 Welcome everyone to another IR capsule for the Shankar IAS Academy. This is the festive season in New York, the headquarters of the United Nations, where every country in the world sends a representative during a period, September to December, one time or the other. The general assembly starts generally in the third week of September and on a Wednesday, it's a kind of established. And then discussions go on because general assembly is supposed to be in session throughout the year. But throughout the year there are permanent representatives, but during this period special representatives come from all capitals of the world. And the current session is the 77th general assembly session. And the first part of the general assembly session is what is called the high level segment or the summit level. That is, there is a general debate in which almost all the countries participate. 193 speeches are listed of different lengths, sizes, assertion, soft, gentle, harsh, all kinds of speeches are made. So this opportunity is taken by heads of states, government, foreign ministers and others to get to know each other. Because that is the first three weeks of the general assembly. It is like going to 193 countries. You can see any president, any prime minister, any foreign minister there. And so it is a great opportunity for countries, particularly small countries who cannot afford to visit many countries in the world to run into these leaders and get to know them sometimes. Everybody is busy, but still people will find time to meet each other. And therefore it is a festival of peace and joy and so on. But this year's general assembly session is somewhat different because the last two years it was online and there were no festivity. Most of them stayed at home and some of them are stirring out of the country for the first time after COVID. And therefore there is a amount of festivity there, people meeting each other or two or three years. And many things have happened in these two or three years. The concerns of the world in 2022 are different from those in 2019. Because when COVID came everybody predicted that it happened, that the world of 2020 will be different from the world of 2019. And it lasted longer than we expected and therefore it took longer for them to get together at these countries. So what generally happens is during this general debate, the presidents or prime ministers or foreign ministers who speak for the membership speak at length on their own policy in the first place, what that country has been going through in the last two years and what impact had it some in political politics and the economy, what their concerns are and what they think the UN should do to resolve these problems. So this is the pattern established by most countries. They'll talk about their own economic growth, growth or the lack of it, the problems they have had, the achievements they have had and then they go on to a review of the world, how it looks from that particular country. This is an opportunity for heads of state and governments not only to talk to each other personally but also hear their views on the stage of the world. This takes a long time, many of them speak at length and some speak briefly but it's a very useful session and that's what we have been through. This time the prime minister did not go to the United Nations and we are being represented by the external affairs minister, Mr. Jay Shankar. So he made the statement, a very gentle, balanced, soft statement on India's concerns and India's achievements and what India would like to see the United Nations do. And the others did the same and after some time there was no big clash between India and Pakistan delegations. India did not say a word about Pakistan. Pakistan did say a few things about India but there was no, normally there is a bit of a clash between the two countries in the General Assembly but this time it don't happen but it's not over because other issues will come up and still happen. But there was no visible conflict between India and Pakistan and the reason maybe because everybody is preoccupied with two things. The aftermath of COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine war. Russia-Ukraine war of course has divided the world. On the one hand, on one side we have Russia, China and some of its close associates and on the other side we have NATO and by the United States. And it's a full-scale war except that NATO and US are not participating directly in the war but they are supervising it, they are supporting it, they are sending arms and armaments, sending money and the sanctions, sanctions which hit everybody. So both sides are deeply involved in this war which has been described by President Biden as one man's war because all started by Mr Putin and he's the only one who can end it also. And it doesn't seem that he's in a hurry to end it. His agenda keeps changing. One does not know what he really is aiming at when he can declare victory or not. So this concern was expressed by many people. On the political side, of course, everybody is worried about the movement of the war and how it will end. Nobody seems to know. And the economic side is even more worrying because the economic situation is getting worse in most parts of the world. The prices are going up. There's an energy crisis that could be a food crisis, that could be famine, that could even be a nuclear war. So everything is over. And therefore, I can imagine that the General Assembly was preoccupied by these two issues. On the pandemic, there is some relief because we believe that we are seeing the pandemic go out. And fewer masks and fewer precautions and people are able to meet and talk to each other. So that's a good sign. But at the same time, the lessons that we have learned from the pandemic are being shared by everyone, how everyone was virtually isolated, how the United Nations Security Council could not even meet and even the WHO could not fulfill all their obligations. And the UN system itself was not geared for it. And most countries were left to fend for themselves. And this is a tragedy because if all the nations had come together, this could have been handled better. So people have devised so many ways to tell everybody else how one should have behaved in these circumstances. But that is just