Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to the
Delegates Lounge.
Pull up a chair.
I'm Alex Tarquinio, ajournalist based at the United
Nations here in New York Cityand your emcee for this podcast
featuring some of the mostinfluential minds in the world
today.
Settle in for some rivetingtete-a-tete, available wherever
you listen to podcasts.
Welcome back.
(00:36):
Today we're bringing you ourconversation with Asim Iftikhar
Ahmed, pakistan's PermanentRepresentative to the United
Nations.
Pakistan is serving in themonthly rotating presidency of
the Security Council for July,typically a quiet month here in
Turtle Bay, the Manadaneighborhood, with the UN
headquarters, but not this year.
(00:57):
That's because a high-levelconference to discuss a
two-state solution for Israeland Palestine an agenda item
that takes us back eight decadesto the founding of the UN
itself, was postponed in Juneamidst the 12-day Israel-Iran
war.
The conference, which is beingorganized by France and Saudi
Arabia, has been rescheduled atthe end of this month.
(01:20):
There was some chatter thatPakistan might push back its
Sign signature Security Councilevents focused on
multilateralism and on theOrganization of Islamic
Cooperation with its 57 memberstates to coincide with the
conference, but those will goahead next week, so foreign
dignitaries will need to choosewhich events to attend in New
(01:43):
York or rack up frequent flyermiles.
Although the hallways at the UNheadquarters will be more
crowded than usual this summer,there's little anticipation of
any diplomatic outcomes.
One UN diplomat noted that whenthey were planning a summer
conference to discuss thecreation of a Palestinian state,
they thought there would be aGaza ceasefire by now.
(02:06):
The conference was pushed backbecause of last month's strikes
on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Pakistan swiftly criticized theUS bombing in Iran, joining
China and Russia in theirofficial condemnation as a
nuclear state.
Pakistan is not a signatory tothe Nuclear Non-Proliferation
(02:27):
Treaty, but the ambassador saysthat Iran, as a signatory,
should abide by it.
His most ardent remarks relateto the recent Pakistan-India
conflict over Kashmir.
Pakistan has nominatedPresident Donald Trump for a
Nobel Peace Prize for his rolein concluding a ceasefire.
Regarding Ukraine, pakistanabstained on UN General Assembly
(02:52):
resolutions calling on Russiato leave Ukraine until a recent
twist in February.
Of course, the real mystery herethis month is whether the new
US ambassador will finallyarrive.
Ambassador Ahmed and I spokebefore the Senate confirmation
(03:13):
hearing of Mike Waltz on Tuesday.
Waltz's arrival might break thesense of malaise in Turtle Bay.
Ambassador Ahmed's diplomaticcareer spans more than three
decades.
Before becoming his country'stop envoy in New York, he served
as its ambassador to France andMonaco and delegate to UNESCO,
which is based in Paris.
He previously served in severalkey assignments in Geneva and
New York, where he has worked inhis country's mission to the UN
(03:36):
at various times over the lasttwo decades.
Here's our conversation.
Here's our conversation.
Ambassador, thank you so muchfor joining us in the Delegates
Lounge, especially during themonth where you have the
(03:56):
presidency of the SecurityCouncil.
Thank you so much for makingtime for us.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
Thank you so much for
having me.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Okay, well, let's
dive right into the top-level UN
conference being co-chaired byFrance and Saudi Arabia.
It was postponed in June at theoutbreak of the Israeli-Iran
war.
As French President EmmanuelMacron said at the time, it was
postponed for quote logisticaland security reasons.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah.
So it's not for me as presidentof the council to really
elaborate on that.
I can elaborate some of theaspects because you know that
this conference is a GAconference, so it's being dealt
as a follow-up of a GeneralAssembly resolution that called
for such a conference, and youknow that Saudi Arabia and
France are co-leading thateffort.
Without going into details hereabout what has happened in Gaza
(04:49):
, obviously the entireinternational community knows
what's happening there and thereis a certain very immediate
need to urgently have theceasefire in place and to
provide the humanitarianassistance and to provide the
humanitarian assistance, improvethe situation.
But beyond that, everyone hasbeen saying that there must be a
(05:10):
revival of the politicalprocess.
That larger political horizonabout Palestine has to be there.
So what this conference wasaiming to do was to actually
revive that process, to havethat larger discussion.
You know that there are severaltracks, roundtables, in which
(05:31):
different things are beingdiscussed.
So they are focusing on thepeace and security, on the
political track, on what shouldbe done on the humanitarian and
reconstruction side.
What about the respect forinternational law?
What kind of narrative shouldbe built around durable peace
and stability objectives in thein the middle east and then
(05:54):
palestinian statehood, two-stateconcept.
How do we take it forward?
The the question ofrecognitions, more recognitions,
assisting the new palest state.
