&w=3840&q=100)
Pakistan to take over UNSC presidency for July starting from today
The presidency of the Security Council - the world body's power centre - is part of Pakistan's two-year term as a non-permanent member of the UNSC, which began in January 2025.
Pakistan was elected as a non-permanent member with overwhelming support of the UN membership, securing 182 votes out of 193. The presidency rotates monthly among its 15 members, in alphabetical order.
Pakistan's Presidency will be transparent, inclusive and responsive, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad told the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan (APP) correspondent at the UN, as he prepared to face the challenges ahead.
Ambassador Iftikhar, who will preside over the Council meetings on key global issues in July, said he was fully aware of the complex geo-political scenario, growing instability and threats to international peace and security, marked by rising conflicts and deepening humanitarian crises.
During this July presidency, Pakistan is scheduled to host two high-level signature events on multilateralism and peaceful settlement of disputes, and on UN-OIC cooperation.
These topics, he said, were reflective of shared priorities multilateralism, preventive diplomacy and cooperation with regional organisations in promoting international peace and security.
At the same time, the focus will remain on key global issues, including the situation in West Asia and developments in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Ambassador Asim Iftikhar has already met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and briefed him on the Council's programme of work in July. As a country that has consistently advocated for dialogue and diplomacy, Pakistan brings a principled and balanced perspective to the Security Council's work shaped by its own experience, and longstanding contribution to UN's peacekeeping and peace-building efforts, the Pakistani envoy said in the interview.
We look forward to working with all Council members for collective, timely action by the Council in line with its primary responsibility under the Charter and expectations of broader UN membership, he added.
Pakistan's earlier terms on the Council were in 2012-13, 2003-04, 1993-94, 1983-84, 1976- 77, 1968-69 and 1952-53.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
Pakistan: Violent Crackdown On Peaceful Balochistan Protesters Continues Over Abdohi Border Closure
Human rights activists from Balochistan on Tuesday reported that Pakistani forces, including Frontier Corps (FC) and police, launched a violent crackdown on sleeping protesters in D-Baloch, Kech district of Balochistan, during the sixth night of the ongoing protest against the closure of Abdohi border. 'In the dark of night, forces stormed the protest camp, beat peaceful demonstrators, and opened indiscriminate fire. At least 14 protesters have been arrested. The protesters, made up of local traders, labourers, and civilians, have been peacefully demanding the reopening of the Abdohi border, a lifeline for the local economy. The closure, ongoing since March 19, has devastated livelihoods and pushed the indigenous into desperation," read a statement issued by the Baloch Yakjehti Committee (BYC), a human rights organisation from the Pakistani province. The BYC accused that instead of addressing their legitimate economic grievances, the Pakistani authorities have responded with "brutality and suppression". Recently, the rights body slammed the Pakistani authorities for the continuous closure of the Abdohi border, describing it as a form of economic exploitation by Islamabad. The BYC revealed that since the closure of the Abdohi border, a crucial source of income has been severed for hundreds of families in Balochistan, and with no alternative livelihoods and rising economic distress, the closure has pushed communities into hunger and uncertainty Last week, the local traders, labourers, and civilians launched a peaceful sit-in protest as the protesters vowed to continue their agitation until the border is reopened and their economic survival is secured. The BYC highlighted that the Pakistani authorities attempted to suppress the protest as security forces used baton charges and force to intimidate and disperse the demonstrators, rather than engaging in dialogue. Despite this, the rights body stated, the protestors continue to hold their ground, demanding an end to policies that deliberately marginalise them. "The prolonged closure is not just a logistical issue but part of a larger pattern of control, where economic pressure is used as a tool to subjugate. In Balochistan, where corruption and underdevelopment already limit opportunities, closing the border has created a humanitarian crisis which is affecting everyone, and frustration continues to build," said the BYC. Urging authorities to immediately reopen the border, the BYC called for respecting the rights of citizens and halting the use of force against peaceful demonstrations. It also mentioned that ignoring these demands risks deepening the resentment and resistance among a population already pushed to the brink.
