|
|
Mr. President,
The Pakistan delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group.
I would like to first of all, thank both the Co-Chairs, Ambassador Wronecka of Poland and Ambassador Al-Thani of Qatar for the splendid way in which they have guided the work of the IGN this year in difficult circumstances.
I would also like to add my voice to express our gratitude to you for the open and consultative process of leadership which you have provided to the not only to the IGN process but to all processes within the General Assembly.
Having heard some of the statements here today, I would add that I admire your patience and forbearance in response to some of the statements we heard this morning.
Mr. President,
Your oral proposal is consistent with precedent - in the past similar decisions have been adopted. These decisions reflect the widest possible agreement, as does your proposal; it is balanced, and the tradition is to adopt these decisions by consensus.
It is therefore most regrettable that some delegations have chosen to continue their divisive efforts in the IGN, to carry them forward into the General Assembly.
They are promoting partisan objectives, and these are transparent in the effort to add amendments, which they are quite aware, would be unacceptable to a large membership of the General Assembly.
These are not procedural amendments; they touch on substance in this process of the IGN itself; and this process of the IGN should not be reopened since we have the co-chairs paper.
The IGN process is a member driven process. The Co-Chairs paper reflects their own understanding of the convergences and divergences among Member States on the issue of Security Council reform.
The positions, the understanding of the Co-Chairs, cannot form the basis for negotiations. Indeed, the Co-Chairs have not asked for this, contrary to what has been asserted in some statements here. Read the letter of 12th May; it does not talk about the document becoming a basis for negotiations.
It is quite clear that the Co-Chairs document also does not reflect the positions of various parties in a balanced or comprehensive way.
We have heard the African position with regard to the omission of the Sirte declaration.
The UfC's position likewise, is not fully or comprehensively reflected in the Co-Chairs paper and therefore, it is, and cannot become a basis for negotiations.
Your statement, on the other hand, is a balanced and comprehensive suggestion, building on the informal meetings and on the letter of the Co-Chairs, the Co-Chairs paper, as well as the 2015 Framework Document. All of these are to provide the material for us to further build on the convergences and to reduce our divergences. It is this approach towards building consensus that should guide the Assembly in all its members.
We would ask the Group of Four to withdraw their amendments; not to divide the assembly further. Their amendments are ultra-vires. They do not enjoy wide support and if we are pushed to a vote, it will erode the objective of Security Council reform, and set it back by many years. It will not give new life to the process; it will be its death knell.
Thank you, Mr. President.