic partnership.

In concrete terms, he said, France and India hold &quot;constant and very operational exchanges&quot; on the terrorist threat.

&quot;We have a bilateral working group that brings together all the players concerned over counter-terrorism, and, among others, cooperation with regard to investigations and between our respective intervention units, the GIGN from the French side, and the National Security Guards from the Indian side. I welcome the development of all these cooperations,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

Azhar, a resident of Bahawalpur in Pakistan, was one of the three terrorists freed by India in exchange of 166 hostages of Indian Airlines plane IC-814 which was hijacked to Kandahar in December 1999.

At that time, Azhar was a member of the Harkat-ul Mujahideen, and soon after his release, he floated the Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan which carried out several attacks in India, including on the Parliament in December 2001.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

 
&nbsp;

Its foreign minister said there were 'very strong arguments' to blacklist Masood as his group is already considered a terrorist organisation

UN Security Council (UNSC) member France has backed India's proposal to designate Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as an international terrorist, days after China blocked India's move. French foreign minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said that since Masood Azhar's JeM had already been designated a terrorist organisation, there were "very strong arguments in favour" of such a move. "Jaish-e-Mohammad is already included in the (Sanctions) Committee's list of terrorist organisations, therefore, there are very strong arguments in favour of listing its chief, as India has requested," the French foreign minister, who is on a four-day visit to India said. Without naming China directly, he said: "The international community's determination to combat terrorism must be the same everywhere, regardless of the threat." "That's why", he said, France not only supported but also co-sponsored the Indian request at the UNSC. In February 2015, India submitted a proposal to the 15-member 1267 Sanctions Committee of the UNSC to list Azhar as an international terrorist for allegedly masterminding the attack on an airbase in Pathankot in 2015. China imposed a "technical hold" on the Indian proposal twice before blocking it on December 30, the only country to do so. "We regret that, despite our joint efforts and wide support from the Committee, unanimity could not be reached," said Ayrault, whose country is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. He said France will now discuss with India what should be done. "India knows it can count on our support," he added. The French foreign minister, whose country has faced a number of terror attacks over the last few years, pitched for a "decisive action" against Pakistan-based terror groups like LeT, JeM and Hizbul Mujahideen which are "targeting" India. "France has very firmly condemned the terrorist attacks against India, including the recent one in Uri, and reiterated its full solidarity with India in its combat against terrorism," he said. He emphasised that all countries should fight effectively against terrorism "originating from their territory or territories under their control". "We particularly want to see decisive action taken, in keeping with international law, against terrorist groups targeting India, particularly the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen," he said in an obvious reference to Pakistan from where these outfits are believed to have been operating. The French minister also defended the Indian Army's '"surgical strikes" against terrorist camps across the LoC in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in September 2016. "Nothing can justify terrorism, which must be fought everywhere with equal determination. When a country is faced with a terrorist threat of this nature, it has the right to defend itself," he said. Ayrault also spoke about the scope of cooperation between India and his country in combating terror. "France and India are both victims of terrorism, and they are in full solidarity vis-a-vis this scourge," he said, adding that the fight against terrorism is one of the cornerstones of India and France's strategic partnership. In concrete terms, he said, France and India hold "constant and very operational exchanges" on the terrorist threat. "We have a bilateral working group that brings together all the players concerned over counter-terrorism, and, among others, cooperation with regard to investigations and between our respective intervention units, the GIGN from the French side, and the National Security Guards from the Indian side. I welcome the development of all these cooperations," he said. Azhar, a resident of Bahawalpur in Pakistan, was one of the three terrorists freed by India in exchange of 166 hostages of Indian Airlines plane IC-814 which was hijacked to Kandahar in December 1999. At that time, Azhar was a member of the Harkat-ul Mujahideen, and soon after his release, he floated the Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan which carried out several attacks in India, including on the Parliament in December 2001. (WION with inputs from PTI)

France backs India's bid to designate Masood Azhar as terrorist by UN

Israel&#39;s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked Jerusalem&#39;s city hall to delay a vote on new settlements for Israelis in East Jerusalem.&nbsp;

The decision was taken hours before US Secretary of State John Kerry is to make a speech outlining his&nbsp;plan to&nbsp;end&nbsp;the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. &nbsp;

A spokesman for Netanyahu had no immediate comment.

