|
|
Madam Chair,
Thank you convening this meeting on two pivotal issues of Security Council reform - Categories of Membership and Regional Representation.
We align ourselves with the statement made by Italy, on behalf of the UfC.
All Member States agree that the Council should be made more representative, democratic, accountable, transparent and effective. Proposals that seek expansion in the permanent membership are contrary to these principles.
Madam Chair,
In the context of categories of seats, let us consider the questions of equitable representation, democracy and accountability, as these are inextricably linked.
The concept of "representation" is hollow without accountability to those who are being represented. Periodic elections are the only way to make the representatives accountable to the electorate. Applying this simple logic to Security Council reform brings forth three basic requirements:
The Charter in Article 23 (1) identifies the present permanent members by name. There is no criteria for permanent membership, or for that matter, any claim to regional or equitable representation.
The non-permanent category is one where elements of "equitable representation" are firmly embedded - elections and geographical distribution in Article 23 (1) and a limited term and rotation in Article 23(2). Separate these two Articles - and the concept of "equitable representation" flies out of the window. This also addresses the point raised by my distinguished colleague, Ambassador Rattray of Jamaice, in his earlier intervention.
Furthermore, the principle of sovereign equality of states demands equal opportunity for all States to seek membership of the Council. This, and the principles I mentioned earlier are the bedrock of Pakistan's past and present ideas on Security Council reform, as contained in our national position and the Italy-Colombia paper in the Rev-II document. We are opposed in principle to the addition of new individual permanent members to the Council.
We understand and empathize with the aspirations of regional groups who seek adequate representation, such as the African Union and the Arab Group. A consensus based regional demand is fundamentally different from the demand for individual membership by a few whose national ambitions have in fact divided their regions and thwarted reform for so long.
Madam Chair,
Additional electable seats, on the basis of periodic elections and fixed rotation, will allow equal, fair and increased opportunity to all States to aspire for the Council's membership. It would also allow larger regions, such as Asia and Africa, to accommodate cross-regional and political groups, including the OIC, the Arab League, ASEAN, and the SIDS.
In a Council expanded to, lets say 26 members, it increases the ratio of non-permanent to permanent members from 2:1 to 5:1 - which can positively impact and enrich the Council's decision making process. We have also indicated our willingness to consider longer-term seats, under the same principles, for those who are willing to undertake extended responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security.
Madam Chair,
The objective of expansion is to respond to the concerns and aspirations of all, not just a few. To propose allocation of 4-6 seats permanently to that many countries, while handing over only 4-5 seats to the rest of the membership is not only poor mathematics but also poor logic, and even poorer rationale for a just and meaningful reform.
Let us now examine how expansion of the two categories impacts other key issues of reform.
If the Council has more elected members, its transparency, working methods and engagement with the wider membership will improve commensurately. Additional permanent members will have an opposite effect.
If the Council's paralysis on certain key issues reflects disagreements among the permanent members, as it was widely expressed in our last meeting on the Veto, it follows logically that more permanent and unaccountable Members, will diminish, not enhance, the Council's effectiveness. In contrast, more elected members are likely to enhance transparency and widen consultations, thus increasing the Council's efficiency and legitimacy.
Madam Chair,
The argument that new permanent members will counter the dominance of the existing permanent members is baseless. In political history, the principles of democracy have long-defeated the rationales for any benevolent plutocracy. As a philosopher famously said, "Virtue can only flourish among equals". Without a system of accountability, virtue can easily degenerate into lets say something other than virtue. And we, the Member States of the UN, are equal so long as we afford equal opportunity to each other.
Madam Chair,
I will now turn to the key issue of Regional Representation, which is essential to address the imbalance in the CouncilŐs composition, representative character and decision-making.
Regional representation, in its true form, means that countries occupying seats in the Council will represent the interests and positions of their regional groups.
Among the geographical regional groups, the African Group is the only one that unanimously seeks stronger representation on the Council on behalf of a geographical region. It also wants to determine its own representation on the Council and we can logically expect that those representing Africa will be guided by common positions, emanating from the African Union. There are other cross-regional groups, such as the OIC and the Arab league that seek adequate representation in the Council.
Pakistan believes that the best way to accommodate these legitimate regional and political aspirations is to enlarge the Council in the non-permanent category. This not only allows more countries from respective regions to serve on the Council but also affords space to work out rotation of seats among cross-regional groups. On the same logic, Pakistan also supported the Italy-Colombia proposal - the first formal proposal that allocated specific seat for small and medium states, which has had significant resonance in the IGN.
Madam Chair,
Additional and individual Permanent seats undermine regional representation in two fundamental respects:
First, by creating a mirage that a country unelected by and unaccountable to its region represents that region. I have already eexplained how permanent status is the antithesis of the concept of political representation and accountability; and
Second, any permanent seat from a region forecloses the opportunity for other Member States from that region to get elected to the Council.
It is clear that regional representation is the first and foremost victim of the flawed idea of additional permanent seats in the Council, unless the occupants of such seats are representing a region and are accountable to the Member States of that region. The African demand apparently falls in this exclusive area.
Madam Chair,
From a numerical perspective, in the non-permanent category, the membership from Africa, Asia, Latin America and Eastern European Group needs to be increased appropriately. However, there is no concept of regional representation in the permanent category. But even if we were to hypothetically consider it, is it even possible to have equitable regional representation in the permanent category? What will be the justification for additional permanent seat from WEOG? The answers to both questions are No, and No!
Madam Chair,
We hope that these arguments and questions we raised will direct this conversation towards a real outcome. We have wasted precious years, in fact decades, on this debate. The Council can be reformed. It will be reformed - the day the collective interest of ALL Member States prevails over the narrow self-interest of individual countries. We will continue to strive and hope for that day.
I thank you, Madam Chair.