You know, economically,financially, you know all that
means bringing the entire weightof the international community
behind this idea and to committangibly political, economic,
(06:19):
financial support to take thisforward.
This is very, very importantbecause otherwise this cycle of
conflict that is there, therecurring situations that are
unbearable, we won't be able toaddress that.
There is a clear understandingamong the majority of the
membership, including themembership in the Security
(06:41):
Council, that we need to moveforward on Palestinian statehood
and the two-state solution.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
As you know,
netanyahu has just visited
Washington and he left withoutany ceasefire deals, so we're
really not even at the initialstage of winding down the
conflict.
Does it make sense to bediscussing longer-term political
solutions when, in fact, thereare perhaps shorter-term
(07:08):
necessities that need to bedealt with?
Speaker 2 (07:11):
We understand that
the talks are ongoing.
Perhaps we're very close toanother ceasefire being
announced, but still that willbring a temporary respite and
also enable the humanitariansystems to go in.
But there are other questionsabout, you know, a permanent end
to the war in Gaza and then, asI said earlier, to move beyond
(07:35):
all of this and to reallyaddress the, you know, the real
underlying issue in the MiddleEast, issue in the Middle East,
which is the Israeli-Palestinianconflict, which revolves around
, you know, the establishment ofthe independent Palestinian
state as part of the two-statesolution, which is everyone is
(07:55):
saying, you know, this is theonly viable way of attaining
durable peace and stability inthe Middle East.
So those who are at the moment,you know, not going along with
this or opposing this, I thinkthere is a need for others who
are supporting to try to engagethem more proactively and to
(08:20):
convince them and to bring themback, Because this is something
that they had previously agreedto.
A two-state solution was notsomething that came from nowhere
.
It has been an agreed way toaddress the situation in the
Middle East that was agreeableat the point of time.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
Well, in fact, there
were very specific proposals,
but then, of course, thePalestinians declared the second
intifada.
So are we talking about atwo-state solution on the lines
of what was discussed before thesecond intifada, or are the
discussions moving in adifferent direction, or are they
(09:02):
even that advanced?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
Well, the majority of
the members of the
international community, whenthey talk of a Palestinian state
, they talk about, you know,pre-1967, you know borders.
Obviously, the details will beagreed as part of the
negotiation process, but as aprinciple, you have to agree and
(09:25):
you know to move in thatdirection.
This is, I think this is whatthe international two-state, you
know coalition and thisconference is trying to achieve.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Well, there were
really specific, and I don't
know how.
I'm not here to discuss howrealistic they were, but they
were specific, like there wouldbe a high-speed rail connection
or something between two partsof a Palestinian state.
I mean, was this conferencegoing to get that much, or do
you envision it getting thatmuch into details of what a
(10:01):
two-state solution would worklike, or is it just to set a
framework for discussion?
Speaker 2 (10:07):
No, I don't know.
I mean, obviously there is talkabout how to make the future
state contiguous, but if youlook at the, you know the eight
roundtables which are dealingwith different aspects, as I
mentioned security, humanitarian, reconstruction, international
(10:27):
law, economic assistance, all ofthat.
So there you will see, thereare elements, because the idea
behind this discussion was thatit's not only statements, and
countries bring in tangiblecommitments, in tangible
commitments how they areactually going to support this
entire exercise.
(10:47):
That can be in terms ofpolitical support, recognition,
those who have not recognized,and other kind of support in
having the new state and itsinstitutions being strengthened.
Speaker 1 (11:05):
Iran's nuclear
program Pakistan had a very
swift response to the US strikesagainst Iran's nuclear program.
He swiftly condemned thestrikes, calling them deeply
disturbing, and Pakistan is alsosimultaneously maintaining
diplomatic engagement with Iranand representing Tehran's
(11:26):
interests in Washington.
How does your country balanceits relations with the United
States and Iran?
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Well, you know, in
some ways it's not that easy,
but in other ways it enables us,it is possible for us to do
that Because, first of all,pakistan is a country, a country
that you know, that does notshy away from taking positions
which are based on principle,which are based on charter and
(11:55):
international law.
So that provides you basis andcover, and you've seen that
we've done that consistently.
So we thought that I mean itshould have been stated that way
, the way we stated our positionwith regard to the attacks on
the civilian nuclear sites inIran.
(12:17):
That's very clear.
But at the same time and thishas been our position for many
years, our position for manyyears that the Iranian nuclear
issue, the only viable way toresolve it is through dialogue
and diplomacy, and it was theonly way.
Still, people are saying thatthis is the only way.
(12:39):
So that process has beendisrupted at different occasions
, and the most recent one was itwas very good that President
Trump, you know, restarted thatdialogue with Iran, with the
YouTube, peacefully resolving,and in the midst of that, the
(13:00):
attacks were undertaken, whichhas actually not only disrupted
the dialogue, it also brought inan element of mistrust.
