I think some one from Gupistan voted for India. 
AGENCIES FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2002 10:19:14 PM ]
Pakistan Zindabad
:k: Pakistan Zindabad…
Hell yeah!!! Pakistan has been selected for this prestigous position before too!!! Congratulations!!!
‘Pakistan To Benefit From SC Membership’](http://jang-group.com/thenews/sep2002-daily/29-09-2002/main/main12.htm)
NEW YORK: Pakistan’s election to the UN Security Council will enable it to preserve its peace and security, beside securing economic and social benefits. This was stated by Pakistan’s permanent envoy to the United Nations Munir Akram here on Saturday in an exclusive interview with NNI.
“Our selection to the Security Council will enable us participate in the consideration and decisions relating to major issues of peace and security in the current international situation,” he said.
Munir said Pakistan’s role, which was the largest and most influential at present, would enhance “our say in the world; and our leverage with major players of the international field will increase”.
The envoy maintained the membership would bring a lot of responsibility and a lot of hard work for the Pakistan delegation. “Pakistan has had been seeking an important role to play; and we are playing a very constructive role in peacekeeping around the world.”
Reminded that Pakistan, during its last Security Council stint under Jamshed Marker in 1994, failed to table any resolution on Kashmir, Munir said: “The Kashmir issue must be raised at Security Council at an appropriate time and in a way that could result in success.”
Kashmir, he said, was present on the UN agenda. “It is our top priority, and we have to handle it in a way that we do not damage its cause. We have to take it up at the right time, in a right way.”
An important task was to ensure that Pakistan’s security and sovereignty was not threatened, he said. “We will be able to utilise the Security Council to ensure the world is aware of our problem, and that it acts on our problems as soon as possible.”
Munir was also asked whether this time Pakistan would revoke the 1996 order and bring the Kashmir issue as a permanent agenda item of the Security Council. Before 1996, the Kashmir issue was a permanent agenda item of the Security Council but after the Security Council decision was revoked it was made a temporary agenda item. Now every year in February, Pakistan has to apply for the grant of the 12 months status of Security Council agenda item.
Ambassador Munir said: “We certainly will have to look into the depth of the procedure to see what is required to be done; I do not want to answer that question.”
Asked whether Pakistan will support the US bid to attack Iraq at the Security Council level, the envoy said: “We are still three months away, we will become member of Security Council in January 2003. What we have said is that Pakistan has only agreed in principle that all resolutions of the Security Council should be implemented and that is our position.”
We Dictators defeated Largest Democracy of the World! :biggthumb:
Who Cast The Lone Vote Against Pakistan?
UNITED NATIONS: While Pakistan has been elected to the United Nations Security Council non-permanent seat for the year 2003-2004, the mystery of which country broke the ranks and gave her lone vote to India remains shrouded with few speculations and interpretations.
Despite the fact that Pakistan was a unanimously endorsed candidate of the Asian Group of countries, one country cast her vote to India, though not a candidate.
The other element that needs explanation is why Pakistan got 172 votes whereas Angola, another Afro-Asian country and unanimously endorsed by the Afro-Asian group of countries polled 181 (9 more votes than Pakistan) votes. Germany and Spain, both endorsed by the European Group of Countries, got equal 180 votes each.
The mystery of only one vote to India has generated speculations and comments about the country which made the decision to break the ranks and make a solo decision to waste its vote rather than supporting Pakistan to add one vote in its bid to win the UNSC seat for the Asian bloc.
The UN General Assembly burst into laughter when it was announced that one country had voted for India. Some speculate that it was India, which decided to cast its vote to herself rather than giving vote to its arch-rival Pakistan. :dixsi:
“India preferred to break the ranks of Asian unity, wasted its vote by voting for herself rather than supporting Pakistan. It shows the hostility between the two nations,” a western journalist said. **“This single vote may not have any impact on the results, but it was aimed at creating an impression that Pakistan was not voted by the entire Asian Group of countries.”
India was morally bound to support Pakistan as the Asian Group of Countries had unanimously endorsed Pakistan for the seat as its only candidate for the region. While some are resolving the mystery of “one vote to India”** in the secret ballot at the United Nations, one Indian journalist blamed Pakistan for casting its vote to India to cause embarrassment to New Delhi, as Pakistan was sure to win the seat.
Another observer detached from India-Pakistan politics referred to the past record of the UN secret ballot voting results where some countries have wasted their votes by writing the names of countries that were not candidates for the positions. “Some country like some past incidents, may have written the name of India rather than Pakistan.” Anyway, only one vote to India remained under discussion in the UN corridors for the rest of Friday, after the elections.
The other aspect of Pakistan’s election to the UNSC seat is more challenging for Pakistan. Will Pakistan attempt to bring the Kashmir dispute before the UN Security Council or adopt the same strategy of remaining silent on this core issue of South Asia, as Pakistan did when she served on the UN Security Council in 1993-1994. Only few Pakistani statements made references to the Kashmir dispute during those two years. What strategy Pakistan adopts on Kashmir dispute during its two year term in 2003-2004 is yet to be seen.