a post-mortem. And also thinking in terms of the future, what kind of collaborations we need. If it comes back again, if there are variations, what do we do? So there must be a whole set of discussions going on in the General Assembly, all of a sudden, and the conference rooms outside. And the second one, of course, is the Russian Frame War. Where people are more divided, there are people who support Russia strongly as small minorities, small minorities. But the majority are opposing Russia and also an aggressor concerns about nuclear weapons, etc. So this is the concept going on. But as you know, in the General Assembly, agenda are about 400 topics. And these are allocated to different committees. Some issues are discussed in the plenary itself. Soon after the general debate of the head sub-state and the drug government have made their statements, I think it is almost over. And then they go on to those agenda items which are considered straight in the plenary in the General Assembly all itself. And the rest of the items are divided to the six committees, the second, third, fourth, five, six. And each of them is discussed there. And decisions are taken and those decisions are brought back to the General Assembly for a confirmation for another vote. And then that is how the agenda ends every year. And resolutions are passed, agreements are reached, but General Assembly decisions generally are recommended. So the world does not overnight change because of any decision on the General Assembly. It is a voluntary decision and they try to implement it in whichever best way they can. And many of them are ignored and the same items will come up again the next year. And the UN has been quite flexible in adjusting the agenda. And the agenda is always carried on to the next year, even if some decisions are taken. Because almost every General Assembly resolution ends with a statement that the matter will come to the next session again. Because it's a continuing process. In the meanwhile, deals are made, peace is made, war is not made, but the seeds of war are laid. So there are so many things that happen in the General Assembly. This time, but particularly of some other interests to India is the fact that the annual ritual of discussing the expansion of the Security Council or what is called the increase in the other representation of member states in the Security Council. There is an agenda item which has been there which was inscribed by India in 1979. That was my first year in the United Nations. It was that year that our ambassador presented a resolution to the General Assembly on behalf of the Northern countries, asking for an expansion of the Security Council. Mind you, it was only an arithmetic expansion in the sense that when there were 45, 52 members, Security Council had only nine and then it became 85, it became 15 and then it became 193. It has to increase and that was the logic that was used by the Northern countries. But this was resisted by the permanent numbers. It was only non-perman membership expansion that was proposed, but a very serious debate started. And finally a conclusion had to be reached that this will be discussed year after year, but no resolution will be adopted. It carried on from year to year. Those who want expansion argued that their favour, those others, particularly the permanent members expressed reservations and nobody was willing to take any decision. And when the Cold War ended in 1919, the situation changed. For the first time, Brazil proposed that should be also an expansion of the permanent membership. This was a really serious proposal and the permanent members opposed it to the name. They said there was no question. Even with five permanent members, we are not able to take decisions. And if there are 10 permanent members, how will you take decisions? In fact, the human will become less effective, less important and things will not work. And that was because they did not want to share their privileged position with other countries. That is very clear. That is the situation even today. The permanent members keep saying that they would like some kind of expansion. Some people even mentioned names and numbers, but they all know that there is no agreement on any expansion as of now. If you look at this issue simply in terms of the Charter and the procedure, then you will see that this can never happen. Because the provisions of the security of the General Assembly, which prescribes procedure for expansion of the security council is so difficult to obtain, which means any change in the UN Charter has to be supported by two-thirds majority. It is about 130 countries of the United Nations General Assembly and all the nine members of the Security Council which include all the five permanent members. So unless two-thirds majority of the General Assembly and all the permanent members agree, no change can be made. Of course, in the 90s, a change was made as number was increased to 15, but after that, no change has been made in the security council composition. And so from 1979 to this year, this has been discussed every year. Some proposals are made. There are as many proposals as there are member states. Some have been selected, some have been put in reports to discuss that at no see them everywhere. And we know all the arguments. The basic argument is that the situation in the world today is different from the situation in 1945. And therefore the composition of the security council has to change. The so-called enemy countries like Germany, Japan and Italy have become partners and participants in the UN. And they also support the UN. So how come you can exclude them? And then how can the developing countries be excluded? How can India be the biggest democratic country being excluded from there? And how about Africa? How about Latin America? Why there should be three Africans when there is three Europeans when there is no African? There's only one Asian that is China. India is not there. So there are so many arguments in favor of an expansion. And the people have started accepting that particular premise. That is yes, there is an argument for this. But they themselves know that each aspirant will be opposed by an opponent right away. India, if you say the word India comes Pakistan will oppose and Pakistan supporters