So our position is very clear.
We believe that this should beaddressed through dialogue,
through negotiations, and thenwhen there is an agreement and
(13:22):
there was an agreementpreviously the JCPOA then it
should be all parties are underobligation to carry out their
respective commitments.
So that's very important.
That's what we have been saying.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
Does your government
have an official position on
Iran's nuclear program?
Speaker 2 (13:44):
Yeah, this has been
stated so many times in the
council elsewhere.
You know what's our position onJCPOA 2231.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
And, as I was stating
that, you know we want this to
be resolved through negotiationsand implementation of
respective obligations andresponsibilities, and
implementation of respectiveobligations and responsibilities
, but as a nuclear power and anon-signatory of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, canPakistan argue in the Security
Council for Iran to honor itscommitments under the
(14:16):
Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Speaker 2 (14:18):
These are commitments
that you know.
We are not a party I mean,obviously for our own reasons,
because we think that this wasdiscriminatory and puts unequal
obligations on member states butIran is a party and so there
are, you know, respectiveobligations and responsibilities
(14:41):
and rights also, andresponsibilities and rights also
.
And then there was the JCPOA,under which again, there are
rights and obligations.
So all we are saying is thatthis was something that was
agreed between Iran and theother parties, and all of them
(15:01):
should be respecting.
Speaker 1 (15:02):
So those countries
that are signatories of the NPT
should respect their obligationsright Now.
Switching to Afghanistan,general Michael Carrillo,
commander of US Central Command,recently praised Pakistan's
counterterrorism efforts beforethe House Armed Services
Committee, focusing on its rolecombating ISIS-Khorasan and
calling you a phenomenal partner.
(15:23):
Obviously, public praise isalways nice to hear is what I'm
getting at, but how doesPakistan balance its military
relationship with both theUnited States and China, because
your military occurs from both,has fighter jets from both and
also combating fightingcounterterrorism in your region?
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Well, you know these
are things that are interlinked,
although very often it has beenstated publicly and this is not
the first time the US hasacknowledged publicly and at
very high levels the cooperationthat has been there between the
US and Pakistan oncounterterrorism, intelligence,
(16:05):
all of that, and it has runthrough years.
So they know this very well andthe international community is
also aware of that very well.
And even more than that, whenwe have those dialogues, when we
have that interaction, you knowthat deeper, you know,
discussion, this understandingand this acknowledgement is even
(16:26):
bigger.
But from time to time, you know, they also express this
publicly, which is good.
It's important to do that.
And as far as the you know, thelarger picture is concerned,
pakistan has a very clearposition that when it comes to
the major powers, including theP5, and particularly China and
(16:50):
the US, we want balanced,objective, multifaceted
relationships with all of them.
That's our stated position andwe are very committed to pursue
that.
So we, you know, you can seethat.
You know, sometimes the natureof relationship could be
different, but our objective isthe same.
(17:13):
So this is in that spirit thatwe want to advance our
partnership and relationshipwith the US and China.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
Well, pakistan has a,
I guess, a stated foreign
policy goal of multi-polarity.
But how do you balance that,for example, with the
requirements of the UN Charterwe talked about the NPT but also
, if one of these countries thatyou have a relationship with is
out of the Charter or asks youto support them on a resolution,
(17:45):
how do you maintain, I guess,which comes first, your
multi-polarity, not getting inbetween, say, great powers like
the US and China, or the UNCharter?
Speaker 2 (17:59):
Well, I think the UN
Charter, not only for Pakistan
but for every country, should bethe overriding thing.
This is not sometimes the case,but for us it's very clear.
So I don't see any situation inwhich we have extended support
to a major country going againstthe requirements or provisions
(18:23):
of the Charter.
We don't do that.
I don't think we'll ever dothat.
That's why I said in the otherpart of the conversation that we
are very much attached to theUN Charter, to the respect for
international law, and ourpositions on key issues are
mostly based on that, and thatprovides us, you know that
(18:47):
strength and Pakistan itself Imean it's a big country.
We are known to have followedover the years foreign policy
which is independent, sovereign.
You know our own decisions, yourecall, and not only recently
2003, the Iraq, the wholeepisode.
We were in the Security Council.
(19:07):
We did not support that.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
In the famous meeting
.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
the presentation we
were not part, we did not extend
support, for you know theresolution that at that time the
US wanted to initiate militaryaction.
So we are known as a countrythat has its own positions,
positions based on principle,and then we can withstand
(19:35):
pressure in maintaining thosepositions.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Well, I did want to
touch on one other conflict in
Ukraine, simply because youmentioned balancing
multi-polarity with the UNCharter.
Pakistan abstained on the votesin the General Assembly calling
on Russia to withdraw fromUkraine, and you abstained, I
have to say, both on the votesthemselves and also the
(20:02):
amendments brought by Russia.