The pace at which Israel is building settlements in East Jerusalem has drawn sharp criticism from the international community, including US.&nbsp;

Jerusalem Planning and Housing Committee member Hanan Rubin said 492 permits for construction of homes for Israelis in the urban settlements of Ramot and Ramat Shlomo, in areas that Israel captured in a 1967 war and annexed to Jerusalem, had been up for approval.

The United Nations Security Council recently passed a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in East Jerusalem and West Bank. The US abstained from voting on the resolution, which angered the Israeli establishment.&nbsp;

Kerry is also expected to speak on the issue of abstention in his speech at the State Department.

Israel has for decades pursued a policy of building Jewish settlements on occupied territory Palestinians seek for a state.

Most countries view the settlements as an obstacle to peace. Israel disagrees, citing a biblical, historical and political connection to the land, as well as security interests. Washington considers the settlement activity illegitimate.

Some 570,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem among more than 2.6 million Palestinians.

(WION with inputs from Reuters) 
&nbsp;

The decision was taken hours before US Secretary of State John Kerry is to make a speech outlining his plan to end the long-drawn conflict

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked Jerusalem's city hall to delay a vote on new settlements for Israelis in East Jerusalem. The decision was taken hours before US Secretary of State John Kerry is to make a speech outlining his plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A spokesman for Netanyahu had no immediate comment. The pace at which Israel is building settlements in East Jerusalem has drawn sharp criticism from the international community, including US. Jerusalem Planning and Housing Committee member Hanan Rubin said 492 permits for construction of homes for Israelis in the urban settlements of Ramot and Ramat Shlomo, in areas that Israel captured in a 1967 war and annexed to Jerusalem, had been up for approval. The United Nations Security Council recently passed a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements in East Jerusalem and West Bank. The US abstained from voting on the resolution, which angered the Israeli establishment. Kerry is also expected to speak on the issue of abstention in his speech at the State Department. Israel has for decades pursued a policy of building Jewish settlements on occupied territory Palestinians seek for a state. Most countries view the settlements as an obstacle to peace. Israel disagrees, citing a biblical, historical and political connection to the land, as well as security interests. Washington considers the settlement activity illegitimate. Some 570,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem among more than 2.6 million Palestinians. (WION with inputs from Reuters)

Israel delays vote on new East Jerusalem settlements

Iran&#39;s President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that the US&nbsp;election results would have no effect on Tehran&#39;s policies, state news agency IRNA quoted him as 
saying, noting that Iran&#39;s expanding economic ties with the world were irreversible.

&quot;The results of the US&nbsp;election have no effect on the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran,&quot; Rouhani said.

&quot;Iran&#39;s policy for constructive engagement with the world and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions have made our economic relations with all countries expanding and irreversible.&quot;

He added that Iran&#39;s nuclear deal with six world powers has been reflected in a United Nation Security Council resolution and cannot be dismissed by one government.

US&nbsp;President-elect Donald Trump should stay committed to the international nuclear deal with Iran, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency on Wednesday.

&quot;The United States should fulfill its commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the nuclear deal) as a multilateral international agreement,&quot; Zarif was quoted as saying while on a visit to Romania.

Rouhani said there was &quot;no possibility&quot; of its nuclear deal with world powers being overturned by US president-elect Donald Trump despite his threat to rip it up.

&quot;Iran&#39;s understanding in the nuclear deal was that the accord was not concluded with one country or government but was approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council and there is no possibility that it can be changed by a single government,&quot; Rouhani told his cabinet, according to state television.

Last year&#39;s accord with world powers saw international sanctions on Iran lifted in exchange for guarantees that it would not pursue a nuclear weapons capability.&nbsp; 
During the election campaign, Trump described the deal as &quot;disastrous&quot; and said it would be his &quot;number one priority&quot; to dismantle it.

&quot;The United States no longer has the capacity to create Iranophobia and to create a consensus against Iran,&quot; Rouhani said.

