U.S. Ambassador to United Nations Michael Waltz speaks during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider a U.S. proposal for a U.N. mandate to establish an international stabilisation force in Gaza, at U.N. headquarters in New York City, U.S., on November 17, 2025.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

File photo for representational purpose
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Pakistan began its two-year tenure as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on January 1, 2025, with Ambassador Munir Akram saying that the Pakistani delegation will play an “active and constructive” role in addressing key challenges facing the world.

“Our presence will be felt in the Security Council,” Ambassador Akram, Pakistan’s top diplomat at the United Nations (UN), told state-run Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) news agency.

Pakistan at the UNSC, the points of its compass

From Wednesday (January 1, 2025), Pakistan will sit in the Security Council for the 2025-26 term as a non-permanent member — the eighth time that the country has had a seat on the 15-member body’s horseshoe table.

In June, Pakistan was elected to the council with a massive majority as a non-permanent member, polling 182 votes in the 193-member General Assembly — far more than the required 124 votes representing a two-thirds majority.

“We enter the council at a time of great geopolitical turbulence, intense competition between the two largest powers, raging wars in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere and a sharply escalating and multi-dimensional arms race,” Mr. Akram said.

“As a responsible State — the fifth largest by population — Pakistan will play an active and constructive role, in accordance with the UN Charter, to halt wars, promote the pacific settlement of disputes and contain the negative impacts of great power rivalries, the arms race, new weapons and domains of conflict as well as the spreading scourge of terrorism,” he said.

Pakistan replaced Japan, which currently occupies the Asian seat in the Security Council, a primary instrument for establishing and maintaining international peace. Pakistan’s earlier terms on the council were in 2012-13, 2003-04, 1993-94, 1983-84, 1976-77, 1968-69 and 1952-53.

In the June election in the General Assembly, Pakistan was elected along with Denmark, Greece, Panama and Somalia — to replace Japan, Ecuador, Malta, Mozambique and Switzerland whose terms end on December 31, 2024.

The new members join the five veto-wielding permanent members the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France and the five countries elected as non-permanent members last year Algeria, Guyana, South Korea, Sierra Leone and Slovenia.

When it comes to global institutions, why is the world so polarised? In particular, what explains the policy of the U.S. on enforcing rules on Israel?

Trita Parsi: Put simply, this is a genocide and we can see it happening live, on our phones. The Lancet estimates the toll to be over 1,86,000 because 43,000 is only the number of bodies that have been counted in hospitals. So, I’m not surprised by the world’s outrage in comparison to what was felt over [Russia’s invasion] of Ukraine. Roughly, 700 children were killed in Ukraine through Russian bombardment over two-and-a-half years. More than 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza in about a year already. The intensity of this exceeds anything we have seen in any modern war.

What is surprising is America’s reaction. The Biden administration, in particular, has violated its own regulations to allow the Israeli government to do exactly what it wants. This has never happened before. The U.S. is shifting away from supporting the same international institutions, regulations, and laws that it played a crucial role in establishing. The first shift was away from international law to what it calls the ‘rules-based international order’. The rules-based order is not centred on law; it is centred on rules, and it is unclear who makes those rules. In reality, it ends up being a coalition or a willing partnership of countries, mostly allies, which is not universally accepted or applicable. This is what we are seeing when it comes to the ICC warrants as well.

Navtej Sarna: The U.S. has a sort of umbilical relationship with Israel. The U.S. has treated Israel as if it is a part of the U.S. which needs to be protected at all costs. Now the protection is for strategic reasons, but also because Israel represents a sort of a moral burden. It is the Jewish homeland, and after the Holocaust, there is a need to protect all Israelis and not let them lose the homeland. In the view of the U.S., Israel is also a democracy, a vulnerable democracy in a very hard neighbourhood, the only democracy in West Asia. While it is unstated so far, Israel is also believed to be a nuclear power, and one that can be a deterrent against another potential nuclear power that could be Iran. Now there are some contradictions: Israel’s democracy comes up against the fact that it has also been an occupying power and it is no longer vulnerable. But that has been overlooked because of the U.S.’s need to protect Israel for the other reasons I mentioned, particularly after the October 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

Israel has said the ICC warrant makes no sense because it is not a member state of the ICC, much like how India isn’t, and doesn’t submit to its jurisdiction. Can a warrant still be issued against Prime Minister Netanyahu?