Here again, how do you balanceyour desire as a country to
maintain good relations with theUS, Russia, China and other
regional players with a clearviolation of the UN Charter?
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Yeah, I think I mean
you have to read into our
statements and explanations ofwhat I mean.
You cannot just assume that,since it was an abstention, so
it was on one side or the otherof international law and charter
and the sovereignty andterritorial integrity of states
(20:45):
and the principle of equalsecurity for all states.
So that's very clearly fine.
Our main position on this well,it should never have happened.
Diplomacy should have been, youknow, given, prioritized.
It could have been prevented.
I think we have to look intoall those reasons that led to
(21:07):
this, the outbreak of thisconflict.
So our position has been that,you know, it has impacted not
only the region, not only theeuropeans, but the wider
international community,especially the developing
countries.
And what we were saying at thattime, now almost everyone is
saying that, you know, there'sno military solution to this.
(21:28):
There must be a diplomaticsolution, you know, arrived
through dialogue and diplomacy,starting with an immediate
cessation of hostilities.
So that was our position atthat time, which we have
consistently maintained.
The only difference was, youknow, this resolution, the short
(21:52):
resolution that the US broughtin February simultaneously in
the GAA and the Security Council, in the GA and the Security
Council, which was leaving, youknow, the details aside, but
calling for two main things.
Basically, you know, a swiftend to conflict and a peaceful
(22:14):
settlement, which was, you know,largely in line with what
Pakistan has been saying End theconflict, cease fire and
peaceful settlement.
So it was, you know, in linewith our stated position.
So that's why we said we areable to support this.
So we did that, and we did thatclearly and we explained our
(22:37):
position and we still believethat you know this issue,
whether our securityhumanitarian, that you know this
issue, there are securityhumanitarian other.
You know consequences of thisconflict, economic consequences.
This must be brought to an end.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
We hope that you know
things move in that direction
veto because, well, obviously,ukraine, I should point out, had
a competing resolution and feltthat the US resolution had been
watered down somewhat, but thatis one that you felt it was
(23:12):
middle of the road enough thatPakistan couldn't support it in
other words, yeah, because wesupported this principle and
what this was saying was in linewith what we have been saying
all along.
I did want to touch on Kashmir.
Obviously, this is one that youwere directly involved with.
It's also almost as old as theUN itself.
In that sense it's like thePalestinian question and has not
(23:32):
been resolved, recently flaredup.
First of all, how likely do youthink the ceasefire is to hold?
And also, pakistan nominatedTrump for the Nobel Peace Prize
in June, citing his decisivediplomatic intervention in the
Kashmir conflict, and can youtalk a little bit about why you
did that?
Speaker 2 (23:49):
So there are two,
three things in this.
One, you mentioned the recentconflict, which is totally, you
know, something that happenedunwarranted, without any
justification, total violationof international law and the UN
Charter.
India committed an aggression.
We showed that we are a countrythat not only could absorb that
(24:13):
aggression, we were able torespond to it in accordance with
our right to self-defense,self-defense, and the results
are there for the internationalcommunity to see and to analyze.
A lot is being discussed aboutwhat happened on the night of
(24:36):
6th and 7th, the aerial combatand all of that Not here to go
into the details, because thedefense analysts are analyzing
all of that.
But we showed that pakistan is,you know, has the capability to
deter aggression and to protectits sovereignty and territorial
integrity.
So that's one.
The other thing is that whydoes this happen?
So you know, this doesn'thappen in vacuum.
(24:58):
This, this recurring cycle ofconflict, maybe at a smaller
scale, in the India-Pakistancontext, in the South Asia
context.
You mentioned Kashmir.
So that's where you know,that's the larger picture,
that's the canvas.
So you look at the region,kashmir, just like Palestine in
(25:21):
the Middle East, jammu andKashmir, is the issue that is,
the core dispute between Indiaand Pakistan.
That has remained unresolvedbecause India has refused to
implement the Security Councilresolutions that provided for
self-determination for theKashmiri people and they are
waging that struggle which isbeing suppressed by violation of
(25:44):
human rights and you know somany actions.
So the entire situation isunstable.
It has also blocked that realnormalization.
You know that kind ofrelationship with two big
countries like India andPakistan should have in the
region to promote peace anddevelopment and that would bring
(26:08):
larger prosperity to the region.
So that's what we are sayingthat if we want to end this
cycle and if we want durablepeace and stability in the
region, it's very important toaddress and resolve the Jammu
and Kashmir dispute.
So now, in all of this, you sawthat.
(26:28):
So there was this four-dayconflict and in the end there
was a ceasefire, which was inwhich the US, together with some
other friendly countries, theyplayed a key role, role which we
have appreciated andacknowledged and thanked.
And you would have seen therole played by the secretary
general also and the statementsthat came in the wake of the
(26:52):
ceasefire.
