|
|
Co-Chairs,
Pakistan aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) Group.
This year, the IGN has had constructive discussions on the 5 clusters of issues relating to reform. There are certain broad areas of "convergence" which have been further identified as well as continuing and important areas of "divergence" which remain to be overcome. There is a general agreement that the issues under the 5 clusters are all interlinked.
We will be able to begin formulating a text on Security Council reform once we have reached agreement on the "principles" of reform in all 5 clusters. Our deliberations have confirmed that progress towards agreement on the main principles or elements of reform can be made through open and honest discussions within the IGN. We have made progress; and we must continue to utilize the IGN process to build on the areas of convergence and overcome the points of divergence. Any precipitate moves to so-called "text-based" negotiations will, as Italy has said, "lock in" positions and sharpen the differences and freeze, if not reverse, the progress we have made in expanding the areas of convergence. The claim by one delegation here that 2/3rd of member states support text-based negotiations is based on faulty arithmetic. The UfC, Arab Group, and the African Group have stated that it is pre-mature to engage in text-based-negotiations.
In this process, the "Elements Paper", prepared by you, Co-Chairs, reflects the understanding of the Co-Chairs of the areas of convergence and divergence. It is a useful modality to reflect our discussions, the broadening areas of convergence and the critical areas of divergence without compromising the stated official positions of various groups and states. It is the very informality of the Elements paper which enables the reflection of progress. It is, therefore, essential to retain the informal nature of the Elements paper. Any attempt to transform this into a "basis for negotiations" - or to start "attributing" positions to various states or groups - will destroy its informality which is the attribute that allows the Paper to reflect your "understanding" Co-Chairs of the status of our discussions on the several interlinked issues of Security Council reform.
Likewise, the so-called Framework Document, while incomplete, remains a useful reference document for our discussions. We believe that reopening of the document will not be a productive exercise.
The UfC's reluctance to "formalize" the IGN process as proposed by some - through text-based negotiations, record-keeping, rules of procedure - is not due to any aversion to negotiations. It is because of our conviction that such "formalization" of the IGN process will lead to a deadlock and a breakdown of the IGN process. This conviction is born of past experience.
Co-Chairs,
The admittedly slow pace of progress in Security Council reform is not due to any deficiency in the process or procedures; it is due to the inflexibility in the positions of a few individual states which have come into these negotiations with a pre-determined end goal of fulfilling their national ambitions to secure an elevated and privileged position within the Security Council, regardless of the principle of sovereign equality of states.
On the other hand, the UfC has demonstrated the greatest flexibility in the search for a reform of the Security Council which can command the widest possible agreement of all UN member states - in short a "consensus". The UfC has continued to demonstrate this flexible approach and willingness to explore imaginative ways in which to reconcile the divergent official positions of various groups and states on Security Council reform.
In response to your guiding questions, I would like to say that at this stage the search for consensus can be achieved by exploring a number of "principles" which should guide our discussions and ultimate decisions.
The first among these is possibility offered by the "regional" approach to ensuring "equitable representation". The concept of regional representation has been espoused by the UfC and the African and Arab groups. There is wide support for correcting the historic injustice suffered by Africa. I may mention that the 57-member OIC has also called for the equitable representation of its membership in a reformed Security Council. The SIDs and small states also deserve such equitable representation. We should work on the precise formulas by which regional aspirations could offer an avenue for equitable representation. On the other hand, equity also involves redressing the present over-representation of one region in the Council.
Secondly, our discussions have illustrated that categorizing membership in a reformed Security Council into permanent and non-permanent - while a useful shorthand - is not the only option. The African desire for 2 regional permanent seats is very different from the quest for individual permanent membership. The UfC desires expansion only in the non-permanent category. Yet, at least 7 different forms of non-permanent membership or elected membership have been identified in our deliberations. These different forms can offer the possibilities of compromise and consensus.
Thirdly, the discussion of the "veto" - which preoccupies so many of us these days - has revealed certain realities. The central issue involved is the negative power of the veto. This can be "balanced" by, on the one hand, placing restrictions on the use of the veto, and, on the other, enhancing the role of non-permanent members through larger, and perhaps longer representation, and by changing the threshold of approval of decisions in the Security Council.
Fourthly, the "accountability" of the Security Council and of its members has been identified as an essential element of Security Council reform. Partially, this can be achieved through improvements in the Council's working methods, on which there is already a large area of convergence - as reflected in the Co-Chairs' Elements Paper of last year. However, genuine accountability can be best assured through the process of periodic elections of Council members by the General Assembly. This has been a core conviction of the UfC. To this, the African group position has added the element of regional accountability i.e. the power to regionally nominate and "recall" members in the Security Council.
Co-Chairs,
We look forward to receiving your revised elements paper in the near future which we trust will reflect such widening areas of convergence on Security Council reform while flagging the continuing areas of divergence.
The UfC remains committed to fully utilizing the IGN process to continue to build on the areas of convergence and reducing the areas of divergence in an honest, open and transparent manner.
I thank you.