Trita Parsi: Of course it can, because Israel is conducting war crimes in another country’s territory [Palestine]. This was an issue that the ICC had to address before taking up this issue.

Navtej Sarna: More than the ICC warrant, it is necessary to look at what has been done to international humanitarian law on the ground. Countries may react to the warrants one way or the other, but the sad part is that international humanitarian law has been flouted for months in [full] visibility of the world. Therefore, everybody has a responsibility to bear for allowing the [bombardment of Gaza to continue]. The U.S. has simply been putting up a diplomatic performance. If it really wanted to stop this, it could have.

Why didn’t India join the ICC and what is its position on this warrant now?

Navtej Sarna: The ICC has only 124 member states. India participated in the negotiations in the preparatory stages that led up to the setting up of the ICC in 2002. India participated in the negotiations of the Rome Statute. But it did not sign it or ratify it. India negotiates in good faith and when it finds that it can’t agree to some of the terms, it doesn’t sign. It is better than signing and flouting the terms. The reasons for not signing at the time were many. The Indian government felt that the ICC did not give sufficient place for national administrative and judicial institutions to deal with such crimes and it did not recognise the use of nuclear weapons and the use of other weapons of mass destruction as a crime which could be punished. It also did not recognise terrorism as a punishable crime against humanity, which, I think, was probably the breaking point for India, which had been a victim of terrorism for decades. Regarding the present ICC warrants [in the cases of both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Mr. Netanyahu], India has made it clear that it does not have much faith in the ICC.

At the UN Security Council (UNSC), there has been a logjam over votes involving Israel and Russia. Even in cases where the UNSC has passed resolutions, such as Afghanistan and Myanmar, the regimes in power are flouting directions with impunity. Are we reaching a point where the international world order, as is defined by these institutions, is unable to function? What would it take to make states including Israel compliant?

Navtej Sarna: It is clear that UNSC resolutions don’t mean a thing any more. In the case of Israel, the U.S. veto is used almost automatically. Naturally, Russia is going to use its veto for its own purposes, to protect itself, as it has in the past few years. The fact remains that the situation in which the UN was formed has changed from 1945. So even if the UNSC believes it can still deliver, the truth is it cannot. Every country has decided to live on a transactional, immediate short-term policy paradigm. There are no ‘value-based international relations’ today. It is not as if countries did not work in national interest earlier, but the brazenness with which we see ‘realpolitik’ used is at a different level. Until this situation changes — and I don’t see any signs of that — this kind of breakdown of international systems will probably increase.

Trita Parsi: I agree that we are in a very bad situation. However, I don’t think there is a collective desire not to have any rules and laws that will guide state to state conduct at this point. We can point to all of these examples in which clearly the system has not worked, but those are perhaps 5% of the situations. Of the interactions that are taking place in the world, there are many in which laws are being followed.

The UNSC absolutely needs reform. It has become a joke and at some point, it will become irrelevant. Things are going to get worse, but there is going to be a tipping point in which a critical mass of countries will recognise that it is actually in their interest to have a functioning global order and effective institutions that help uphold international conventions and laws.

Do you see Israel being brought to account internationally, or a ceasefire in Gaza any time soon, especially given the upcoming change in U.S. administration?

Trita Parsi: There is a likelihood of a ceasefire because incoming U.S. President Donald Trump will take a tough position on ending the war. While he has shown little regard for global institutions, and sees transactional value in backing Israel, I think he does not want to see the U.S. get dragged into another war in West Asia.

