Mr. President, The Pakistan delegation subscribes to the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy. 2. Pakistan welcomes this annual General Assembly debate on the reform of the Security Council. Today, the principles of the UN Charter and structures built 77 years ago under its framework are under extreme stress due to revived great power rivalry and competition. We must preserve these principles and the structure of constructive and cooperative multilateralism. The reform of the Security Council, and revitalization of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, must be an integral part of the process of reinforcing and reviving such multilateralism. 3. The General Assembly has agreed – repeatedly – that the Security Council needs to be reformed through its expansion on the basis of equitable geographic representation. We need a more representative, democratic, transparent, effective and accountable Security Council. 4. The reform of the Security Council involves the vital national interest of each and every Member State. That is why the Assembly decided in Resolution 53/30 that any decision relating to Security Council reform will be adopted by a two-thirds majority of all Member States. It takes time, goodwill and mutual accommodation on the part of all Member States to achieve the wide majority of support that is essential for such a vital decision which will entail a revision of the UN Charter. 5. Our inability to reach agreement is not due to any shortcomings in the reform process. It is due to the refusal of a few countries to display any flexibility or willingness to accommodate the interests and views of other Member States. 6. Unfortunately, consensus on Security Council reform has been impeded, from the outset, by the demand of four countries that they be selected as new permanent members in an expanded Security Council. Their demand violates the principle of sovereign equality of States; it ignores the reality that permanent membership and the veto are often the cause of the Council’s inaction. The problem cannot be offered as the solution. 7. On the other hand, the UfC has evolved a proposal for Security Council reform which is based on an objective analysis and equitable accommodation of the interests of all Member States and regions. We are convinced that it is the best basis for consensus on Security Council reform. Mr. President, 8. The IGN process was agreed by consensus in decision 62/557. It is a member driven process. It has served us well. Through this process, we have progressively enlarged the areas of convergence and reduced the areas of divergence. 9. The UfC welcomed the Common Elements paper of formulated by the previous Co-Chairs. Once again, we would like to thank them for their efforts and contribution. The Common Elements paper reflected their understanding of the areas of convergence and divergence at present. It is a useful modality to reflect our negotiations. It is the very informality of the Elements paper which enables the reflection of progress. Any attempt to formalize it will prove counterproductive. Mr. President, 10. We also welcome your appointment of the new Co-Chairs, the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Slovakia – two respected and experienced colleagues. We offer them our full support and cooperation. 11. To achieve agreement on reform, it is essential to address the continuing divergences on key issues under the 5 Clusters, which are all interlinked. Significant differences still exist on: One, the size of an expanded Council with proposals ranging from 21 to 27; Two, the categories of membership. At least 9 different “categories” of membership have been put forward; Three, the veto. At least 4 different options have been proposed, from abolition to expansion of the veto; Four, both the UfC and the African group have proposed a regional “model” for representation on the Security Council. This could be applied to other regions as well; Five, on the Council’s working methods, there has been the greatest progress towards convergence. 12. The UfC proposes that when it commences next year, the IGN should devote one dedicated meeting to consider each of the 5 Clusters with a view to addressing and, if possible, reconciling the differences on the key issues under each Cluster. The progress made could be reflected in an updated Elements paper prepared by the Co-Chairs. 13. Any precipitate to move to resort to so-called Text Based Negotiations before we have developed agreements, at least in principle, on the key divergences will “lock in” different national and group positions, sharpen the differences, reverse the progress we have made, and ultimately lead to a breakdown in the IGN process. To compile texts is easy; to reach agreements on what an ultimate Charter amendment should contain is the real challenge. Such a process of “give and take” can be best pursued in informal settings and negotiations. Mr. President, 14. The UfC’s position on all the key issues is clear, rational, reasonable and flexible. 15. We have proposed that the size of an expanded Council should be 26 with the additional seats distributed proportionally among the 5 regions, as outlined by the Permanent Representative of Italy. 16. On categories, it is our view that expansion should take place only in the category of elected non-permanent members, consistent with the existing provisions of the UN Charter. Each region could, however, be allocated some longer-term seats, or seats against which immediate re-election is possible. In addition, the small States and SIDs should be allocated one floating seat, in addition to their ability to contest for the other regional seats. 17. We sympathize with the position of Africa as set out in the Ezulwini Consensus to redress the “historic injustices” against Africa. Their desire for two “permanent” seats for Africa is very different from the demand of certain countries to secure permanent membership for themselves rather than their respective regions. 