So two main things were thereone, welcoming the ceasefire and
, you know, expecting that nomore escalation.
And and the second thing, whichthe Americans also said very
clearly you saw the statement ofMark Rubio that India and
Pakistan have also agreed tomeet at a neutral venue to
(27:15):
discuss their outstanding issues.
So the main thing is that itwas not just the ceasefire but
the expectation the SecretaryGeneral also made a similar
statement while welcoming theceasefire that they expect that
two countries will have adialogue.
So if you look at it, pakistanalso acknowledged the efforts
(27:38):
that went into ceasefire.
We also welcomed that.
You know.
There is this broaderrecognition that you know going
forward, there must be adialogue between India and
Pakistan to resolve theoutstanding issues, and Kashmir
is the core issue.
But if you look at the otherside, I mean there is a state of
denial.
(27:58):
So first you do aggression thatyou know.
So first you do aggression thatyou know, you go running for a
ceasefire, you get the ceasefireand then you say we don't want
to have a dialogue with Pakistan.
So denial on both fronts, which,in my view, is not, you know, a
good, responsible position.
I believe that our friends inIndia, they should recognize
(28:42):
that two big countries likeIndia and Pakistan cannot remain
in this state, not even sittingacross the table and talking to
each other and trying toaddress their issues.
So that's why I think it wasimportant what the Secretary
General was saying, what manyother friends were saying around
the world the role that the USplayed.
I think it was very critical,and President Trump has been
(29:06):
saying this, he's repeated that,I don't even remember the count
.
He's repeated that on so manyoccasions.
I mean, we believe that thiswas a genuine effort towards
peace.
Speaker 1 (29:21):
So, and I should say
because India is not part of the
conversation, they havedescribed their Operation Sandur
as being a security measure andcounterterrorism and also, as
you allude to, they do give lesscredit, publicly at least to
the Trump administration forbrokering the ceasefire, than
Pakistan, which has given theTrump administration obviously a
(29:42):
lot of credit.
I mean a Nobel Prize nomination.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
No, I think you said
rightly.
I mean they're not part of thisconversation, but we are very
willing to have thatconversation because I mean
nowhere in the international lawor under any provisions of
Security Council or GeneralAssembly resolutions regarding
counterterrorism does giveanyone, any country anywhere in
(30:07):
the world, you know this rightto, you know to say that you
know some incident happens andyou just say that you know
you're saying someone else is tobe blamed and then you violate
all tenets of international lawand the council, even the
(30:27):
Security Council resolutions andthe statements that are there
on how counterterrorism effortsshould be or must be undertaken
by the international community.
It says very clearly it has tobe within the ambit of
international law andinternational humanitarian law
and human rights law andrespective obligations.
So there is no, you know, blankcheck to anyone.
(30:50):
And Pakistan can never accept,no country can accept that you
enter into that blame gamewithout any evidence, without
any investigation game, withoutany evidence, without any
investigation, and then openlycommit aggression against a
neighboring country and then,you know, try to justify it.
(31:11):
There's no justification forthat.
So we have I think we have beenable to counter that in all
dimensions.
First, it was illegal,unwarranted, no justification
under international law.
Pakistan had the right toself-defense and we exercise
that right to self-defense andwe did that very carefully and
(31:31):
cautiously and proportionately.
So there is a clear differencein the behavior of the two
countries.
Speaker 1 (31:43):
Should the UN be
playing a greater role in this,
or does it make sense to havethe US take the lead, given that
it has, you know, goodrelations with both countries?
Speaker 2 (31:51):
We've been saying,
whether it's, I mean, un, has a
definite role and they should beable, they should be playing
this role, whether it's theSecretary General or the
permanent members of theSecurity Council.
They know the history.
They or the permanent membersof the Security Council, they
know the history, they know thehistorical context of the
Kashmir dispute.
It is their responsibility, youknow, to try to resolve that
(32:13):
situation.
But Pakistan's position hasbeen very clear.
That you know.
We are very open to any kind ofrole.
Good offices from the secretarygeneral or our common friends
who wish to, you know, play thatrole in bringing the the two
countries together, at least tosit across the table and discuss
.
So we are very open.
(32:33):
It's the other side which hasalways refuted this and they
don't agree to any un role.
They don't agree to any thirdcountry facilitation or
mediation.
So it's a position that is veryhard to understand.
I don't know how they are ableto explain this.
On the one hand they refuse anyUN or third country role and
(32:58):
they tell them this is abilateral issue which we will
discuss with Pakistanbilaterally, and on the other
hand, they have suspended thebilateral dialogue with Pakistan
for many, many years now.
So you know, this is somethingthat is totally incomprehensible
, but now I think there isincreased awareness among our
(33:20):
friends.
You know where does the problemlie?
