|
|
Mr. President,
I would like to thank you for holding of the open debate on Working Methods of the Security Council. We appreciate the interest of Japan in the subject as reflected in the Presidential Statement S/2006/507 as well as the Concept Paper for today’s debate annexed with the President’s letter dated 1 April 2010.
We avail ourselves of this opportunity to acknowledge the role played by the S-5 on the issue of working methods. The group that is modest to call itself “Small 5”, has always provided big inputs on the subject.
We associate ourselves with the statement made by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Egypt, in his capacity as the Chair of the Non- Aligned Movement, and endorse his letter dated 15 April 2010, addressed to the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council. We hope that the NAM’s position reflected in the comprehensive negotiating paper No. A/51/147 and the relevant paragraphs of the Sharam El Sheikh Final Document (S/2009/514) will be given due consideration in our collective deliberations.
Mr. President,
Article 24 (1) of the UN Charter stipulates that in carrying out its primary responsibility of maintenance of international peace and security, the Council acts on behalf of the UN Member States. Therefore, efficiency and transparency of the Council’s work and its decision making process are issues of great interest and importance to the UN membership. Hence, it is also essential for the Council to comprehend the perception of the general membership towards its work as well as the methods it employs to carry out its mandate.
Mr. President,
My delegation wishes to share with the Security Council our reflections on the Council’s work. We will, however, limit ourselves to three areas outlined in your Concept Paper for today’s debate, namely: transparency; interaction with non-members; and efficiency of the Council.
On transparency, we acknowledge some improvement in the working methods with respect to: Presidential briefings on the programme; post assessment by respective Presidencies; more frequent open debates; and improved reporting practices of the subsidiary bodies. These measures have, however, not comprehensively addressed the exclusivity of the Council’s work.
Pakistan delegation underscores greater compliance with Articles 31 and 32 of the UN Charter and Rule 48 of the Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure.
The Transparency of the Council warrants a semblance of balance in the format of its open and closed meetings. We find the equation tilted towards confidentiality, even in the areas where greater transparency would certainly help. Open debates and public meetings should not be a mere formality for the decisions taken in informal or closed consultations but should factor prominently in the Council’s decision making process.
The Security Council’s progress in its interaction with the non-member states will remain dependent on the level of transparency it wishes to attain. More structured interaction with the General Assembly, the ECOSOC and the Peacebuilding Commission as well as the Troops & Police Contributing Countries will broaden the existing channels of communications.
The consultation mechanisms should involve timely two-way exchange of information and views, which should be duly reflected in the Council’s decision making.
In our view, enhanced interaction with regional organizations can also be an effective channel of communication with wider UN membership. In this context, the Council’s increased interaction with the African Union is a good example to emulate with other regional organizations.
Mr. President,
We agree with the assessment in the Concept Paper that efficiency of the Council is constrained by the volume and diversity of its workload. However, we do not share the view that the efficiency of the Council is compromised by lengthy statements or time period required each year for adjustment of five new non-permanent members with the working of the Council.
The efficiency of the Council can be enhanced if necessary and due attention is paid to the issues on merit rather than narrow focus on national interests of those who matter. Besides, the Council should focus on its primary role of maintenance of international peace and security instead of taking up issues that are better dealt with by other relevant bodies.
Efficiency is also closely linked with effectiveness. In recent years, the Security Council has been relatively effective in peacebuilding ventures and addressing internal crises. Its record has been less impressive in resolving inter-state conflicts, where the Council seems constrained either due to use of veto or failure to have a substantive recourse to ‘Pacific Settlement of Disputes’ in terms of Chapter VI of the Charter.
Today’s debate has underscored that transparency, interaction with non-permanent Member States and efficiency in Working Methods are inter-linked and mutually reinforcing. This also validates the most widely held view that Working Methods of the Council, in their entirety, would improve by making the Council more democratic, inclusive and accountable to wider membership. Such change can be brought about in the Council by more frequent elections and rotation.
In the constructive spirit of today’s debate, we believe that the Security Council should continue introspection regarding improvement in its Working Methods. At the same time, the issue is also an integral part of a comprehensive reform process presently in inter-governmental negotiations. We would like to conclude by stating that reflections on this issue must continue on both the forums with a view to seeking fresh ideas, and one track should not obviate the scope and importance of the other.
I thank you, Mr. President.