&quot;The constructive engagement policies of Iran towards the world, and the fact that international sanctions have been lifted, have placed the Iranian economy on a road where there is no possibility of going backwards.&quot;

(Agencies)

Iran's nuclear deal with six world powers has been reflected in a UNSC resolution and cannot be dismissed by one government, he said

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that the US election results would have no effect on Tehran's policies, state news agency IRNA quoted him as saying, noting that Iran's expanding economic ties with the world were irreversible. "The results of the US election have no effect on the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Rouhani said. "Iran's policy for constructive engagement with the world and the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions have made our economic relations with all countries expanding and irreversible." He added that Iran's nuclear deal with six world powers has been reflected in a United Nation Security Council resolution and cannot be dismissed by one government. US President-elect Donald Trump should stay committed to the international nuclear deal with Iran, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency on Wednesday. "The United States should fulfill its commitments in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the nuclear deal) as a multilateral international agreement," Zarif was quoted as saying while on a visit to Romania. Rouhani said there was "no possibility" of its nuclear deal with world powers being overturned by US president-elect Donald Trump despite his threat to rip it up. "Iran's understanding in the nuclear deal was that the accord was not concluded with one country or government but was approved by a resolution of the UN Security Council and there is no possibility that it can be changed by a single government," Rouhani told his cabinet, according to state television. Last year's accord with world powers saw international sanctions on Iran lifted in exchange for guarantees that it would not pursue a nuclear weapons capability. During the election campaign, Trump described the deal as "disastrous" and said it would be his "number one priority" to dismantle it. "The United States no longer has the capacity to create Iranophobia and to create a consensus against Iran," Rouhani said. "The constructive engagement policies of Iran towards the world, and the fact that international sanctions have been lifted, have placed the Iranian economy on a road where there is no possibility of going backwards." (Agencies)

Iran's Rouhani says Trump election has no effect on Tehran policies

China recently extended its ?technical hold? on India?s efforts for a UN ban against Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Azhar

India today criticised the United Nations Security Council for being “unresponsive” with regard to sanctioning leaders of terrorist organisations. This comes after China extended its “technical hold” on India’s efforts for a UN ban against Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar. India’s permanent representative to the UN ambassador Syed Akbaruddin told the UN general assembly that that it had become “ineffective” to meeting the challenges it is confronted with. Akbaruddin was speaking in the general assembly debate on the report of the secretary general on the ‘Work of the Organisation’ here. China was the sole member in the 15-nation UN organ to put a hold on India's application. Azhar’s placement in the 1267 sanctions list would subject him to an assets freeze and travel ban. "At best, the UN sanctions committee is now a body that can be described as an interesting and random mix of ad-hocism, scrambling and political paralysis. This global governance architecture now calls for comprehensive reform," PTI reported the Indian envoy as saying. (WION)

India criticises UNSC for not sanctioning Masood Azhar

The UN General Assembly on Thursday elected Italy to the Security Council under a deal that will see the Netherlands take over the seat in a year. 
 
The two countries agreed to split the two-year term on the council after five rounds of voting earlier this week ended with a tie. 
 
Under the deal, Italy will take up the seat on January 1 and then make way for the Netherlands to take over in 2018. 
 
The arrangement is rare but not unprecedented at the United Nations. 
 
The last split term was in 1964-65 between what was then Czechoslovakia and Malaysia. 
 
Italy was elected with 179 votes in the General Assembly, which has 193 member states. 
 
During elections on Tuesday, Kazkahstan was elected to the council for the first time along with Bolivia, Ethiopia and Sweden. 
 
The newly-elected countries will take their place alongside the five permanent council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. 
 
The other five non-permanent members are: Egypt, Japan, Senegal, Ukraine and Uruguay. 
 
(AFP)

The two countries agreed to split the two-year term after five rounds of voting ended with a tie

The UN General Assembly on Thursday elected Italy to the Security Council under a deal that will see the Netherlands take over the seat in a year. The two countries agreed to split the two-year term on the council after five rounds of voting earlier this week ended with a tie. Under the deal, Italy will take up the seat on January 1 and then make way for the Netherlands to take over in 2018. The arrangement is rare but not unprecedented at the United Nations. The last split term was in 1964-65 between what was then Czechoslovakia and Malaysia. Italy was elected with 179 votes in the General Assembly, which has 193 member states. During elections on Tuesday, Kazkahstan was elected to the council for the first time along with Bolivia, Ethiopia and Sweden. The newly-elected countries will take their place alongside the five permanent council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The other five non-permanent members are: Egypt, Japan, Senegal, Ukraine and Uruguay. (AFP)

UN elects Italy, Netherlands to share Security Council seat

unsc

Unsc, News on Unsc, stories on Unsc, articles on Unsc, Unsc stories at Wion, Unsc news, Unsc latest news