|
|
Distinguished Co-Chairs,
We thank you for convening this interactive session and for the comprehensive set of questions to guide our discussions, today.
A number of important points and key questions were also raised, yesterday. I will try to address some of them in my intervention.
Co-Chairs,
We heard some express ‘dismay’ over how the process has gone ‘awry’, as well-established practices of the past were being expressly violated.
Perhaps what they mean was a process, where progress is calibrated on the number of documents produced; where issues are ‘reflected’, not ‘discussed’; where divergences are magically turned into convergences by simply placing them as commonalities; where evidently insurmountable gaps can be bridged by changing the structure of the document or giving ‘convenient’ titles to the various sections.
In sum, where a profoundly serious process is reduced into a superficial one.
We do not subscribe to any approach that shifts the focus from a ‘substantive’ matter into a discussion over ‘procedure’.
Your continued effort to facilitate a constructive and meaningful exchange of views between member states is therefore, not only commendable, it is an essential prerequisite to build great convergences.
Any attempts to give arbitrary interpretations to the requirement of the broadest consensus between member states for reform, are not only misleading, they are also counterproductive. The contours of the reform are clearly outlined in decision 62/557, which must be respected.
This is the only pathway to meaningful progress, and remains the guiding spirit behind the engagement of my country and the UfC within the IGN.
Co-Chairs,
Claims were also made yesterday that a majority of member states seek a text for negotiations.
Attention was drawn to a document prepared by a negotiating group, where this claim is said to be meticulously recorded.
However, nuances in respective positions, fail to find any mention in this arbitrary document.
In fact, as our discussions during the IGN have repeatedly shown, we are nowhere close to the stage where there is even agreement on the broad contours of a text.
In any case, we are not convinced that lack of progress can be attributed to the absence of a ‘text’ – in fact, we have had texts in the past, including Rev.2 and the Framework document, but they did not take us forward. The latter, in fact, became a source of contention and deep division.
The reason is obvious, because differences persist on fundamental aspects of the reform process.
This raises the question: how then can we move forward?
We believe, by identifying our convergences, and building on them. This entails a spirit of flexibility and compromise by all sides.
Unless we are willing to go that extra mile, progress will remain elusive. While the UfC has sought to live by these ideals, we have yet to see that spirit matched by some other negotiating groups. We do not, therefore, consider any ‘value addition’ to the process by extending the IGN beyond its last meeting, later this month.
Co-Chairs,
The notion of ‘give and take’ negotiations was also offered to the membership; a process where a handful of states keep permanent seats, with veto, for themselves, in return for altruistic expressions of goodwill to the rest; there is also the claim that they will keep the interests of the larger membership, at heart; that new permanence will be a check on the excesses of old permanence.
In 1945, member states posed a set of questions to permanent members regarding the functioning of the veto. They were instead, presented with a stark choice: veto was the price for the creation of the UN.
Aspirants for new permanence seek to present a similar choice to the membership – that acceptance of their individual ambitions, is the price to be collectively paid to achieve the Council’s legitimacy.
This single-minded insistence on permanent seats is without any pretense of justifying their position, much less offering any rationale for it.
My delegation and others posed several questions, yesterday. We have yet to receive any answer. This deliberate approach of sidestepping fundamental issues is what can turn the IGN into a ‘circular’ process. This will be a road to nowhere. We must avoid taking it.
Co-Chairs,
Turing now to your questions, representation and accountability are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist without the other – representation ceases when there is no accountability.
These twin principles exist only in the non-permanent category – elections and geographical distribution in Article 23(1) and a limited term and rotation, in Article 23(2).
On the other hand, as I noted yesterday, while we talk of two categories of membership, permanent members do not, as such, constitute a category. In the Charter, they are mentioned by name, and have special privileges and power including the veto.
A mere accident of geography does not hand permanent members the entitlement to represent entire regions.
If a permanent member is not accountable to the region, how can it claim to represent that region?
The African Group is the only geographical regional group that promotes a solution based exclusively on this model.
As for the others, every member state, be it in the permanent or the non-permanent category represents itself on the Council.
Regional representation cannot therefore, be used as a ‘ruse’ by some to justify their narrow interests.
Turning to the second question, the UN Charter envisages a symbiotic relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, based on the principles of responsibility, transparency and above all, accountability.
This is what gives meaning to the phrase “acting on its behalf” in Article 24(1) of the Charter. The Council can only act on behalf of the General Assembly by being accountable to it.
The best way to ensure a responsible and accountable Council is to strengthen the role and authority of the General Assembly in determining its representation in the Council.
Whether it is regional representation or equitable geographical representation, the Council can be made more broadly representative of the general membership by adding electable non-permanent seats which would reflect the interests of all member states – small, medium and large. We need to increase, not reduce the ratio of permanent to non-permanent seats.
Concurrently, the following 4 measures could also be considered:
As for the rest, as the UfC does not support expansion in the permanent category, with or without veto, for us they fall in the realm of the speculative.
Nonetheless, to contribute to the discussion, we can say that the Charter sets two criteria for election of non-permanent members: contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security; and equitable geographical distribution. What additional qualifications do individual aspirants have?
Any claims based on the size of territory or their projected economic, political or military prowess would collapse as they would be instantly contested and matched by other nations collectively in the service of the UN.
The question of veto lends added complexity to the permanent category – members without veto; members with unrestricted veto, deferred veto or voluntary restraint; a veto exercised in a national capacity or on behalf of an entire region; a veto that is unconditional and without reserve or one that is subject to periodic review.
Unlike the clear position of the African Group on permanent seats with veto, as an imperative of ‘common justice’, there are others, especially with overlapping memberships, whose positions have not been clearly outlined.
For example, as we have sought in the past, the G-4 and L.69 have different positions on the question of veto.
For those belonging to both groups, does the right of veto become available with permanent membership or is it subject to a review?
In conclusion, Co-Chairs, if the UN is to be made ‘fit for purpose’ to confront the challenges of tomorrow, the Security Council must be fully restored to its rightful place at the core of the international peace and security architecture.
Not a silent bystander to history, but an active vehicle of change.
This ideal can only be fulfilled through a more democratic, representative, accountable, transparent and efficient Council.
I thank you.