Navtej Sarna: I think Mr. Trump’s main motivation would be to show himself as the ultimate winner who can say he delivered on his campaign promise to stop the wars. But a ceasefire will not mean peace. Mr. Trump’s next step will be to want to go back to the Abraham Accords, which will be more difficult than it was in Trump 1.0 (2017-2021). The landscape has changed considerably for the countries that signed the accords (the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco) and those that the U.S. was trying to bring on board (Saudi Arabia). There won’t be a return to peace or negotiations until the heart of the problem is addressed, which is the need for the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Listen to the conversation in The Hindu Parley podcast

“India is “unsatisfied” with the pace of progress on Security Council reform,” the country’s envoy at the United Nations (UN) said, noting that there are countries who prefer the status quo and those that oppose expansion in the permanent category “at all costs” as they feel their neighbours may have a chance to become a member.

“The Security Council structure, as it stands today, is a reflection of 1945. It does not reflect today’s realities,” India’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish said during a conversation here on Tuesday (November 19, 2024.)

Mr. Harish delivered the keynote address on ‘Responding to Key Global Challenges: The India Way’ at an event at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA).

Mr. Harish gave an expansive overview of the “India way” on key global issues ranging from reformed multilateralism, terrorism, demography, India’s digital revolution to the country’s youth, climate change, democracy, healthcare and vaccines.

The event was co-sponsored by the MPA programme in Global Leadership and the International Organisation and U.N. Studies programme (IO/UNS) and attended by students, faculty and policy experts.

He noted that the United Nations does “great work” in the humanitarian field, addressing the humanitarian requirements of hundreds of millions around the world as well as in the development domain — children’s health, public health, and labour through its specialised institutions.

“Yet for the common man on the street, their perception, the lenses through which they view the UN is neither the humanitarian dimension nor the development dimension or the public health dimension. They only look at the inability of the UN to stop conflicts in areas including Ukraine and the Middle East. That is the view they have and that is probably the only yardstick by which they are assessing the efficiency of the UN,” he said during a panel discussion after the keynote address.

Mr. Harish underlined that there is consensus that the UN Security Council should be reformed.

“Yes, it needs reforms. It needs expansion. However, several countries prefer the status quo. Those who are already permanent members do not wish to vacate it. Those who are already permanent members do not wish to give up the veto. Those who feel that their neighbours may have a chance to become a member would oppose expansion in the permanent category at all costs,” he said.

“This is the way nations behave, very much like people, in terms of motivations.” Pakistan is part of the group ‘Uniting for Consensus’ that opposes permanent seats for India and other G4 nations Brazil, Germany and Japan.

Of the five Permanent members of the Council, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. have voiced strong support for India’s bid for a permanent seat in a reformed Council. China has said that Security Council reform is an important part of the reform of the multilateral governance architecture but also pointed to the “practice of a few countries and interest groups who pursue their own selfish and small-circle interests when it comes to Council reform”.

Mr. Harish described the process as being “very difficult” and “complex”. “Yes, we are unsatisfied with the pace of progress in the last 15-16 years and urging the co-chairs of the Inter-Governmental Negotiation process to decisively move forward on this.”

“Is it going to be easy and will it happen tomorrow? Probably not. What should we do? We should keep at it because eventually, things will not remain the same. Nothing remains the same. Change is a natural order of things. It will happen, if not today, tomorrow. If not tomorrow, the day after. We are engaged with this process because we need a multilateral system that works, and is fit for purpose to deal with today’s challenges, problems and also opportunities.”

Mr. Harish emphasised the institutions of multilateralism that we have today are a product of the post Second World War.

“The reality of 1945 is long gone, the institutions remain. They are not fit for purpose for dealing with today’s challenges and opportunities. Yet, they have not been reformed, whether it is the UN, the UN Security Council, international financial institutions, trade bodies, each one of them needs to be made fit for purpose for today’s realities,” he said.

Mr. Harish said that changing the status quo is not easy. “You have a lot of status quo supporters, and you need to build consensus for this. It’s a difficult process which is still ongoing,” he said.

“We are a multipolar world, and we in Asia are clear that a multipolar Asia in a multipolar world is the way ahead,” he said.