will oppose. If you say Chile, then Argentina will oppose. If you say Brazil, somebody else will oppose. Japan means China will oppose. China will oppose India and Japan at any time. So these are the contradictions there. But still effort is being made. But most importantly is the added magic. Is there any proposal before the general assembly which has the support of two thirds majority of the general assembly and support of the pipeline? No, there is no such proposal. Even though there are hundreds of proposals, there is no such proposal. So the idea of releasing it by five is problematic. The general impression is that these five will be India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and India. And then of course Africa. Africa has not mentioned any country yet, but they want two seats. So that means you have seven. So all these complications and therefore there is no agreement at all. But the process of discussions are keeping changing earlier. It was just a working group when I was there and then we became a negotiating group and become an intergovernmental negotiation group. But the people who are speaking in all these groups are the same ones or their successors, which meant that there was no change in position of the country's concern. And here only narrow national interests will prevail. Nobody will think in terms of somebody else's response or somebody else's view. What is your own view? India is concerned. We want government member security council. We want the veto like everybody else. And that is our interest and this is what we are pushing for. We joined the group of four because those three are also the same view. But from Africa, there is nobody in this group of aspirants. And therefore Africa, nobody knows its mind. And Africa wants two out of 15 in the African continent. And that, of course, nobody seems to believe that will happen. So who that one will be in South Africa, in Nigeria, in Egypt is all in question. Nobody knows. So we haven't reached that stage yet. But even if it's decided that will be fine, how they will be elected, who will work for whom. All it's a big industry. So then people are trying to help by other formula. Some people say that why don't we have semi-permanent members? That is the so-called represent permanent non-permanent members. Turn them into semi-permanent members with eight years term and ten years term and then they withdraw. Then some people say why don't we have permanent members but without veto. So the permanent members who want to be in the security council, they want to veto also. Why should they accept any second-class? So these additional proposals do come up sometimes, but it is immediately blocked off. So there is no agreement and permanent members speak about some or the other. Or they say you agree among themselves and then we will agree. All these are used and precious 40 years are passed without any agreement. And as a result the United Nations has become ineffective because it doesn't represent the world. Particularly the world where the problems exist, in Africa, Asia, Latin America the problems are. And those who are sitting there are not from there. China is the only one and the others are all Europeans and United States. So which world are they representing? So this goes on. But why I raise this? Because normally this comes up after the general debate. But this time India, Mr. Jai Shankar took his mission to push for what he calls or what the government of India calls a text-based negotiations. Because so far people have been talking there as it were. There was no texts to discuss. And the expectation was that if there is a text and there is a discussion, then there might be progress. I think this is not very practical. Whether there is a text or no text, people will stick to their positions. But in any way Mr. Jai Shankar put forward this idea of generally non-aligned countries believe in that and therefore he was pushing that. And quite unexpectedly some response came. I don't know whether it was directly with regard to Mr. Jai Shankar's request. But both the United States and Russia spoke a different language. So President Biden was the one who started it. Because the Americans have been saying we don't want any expansion. If there is an expansion, we want up to everything in Germany and Japan only. They were not thinking of India. They never mentioned India except when Barack Obama came to India in 2010. He made a statement which appeared to be supportive of India. But I have it here. If you read it, there is no support for India in that. It simply says in the years ahead, I look forward to a reform security council. That includes India as a permanent member. So there are many uncertainties here. So he said in the years ahead, not this year next year, not during my lifetime. That's a kind of language he's using. I look forward to a reform security council. That includes India as a permanent member. So there is no commitment there. There is no commitment to expand. There is no commitment for India to support for India. He doesn't say we vote for India. And of course there was some joy in India at that time. But later it turned out that after he went back to New York, he issued instructions to the State Department to not follow up on what he said in Delhi. It was a sentiment and nothing more. And that was leaked, the WikiLeaks. But even more than that, some American senior officials clarified that the kind of candidates which are there for the permanent members, which they include India also, India, Brazil, Japan, their views are not always supportive of American views. And so it may not be in the interest of the United States to have any new permanent members at all. So this is very clear. But at the same time, they would say, okay, do you accept people? But President Biden for the first time said very clearly that he would accept new permanent members. And then he went on to say, he did not say Europe, Germany, Japan, India, etc. He only talked about Latin America, Africa and the Caribbean. And who are these people he has in mind? And how are they going to come up? And what kind of a process will it be? So for the first time, the United States opened up the issue and said that the United States will support additional representation in this activity council of