Speaker 1 (33:23):
The UN80 initiative,
looking at efficiencies and
reorganization, but alsocost-cutting because of the
well-known budget crisis at theUN, For example.
Coming up here today, I noticedit looks like they're actually
working on the escalator, butthe escalator has been out for
many months.
Journalists often put this inarticles about the UN budget
(33:46):
crisis, which is kind of funnybecause it directly impacts us.
It's actually the escalatorthat connects the Security
Council, where we come to yourstakeouts, and the offices where
we file our stories from.
So that's been out for many,many months.
It'll be very nice if it'sfixed.
But on a more serious note,we're actually looking at maybe
(34:11):
even 20% budget cuts at theSecretariat and at a recent
briefing they said that wouldn'tbe applied across the board.
It might be less in somedepartments.
What is the sentiment amongSecurity Council members about
the budget and the future of theUnited Nations?
Speaker 2 (34:23):
Well, you know, there
are so many broader questions
involved and you mentioned theissue of the elevators.
There are some other.
You know things that have beenmentioned.
Some ambassadors have beentelling me ever since I came
there it used to be a very goodrestaurant on the fourth floor,
which is no more there.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
So yeah, that affects
you more than us.
We focus on what affects thejournalists.
Speaker 2 (34:48):
I believe everyone is
taking this UN-AT initiative
from the security channel ingood stride, I would say for the
main reason that the generalmembership believes that UN is a
big organization and, like anygood organization, effective
(35:09):
organization, you have to evolvewith time.
So reform adaptation accordingto the challenges is a natural
phenomenon, and the things thatshould drive this reform are
effectiveness and efficiencies.
Cost cutting is part of it, butactually it should be aiming
(35:29):
for effectiveness and efficiency.
So the overall objective shouldbe that, as a result of this
exercise, you have a UN that isstronger than what it is today.
So that's why we've been sayingthat we should build on the
previous reform exercises thathave been held, and one of the
(35:54):
main things that have emergedfrom the discussions, from the
interactions with the SecretaryGeneral, is that it should not
impact some of the pillars.
So we have three basic pillarsdefined for the UN.
This is peace and security,development and human rights.
So almost everyone is sayingthat none of them should be
(36:19):
impacted disproportionately.
So I'm not going to enter intothe debate, because you know
that many of the developingcountries they want that the
development pillar should staystrong or it should not be
impacted.
In my view all three should betaken together forward.
So for the moment it has beeninformal.
(36:41):
There was a letter from theSecretary General.
He described the three streamson which things should be
discussed and some informaldialogues, interactions as a
whole, also in some groups.
What Pakistan has suggestedthat a good way to take this
(37:02):
exercise forward would be forthe Secretary General, at this
stage or maybe coming days, topresent a report which provides
a holistic picture of what he isproposing to member states and
should be in the form of awritten report comprising all
three streams, so that everyoneknows this is being proposed and
(37:25):
then you take it forward, theusual intergovernmental process.
It will take time, obviously,but if we can initiate that
discussion and if we can be onthat route, many good things can
be achieved.
Speaker 1 (37:41):
Now the UN80
initiative isn't only about
cost-cutting but alsorestructuring much of the work.
Now on the Security Council,you spend a lot of time
reviewing mandatory reports.
Many of them were mandateddecades ago.
Do the Security Council membersdiscuss this drive for
(38:02):
efficiency?
Council members discuss thisdrive for efficiency and do they
feel that there are somemandated programs that should be
merged or even eliminated?
Is that a point of discussionamong the council members?
Speaker 2 (38:13):
So I would say it's
not that a certain mandate has
been there for many years.
More important for us as memberstates and as the principal
organs of the UN, is to see whatis there, that is, you know,
prevented these mandates frombeing implemented and achieved.
So, you know, once a mandate isimplemented and achieved, it
(38:35):
will automatically, you know, betaken away.
So that's the key question.
That's why I think theSecretary General is right in
pointing out that let's see,let's have a discussion on the
implementation of mandates.
Speaker 1 (38:51):
Right, an excellent
point.
Simply because a program ismandated many years, or some of
them go back almost to thebeginning of the UN, doesn't
mean the issue has been resolved.
If the issue is unresolved, theStill valid.
But I mean that gets to adeeper point, which is are there
structural issues that areperhaps preventing the
(39:14):
resolution of some of thesemandates, or is it simply that
they're intractable politicaldisagreements?
Speaker 2 (39:21):
I think it's all of
that.
It depends what kind of mandatewe're talking about.
So there are different mandatesthat come from the General
Assembly, from ECOSOC, from theSecurity Council and the
Security Council is mostlyrelated to the Council's work
different items which are on theagenda.
So you know, you have thepeacekeeping missions, you have
the special political missions,you have reporting mandates.
(39:44):
So these are periodic.
You know cycles in which thesethings are discussed.
