|
|
Very absorbing and important discussion has taken place. In our view, any reform of the Security Council today has to take seriously the regional representation
We need to see carefully the whole question of equitable representation or equitable geographic distribution. For example when we say Asia, Africa, GRULAC, EE are under-represented, and there should be more seats for these regions, what we are doing is asking for seats in the name of the regions. Now the delegation of Singapore made some interesting observations and provided some colourful statistics on regional distribution. We need to look at that more carefully. For example in the original G-4 and UfC models, equal number of seats are allocated to the 5 regions. So on the face of it, there may be no difference between the two models. But that is not the case. We calculate the number of new seats on the relative under representation of a region in the Council. 3 seats to be added for Asia take into account all the member states of the Asian group. Similarly for other regions. What is illogical is that one asks for seats in the name of the region, and seats are allocated in the name of the regions, and then you say that only 1 or 2 countries will occupy those seats for ever. THERE IS NOTHING EQUITABLE ABOUT THAT.
Equitable representation means we have to see, how the new seats will increase the chances of representation of all the countries of the region. Take G-4 model for example, it gives 3 seats to Asia, but out of the 3, 2 are permanent, and these permanent seats will not figure in any calculation for representation of the rest of the members. The G-4 model will thus provide 3 non-permanent seats for Asia (2 existing + 1 new), which means 3 seats for 51 countries or 1 seat for 17 countries roughly. The UfC proposal on the other hand adds 3 non-permanent seats for Asia, so we have 5 seats for 53 countries i.e. 1 seat for 10.6 countries roughly. HERE LIES THE DIFFERENCE.
Finally, we believe that election and fair rotation are the best means to satisfy equitable representation for all. The Charter provides for non-permanent 2 year seats with a bar on immediate re-election. This provides for election and automatic rotation. IN OUR VIEW THIS IS THE BEST OPTION. This is our preference. And we request member states to rally around this option. We are also willing to consider compromise, repeat only as a compromise, some fair intermediate option. We understand that is not the best solution, but in any case, it is better than the option of individual permanent seats, which permanently block the chances of equitable representation for the rest of the membership.