|
|
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for convening the eighth round of intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) on Security Council reform, with five meetings on positions of five groups.
Despite long deliberation, we remain far from being constructive and the format of the eighth round reflects shortage of ideas on how to take the reform process forward. Positions of five groups have been on the table for quite sometimes. At some point in the past, some of these positions were converted into L. documents of the General Assembly. It is clear that none of these positions garners the required support. This reality cannot be obscured by any ingenuity in planning and conduct of the eighth round. We cannot resurrect old positions and dead initiatives by skills in drafting or oratory.
Secondly, negotiation processes are characterized by the spirit of flexibility and the political will to compromise. Simple narration of known positions without flexibility, as done today by the G-4, flies in the face of objectivity and stultifies negotiations.
Mr. Chairman,
Our skepticism of today’s presentations notwithstanding, we welcome commencement of the eighth round of IGN and your strong reiteration to conduct the negotiations in an open and membership-driven manner, in line with GA decision 62/557. We are happy that the eighth round breaks a year-long hiatus in the IGN process.
Between March 2011 and January 2012, we could have only one meeting of the IGN. It is not a mere coincidence that the breakdown of IGN in March 2011 corresponds with the emergence of the G-4’s draft resolution. By picking a single issue of choice i.e. “Categories” and also mentioning “Working Methods” by-the-way, the principle of comprehensive negotiations on all five issues, as enshrined in GA decision 62/557, has been breached. We note that the G-4 has conceded today that its proposal does not address all elements of a comprehensive reform.
This explains the recent deadlock in the IGN. We cannot have a negotiation process, where one group seeks a vote on a single subset of issues. Seeking vote means abandoning negotiations. The idea of piecemeal reform, as propounded in the G-4’s draft and the IGN process are mutually exclusive.
Mr. Chairman,
The principle of comprehensive reform of the Security Council must remain sacrosanct for our deliberations, within and outside the IGN. It is clear that by adopting a piecemeal approach, question of the “Veto” and the “Size” are being avoided. We have heard varying interpretations of this ambiguity, like surrendering the Veto right or periodic review. The idea of permanent members without veto adds a third category of membership and contradicts the claim of balancing the P-5 in the Security Council. Similarly, given the idea of limited expansion, adding four to six new permanent members will create imbalance between the elected and non-elected members, thereby impacting working methods and relationship of the Security Council with wider UN membership. It will enlarge the “club of the privileged” who will have a vested interest in addressing most issues in the Security Council, further draining the oxygen out of the General Assembly, and enhancing the domination of the Security Council. It will increase divisions and tensions, not only within the United Nations, but within various regions, contradicting the objective of promoting peace and security. Lacking space for compromise, the G-4 proposal is zero-sum in nature, with 4 winners and 184 losers. Therefore, it has neither garnered meaningful support nor allowed progress in the reform process. These important issues cannot be side-stepped.
The G-4’s draft resolution of 2005 did not succeed for it was divisive and inflexible proposal. This new proposal i.e. short is nothing but a short cut whose fate too is obvious. The Security Council is too important an institution to be subjected to such misadventures and experimentation.
Mr. Chairman,
Despite nearly a year-long intense campaign, the G-4 has not been able to muster significant support for its draft resolution. The G-4’s letter of 23 June 2011 laid claim to support of 80 Member States for the draft. The same number keeps being repeated ever since. This is not even a simple majority.
The Permanent Representative of Belgium and my dear friend Jan Grauls made a very important point in the last IGN meeting. He mentioned the need to test the G-4’s draft and if it turns out that necessary support of the proposal did not exist, we should move on and consider other proposals. The G-4 draft is nearly one year old. It is clear that the proposal has not garnered even simple majority. This amounts to categorical rejection of the draft resolution. It is, therefore, time to move on. The process cannot remain hostage to individual desires and aspirations.
I will take this opportunity to illustrate the difference between individual pursuits of permanent membership and group position on the issue --- like the OIC group position or the Common African Position. African Group’s demand of two permanent seats is different from individual national demands of permanent seats. African position on this issue garners support because it is basically about representation of a region and not individual representation. This difference should be appreciated. In Security Council reform, Africa united the entire membership, while the G-4 is seen to divide it. Pakistan delegation is supportive of treating Africa as a special case and prioritized in the reform process --- perhaps to be prioritized as the first litmus case. .
Mr. Chairman,
It is evident from the ongoing negotiations that a number of Member States favour a "compromise solution”. Pakistan, along with its partners in the Uniting for Consensus Group (UfC), has always emphasized the value of a fair compromise. We have demonstrated flexibility as evidenced by shape of the Italy-Colombia paper, which is our formula for compromise. Unlike the G-4’s draft, it is not a “take-it-or-leave-it” offer. It provides workable basis for compromise.
The time for rigid positions and piecemeal initiatives, like the G-4 draft is over. After three years of IGN, it is time to move beyond illusions and dreams. We hope today’s deliberations will convince the G-4 of the necessity of compromise and flexibility, to enable forward movement in the reform process.
Thank you.