&w=3840&q=100)
How did Pakistan get picked to lead the UN Security Council?
Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, speaks during a meeting of the United Nations Security Council at UN headquarters in New York City, US, June 20, 2025. File Image/Reuters
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan will take over the presidency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the month of July 2025.
This role falls within Pakistan's current two-year tenure as a non-permanent member of the Council, which commenced on at the start of this year.
Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, will lead the Council throughout the month.
He recently met with UN Secretary-General António Guterres to outline the Security Council's agenda during Pakistan's presidency.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This marks the eighth time Pakistan has served on the Security Council, having previously held non-permanent membership in 1952–53, 1968–69, 1976–77, 1983–84, 1993–94, 2003–04, and 2012–13.
The presidency offers Islamabad a platform to steer discussions and spotlight key international issues.
Pakistan is expected to convene at least two open meetings during its presidency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in July, with indications that it may bring up topics such as Operation Sindoor and the situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
According to a source speaking to The Print, there is a prevailing view within the Indian establishment that Islamabad could use its current seat on the UNSC — where India is not presently represented — to spotlight regional South Asian matters on the global stage, particularly in the context of recent developments following Operation Sindoor.
During its presidency, Pakistan will also reportedly convene two major high-level signature events. One will focus on multilateralism and the peaceful settlement of disputes, while the second will examine cooperation between the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
How is the UNSC presidency determined?
The presidency of the Security Council rotates monthly among its 15 members, according to Rule 18 of the Security Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure, which states: 'The presidency of the Security Council shall be held in turn by the members of the Security Council in the English alphabetical order of their names. Each President shall hold office for one calendar month.'
This rotation includes both permanent and non-permanent members and follows a fixed alphabetical order to ensure equity.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In 2025, Pakistan's presidency follows Guyana (June) and precedes Panama (August). Earlier in the year, Algeria (January), China (February), Denmark (March), France (April), and Greece (May) held the presidency.
Later months will see the Republic of Korea (September), the Russian Federation (October), Sierra Leone (November), and Slovenia (December) take on the rotating role.
The monthly presidency allows each Council member, regardless of permanent or elected status, to chair meetings, steer the Council's agenda, and represent the body publicly.
Although largely procedural in nature, it grants the presiding country notable visibility and agenda-setting influence.
How are UNSC members chosen?
The UNSC is composed of 15 member states: five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.
These non-permanent members are chosen by the General Assembly and must secure a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot, in accordance with Rule 83 of the Assembly's rules of procedure.
Notably, there are no formal nominations, and retiring members are ineligible for immediate re-election as per Rule 144.
The criteria for election to the Security Council include a country's contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security — often demonstrated through leadership in regional peace initiatives, troop contributions to peacekeeping missions or financial support — as well as equitable geographical distribution, which was formalised through a 1963 amendment to Article 23 of the UN Charter.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
That amendment came into force in August 1965 and expanded the number of non-permanent members from six to ten.
As per the General Assembly's Resolution 1991 A (XVIII), the distribution of non-permanent seats follows this pattern:
Five from African and Asian states
One from Eastern European states
Two from Latin American states
Two from Western European and other states
An informal agreement ensures that one of the Asian or African seats is always held by an Arab country, alternating between the two regions.
What does the Security Council do?
The Security Council is the UN's chief organ for international peace and security. It is empowered to make decisions that are binding on all 193 UN member states.
It can impose sanctions, authorise peacekeeping missions and even permit the use of military force to address conflicts.
The Council's authority stems from Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VI encourages peaceful resolution through dialogue, arbitration or mediation, while Chapter VII provides for stronger measures — including coercive sanctions or military intervention — if peaceful means fail.
Over the decades, the Council has dealt with a wide spectrum of global crises: civil wars, nuclear proliferation, humanitarian disasters, terrorism, and more. Yet its effectiveness has increasingly come under scrutiny, particularly when the interests of its five permanent members diverge.
The permanent members, collectively known as the P5, hold veto power — any one of them can block the adoption of any substantive resolution.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
This has repeatedly led to stalemates, especially on high-profile matters such as Syria, Ukraine and Palestine. For instance:
Russia (including during the Soviet era) has used the veto 158 times, making it the most frequent user.
The United States has used the veto 92 times, including to block a resolution in April 2024 supporting Palestinian statehood.
China has increasingly exercised its veto rights, often aligning with Russia—more than three-quarters of China's vetoes have had Russian support.
France and the UK have not used the veto since 1989 and have called for restraint in its usage.
Despite structural limitations, the Council remains central to multilateral diplomacy. It oversees 11 peacekeeping operations as of 2024, with nearly 100,000 uniformed personnel deployed across three continents.
These missions range from traditional peacekeeping to more robust interventions that include civilian protection, electoral assistance and legal institution-building.
Why aren't other global powers involved actively in the UNSC?
Criticism of the UNSC's composition and effectiveness has grown louder in recent years. While the last structural reform occurred in 1965, many argue that the Council no longer reflects today's geopolitical realities.
Global powers like India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, Nigeria and South Africa have long pushed for a more inclusive Security Council — either through permanent seats or an expansion in elected membership.
There have also been suggestions that France could relinquish its seat in favour of the European Union, particularly after Brexit.
In 2019, France and Germany took the unprecedented step of jointly presiding over the Council for two months. In 2021, the UK publicly supported Germany's bid for permanent membership.
