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 - 1 September 2009

  1. Mr. Chairman,Thank you for convening this session. Security Council reform is an important and sensitive issue and I think everyone in the House values your efforts in steering the negotiation process in this session.
  2. Mr. Chairman, As we start the third round, it is important that we objectively assess the work done so far and not be over critical of ourselves. The two rounds of negotiations have shown that while major differences persist on the key issues, important progress has also been made on several aspects. New proposals and ideas have been presented by Member States in an effort to overcome the impasse and these have been deliberated at some length.
  3. It is, however, clear that we are far from the objective of a negotiated solution, which can garner the widest possible political acceptance of the Member States. The objective of reaching a negotiated solution cannot be sacrificed on any altar of expediency.
  4. Yet, the desire for reform also remains strong. And every one would agree that continuation of negotiations is the best way to achieve results. It is important to consolidate the progress and to achieve greater convergence on all the key issues. This should be our major task during the forthcoming UNGA session. The little time remaining during this session should be utilized to reach an understanding on the continuity of the process; and reinforcing the mutual trust and goodwill that go with it.
  5. Mr. Chairman,In the negotiations under your chairmanship, we have earnestly endeavored to facilitate real forward movement. It has been clear from the beginning of the new phase that for such forward movement, decision 62/557 remains the valid basis of negotiations. A deviation to any other reference point can lead us astray. It is, therefore, logical to start this discussion with a holistic view of the five key issues taken together. It is in line with the objective of a comprehensive reform. And it reconfirms the principle of single undertaking. However, let me be very clear. The “overview” of the first round, was not and cannot be a reference point for this discussion. The “overview” is partial, incomplete and non-consensual document, on which we have made our reservations abundantly clear.
  6. In this process there has been a consensus that no positions can be omitted or eliminated from the negotiations. This applies to all the positions and proposals related to the five key issues, all of which are equally important and interlinked. The discussion cannot be limited to only a few selected aspects of reform. We are far from any clear understanding on the size of the expanded Council. We are yet to discuss how different sizes would impact on the distribution and nature of seats. We are yet to reconcile various views on regional representation. The representation of Small States and Medium States, which we have proposed, and the representation of other stakeholders like the OIC are yet to be seriously negotiated to be given a concrete shape. Veto is another key aspect, not only linked to categories but also to working methods and decision making, whose reform is essential for any meaningful outcome but for which we still need to agree on measures that are feasible. With regard to working methods and the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, we also need to make sure that the wide consensus that has emerged on a number of proposals and measures would be an integral part of the final package of reform.
  7. The transition of the negotiations process to the 64th UNGA session must ensure that all views and positions of the Member States and Groups, including the new proposals made during the course of negotiations, are carried forward, as basis for continued negotiations in accordance with Decision 62/557.
  8. There can be no position or proposal that may be privileged for the purposes of these negotiations. In this context, we have serious concerns with your proposal to hold a session devoted to so-called “model with an expansion in both current categories including its different varieties”. While “categories of membership” is one of the five key issues, and it is certainly one of the most contentious ones, there is little justification to accord it a preferential status vis-à-vis the other issues. Moreover, the proposed session is not on categories per se, but on a particular model of reform, which is all the more objectionable since it excludes all other proposals from the discussion. This selective approach is not conducive to productive negotiations and cannot have our support. It is also unacceptable that the so-called “different varieties” of this model, which are fundamentally different from one another, be generalized and lumped together to estimate the level of perceived support for a particular model, which in any case is not the function of the Facilitator.
  9. In comparison, the other scheduled session – on intermediate model – makes sense from the point of view of negotiations. It may be recalled that the intermediate approach was the main recommendation of the Facilitators and the Task Force during the 61st and the 62nd sessions respectively. It is also the emerging trend in the current session. Irrespective of the final shape and nature of intermediate model, its essence is “compromise”, which is a fundamental aspect of negotiations. But it would be wrong to view intermediate model only in terms of categories of membership. We believe that any kind of solution that is eventually agreed must encompass all the key issues.
  10. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we would request you to provide some clarification on how do you intend to bring to conclusion the discussions during the remainder of the session and to transfer the process of negotiations smoothly to the next session. We believe that Decision 62/557 remains a valid basis for continuing the negotiations. Also in accordance with that Decision, the Open-Ended Working Group is mandated to submit a report to the General Assembly before the end of this Session, and we are confident that implementing this part of the mandate would also be in your programme of work in the coming days.

Thank you.