permanent members. This is important. Whether they follow it or not for that is important. And surprisingly enough, Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia spoke more or less on the same terms, more specifically. And he said that countries like India and Brazil should become permanent members of the Security Council. So what was the provocation for them to say this? Do they mean what they're saying? This is what is being debated in the UN, as well as in our own newspapers. Today, Mr. Garakhan has an article in The Hindu where he points out that this means nothing and nothing will happen. So this whole process is much I don't know about nothing. But I wrote somewhere that in my article last week I said this is a change that we have to take note of it. I don't believe that anything will happen. But this change, having followed this since 1979, I know the new straws in the wind. And this is indeed a straw in the wind. But my speculation was that this has happened because of the Russia-Ukraine war. Because in Samarkand we saw a spectacle of democracies on one side. In fact, there was only one democracy there, which was us. And the others on the other side. And the future, it appears that the conflict or whole war will be between democracies on one side. And autocracies on the other. It's not so very well clear from this time. And therefore, both Russia and the United States felt that they had to do something to become popular in the developing world. And therefore, they are throwing out these little pieces of offers to say that we are not insensitive to the needs of the developing world. I don't see anything more than that. But Mr. Gajendra took official note of these statements in his own speech. He said that it is not normal for countries to speak about other countries in these debates. And he said it's a good thing that many countries are speaking about India. And in that context, he said that these constructive statements from, he didn't mention the country, but some countries are welcome. So he also took note of the slight change. But as I said, any proposal will succeed only if you have two thirds majority of the general assembly and five permanent members, which is very difficult to get. Because if anything, the general assembly members want to throw out the permanent members, not to add more. We did some straw polls in New York at one time. And the maximum votes for any country was not more than 70. You need 130 votes. So where is the chance? And permanent members, of course, have not agreed to anything. But why I am saying this is because this has come up as an issue very early in the high-level component of the general assembly. And this may be followed up during the session. And of course, Mr. Yashankar himself said the question of veto and the question of India's membership. Nothing can be said. But what I'm trying to do is to focus on a text-based discussion. And that is the position not only of India, but also of the other three candidate countries as well as the general assembly. So we can consider it to move forward provided the permanent members agree on a text-based discussion. Nothing more that can be seen. So if this happens, if a discussion takes place on this, it will be one of the breast-sins in disguise of the Russia-Ukraine war. So because of the Russia-Ukraine war, it means that the smaller countries, developing countries have become more relevant. And these big ones, permanent members have started feeling that unless we give them something, it may be difficult for them to carry on with their national interests. But they are not offering this as a kind of gift or any kind of concession. But generally too, have a good feeling. And of course, it depends on what the negotiators will say. Either our negotiations, because every year they work in good needs and discusses with under the new chairman and new ideas has come up. So this is one, apart from the fact that the general debate was dominated by the pandemic as well as the war-Ukraine war. And therefore, other issues did not come up so prominently. But every Prime Minister or president would have spoken about issues in which he is interested. And so it must have done. I have not followed the whole debate. But I just wanted to say that this is a new feature in the discussion. So of course, Mr. Gharakani also has argued that this will not happen. Because you should not hope much about it. But in my case, what I am saying is you must at least note that there is a move, there is a shift in the positions of the US and Russia. But it doesn't mean that UK or China and France will agree to that unless they have agreed on themselves. So that is as well as this part of the general assembly concern. We will speak about the general assembly and its decisions towards the end because many, many interesting items will come up. But all items will come up either in the context of the pandemic or in the context of the war. Because that is a big issue. The war doesn't end even after the general assembly ends. There will be a huge crisis. And that could be a big economic crisis also. So the present atmosphere of peace and harmony and friendship and all that we are seeing in New York may not last unless some serious decisions are taken. And the follow-up of the pandemic, post-pandemic building. In fact, WHO has been saying that don't fall past post-pandemic yet. We have not reached that. So it is still careful. We have to still wear the mask. You have to still fill in your hands. So anyway, the slight improvements that you see in the pandemic, maybe there is a slight improvement in the atmosphere also with the secretary council expansion will get some momentum. And all the other issues, sorry, six committees will be other than the general assembly. Six committees will be deliberating on all these issues. Terrorism will be a big issue. Maritime security will be a big issue. General issues in which everybody is interested. And of course, everybody has one fight or the other or a quarrel which will also come up in different forms. So I shall stop there. And if you have any particular interest in what is happening in the general assembly or in the agenda of the general assembly, I shall try to answer that. Thank you. So there is no bar on particular discussion in any particular