But, as I was saying, these areall important issues and so
when you are reviewing them, youobviously look at what was the
rationale for these mandates.
So you know, because if you'retalking of a peace operation,
(40:04):
what were the initial objectives?
How much of these objectiveshave been achieved?
Have you been able to take thepeace and security track
together with the politicaltrack, which is also very
important?
So all of these things shouldbe discussed and reviewed, I
(40:24):
would say, in a more holisticmanner.
That would give us an idea inwhat direction we should go.
Speaker 1 (40:31):
Is there a sense that
some of these should be merged,
that maybe there's a lot ofduplication?
Speaker 2 (40:38):
Yeah, obviously the
duplications would be at the
systemic level.
They will be discussed there.
But when you're talking ofspecific individual
country-specific or regionspecific situations, I
understand there wouldn't bethat much of duplication.
But within those missions maybethey could be where you have,
(41:01):
you know, different positions,for example in the mission if
you also have a specialrepresentative and personal
envoy also you know.
So that kind of thing, and Iunderstand that there is a lot
(41:21):
of you know talk about the verytop-heavy system in the UN, with
high positions, a number ofthem, which seem to have
proliferated.
That's also expected to be, youknow, the focus of this reform
and bringing more efficiencies.
Speaker 1 (41:36):
Well, un Security
Council reform is often
mentioned as part of reform andit was a part of the Pact of the
Future.
What is Pakistan's position onthe use of the veto?
That's kind of the third railof Security Council reform.
Should the veto be reformed andnew permanent members, if any,
should they have the veto?
Speaker 2 (41:55):
Yeah, so this is.
You know, this is one of themost keenly debated and followed
discussions in the UN, and formany years, and the main reason
for that is that this issue hasvery high stakes for almost
everyone.
But if you come to the reformand how this can be achieved,
(42:20):
pakistan, together with ourfriends in the Uniting for
Consensus group, we have aclearly defined position which
actually follows on theprinciples that are also
described in the Pact for theFuture and were described
earlier, also that we want ademocratic security council
(42:41):
reform that makes it morerepresentative and accountable
to the general membership.
So the main point that youmentioned veto, which is a
characteristic of the permanentmembers.
So you know, they're basicallythe two main characteristics One
, they have the veto andsecondly, they are permanent and
(43:01):
because of that, they are ableto exert a position of influence
in the council's proceedingsopen behind the doors.
So if you follow the debate onthe reform issue, one thing that
comes out very clearly is avery widespread criticism of the
(43:24):
user veto and the specialstatus of the permanent members,
which often blocks theeffective functioning of the
Security Council.
So we believe that if this isthe main problem that is
preventing the Security Councilfrom time to time to carry out
(43:45):
its role for the maintenance ofinternational peace and security
, then we will only aggravatethis problem if we were to add
more individual permanentmembers.
So that's our basic argumentagainst addition of individual
permanent members To theSecurity Council.
We have provided an alternativewhich is democratic, which is
(44:10):
suggesting that we add morenon-permanent elected members
and the duration of their termscould be negotiated it could be
three years, four years.
Speaker 1 (44:22):
But for longer than I
should say for our listeners
who aren't aficionados that thecurrent.
There are 10 elected membersand they have two-year terms.
You're in an elected two-yearterm, your country and this is
also where regionalism does comeinto it, because of course your
neighbor India feels that,given its size, if its
population, it should be apermanent member and should have
(44:45):
a veto.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
But the uniting for
consensus members feel that
there should be no additionalpermanent members and we'll
certainly no new vetoes in thatand the reasons for that, as I
explained, I mean, this is aprincipled position and we think
it's not because India isdemanding a permanent seat, or
Japan or Germany or Brazil aredemanding a permanent seat, or
(45:06):
Germany or Brazil are demandinga permanent seat.
It's based on principle Becauseotherwise, even in our group,
there are countries who havecredentials that are equally
good, maybe even better.
So, for example, what are thecriteria that you suggest that
you are eligible to be apermanent member?
(45:27):
Contribution to internationalpeace and security, peacekeeping
.
So Pakistan is equally good.
A big population.
We are not far behind, butthat's not the point.
You have Indonesia also, whichis a big country, big Islamic
country, together with Pakistan.
So should there be?
(45:47):
So this is the main argumentthat we are making.
It's not about that capability,it's not about the realities.
The realities keep on changing.
I know that many of our friendsthey relate to new realities,
but that's what we are saying.
These realities are permanentlyand constantly changing.
(46:08):
The situation that we havetoday.
It wasn't the same 20 yearsearlier.
Look at 2005 and look at 2025.
So much has changed in terms ofhow much a certain country was
contributing financially towardsthe UN and what is the
situation now.
(46:29):
So it keeps on changing.
That's why we are saying thenew reform should be a good
reform and it should correspond,yes, to the new realities.