Summarising the “India way”, Mr. Harish underlined that the “world is not a zero-sum game”. The ‘India way’ that has emerged is a “proactive India playing on the front foot”, he said using cricket terminology, of “Go ahead and engage, manage difficult partners, cultivate new friends that you have not dealt with before, reassure old friends with whom you have had many years of productive partnership, draw in new stakeholders to all the things that you want to bring about, reach out both to old friends and new partners as you come up with new approaches of dealing with things, extend a hand of friendship and collaboration to all, and finally, expand the outreach, the footprint, and hands of friendship to everybody.”

India didn’t sign letter of support by 104 nations for U.N. Secretary-General after ban by Israel

“No to dogma. Don’t get caught out just because you did something in a particular way” over the last several decades. “Consistency is not a virtue. Yes, to calculated risk-taking, because increasingly, we are dealing with a young population, that wants prosperity as of yesterday, that has great aspirations, that wants innovation and wants transformation. If we don’t change the way we do business, we will not be in a position to meet their aspirations,” he said outlining the ‘India Way’.

“India is a bridge between the developed and the developing world, between the established and the emerging, a friend of the world that believes in participatory institution building without confrontation. We don’t want to impose anything on anyone. Global commons for global good. This is what we work for,” Mr. Harish said.

French national flags in front of the facade of the National Assembly in Paris. File
| Photo Credit: AFP

France said on Wednesday (October 2, 2024) it was sending additional military resources to the Middle East to tackle the Iranian threat and convened a United Nations (UN) Security Council (UNSC) meeting for later in the day after Tehran launched a barrage of missiles at Israel.

Iran said early on Wednesday (October 2, 2024) that its missile attack on Israel was finished barring further provocation, while Israel and the U.S. promised to retaliate against Tehran’s assault as fears of a wider war intensified.

“Committed to Israel’s security, France today mobilised its military resources in the Middle East to counter the Iranian threat,” the French Presidency said in a statement overnight after an emergency security Cabinet meeting to discuss the regional escalation.

“The head of state also reiterated France’s demand that Hezbollah cease its terrorist actions against Israel and its population.”

It gave no details on what additional military assets had been sent to the region and the Defence Ministry was not immediately available for comment. “Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot spoke with his U.S. counterpart Antony Blinken to coordinate diplomatic efforts,” the Ministry said.

Paris and Washington last week had attempted to secure a temporary ceasefire in Lebanon just hours before Israel launched air strikes that killed Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

The Foreign Ministry said it had convened a UN Security Council meeting to discuss the situation in the Middle East on Wednesday (October 2, 2024) afternoon. The French Presidency said it would also organise soon a conference in support of Lebanon and had asked the Foreign Minister to travel to the region to work on diplomatic efforts to reduce tensions.

“Attentive to the security and protection of our compatriots in Lebanon and the Middle East, the head of state requested that all necessary measures be taken to assist them and, if necessary, come to their aid,” the Presidency added. France on Monday (September 30, 2024) deployed a helicopter carrier to the region to position itself in case an evacuation order was given.

New York:

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Thursday backed India’s bid for a permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), days after US President Joe Biden and France’s Emmanuel Macron made a similar pitch. Addressing the general debate of the United Nations General Assembly’s seventy-ninth session in New York, Mr Starmer said the UNSC has to change to become a “more representative body”.

At present, the UNSC comprises five permanent members and 10 non-permanent member countries which are elected for a two-year term by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The five permanent members are Russia, the UK, China, France, and the United States, which have the power to veto any substantive resolution.

“We want to see permanent African representation on the Council, Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany as permanent members, and more seats for elected members as well,” Mr Starmer said.

ALSO READ | “Have To Keep Putting Pressure”: S Jaishankar On India’s Permanent UN Seat

Earlier on Wednesday, French President Emmanuel Macron had also voiced strong support for India’s inclusion as a permanent member of the UNSC.

“As long as we have a Security Council that is blocked, I would say, reciprocally according to the interests of each party, we will have difficulty moving forward. So let’s just make these United Nations more effective, first by perhaps making them more representative. That is why France, and I repeat here, is in favor of the Security Council being expanded,” he told the UN General Assembly.

“Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil should be permanent members, as well as two countries that Africa will decide to represent it,” he added.

French President @EmmanuelMacron reiterates France’s call for a reform of the UN Security Council that would include a permanent seat for India during his address at #UNGA79 :@franceonu @francediplo_EN @MEAIndia pic.twitter.com/0cIPxbWM0i

— French Embassy in India (@FranceinIndia) September 26, 2024

Last week, Joe Biden had also vouched for India as a permanent member of the UNSC.

During his talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his home in Wilmington, Delaware on Saturday, Mr Biden said that the US supports initiatives to reform global institutions to reflect India’s important voice, including permanent membership for New Delhi in a reformed UN Security Council.

I thank President Biden for hosting me at his residence in Greenville, Delaware. Our talks were extremely fruitful. We had the opportunity to discuss regional and global issues during the meeting. @JoeBiden pic.twitter.com/WzWW3fudTn

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) September 21, 2024

India has argued for decades that it deserves to be a member of the UNSC. New Delhi has said that the 15-nation council founded in 1945 is not fit for purpose in the 21st Century and does not reflect contemporary geo-political realities.

India last sat at the UN high table as a non-permanent member in 2021-22.

ALSO READ | 4 Key Obstacles To India Joining UN Security Council With Veto Power

At the ‘Summit of the Future’ on Sunday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had also warned that the 15-nation UNSC, which he described as “outdated” and whose authority is eroding, will eventually lose all credibility unless its composition and working methods are reformed.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and his counterparts from the G4 countries.
| Photo Credit: X/@DrSJaishankar

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has met his counterparts from the G4 countries, reaffirming the grouping’s commitment to urgent reform of the United Nations Security Council through text-based negotiations.

The G4 nations comprise Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan.

Mr. Jaishankar, who is in the U.S. on an official visit, on Monday (September 23, 2024) met his Japanese counterpart Yoko Kamikawa, the Foreign Minister of Germany Annalena Baerbock and Brazil’s Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira on the sidelines of the 79th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

“Glad to join the traditional #G4 Foreign Ministers Meeting along with colleagues @ABaerbock, @Kamikawa_Yoko and Mauro Vieira in New York today. G4 reaffirmed its commitment for an urgent reform of the United Nations Security Council through Text Based Negotiations,” Mr. Jaishankar said in a post on X.

The G4 nations support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council.

India has been at the forefront of years-long efforts calling for reform of the Security Council, saying the 15-nation Council, founded in 1945, is not fit for purpose in the 21st Century and does not reflect contemporary geopolitical realities. A polarised Security Council has also failed to deal with current peace and security challenges, with Council members sharply divided on conflicts such as the Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Mr. Jaishankar also held talks with his Venezuelan counterpart Yvan Gil on Monday about energy and economic cooperation, among other things.

“Pleased to meet FM @yvangil of Venezuela today on the sidelines of #UNGA79. Discussed energy, health and economic cooperation, as also reformed multilateralism,” Mr. Jaishankar said in a post on X.

A reform of the U.N. Security Council that does not address the lack of representation, particularly in the permanent category, would only “exacerbate” the current imbalances in its composition and render it “ill-equipped” to address current global challenges, India has said on behalf of the G4 countries.

“Recent global geopolitical events have clearly shown that the U.N. Security Council is unable to deliver on its primary responsibilities to safeguard international peace and security when the world needs it the most,” Chargé d’Affaires and Deputy Permanent Representative of India to the U.N. Ambassador R. Ravindra said on Monday (August 12, 2024).

He was delivering a statement on behalf of the G4 countries – Brazil, Germany, Japan and India – at the UNSC High-Level Debate on ‘Maintenance of International Peace and Security: Addressing the Historical Injustice and enhancing Africa’s effective representation in the UNSC’.

The realities of 1945, when the Council was established, have long been superseded by current geopolitical realities, with the need for change being felt across the board, Mr. Ravindra said ahead of next month’s annual high-level U.N. General Assembly session which world leaders will attend.

