Thank you for convening today’s meeting. We congratulate you on assumption of the Chairmanship of the IGN process.
We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group.
Today’s meeting gives us a good opportunity to take stock of the current stage of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN).
The Security Council reform is inspired by purposes and principles of the Charter. Clearly the objective of this process is to undertake a comprehensive reform that leads to further democratization within the UN, based on the sovereign equality of Member States.
We have all agreed to keep this process transparent and membership-driven.
We are all bound to implement the unanimous decision of the General Assembly – 62/557, which must be pursued in letter and spirit. In doing so, we need to give full weight to the inter-linkages of all five key issues identified in the decision.
Our meeting today is being held after ten months. This is the longest interval in the IGN since its inception in the 63rd UNGA.
The last round of IGN, in which five groups presented their respective positions, proved that no individual position commanded decisive support in the House. That situation prevails even today.
Parallel to the IGN process, certain individual groups also proposed respective draft resolutions. These initiatives also failed to muster support.
We have learnt a few important lessons from our consultations and negotiations on the Security Council reform held so far:
One,progress in the reform process hinges on the political will to move beyond known positions. Sticking to rigid positions will not help us move forward.
Two,there are no shortcuts to reform.
Three, the so-called showdowns will not help.
Four, ignoring the inter-linkage of five key issues and focusing only on one issue of choice creates contradictions. Such an approach is counter-intuitive.
Five, initiatives anchored in individual national positions do not have the support of the general membership. Such positions further polarize the membership and stall the negotiation process.
Six, attempts at artificial acceleration, through claims of majority-minority, deepens stalemate.
Pakistan and its partners in Uniting for Consensus (UfC) Group have always advocated compromise and flexibility as a vehicle for forward movement in the reform process. We are the only group to offer a compromise formula, which is reflected in the Italy-Colombia paper.
Earlier this year, Italy hosted an important Ministerial Conference on Security Council reform that stressed the need for urgent and comprehensive reform through compromise and flexibility.
It is abundantly clear that through compromise alone can we move forward. The nature of this compromise can only be determined through by negotiations.
Your role as a facilitator is important to build bridges and explore common ground. It cannot be partisan or tilted towards any particular position. We are grateful to you for giving assurances from time to time that you would remain impartial.
In today’s meeting you have sought to discuss your letter of July 25, 2012. Our views on this letter are as follows:
A similar observation can be made about the third revision of the text, received with your letter of 5 April 2013. The text, though produced with a lot of hard work, does not simplify the reform process. In this context, we would make three observations:
Our discussion on reform process is incomplete without our expression of respect and support for the African Common Position, including Africa’s demand to be treated as “a special case”.
Africa’s just demand for permanent seats in the Security Council is made on behalf of the entire continent and is, therefore, different from those who seek a permanent seat for themselves. The difference between two positions is both qualitative and substantive.
We have also taken note of the new proposals that seek to merge the African demands with individual national claims of permanent seat. This proposal ends up expanding permanent category and veto by 120%. This is a recipe for paralysis of the Security Council.
The proposal also entails that different Member States subscribe to two different and mutually incompatible positions on substantive issues.
Such discrepancies hamper serious negotiations – well any negotiations. We deserve a more forthright discourse in the reform process.
A fair discourse requires serious discussions on a compromise solution through a Membership-driven process. We need to collectively explore a win-win solution that accommodates different views and commands consensus.