It should make the council moredemocratic.
It should provide opportunitiesfor a larger group of countries
who think that they have thecapability and the readiness to
(46:54):
contribute to the council's work.
They should provide theopportunity for the countries of
those regions to rotate on theSecurity Council.
(47:16):
If you add some country, someindividual country, permanently,
that means that permanentlyblocks that seat does not
provide the possibility forrotation.
And we have been saying it'svery clear you look at the UN.
There are certainly not three,four, five or six countries
(47:37):
which have the capability andthe willingness to contribute to
the council, but certainly Imean this number would be at
least 40-50 countries.
Even smaller states have provenmany a times that the
contribution that they bring tocouncil's work is even, you know
, more significant than some ofthe bigger countries.
(47:58):
And then there is wholequestion of you know, the track
record of various countries, sayeven some of the contenders.
What kind of track record havethey shown over the years in
terms of respectinginternational law, in terms of
even respecting the resolutionsof the Security Council of which
(48:21):
they want to become permanentmembers.
So you know, these are veryvalid questions that remain part
of the debate.
Speaker 1 (48:28):
Well, of course, all
this discussion about reform
will be academic if the UN runsout of money soon, which is
becoming more and more of apossibility.
As of July, only 114 of the 193member states have paid their
contributions in full for theyear.
But, more importantly, the twolargest contributors have become
unreliable.
(48:48):
I mean, china's often beenpaying late and the US has yet
to late, and the US has yet topay for the year.
Could the UN run out of money?
Are we really looking at abudget crisis because of
political differences?
Speaker 2 (49:01):
within the UN.
Yeah, certainly there is acrisis, and this is what the
Secretary General has beenpointing out.
This needs to be addressed.
He's also tried to explain that, you know, this reform
initiative, the UNAT, is notbecause of the financial crisis,
but it's hard to believe thatbecause it does look like that
(49:21):
that is having an impact.
But why is he saying that?
Because and in a way he's rightthat we are trying to do things
better, but it has nothing to dowith you know one or you know
some members not paying, becauseunless that problem about not
(49:42):
paying your dues is addressed,then whatever reform you bring
in, whether it's UN 80 or someother things, that won't work.
So that is a separate thingthat needs to be addressed.
So and I think that I meanthere is a need for some kind of
persuasion to go into this, thewhole thing.
(50:05):
Maybe a group of friends of UNor something which should reach
out to friends like the US andtry to convince them that this
is an organization that theythemselves were the leaders in
establishing.
It has served the internationalcommunity well, it has served
(50:29):
the US and many of the biggercountries well, and it would be
in the fitness of things thatyou know.
They remain committed.
Speaker 1 (50:35):
Is there something
you would like to sort of
summarize your position on theoutlook for the UN in these
times?
Speaker 2 (50:43):
For us.
It's very easy to you know, tosummarize the UN is an
organization whose value is verymuch appreciated by the large
majority of its membership.
We don't see any alternative atthe moment.
It has served us and theinternational community very
(51:05):
well across the three pillars.
The main thing is that everyoneacknowledges that these are
interlinked global challengeswhich no country has the ability
, capability you know to addressalone, or not even in a group
of countries can handle themalone.
It's only through constructivemultilateralism that you can
(51:28):
address that's, I believe that'sthe philosophy of the majority
of the member states To supportmultilateralism, to support and
strengthen the hands of theSecretary General.
And we'll do all we can to keepthis organization going, to
keep that San Francisco spiritgoing organization going, to
(51:53):
keep that San Francisco spiritgoing.
And our expectation is that UNwill emerge stronger from this
difficult phase and it's not thefirst time that we are facing
such challenges to theinternational order and to the
UN.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (52:04):
Well, that's an
extremely optimistic note to
conclude our conversation on MrAmbassador.
Thank you for joining us todayat the Delegates' Lounge.
Speaker 2 (52:13):
Thank you so much,
thank you.
Speaker 3 (52:19):
And that's it from
the Delegates' Lounge.
We'd like to thank our esteemedguests, who have graciously
allowed us to share theirhard-earned insights into what
really matters.
And then there's you, ourlisteners, who we hope are
sufficiently edified to clamorfor more of the same.
Do drop in for a weekly episodeon Thursday, or, from time to
time if we're on the road, forspecial events, in which case
there'll be a bonus episode.
Subscribe wherever you listento podcasts and, if you like
(52:42):
what you've heard, please take amoment to rate or review the
show, as it helps others whoshare your abiding interest in
world affairs to find their wayto the Delegates Lounge.
You can connect with us on manypopular social media platforms
or reach out to us directly atinfothedelicatesloungecom.
We're a small team so we can'trespond to every message, but we
will read them.
Our show this week was writtenand produced by the host and by
(53:04):
truly executive producer, frankRadford.
Until next time, keep calm andcurious.