He noted that for the G4, the primary reason for the underperformance of the critical U.N. Security Council remains the non-representation of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the under-representation of Asia Pacific in the permanent category.

“It is the G4’s firm belief, shared we believe by Africa and other groups, that any reform of the Council that does not address the lack of representation, particularly in the permanent category, would only exacerbate the current imbalances in the Council’s composition and render it ill-equipped to address Monday‘s (August 12, 2024) international challenges,” he said.

The 15-nation UNSC comprises five permanent, veto-wielding members – China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. – and 10 non-permanent members, without veto powers, who are elected for two-year terms.

Underlining that the G4 has “walked the talk” when it comes to correcting historical injustices done to Africa, Mr. Ravindra said the group’s model of UNSC reforms has clearly proposed that the Security Council membership increase from the current 15 to 25-26 by adding six permanent and four or five non-permanent members.

Among the six new permanent members, two each are proposed to be from African States and Asia Pacific states, one from Latin American and Caribbean states, and one from West European and Other States.

“On rights and privileges associated with permanent memberships, such as the veto, we also support the Common African Position that as long as it exists, it should be available to all permanent members, both new and old alike,” Mr. Ravindra said.

Mr. Ravindra said that the G4 is convinced that African representation in permanent and non-permanent categories will be an indispensable part of UNSC reform for a more representative and effective Council.

The group believes it is “inconceivable” that Africa, which constitutes over 70 per cent of the UNSC’s agenda items under discussion, does not get a permanent voice at the horse-shoe table.

“We as G4 continue to support fully these legitimate demands and aspirations from the people of Africa,” he said, adding that the group’s relationship with Africa is anchored in trust and mutual respect, and is focused on ensuring that Africa finds its “rightful” place in a new age of reformed multilateralism.

Making a few remarks in his national capacity and not on behalf of the G4, Mr. Ravindra said that references to the Common African Position and majority support to expansion in the permanent category should be added in the Pact for the Future as it befits endorsement by global leaders.

With world leaders convening in New York later next month for the annual high-level U.N. General Assembly session, they will also participate in the ambitious Summit of the Future convened by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

The summit will produce an inter-governmentally negotiated, action-oriented ‘Pact for the Future’ with chapters on sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, among other things.

“The draft Pact under negotiation has the potential to promote a multilateral system that reflects the realities of Monday’s (August 12, 2024), and that delivers for everyone everywhere,” the U.N. has said.

Mr. Ravindra further stressed that text-based negotiations in the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on UNSC reform should be expedited. “Consensus is an output of negotiations… It is important that we do not keep delaying reforms, waiting for a consensus to emerge as consensus can only be arrived at through text-based negotiations,” he said, adding that for this, the 80th anniversary of the U.N. next year could be a befitting milestone.

“The other scenario is of status quo where reforms and representation are only elusive. That should not be our path,” he said.

India emphasised the need to push for reforms, heeding the voice of the young and future generations, including from Africa, where the demand to correct the historical injustices grows ever stronger.

“Otherwise, we simply risk sending the Council down the path of oblivion and irrelevance,” he said.

The G4 asserted that representation in key multilateral bodies is still not a reality for Africa and many other regions of the world, and it is “imminent on us to correct this historical injustice. Not only from a historical point of view but also from the perspective of future generations, this holds true.” Mr. Ravindra noted that Africa is a continent with the youngest demography, vast natural resources, expanding capabilities, growing markets, and rising ambitions.

The G4 cited the example of “much younger bodies” like the G20, which inducted the African Union as a full member during the New Delhi Summit held in September last year under India’s presidency of the grouping.

Bodies like the G20 “have shown themselves more willing to accommodate the legitimate needs and aspirations of the African people,” Mr. Ravindra said.

United Nations Security Council unanimously adopts resolution renewing the mandate of UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) for a final 19-month period until 31 December 2025; all 15 members voted in favour.
| Photo Credit: Photo Credit: X/@UN_News_Centre

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted unanimously on May 31 to end the United Nations (UN) political mission in Iraq established in 2003 following the United States-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein to coordinate post-conflict humanitarian and reconstruction efforts, and to help restore a representative government in the country.