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
'Judiciary Should Not Override...': Home Ministry On Pakistani Woman's Deportation, Says Report
Last Updated: In reference to the deportation of a Pakistani woman from Jammu and Kashmir, the Ministry of Home Affairs said the judiciary should not override executive decisions, per a report. More than a week after the Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that a Pakistani woman living in the Union Territory for years should have been protected from deportation during India's retaliatory action, the Ministry of Home Affairs has said that courts must preserve the institutional boundaries necessary for effective governance, The Hindu reported. According to the report, in a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), the MHA also stated that the 'judiciary should not override" the executive's decision to deport a foreign national. The Ministry said the High Court order was constitutionally impermissible and unsustainable, as it directed the enforcement of a judicial writ beyond the sovereign territory of India to Pakistan, where she was deported and was thus ultra vires, the report claimed. 'There exists no extradition treaty, legal instrument, or international obligation binding Pakistan to return her to India. The Indian government cannot, under existing international law, compel a sovereign nation to surrender a non-citizen," the report quoted the Ministry of Home Affairs as saying. 'Courts must preserve the institutional boundaries necessary for effective governance", and the order, if allowed to stand, would establish a dangerous precedent, the report quoted the MHA. In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack in April, the Union government had decided to suspend visa services to Pakistani nationals and directed them to leave India. After the deadline ended on April 27, the authorities deported several Pakistani nationals. Several Pakistani women living with their husbands for a long time in Kashmir were deported by the authorities to Pakistan. On June 24, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court said that a Pakistani woman living in Jammu and Kashmir for years, and having a long-term visa, should have been protected from deportation. Justice Rahul Bharti issued the direction while hearing a writ petition (WP(C) No. 1072/2025) filed by Rashida's husband, Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed. The man challenged his wife's deportation, arguing that she had been living in Jammu and Kashmir for years and held a long-term visa, which should have protected her from expulsion. The court expressed deep concern over Rashida's health and humanitarian situation, noting that she had no family or support in Pakistan. Justice Bharti emphasised that 'human rights are the most sacrosanct component of a human life" and said constitutional courts are sometimes compelled to act with 'SOS-like indulgence" in exceptional circumstances. 'Without proper legal scrutiny or a formal deportation order, Rashida was expelled during what critics have described as a mass repatriation drive that failed to account for individual legal statuses", the High Court said. The court noted that Rashida's long-term visa may have made her ineligible for deportation and criticised authorities for acting without due process. Later, the court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to coordinate her return from Pakistan within 10 days and facilitate her reunion with her husband in Jammu. A compliance report was to be submitted by July 1. THE MHA's APPEAL According to the report, the MHA, in its LPA before the high court, stated that the woman's long-term visa did not exist at the time of the deportation, as her request for its renewal in January this year was rejected. Further, the Ministry said that while passing the order, the single judge 'failed to appreciate the circumstances and the national security considerations and the reasonable apprehension posed by the Pakistani nationals staying in India on account of a war-like situation between India and Pakistan", per the report. It added that the order is 'contrary to the principles of judicial restraint in the matters concerning national security and international relations, particularly in dealing with the nationals of a hostile country." It said the order was 'based on the assumption that marriage to an Indian citizen entitles her to claim a right to reside in India or to have her deportation reopened." The Ministry also stated that 'it is a well-settled law that a foreign national does not acquire Indian nationality or legal residency rights solely by virtue of marriage." 'A foreigner does not possess a fundamental right to reside in India, and their entry and stay are subject to the regulatory control of the state under the Foreigners Act, 1946. Because it is a trite law that a foreign national does not enjoy rights guaranteed under Article 19. The only fundamental right available to a foreigner is under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which does not confer any right to remain in India once a visa expires or is revoked," the report claimed. top videos View all The Ministry said the order would set a dangerous precedent and 'may be cited by foreign nationals to invoke Article 226 for personal repatriation", and the outcome 'threatens the integrity of constitutional separation and immigration enforcement alike," the report quoted. Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 08:01 IST News india 'Judiciary Should Not Override...': Home Ministry On Pakistani Woman's Deportation, Says Report
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Perpetrators, organizers should be brought to justice': Quad leaders condemn Pahalgam terror attack
At the first Quad foreign ministers' meeting since India and Pakistan's military confrontation in May following Operation Sindoor, a joint statement from the Summit Wednesday 'condemned in the strongest terms' the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22 that killed 26 people. The foreign ministers of the countries also called for the 'perpetrators, organisers, and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay'. 'The Quad unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism and violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations, including cross-border terrorism, and renews our commitment to counterterrorism cooperation. We condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir on April 22, 2025, which claimed the lives of 25 Indian nationals and one Nepali citizen, while injuring several others,' the joint statement read. It added: 'We express our deepest condolences to the families of the victims and extend our heartfelt wishes for a swift and full recovery to all those injured. We call for the perpetrators, organizers, and financiers of this reprehensible act to be brought to justice without any delay and urge all UN Member States, in accordance with their obligations under international law and relevant UNSCRs, to cooperate actively with all relevant authorities in this regard.'