body. Whatever they want, they can discuss. This is a template practice. The general assembly has an agenda. Many others have agendas. They are all very similar in many cases. Whether you go and fight in the original or you know, regional groups or you fight in the general assembly, doesn't make much of a difference in the present situation. But the whole concept of regional arrangements is that smaller groups may be able to resolve some of the issues. And it has happened in the past. But today the situation is so generic that people do not believe that in a group, in a smaller group can be settled. Where Russia and China and US are sitting there, then how can you have any decision on the major issues of the UN is facing. So it's a... But progress coming anywhere will be reflected elsewhere. So that's why I was giving some importance to what US and Russia said about exponential security counts because there seems to be some kind of a coordinated effort there. So I don't know why. So like that, small things we must watch and see whether it has any progress. But same issues coming up in the general assembly and regional organizations. It's not strange. They may agree in the regional organizations that may not pass in the general assembly. But if they can agree on something in the regional groups, that will be helpful. What he said was that we are having difficulty in our relations with China. And we have difficulty in relations with other countries also. In fact, the words I saw him saying was that it is particularly difficult to follow up in China relations because he has been saying that the foundation has been wrecked by China. So I didn't hear him saying anything about good relations with China in this context. And not like him. Of course he may have said that we must have good relations with everybody. That's like motherhood. Everybody agrees. But to say at this stage that we are working for good relations with China, that's not likely. What he has been saying was that it's very difficult to deal with China in these circumstances, where they have destroyed the whole basis of India-China relations like the 86 agreement, 93 agreement, everything they have violated. So where is the question of saying that we would like to be friendly. Of course we would like to be friendly if the consequences of things are over. We must prepare definitely a very definitive paper on this issue. So much has been written about it. Even today Mr. Garaghan's article is very comprehensive. So the basic thing is that everybody would, any country would like to be a permanent member because you have a special privilege. You can veto, you can exercise power. But whether it is achievable is the issue. There's no advantages and disadvantages. Being a permanent member is of course an advantage. Particularly if you have a veto. I once wrote that being a permanent member without veto is a nuisance. Because when you have a veto, you can exercise it if there is a move against you, like Russians. Russians are vetoing every resolution against Russia. And that is contradictory to their role. You are a permanent member because you have certain responsibilities. And when somebody wants to pass a resolution against you, you go and veto it. That's against the spirit of it. But at the same time, if India has a veto, it's very good for us because we can pass judgment on others and if they want to pass judgment on us, we veto it. That is what the permanent members do. They lecture to us. And when something of importance to them happens, they veto you. But if you have no veto and if you sit in the Security Council on judgment of other people day in and day out and if you have no veto, you will be in trouble. So I had said that we should not accept a permanent membership without veto. First of all, why should we be second-class citizens? And secondly, there is a likelihood of the veto being used against you for the good work you did as a permanent member. But I still believe in that. So in any case, nobody is offering your permanent membership without veto. These are all academic questions at the moment. See, what we think about is not the advantages or disadvantages, but what are our claims and what are our weaknesses? The claim is that this is the second-largest country in the world. It's a civilization. It has contributed so much to the UN, etc. So there are so many arguments in our favor. But others will say, how much are you paying for the United Nations? You are making a very small contribution. This is a big contribution that has been paid by permanent members. And generally, they don't object to India. See, objection to India does not come by name, saying that India is a minority. But they talk in general terms. First argument is more permanent members means more confusion. So we don't want to expand. That's the first starting point. And then they will start questioning. Then they will say, okay, you in South Asia, you get together and then we will approach. So you decide between India and Pakistan to be in the Security Council. That's enough. End of the debate, isn't it? So these other kinds of things. So what we can, what we have been arguing, I don't know how many speeches I made on this in 1979. We always say that we have a role to play. And it can be played only if all regions are well represented in the Security Council. The Security Council is biased in one form because the vast majority of the world is not represented there. That's our biggest argument. And then our contribution to where we were. Peacekeeping operations. How many Indians have died in UN operations. So many arguments. But all this tells somebody's vision to hear it objectively or of no use. Everybody knows all these reasons. But for the examinations concerned, you must have a three-page note of origins from origins of 1979 onwards, tracing the history and advantages and disadvantages. Because there are no disadvantages in big permanent members. But the issue is the vast majority of the countries, the General Assembly, do not want more permanent members. We have no support. 