The Iraqi government asked the council in a May 8 letter to wrap up the mission by the end of 2025 and that’s what the resolution does: It extends the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq, known as UNAMI, for a final 19 months until December 31, 2025 when all its work will cease.

The U.S.-sponsored resolution asks Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to prepare “a transition and liquidation plan” in consultation with the Iraqi government by December 31, 2024, so UNAMI can start transferring its tasks and withdrawing staff and assets.

The council said it supports Iraq’s continuing stabilisation efforts, including its ongoing fight against the Islamic State group and al-Qaida extremists and their affiliates.

In 2014, the Islamic State group declared a caliphate in large parts of Iraq and Syria and attracted tens of thousands of supporters from around the world. The extremists were defeated by a U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq in 2017 and in Syria in 2019, but its sleeper cells remain in both countries.

Iraq is also seeking to wind down the military coalition formed to fight the IS. The roughly 2,500 U.S. troops are scattered around the country, largely in military installations in Baghdad and in the north. Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani has contended that the Iraqi security forces are capable of dealing with the remaining IS cells in the country and the coalition’s presence is no longer needed.

Mr. Al-Sudani’s office expressed its “welcome and appreciation” for the Security Council vote and said in a statement that the council decision “came as a result of the tangible progress that Iraq is witnessing at various levels”.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said secretary-general Guterres and UNAMI are “fully committed” to fulfilling the tasks in the resolution and “the United Nations remains strongly committed to supporting Iraq in its aspirations for a peaceful and secure future”.

Mr. Guterres notes “significant achievements” in Iraq since UNAMI was established in August 2003, Mr. Dujarric said, pointing to the mission’s assistance in advancing an inclusive political dialogue in the country, holding elections, promoting accountability, protecting human rights and coordinating the return and reintegration of people who are displaced within the country.

The resolution adopted on May 31 to close the UNAMI mission expresses support for Iraq’s reform efforts aimed at fighting corruption, respecting and protecting human rights, delivering essential services to its people, creating jobs and diversifying the economy.

It asks the secretary-general to streamline UNAMI’s tasks ahead of the mission’s closure to focus on providing advice, support and technical assistance to the government to strengthen preparations for free elections, including for the federal Parliament and for the Parliament in the Kurdistan region.

It also authorises UNAMI to facilitate progress toward finally resolving outstanding issues between Iraq and Kuwait, stemming from Saddam Hussein’s invasion of its smaller neighbour in August 1990.

In addition, the resolution says UNAMI should help with the return of internally displaced Iraqis and those in Syria, with providing health care and other services and with economic development. And it also authorises the mission to “promote accountability and the protection of human rights, and judicial and legal reform”.

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood welcomed the resolution’s unanimous adoption and plans for an orderly wind-down of UNAMI.

“We all recognise that Iraq has changed dramatically in recent years and UNAMI’s mission needed to be realigned as part of our commitment to fostering a secure, stable and sovereign Iraq,” he told the council.

Russia’s Deputy UN Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva stressed that what was important for Moscow in voting for the resolution was that the United States took into account the priorities Iraq wanted UNAMI to focus on in its final months.

“We are convinced that in the 20 years since its establishment UNAMI has fully realised its potential to assist in the restoration of Iraqi statehood and that the people of Iraq are now ready to assume full responsibility for the country’s political future,” she said. “We express our firm support for Iraq sovereignty and oppose any interference in the country’s internal affairs. That is an imperative.”

This photo provided by the North Korean government, shows what it says a test fire of tactical ballistic missile at an undisclosed place in North Korea on May 17, 2024.
| Photo Credit: AP

The United States and allies South Korea and Japan clashed with China and Russia on May 31 over North Korea’s latest satellite and ballistic missile launches and threats to use nuclear weapons that have escalated tensions in northeast Asia.

