REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

Remarks by Ambassador Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Permanent Representative of Pakistan in the Intergovernmental Negotiations on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Related Matters 24 March 2009

1. Regional Representation is an issue, which in many aspects, is most closely linked to the agenda of the reform debate i.e. the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. This flows from the fact that all member states, regions and other groups of states have strong and vital interests in the reform of the Security Council.
2. Regional representation can be viewed from various angles, which are all relevant to our discussion:
3. Firstly, it is related to “equitable geographical distribution”. The following points are important in this regard:

1. For increased representation, the size of the Security Council needs to be enlarged to correspond to the increase in the overall membership of the United Nations. In 1945, the size of the Council (11) was 21.56% of the total membership. After the expansion of 1963, the new size (15) was only 13% of the total UN membership. Even with that ratio, the size of the Council today should be at least 25. We are also open to a greater number.
2. To make the composition more equitable, the expansion must address the under-representation of certain regions vis-à-vis those who are over-represented. This point was highlighted by Singapore in a previous meeting. Thus re-rebalancing requires greater allocation of seats in the first place to Africa and Asia (the two largest regions) and GRULAC. This will also ensure greater representation of developing countries.

4. Secondly, in line with the new realities and looking at the work of the Council, it is important to increase interaction with and to embed the role of the regional organizations in a Security Council of the future. We should not miss the opportunity to do so only because of fixation to the current geographical group format (which by the way itself needs a revision). Nevertheless, with a little bit of flexibility and innovation, regional representation can be provided for without any drastic change to the existing format.

1. The African Union is relatively more advanced in terms of regional approach. Its position for regional representation, which has commanded wide support, fits easily in the configuration of the African group. As opposed to individual aspirations of some countries in other regions, Africa’s continent specific demand for permanent seats and equal rights is unique and special (as Sierra Leone said today). It is a concept that we have supported as an exception.
2. Many major issues on the Council’s agenda relate to the Islamic world. The OIC and the Arab League thus have vital interests in the reform, and have clear demands for representation in an enlarged Council. While these two are cross-regional groupings, their representation can be accommodated through arrangements between Asia and Africa. A precedent already exists for Arab representation alternating between Africa and Asia. This should continue. In addition, we propose to allocate more seats to be shared between Africa and Asia on rotation basis, which will specifically provide for continuous representation of the Islamic world on the Council.
3. It may be noted that cross-regional sharing of seats can also be attractive for other groupings and even the European Union.

5. Thirdly, in terms of wider representation, it is also important to take care of the sub-regional dimensions as has been mentioned by various delegations. Allocation of more seats to each region will allow for adequate representation of their sub-regions. For example, more elected seats for Africa will enhance the chances of representation of countries from each of its five sub-regions. Similarly, additional non-permanent seats for Asia will enable various sub-regions - from West to South, South-East, Pacific, and Central Asia – more chances of representation. Each additional non-permanent seat for GRULAC will also benefit CARICOM for example.
6. Fourthly, we need to devise mechanisms for ensuring representation of small states and medium sized states, which constitute the vast majority of the UN membership. (The question of representation of small states was specifically mentioned in the 2007 report of the Facilitators). Small states are severely disadvantaged while competing against bigger states for a seat on the Council. Therefore whatever the size of expansion, their chances of serving on the Council are not likely to increase unless there is a configuration specific to them. That is why we have proposed to allocate a seat reserved for small states, and another reserved for medium states, going beyond the 5 regional groups format. Small and medium states from all regions will benefit from these seats. We specifically have noted the interest expressed in this concept by Jamaica and Tonga on behalf of their respective groups.
7. Let me now come to some overarching elements, which are indispensable for assuring the kind of broader representation we are talking about. First is the fundamental need for adding the maximum possible number of seats on the Council. The larger the number of seats available, the greater the possibility to accommodate the number of countries globally and also regionally. Second, is the simple principle that all those seats must be available for all the countries of the respective regions or groupings. Fixing seats specific to individual countries will defeat the objective of wider representation. This is important because in any reform proposal to date, seats are being asked for in the name of the regions. It is only logical that having been allocated to the regions, the seats will not be occupied permanently by one or two individual countries. This is especially true for those regions, where there is no agreement on who can represent regional interests on the Council. Third, since the seats go to the regions, the regions should be in a position to determine their own arrangements for representation of their members against those seats on the Council. An important means in this regard is a system that provides for fair rotation among all member states of that region.
8. Our position is clear. In any expansion, each seat allocated permanently to an individual country, will be a permanent blow to equitable geographical distribution or regional representation in any sense of the word. We want to accommodate the interests of all states and regional groupings. This can be best achieved through addition of regular non-permanent seats, which in our view, is the most equitable and fair option by any comparison. This is our preference. But in the interest of compromise, we are also open to other feasible and equitable options, based on election, immediate re-election and longer terms for regional seats, which provide for fair rotation and opportunities of representation for all.
9. Mr. Chairman, the discussion so far obliges me to make some additional observations:

1. Several delegations have referred to “equitable geographical distribution” from Article 23.1 of the Charter, rightly so. Now some delegations have noted, also correctly, the need to remain strictly within the confines of the Charter. Then I wonder how some members are interpreting that as a criteria for the permanent category. The language of Article 23.1 is clear - the criteria listed therein are for non-permanent members. Permanent members are mentioned by name. Now, even if we are to assume that equitable geographical distribution should extend to the permanent category, by any calculation there is no scope for an additional permanent member from any group which is already way over represented in the Council. So, Mr. Chairman lets submit to logic and reason not application of discriminatory criteria.
2. Another observation, if we recognize most members feeling that permanent members represent only their own interest. Today, one permanent member categorically ruled out the regional representation concept. Does that rule out Africa? But more interesting than that is the position of the permanent seat aspirants, who seem to be now equally opposed to regional representation and are saying that they will be appointed in individual capacity, not responsible for representing regional interests. So where is the reform of the exclusive club? Shouldn’t we make it easier and ask the P-5 to bring in another 4-5 permanent members and go and have their club and be happy about it? Must the UN Charter after 15 years wait for equitable power and reform, adopt the de jure status quo.
3. Lastly, some have argued that a regional element will adversely affect the efficiency of the Council. Can anyone prove this by example? Some have even said it goes against the intergovernmental character of the UN. I fail to understand this position. Should we understand that when the EU and other groups take common positions and in fact are negotiating as a bloc on an increasing number of resolutions in the UN, does it mean they are undermining the intergovernmental nature of the UN? No. The blocs such as OIC, Arab League, African Union, CARICOM and so many others are protecting their weaker and non expressive membership on a regional basis, and the position of the African Union is not undermining Africa – that is why the Africans are so united for the common good of a region that takes up 70% of UN work. Yet for 63 years this continent stands without a voice of being masters of their own continental affairs. Regions must be recognized. The denial is the root cause of the reform.