130 votes we'll never get. And five permanent members will never agree. So these are all academic debate. But we feel somehow in the government in India that we must keep on pressing this because every revolution takes a long time to materialize. So we should not fail. And so we should press for it. And that is why Mr. Jayashankar is focused on this issue and the current General Assembly. There is no connection between the NSG membership and the Security Council membership. NSG membership is being denied to us on the ground by China. We're doing it because we have not signed an NPT. So that's a different issue. Security Council membership is being debated separately. And I have explained all that. So there's no link. They want to exclude us because they don't consider us important enough to be in the Security Council. Or that will be too troublesome in the Security Council. There are several factors. But they don't take us yet as a full partner in their work in the Security Council. That is the reason. It's a prejudice. And we are slowly and gradually fighting it. But arithmetic is against it. And against us, the general membership is not in favor of it. And these are all the factors. And for the main examination, definitely. Even in the prelims, the question can come in terms of what the reality is. But certainly you should prepare a very comprehensive note on the Department of Social Security Council. I have been arguing in my articles saying that multilateral agreements are not very possible in this situation because the world is in a flux. We do not know what the scenario would be in two years. Who will be with whom? What will happen to Taiwan? What will happen to Ukraine? All these factors and therefore people are reluctant to commit themselves to anybody. So if new commitments are made like Finland and Sweden joining the NATO, then there will be a big issue there. Or somebody else joins up with Russia, China and Russia joining together. Or India maintaining good relations with Russia. All challenges now, all controversial matters. And therefore we should continue to press or continue to stress our bilateral relationships so that when the final world order emerges, we are on the right side. That's why I argued in my article that the Prime Minister's position on Ukraine, Britain and America was significant and desirable. We have that regularly from Pakistan and China is always threatening us. So that's a constant thing. China does not threaten us in terms of a war but they have said again and repeatedly that they want to teach India a lesson that India cannot be the leader of Asia or the Asia Pacific. And that is their threat. And Pakistan of course keeps threatening. If you do this, we will do that. They also talk about nuclear weapons and all that. But nobody else threatens us like that. The whole of the Western world, not only Western world, even from developing countries, they impose sanctions against us because of the nuclear test, because we are not signed the NPT and we tested. But it was a huge crisis because nobody stood up and said what India did was right. But eventually after many, two years of negotiations and by the end of 2000, they all reconcile themselves to India's status. That's what happened. But nobody accepted in the first few months. In fact, sanctions were there. The United States virtually banned any cooperation with India. Banks were frozen. Indian scientists etc. were not allowed to visit the United States. It was first rate sanction war like what is happening here. But then there was so much pressure from inside the United States. The people of the United States were affected by all these changes. And the Indian community, about 3 million Indians and they all agitated that India should not be isolated like that. And that is how finally it was lifted. But it took us two years to lift that. The hostility was very much there. And within inside India also, many of our ministries etc. opposed the, I guess, saying that we don't do this. So many countries will declare sanctions against us and it will be difficult for us to carry on. So the South Block, which is the political and defence wings, wanted the bomb. But those in the North Block, the finance ministry, never wanted a test. In the war on peace situation, you know if the Security Council decides they can declare war as they did it on Iraq, on false pretenses, saying that Iraq has a nuclear weapons and they have been attacked. So that is because there was unanimity among the permanent members. But if unanimity in the permanent members is a feature and they start going around with nations, then the United Nations will be not worth it. But that doesn't work like that because there are powerful nations, weak nations, poor nations, rich nations, all of them have their national interests. They will act according to their national interests, not in the interests of the world. We always say we go to the UN in order to contribute to the world, the root of the world etc. But it only believes you. It will believe that you are there for some selfish reasons. And that is how we are approached. Whatever you say is don't take them at face value. You are a peace-loving state. But they say how many wars have you fought so far? What kind of peace-loving state are you? They will say so. But you have to answer that. Why did you live in Bangladesh if you are a peace-loving state? Then you have to talk about Bangladesh. So there is no black and white situations where somebody is considered good or bad. Things happen, opposition happens. And even the United States have faced many problems in Cuba. There are embargoes against Cuba or violating the human rights of people who try to enter the United States. And they have also lost votes in the general assembly. So it's not power alone that matters. It matters on. It's an issue specific. In climate change, they stand condemned by everybody that they are not making any contribution. But the impressive thing is that in spite of that 193 countries with 193 agendas and 193 prejudices, we are still able to go on slowly. And that is the wonder of the United Nations. That is where the hope lies. But there is no immediate possibility. We say that if we expand the security council, in India, in Japan, in Germany, things will get better. There is no guarantee. There may be a fight among the permanent members. Now the five permanent members work together most of the time. But if there are ten permanent members pushing in ten directions, will the UN become stronger? Thank you very much.