18. According to these four countries, their permanent membership will serve to reflect “contemporary world realities”. First, “current realities” are not permanent realities. Realities change. If the Security Council were to be constituted today, at least two of its permanent members would not be accorded their present privileged status. Likewise, 5, 10 or 20 years hence, those who believe they are qualified for permanent membership may be overtaken in power, economic size and influence by other States. The only certain way to reflect “contemporary world realities” at any given moment in history is through the democratic method of periodic elections of Security Council members by the General Assembly on whose behalf the Security Council acts. Periodic elections will also ensure the “accountability” of States which are elected to serve on the Council. 19. The only criteria for Security Council membership set out in the UN Charter is for the election of non-permanent members. Article 23 states that in electing non-permanent members “due regard” will be paid “in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization”. The four seeking permanent membership have not really distinguished themselves by their contributions to peace and security in the “contemporary world”. 20. In the current war in Ukraine, apart from the parties directly involved, the State which has contributed the most to promoting a peaceful solution is Turkey. In the Afghanistan conflict, apart from the parties directly concerned, the country which made the most significant contributions to peace and dialogue, and in addressing the humanitarian fallout, is Pakistan. On Myanmar, it is the ASEAN countries; on the Rohingyas’ plight, it is Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the OIC and the EU; in the Sahara, the brunt of the responsibility rests now with the regional African States and the UN. The four are largely “missing in action”. 21. Contemporary global realities are complex. Constructive contributions to peace and security in recent times have been made mostly by the directly concerned regional States, in Europe, Asia, the Middle East or elsewhere. The interventions of external major powers in regional conflicts – in the Middle East, North Africa or elsewhere – have mostly contributed to exacerbating violence, suffering and instability. Four new permanent Council members, seeking to flex their muscle globally, is a recipe for further insecurity and instability. 22. For the purposes of equitable representation on the Security Council, the most important “contemporary reality” today is that the UN’s membership is constituted of 193 mostly small and medium-sized States. Their interests must be adequately represented in the Security Council and all other UN organs. If four or six of the additional seats on the Council are occupied by new “permanent” members, it will deny the chance for representation to the other 182 Member States. The proposal of the UfC seeks to accommodate the wide and varied interests of the UN membership to the greatest degree possible through the democratic method of periodic elections. A Council composed on the basis of periodic elections would consistently and permanently reflect “contemporary global realities”. 23. Some permanent members of the Security Council have taken it upon themselves to nominate others – from other regions – for permanent membership of the Security Council. Their nominees are their present or putative military “allies”. If such nominations are accepted, Security Council reform will become an extension of the efforts to build new power blocs and alliances. Such a “reformed” Council will be – even more – the stage for global power politics rather than conflict resolution. 24. I believe almost all here – except the P-5 – could agree that the creation of the institution of 5 veto-wielding permanent members was a critical, if not fatal, flaw in the UN Charter. It has often paralyzed the Council. Should we then compound the mistake and create additional permanent members? Will the Council function more effectively with 9 or 11 vetoes than it does with 5? And, indeed, if the issue of permanent members is re-opened, we will then, logically, have to reconsider the “original sin”. In the light of “contemporary global realities”, do all the 5 permanent members deserve to retain their privileged position? For example, in most major negotiations, the European position is articulated and negotiated by the EU. Would it not be appropriate to replace the 2 European permanent members by a EU representative? This would better reflect the regional interests of Europe and “contemporary global realities”. 25. Besides equitable regional representation and capacity to contribute to peace and security, there is one additional criteria, which is relevant for a State’s qualification for any form of membership of the Security Council i.e. its consistent adherence to Article 25 of the UN Charter under Article 25, “Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter”. One of the four States seeking permanent membership has repeatedly refused to declare that it is committed to implement the resolutions of the Security Council. Indeed, it has – through force and fraud – prevented, for 75 years, the implementation of the Security Council resolutions demanding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. Instead, it has embarked on a campaign of massive oppression and human rights violations to deny the recognized right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self-determination. Mr. President, 26. My delegation will participate constructively in the resumed IGN process and work assiduously with the Co-Chairs to promote greater convergence and reduce divergence on Security Council reform. We would caution against any arbitrary changes in the IGN process. It is only through patient diplomacy and mutual accommodation that we will reach the goal of consensus on an equitable and effective reform of the Security Council. I thank you.
PREVIOUS NEXT