The scene was an emergency open meeting of the U.N. Security Council called after North Korea’s failed launch of a military reconnaissance satellite on May 27 and other launches using ballistic missile technology in violation of U.N. sanctions.

Since the beginning of 2022, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has launched over 100 missiles using this banned technology as it has advanced its nuclear weapons program. In response, the U.S. and its allies have carried out an increasing number of military exercises.

U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Khaled Khiari briefed the council meeting saying sovereign countries have the right to benefit from peaceful space activities – but the DPRK is expressly prohibited from conducting launches using ballistic missile technology and its continuing violations undermine global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation treaties.

“We remain deeply concerned about growing tensions on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Khiari said. “There is a need for practical measures to reduce tensions, reverse the dangerous dynamic, and create space to explore diplomatic avenues.”

The right to self-defence

North Korea’s U.N. Ambassador Kim Song insisted that its satellite launches – and it had a successful one last November – are “the legitimate and universal right of a sovereign state” under international law and the Outer Space Treaty. He stressed that reconnaissance satellites are not only needed to strengthen its self-defence capabilities but to defend its sovereignty.

Mr. Kim told the Security Council that the “massive deployment of strategic assets and aggressive war exercises” by the United States on the Korean Peninsula and in the region have broken all records and destroyed the military balance.

This has turned the Korean Peninsula “into the most fragile zone in the world, fraught with the danger of outbreak of war,” he said, claiming that joint military exercises since the beginning of the year are “a U.S.-led nuclear war rehearsal.”

The DPRK ambassador said the Security Council shouldn’t waste time debating the legitimate rights of a sovereign state but should direct its attention to putting an immediate end to the killing of civilians in Gaza, “which continues unabated under U.S. patronage.”

South Korea’s U.N. Ambassador Joonkook Hwang said it should be his country – not the DPRK – that should claim the right to self-defence. He said the DPRK’s nuclear policy and its rhetoric “are getting increasing aggressive and hostile,” and Pyongyang no longer views its nuclear arsenal as just a deterrent against the United States, “but instead as a means to attack my country.”

He quoted DPRK leader Kim Jong Un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, saying two weeks ago that the only purpose of their tactical nuclear weapons “is to teach a lesson to Seoul.”

Escalating confrontation

U.S. Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood urged the Security Council to condemn the DPRK’s launches and hold it accountable for violating U.N. sanctions. “But two council members, China and Russia, continuously block the Security Council from speaking against the DPRK’s behavior with one voice and makes us all less safe,” he said.

Mr. Wood also accused the DPRK of unlawfully transferring dozens of ballistic missiles and over 11,000 containers of munitions to Russia to aid its war against Ukraine, “prolonging the suffering of the Ukrainian people.” He rejected as “groundless” and disingenuous” claims by the DPRK and its supporters on the council that its missile launches are a response to U.S.-led military exercises.

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Anna Evstigneeva countered that “one of the key catalysts for the growing tensions in the region has been and remains the build-up of military activity by the U.S. and its allies.”

U.S.-led military drills against the DPRK and numerous other hostile acts with a threatening military component “are provoking countermeasures from North Korea, which is forced to take action to strengthen its national defense capacity,” she said.

Ms. Evstigneeva claimed, “the unstable situation around the Korean Peninsula is of benefit to Washington, which continues to confidently and deliberately pursue the path of confrontation instead of dialogue.” She also dismissed claims that Russia is engaging in illegal military and technical cooperation with the DPRK as “absolutely unfounded.”

China’s U.N. ambassador, Fu Cong, called the situation on the Korean Peninsula “highly tense, with antagonism and confrontation escalating,” and called on all parties to exercise restraint and avoid any actions or rhetoric that might increase tension. He warned that a planned large-scale joint military exercise on the peninsula in August “practicing a scenario involving a nuclear war” will only increase tensions.

Mr. Wood retorted that “the United States is in no way a threat to the DPRK,” stressing that the U.S. offer to reach out “an open hand” and hold talks with the DPRK without preconditions over the past few years “has been met with a clenched fist.”