|
|
Mr. President,
Thank you for convening today’s important meeting. Our delegation welcomes your initiative of holding separate debate on Security Council reform in the formal plenary of the General Assembly.
We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
We share the collective objective of strengthening the United Nations and increasing its effectiveness to enable it to address contemporary challenges. This entails adaptation and reform. We all want the UN reform to relate to evolving situations and new realities. Wars, victors and vanquished were the realities of 1945. Today’s realities are rooted in the shared desire for peace, prosperity and democracy; and open, inclusive, transparent and accountable governance structures and international institutions.
Reform of the UN Security Council can only be realized through consensus. Despite obvious divergence, we believe that there is general agreement in three areas:
Mr. President,
Pakistan believes that modest expansion in the Security Council by adding new electable seats would make it more representative, efficient and transparent as well as able to address present and future challenges alike. New seats based on periodic elections will also make the Security Council more equitable, diverse and plural in terms of representation; as well as more open and accountable to reflect the aspirations of the general membership. Such a reform model would enhance Security Council’s ownership by all the UN Member States and further increase the credibility of its actions.
From various initiatives launched by individual Member States and groups over last 15 years, it is evident that no single reform model enjoys the requisite support for a credible final outcome. It is therefore essential for us to seek a common middle ground with a view to achieving a win-win compromise solution.
Notwithstanding our original position, Pakistan along with other colleagues of the Uniting for Consensus Group have put forward dynamic and flexible proposals. Our compromise proposal, entitled “Italy-Colombia Paper” in document no. A/64/CRP.1, is a sincere effort to build bridges and avoid deadlock. We draw satisfaction from the fact that UfC is the only group to have offered a compromise formula.
UfC’s compromise formula caters for the complex global political configuration, which consists of few large States; a number of medium sized States; majority of small States; and the emergence of regional organizations, which are playing important roles in international and regional peace and security. Our proposal reflects cross-sectional interest of the large majority of Member States, including a significant number of Small States. It can also serve the dual purpose of a modest expansion of the Council, while also ensuring wider representation for regional, sub-regional and cross-regional groups, some of which like the African Union and the OIC have important stakes in the Council and whose quest for adequate representation we support.
Here I would like to reiterate our respect and support for the African Common Position, as stated in the Ezulwini Consensus. Africa’s just demand for permanent presence in the Security Council is on behalf of the entire continent and is, therefore, different from those who seek a permanent seat for themselves. We see enough room in the UfC reform model to accommodate African position to be treated as a “Special Case”. We strongly believe that any solution that excludes Africa or African participation will be incomplete and therefore, unacceptable.
Mr. President,
Our delegation would also use this opportunity to take stock of the present state of Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN), which are now into the fourth year. Since April 2011, no meeting of the IGN has been held. It is not a mere coincidence that the date corresponds with launch of a unilateral piecemeal initiative by one group. This initiative contravenes GA decisions 62/557, 63/565, 64/568 and 65/554, and has effectively stalled the negotiation process. If a single issue of choice is picked for a showdown, it would stultify comprehensive negotiations on all five issues, as decided by this August Assembly. This is evidenced by the breakdown of IGN for the last seven months.
Mr. President,
A critical lesson learnt from the current state of IGN is that initiatives rooted in individual national objectives and based on parochial paradigms of power politics can never garner any meaningful support. These initiatives only divide the membership and stall the negotiation process.
Another lesson is that ignoring inter-linkages of five key issues and focusing only on one issue of choice creates more problems than solutions.
Finally, any attempt at artificial acceleration, through whimsical claims of majority-minority, is a recipe for deadlock.
In view of these obvious realities, let me reiterate that identifying a compromise solution is the only way forward. We will, therefore, encourage other colleagues to show compromise and flexibility by moving towards a compromise solution in the true spirit of multilateralism.
Mr. President,
I will conclude by acknowledging your role as President of the General Assembly in steering forward the process of Security Council reform. We value your decision of holding a separate session on Security Council reform. We are certain that your close engagement will help us move closer to our collective objective.
Thank you.