More recently, in January last year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed hope that Africa would receive permanent representation, citing support from each of the five permanent members.
Despite such advocacy, progress remains slow. With every structural change requiring the approval of the current P5 — who are unlikely to dilute their power — UNSC reform continues to be one of the most contentious and unresolved issues in international governance.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Also Watch:
With inputs from agencies
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Asia Cup 2025 schedule finalised, India vs Pakistan clash set for 7 September: Report
The wait for Asia Cup could be coming to an end soon as all the participating nations, includin hosts India, are likely to get clearances from their respective governments soon, according to a report in the Times of India. Reportedly, all matches of the upcoming tournament will be played in UAE and the tournament will kick off from 5 September. India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and UAE will be the six nations participating in the upcoming tournament which will be played in the group stage and Super Fours format. This would mean that the high octane India vs Pakistan will be played at least two times in the tournament with the second clash set to be played on 14 September. The Asia Cup will be played in T20I format and the penutimate clash will played on 21 September. Reportedly, the promotional activities for the tournament have already begun with official broadcasters Sony recently sharing a poster for the multi-nation tournament. Notably, there were question marks about the tournament especially after the recent escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan in the wake of Operation Sindoor. However, if Asia Cup continues as planned it would send a message for all future international tournaments as well. Earlier this year, there were reports that India may pull out of Asia Cup due to the cross border tensions but BCCI secretary Devajit Saikia had refuted those claims in a statement in May. He said, "Since this morning, it has come to our notice about some news items about BCCI's decision not to participate in the Asia Cup and Women's Emerging Teams Asia Cup, both ACC events. Such news is devoid of any truth as till now, the BCCI has not even discussed or taken any such steps regarding the ensuing ACC events, leave alone writing anything to the ACC,"
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Russian sanctions bill: US planning to impose 500 per cent tariffs on nations trading with Moscow- How will this impact India?
The United States is planning to impose a 500 per cent tariff on the products of those countries that are still doing trade with Russia. In an interview with ABC News, Senator Lindsey Graham said that he wanted the US to impose tariffs to stop them from supporting Vladimir Putin's war machine. Moscow launched full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago on February 24, 2022. "Big breakthrough here. So what does this bill do? If you're buying products from Russia and you're not helping Ukraine, then there's a 500 percent tariff on your products coming into the United States. India and China buy 70 percent of Putin's oil. They keep his war machine going. My bill has 84 co-sponsors. It would allow the president to put tariffs on China and India and other countries to get them -- stop them from supporting Putin's war machine, to get him to the table. For the first time yesterday, the president told me," Graham said. How this will impact India? India has elevated Russia to its primary oil supplier following a substantial increase in Russian crude oil imports in June, exceeding the combined purchases from prominent Gulf suppliers including Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The previous month's imports from Russia stood at 1.96 million barrels per day (bpd). The potential implementation of the US bill could result in extensive 500 per cent tariffs on Indian goods entering America. Nevertheless, India is currently negotiating a trade agreement with the US, which is anticipated to significantly reduce US tariffs on Indian products.
Time of India
29 minutes ago
- Time of India
India's push for zero tariff on labour-intensive exports is combination of economic strategy & domestic politics: GTRI
India is pushing hard for full tariff elimination on labour-intensive exports like garments, footwear, carpets, and leather goods in the final phase of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) talks with the U.S. Without duty-free access, India fears the deal will be politically unsellable. Current U.S. tariffs remain high, and Washington is resisting full reciprocity, raising concerns of an imbalanced deal. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads As negotiations for a long-anticipated Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the United States enter their final stretch, India is making a last-minute, high-stakes push for full tariff elimination on its labour-intensive to Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), without duty-free access for sectors like garments, footwear, carpets, and leather goods, the deal could become politically unsellable at home. India's insistence is rooted in a combination of economic strategy and domestic political labour-intensive sectors--dominated by small and medium enterprises and providing critical employment across states like Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and West Bengal--contributed over USD 14.3 billion to India's exports to the U.S. in on these goods currently range between 8 per cent and 20 per cent, especially high for garments and footwear, putting Indian exporters at a steep disadvantage in the American India has offered to reduce its Most Favoured Nation (MFN) duties on US goods as part of the deal, Washington appears unwilling to says the US is not ready to scrap either its high MFN tariffs or the country-specific duties that currently stand at 26 per cent, proposing instead a limited reduction to 10 per cent--still a significant surcharge that could negate any meaningful market access for Indian imbalance has raised concerns in India that the FTA, if signed under the current terms, would disproportionately favour American to the tension is the U.S. Congress's lack of fast-track trade authority, which limits Washington's ability to offer broad tariff broader export profile to the U.S. in FY2025 stood at USD 86.5 billion, up 11.6 per cent from the previous year. Of this, medium labour-intensity sectors--such as electronics, chemicals, automobiles, and jewellery--accounted for USD 44.6 exports face moderate U.S. tariffs of 2 per cent to 5 per cent, with some exceptions reaching 7 per cent. Meanwhile, low labour-intensity exports, such as pharmaceuticals and heavy machinery, totalling USD 17.3 billion, already benefit from minimal tariffs below 2 per cent and are not central to India's position is that full tariff elimination is essential not only for equitable trade but also for social goals like employment generation, MSME empowerment, and increased economic participation by negotiators caution that if Washington insists on retaining high tariffs while India cuts its own, the deal risks being perceived as "lopsided and politically untenable."
