|
|
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for giving me the floor.
The first cluster of your draft titled, “Categories of membership”, is a compendium of 25 paragraphs. A careful reading of the text reveals the following:
Nine paragraphs indicate positions that favour expansion in both permanent and non permanent categories. These include 1.1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 17 and 23.
Eight paragraphs favour expansion in non-permanent category or oppose expansion in permanent category. These include 1.2, 13, 16, 19, 20, 22, 22 and 25.
Eight paragraphs acknowledge the need of reaching a compromise in the wake of serious differences and refer to an intermediate solution or offer some limitation on the new permanent category. These include 1.3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18 and 24.
The only commonality in these 25 paragraphs is that all positions agree to expand the Security Council in Non-Permanent Category.
Beyond this commonality, the issue of categories remains divisive. Close inter-linkage of this issue with other five key issues, more so with issues of veto, size & working methods and relationship with the General Assembly, further complicates the proposition. During the negotiations on 7 July, we clearly heard the non-negotiability of the question of Veto, from those who have this power. This implies that the demand of individual countries for a permanent seat would actually amount to addition of a new category of members --- “Permanent Members without Veto”. It is obvious that the existing P-5 cannot be clumped in a single category, with the individual aspirants of this permanent seat category.
This new category of “Permanent Member without Veto” needs due reflection of all the Member States. To start with, this would obviously entail some sort of revision in the listed positions in the first cluster of the draft text. We believe that further discourse on this point would be overarched by three themes:
Firstly, such discourse must be based on criteria and logic behind each category of membership. It is obvious that for Non-Permanent Members, the criterion is clearly spelled out Article 23.1 of the UN Charter and the logic is rooted in democratic principles and the notion of accountability and transparency. For the existing Permanent Members, there is no criterion but the logic is based on history and circumstances of mid-twentieth century politics, which are quite compelling. For the new category of “Permanent Members without Veto”, there is neither a comprehensible criterion nor a definitive logic and we stand ready to be educated on this.
Secondly, the results and consequences of including new permanent members on the Security Council’s decision-making and working methods must be rationally evaluated. It would be logical that in an enlarged Council, a higher number of affirmative votes would be required to pass a resolution. Keeping the current ratio (of 3 to 5), 16 affirmative votes would be required in a Council of say 26. Addition of permanent members would further tilt the equation away from electable non-permanent seats, thus eroding the democratic and accountable credentials of the Council. Moreover, it will undermine the leverage of non-permanent members to keep the veto-power in check. The cause of the wider UN membership would not be served if a select few countries become invulnerable to the Council’s elections by addition of permanent seats.
Thirdly, it is clear from the 25 paragraphs that expansion of non-permanent category is a position of minimum common understanding. Even those States that aspire to become “permanent members without veto” are not opposed to expansion of non-permanent category. We have emphasized how such a model offers a realistic rationale to address concerns of a wider membership on veto, working methods and decision-making of the Council as well as its relationship with the General Assembly. For the sake of progress to which, you Mr. Chairman are partial to; expansion in non-permanent category offer a real scope that must be further explored, both within and outside your draft text. Similarly, the notion of so-called ‘overwhelming majority in support of expansion in permanent and non-permanent category’ that we even heard today, should now be laid to eternal rest. First, there is no such numerical majority, as is evident from the listings in the first cluster as well as from the participation in these five rounds. Second, permanent category now has a new variant – “Permanent Members without Veto”. The whimsical calculation of majority-minority on this issue should, therefore, be rejected, as any proposal not enjoying consensus undermined the future effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council.
Mr. Chairman,
We would take this opportunity to highlight that Africa’s legitimate aspiration for permanent presence in the Council should not be confused with the issue of categories. The African position, which is the result of consensus, is a position taken for and on behalf of the region, and is thus different from those who seek seats for themselves. That is why we have expressed our continuously understanding and respect for the African common position.
Similarly, the European Union after the Lisbon Treaty’ is also a reality of the twenty first century, which cannot be ignored while discussing the Security Council reform.
Pakistan’s principled position on the issue of categories is articulated in paragraph 1.20 of the text that says that “regular elections in the Security Council make it accountable and accessible where membership is earned as a privileged responsibility and not and not granted as a permanent right”. We also endorse the Italy-Colombia proposal reflected in paragraph 1.2. For the sake of flexibility and compromise, we reiterate our openness to discuss the Intermediate Option, listed in eight paragraphs of the first cluster.
Mr. Chairman,
As we have completed the reading of the five clusters of your draft text, it is time for internal reflection. The membership has accepted your draft text annexed with the latter dated 26 May 2010 and duly deliberated upon it. This is a commendable achievement, despite nominal resources at your disposal. We greatly value your contributions.
We are confident that the future progress in our negotiations would be guided by openness and transparency, with a view to reinforcing the legitimacy of the process. Accordingly, we would highlight the imperative of merging language in the draft, only with consent of the parties concerned and in complete knowledge of other Member States. But the virtues of compromise and flexibility on substantive issues must drive this drafting exercise ---- and not the other way round. We must not put the cart before the horse.
Thank you.