UNITED NATIONS: Pakistan has firmly rejected a UN Security Council reform model proposed by the aspirants for permanent seats (India, Brazil, Germany and Japan), saying any expansion in the permanent category will compound the 15-member body paralysis, and prevent the majority of small and medium-sized states from serving on it.
The plan, presented on Thursday by India on behalf of the so-called Group of Four nations, proposes the council’s membership from 15 to 25-26, adding six permanent and four or five non-permanent members, while hinting at “flexibility” on the veto issue.
“As a member of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) Group, it is evident that our position has consistently opposed the issue of the creation of new permanent members,” Ambassador Munir Akram, permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN, told the long-running Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) aimed at restructuring the Security Council to make it most effective, representative and accountable.
On its part, the UfC group has proposed a new category of members — not permanent members — with longer duration in terms and a possibility to get re-elected.
Emphasizing that the two basic vectors for reform were expansion and equitable representation, Ambassador Akram said the G-4 model would direct the effort in the “opposite direction”, noting it would expand 6 new permanent seats, but only 5 new non-permanent seats– making the proportion of the members who are permanent versus those who are non-permanent even greater.
The Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform, which began in February 2009 have remained stalled. Despite a general agreement on enlarging the UNSC, as part of the UN reform process, member states have remained divided over details.
The UNSC currently has five permanent members – Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – and 10 non-permanent members elected for a two-year term.
“Today,” the Pakistani envoy pointed out, “the permanent members are 1 to 2 — 5 permanent members to 10 non-permanent members”– whereas in the G-4 model, in a 26-member council, the equation would be 1 to 1 — 11 permanent members to 14 or 13 non-permanent members,” reducing the proportionality between the two membership categories by half and lessen the chances of representation for the rest of the 182 countries who will not be permanent members on the Security Council.
“So, this is a major flaw and goes in the wrong direction of what is the purpose of Security Council reform,” he said, while giving a detailed presentation of UfC’s position and making a strong case for the rights of developing countries.
Equity and equitable representation in the Council, Ambassador Akram said, also implies that all the diversity in the UN membership is represented.
“Large and medium and small states, different geographies, different civilizations, the nature of various states and governance systems, and this too will be curbed and curtailed by the model that the G-4 has presented, because it is based on the presumption that there are certain states have a more equal right to be permanently on the Council than others.”
Expanding the Security Council by 6 permanent and 5 non-permanent seats, the Pakistani envoy said this would also reduce the possibilities of greater regional representation and greater equitable representation. “It will, first of all, strengthen and not contain the influence of the permanent members, but would also reduce the equity that we already have.”
In Asia, 26 of 54 countries compete for one seat, he said, adding that In the UfC model, the chances of Asian countries to compete for non-permanent seats would double — one seat for 13 members.
“In the G-4 model, it would be reduced to say 1 to 15,” Ambassador Akram said, calling it a “bad deed.”
“Regional seats are also imbalanced in the G-4 model. In that model the Asian, the African group would have 6 or 7 Asian groups would have 6.”
Even the distribution of the permanent seats in the G-4 model is unequal, giving 2 permanent seats to Africa, 3 permanent seats to Asia, and 4 permanent seats to the Western European group, Ambassador Akram said.
He expressed doubts whether the Council’s permanent-5 would allow that permanent membership to be open, noting that even if they did, veto power will not be give to additional permanent members.
“So,” he said, “equity is going to be sacrificed because, in the G-4 model, we are presented with this ingenuous offer of suspending the veto for the new permanent members for 14 or 15 years until we have a review.
“I can say with confidence that this will be in oblivion. And the new permanent members will get zero in terms of veto rights if this is what is accepted”.
Referring to G-4’s argument that the new permanent members will be elected by the General Assembly,” Ambassador Akram posed the question: In which democracy does an election take place for a permanent office? That only happens in kingdoms and dictatorships. No democracy elects someone to office permanently. This would defeat the very fundamental principles of democracy.
Emphasizing that the election is held periodically in order to ensure accountability, he said “if you elect these 5 or 6 new permanent members permanently, they would have no accountability.”
“This reform process was not designed to promote the individual national ambitions of any state,” the Pakistani envoy told delegates.
“When we name countries that should become permanent members, we see some declarations which say well, so and so should be permanent members. Who has given the authority to any member of the United Nations to propose who should be a permanent member?
“That authority should come in a democratic process, but that democratic process cannot be a process which elects people permanently and imposes a new dictatorship on the general membership of the Council, ” he added.
Dealing with objective criteria by which a member would qualify for permanent membership, he asked is its size, its contribution to peace and security?
Noting that two wars — in Ukraine and Gaza– were going on, Ambassador Akram asked, “What is the contribution of the members of the G-4 to allaying these wars?
“In Ukraine, it was a member of the OIC — Saudi Arabia — which made the greatest contribution to trying to promote peace. We haven’t seen any contributions from the 4.
“In Gaza, if you see the voting record, which are the countries who have opposed the plausible genocide that is taking place, and who are those who voted the other way? Who are those that are sending arms to the aggressor in Gaza? What is their contribution to peace and security?
How will the G-4 model accommodate cross-regional groups — SIDS (Small Island Developing States) , the OIC, the Arab group –and respond to their demands, he asked. “It can only be done in two ways, either we create the non-permanent seats in large numbers, or we create regional seats, as the Africans have proposed.
“And we transform some of the permanent seats for Europe into a regional EU seat. And similarly, for Asia, we create an Asian seat selected by Asia.”
Pointing out that the G-4 model does not offer those solutions, Ambassador Akram posed the question, “Is the G-4 ready for a dialogue on how we could accommodate these cross-regional aspirations of the Arab and the OIC countries and of the African group together in one model, that could be revised, and we would be prepared to enter into such a dialogue?”
