Open Ended Working Group

Statement by Ambassador Munir Akram, Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, at the meeting of the Open Ended Working Group on Security Council Reform-10 April, 2008.

Mr. President,

Thank you for convening this meeting of the OEWG. This is the right place to conduct open, transparent and inclusive consultations on Security Council reform.

2. We began our work this year with considerable optimism. After many years of impasse, real progress was achieved on Security Council reform during the 61st General Assembly Session. The two Reports of the Facilitators, presented after full consultations with member states, reached certain important conclusions: centrally, that at present, the only prospect of reaching agreement was to seek an interim or intermediate solution, without prejudice to the declared and strongly held positions of all sides. The reports furthermore outlined four options of such an intermediate solution, based on the concept of creating new non-permanent seats for various periods of membership, which could or could not be subject to re-election of elected incumbents. It ruled out the option of new permanent seats for individual member states. But, the options, in our view, did not exclude the possibility of permanent or fixed regional representations, as desired, for example, by the African Group, and also as I must say, by the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
3. After extensive consultations, and notwithstanding the resistance of a few members, the General Assembly at its 61st Session, adopted the Report of the OEWG by consensus. In this Report, we all agreed to hold further consultations, and eventually inter-governmental negotiations to “build on the progress achieved” at 61st Session with a view to reaching general agreement. Simply put, building on the progress achieved clearly implied an agreement to work on the options for an interim or intermediate approach as contained in the Report of the Facilitators.
4. Following the initial debate on this issue at the current (62nd) session, Mr. President, you set out 7 principles to guide our further work, which were fully supported by all delegations. These guiding principles envisaged a clear step by step process - starting with consultations on the framework and modalities for inter-governmental negotiations. These consultations were to be held within the OEWG. Also it was envisaged that further steps must contain components and notions that will allow general agreement to be reached on all aspects of Security Council reform and accommodate the interests and concerns of all sides. The fact is that only agreement that could be reached is on intermediate approach. The objective of general agreement can only be achieved in the OEWG. You also asked member states to refrain from steps that undermine the current momentum.
5. Unfortunately, the orderly process, which you had envisaged in your conclusions and guiding principles have not been fully adhered to by certain delegations. You suggested an overarching process, but it had to be inclusive, transparent and open. Germany has said that its initiative was in response to your request. We believe no 30 countries can get together and say they represent all others especially when they exclude other members from different groups. This unilateral initiative, self-described as an overarching group, and later as an overarching process, has elaborated a paper, which ignores the framework for our further work that was reflected in the last OEWG Report and in your guiding principles. It reflects, in large measure, the partisan position of certain Member States. This group or process besides being self-appointed, was restricted in its composition and arbitrary in its approach. The paper circulated by one member of this group, moreover, contravenes the progress achieved last year. It is, in any case, personal in nature. Thus, it cannot pretend to become the basis of further work; indeed in this inter-governmental process, it cannot even be taken into formal cognizance. I thought I could agree with the Permanent Representative of India on this point, but was surprised that after a blistery critique, his conclusion was to use this paper, against the premise of his analysis.
6. The regression reflected in this arbitrary and unilateral approach, and its partisan and personal nature, requires to be reversed by the OEWG and by you, Mr. President, and by members of your Task Force. It is obviously essential to bring the process of consultations on Security Council reform back on track and within the scope of the understandings and conclusions reached earlier on the issue. To promote this objective, the UfC addressed the letter of 5 March to you from the Permanent Representative of Italy, which proposed that: “agreement should be first reached on the framework for further consultations and intergovernmental negotiations." "Once such a framework is established the joint venture for Security Council reform can be launched”. The UfC letter enclosed a proposed framework, based on the progress made at the 61st GA session and the 7 guiding principles you had set out earlier. This is not a minority position. It was reflected in the two Reports of the Facilitators. It is a position, which is reflected in the Joint Summit Declaration by U.K. and France recently. It is even reflected in some way in the paper of Cyprus. How is it then a minority position? Indeed it is the only framework under which progress can be achieved.
7. The Framework proposed by the UfC suggests that we agree on the following parameters:
   
   • One, That our objective is to reach "general agreement" on an "intermediate solution" on the basis of variations outlined in paragraph 9 of the 5 Facilitators Report;
   • Two, that the modality for promoting this solution should be "transparent and open consultations and inter-governmental negotiations within the OEWG to reach general agreement" - with no unilateral initiative outside this OEWG; and
   • Three, that the next steps, after agreement on the framework, should be to identify the "negotiables" and then to jointly elaborate a paper that could serve as the basis for intergovernmental negotiations.
8. In our view, such a framework reflects the general view within the OEWG, and ought not be difficult to approve. Its formalization has become essential, however, due to the obvious attempts by a few to erode the evolving agreement on the parameters for a solution to the issue of Security Council reform. Such an agreement can be promoted here, within the OEWG. Any unilateral initiatives and partisan approaches are likely to erode rather than advance the prospects of agreement. When the representatives of Japan and India say that the OEWG is not the only place for discussion, we are led to wonder as to what are the objectives and purposes of the exercise they wish to engage us in. These unilateral initiatives and papers are all designed with the objective of circumventing the consensus and forcing the General Assembly to reach a conclusion that is only in the interest of the few countries.
9. My delegation cannot take it on itself to interpret the decision of the African Union Heads of States. Nor would we give authority to others to interpret the decision of the OIC Heads of States. That is our right. Let me reiterate that we respect the position of Africa, the desire for justice and equity. We believe that this desire for two permanent seats for Africa is very different from the demand of individual States to become permanent members. The African position can and should be accommodated within an interim solution that would assign Africa regional seats leaving it to Africa to decide who should represent it and for how long. Similarly, it is possible to accommodate the position of the Islamic Group. The OIC comprises 57 countries. A large part of the agenda of the Council, at least 40%, relates to the Islamic world. How can it be acceptable that our positions and presence are not reflected in the Council? That is why the OIC has demanded adequate representation in an enlarged Security Council in proportion to its membership, and we shall press for that position.
10. If there is an agreement, we will reach it here. Paragraph (d) of the decision (61/561) of the General Assembly, referred to by some other delegations does not say anything to exclude the OEWG. On the contrary paragraph (c) of that decision urges the Working Group to exert efforts during the 62nd Session aimed at achieving general agreement among member states.
11. Let us not build straw houses or throw around bricks at other people. We need a proper architecture. Let us first plan and construct its basis. We would propose, Mr. President, that you and members of your Task Force, which has been enlarged with the welcome inclusion of Ambassador Olhaye of Djibouti, should seek to promote early agreement on the framework and parameters for further consultations and eventual negotiations, before we proceed to address the substantive options for an intermediate solution. We welcome the desire of others, including the African Group, to reach agreement on the process before proceeding to address the substantive elements. We look forward to your continued leadership and are ready to work constructively.
    * * * * * * * * * *