Pakistan has won the this seat after a gap of eight years, while India has not been able to come back on the UN Security Council even after 10 years of waiting. 
Pakistan served on the UNSC in 1993-94 while India served in 1991-1992. In 1997, India broke the ranks of Asian unity and contested UNSC seat elections against Japan and faced a crushing defeat by getting about 40 votes. Thus Pakistan has a better record of getting elected to the UNSC seat than India. :biggthumb:
Commenting on his country’s victory, Ambassador Munir Akram of Pakistan told “The News” that it was indicative of the fact that Pakistan has been a responsible member of the UN and played an effective role in the international community.
While Pakistani envoy received congratulations from the envoys of various countries, Indian Ambassador to the UN, Vijay Nambiar also walked up to Ambassador Munir Akram, tapped on his shoulder and shook hand with him congratulating for his country’s election. Neighbouring country Oman added some more colour in her congratulations. When Pakistani diplomats returned to their mission building after the elections, a green and white cake with congratulatory writing on it was already delivered from the Omani mission to the UN.
[quote]
......at the United Nations, one Indian journalist blamed Pakistan for casting its vote to India to cause embarrassment to New Delhi, as Pakistan was sure to win the seat.
[/quote]
ISI!!! Does that rings the bell? :D :D
PT!!! Very intresting article... Those idiots think that they can hurt us by casting a single vote for themselves, hahahahaha I bet some Sikh was incharge of India's UN body at that time, and the time must have been 12, when he decided to cast the vote ;)
Cool! :)
Congratulation.
Spock, PT, and Shamraz, although I first thought of not disturbing you out of your dreams, but later on, I thought maybe, for once, it may open your eyes. Please try reading something else except ‘Dung’. It chose to ignore a very vital fact about that vote to India which I shall tell you : One ballot was cast for India **even though it was not a candidate. **
And also all the candidates had been endorsed by their respective regional groups and there was no contest.
So India was not even contesting but still got a vote. 
Apart from that one vote there was one more point mentioned in PT’s post :
The other element that needs explanation is why Pakistan got 172 votes whereas Angola, another Afro-Asian country and unanimously endorsed by the Afro-Asian group of countries polled 181 (9 more votes than Pakistan) votes. Germany and Spain, both endorsed by the European Group of Countries, got equal 180 votes each.
Hmmm, something to really ponder over. India must have some staunch friends.
Dhir beta,
Try to read the paper with your open eyes. India wasn’t a cadidate but still got it and who could vote India except the Indian officials.
Didn’t you see how UN burst into laugh when they heard about India getting vote illegally and unofficially?
No not really but nice try 
**Pakistan served on the UNSC in 1993-94 while India served in 1991-1992. In 1997, India broke the ranks of Asian unity and contested UNSC seat elections against Japan and faced a crushing defeat by getting about 40 votes. Thus Pakistan has a better record of getting elected to the UNSC seat than India. **
That means Pakistan got good friends than India
**Nice try to cover up for doing illegal stuff 
**
I cant see what your actually celebrating?
We are going to give our approval to the killing of innocent muslims and are "temp members" of the top flight group of dajjalic system implementation. This UN is a tool of kafir oppression, the IMF and co keeping the non secularist, not kafir down. The poor nations kept poor by there haram interest system-this sickness against the way of our beloved messenger-the noor of the world-and you happy?
Being called "Abdul Rahman" does not make you a muslim-as his excellency Imam Shiekh Hamza Yusuf hanson so beautifully put it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mo_best: *
I cant see what your actually celebrating?
We are going to give our approval to the killing of innocent muslims and are "temp members" of the top flight group of dajjalic system implementation. This UN is a tool of kafir oppression, the IMF and co keeping the non secularist, not kafir down. The poor nations kept poor by there haram interest system-this sickness against the way of our beloved messenger-the noor of the world-and you happy?
Being called "Abdul Rahman" does not make you a muslim-as his excellency Imam Shiekh Hamza Yusuf hanson so beautifully put it.
[/QUOTE]
Hold your breath man!
UNSC Permanent members, IMF and World carried out all these steps you have mentioned. And there's not a single Muslim country in these organization.
Other Muslim countries, following Pakistan's step, have already filed up for UNSC non-permanent membership.
I'm trying to recall the last time muslim nations stood as one in the UN, opposed measures against monins and 3rd world oppression and rallied around to counter the kafir system........wait...its never happened!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mo_best: *
I'm trying to recall the last time muslim nations stood as one in the UN, opposed measures against monins and 3rd world oppression and rallied around to counter the kafir system........wait...its never happened!
[/QUOTE]
When was it?
Yeah, the founder of OIC, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto did that. Actually, Pakistan came farward. Islamic Bank was the idea of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutoo. Everything was carried out by Pakistan. Pakistan supports PLO and makes me wonder how many other Muslim countries support Pakistan on Kashmir.
To be or not to be is the question.