NAM Security Council Reform

Statement by Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin, Permanent Representative at an informal meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations

 

    Thank you for organizing this meeting with the aim of having an in-depth discussion on linkages between two issues, namely regional representation and size of an enlarged Security Council. We align ourselves with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of St. Vincent & the Grenadines on behalf of the L.69 and the Permanent Representative of Japan on behalf of the G-4. I want to highlight a few additional issues in my national capacity.


Co-chairs,


2.    The current meetings are crucial as we are at the mid-way stage of the IGN meetings you have scheduled for this year. At the last meeting, the letter by the L.69 demonstrating an overwhelming sentiment for progress has reinforced the objective of moving the process forward as did the emergence of the Group of Friends of reform earlier in the session. 


3.    These developments have stirred a slow-moving process. In this regard, we appreciate you bringing the 'Food for Thought' paper as a means of channelling discussions in a disciplined manner. We support your initiative. This is not because it reflects our thinking in substance, but because procedurally it captures elements expressed by several Member States and responds to a felt need for sharpening our focus. 


4.    In a Member State driven process, the call by Member States that the process needs to be normalized and all views collated, respected and reflected upon is something that can only be done through a document with a structure and outline. With positions listed and issues demarcated, we look forward to engaging in good faith and with an open mind when we discuss your submission tomorrow. 


Co-chairs,


5.    For today you have chosen topics that we have touched upon in the past. I, therefore, do not wish to repeat our positions as these are outlined in the Framework Document and statements delivered at the IGN and GA debates. 


6.    The fact that there are inter-linkages amongst each of the five key issues and that they hold varied but persistent significance is well known and long accepted.

 
7.    On regional representation, we are all well aware of the background and thrust for this request. A call from States from various regions for representation in a Council that is mandated to represent all states and regions is a cry of frustration and dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs. This call is made by some on the basis of historical injustice; by others because entire regions are not equitably represented or even unrepresented in a key category; and by yet others who hope to move beyond the nation-state as the primary actor on global issues. In all cases, it symbolises the belief that the system as it exists has failed the membership.


Co-chairs,


8.    Delving deeper into the matter of regional representation, we come across a variety of perspectives that vary from one region to another. For example, while States represent themselves, yet on the Council they act on behalf of the entire membership. This principle, while being the basis for functioning of the Security Council, is also a reflection of what are perceived imperfections of our current system where a large diversity and divergences of opinions and views exist between and within regions on many crucial issues. Clearly, we need to work with the imperfect systems we have. At the same time, we need to recognize that different regions may have different approaches to address this situation. 


9.    Africa, for example, has expressed a desire to have a regional approach to address the issues affecting that region. It has established region-wide mechanisms for consultation, cooperation and resolution. Other regions, for example the Asia-Pacific, may not move in that direction for a variety of entirely legitimate reasons. 


10.    We need to respect this diversity of perspectives and be open to examine all positions, including the approach of regions like Africa, who collectively ask for their uniqueness to be acknowledged.  If Africa wants a consultative arrangement of its own between an African representative and the rest of the region, that is its own choice and we need to respect that. Recognising unique circumstances that may require specific arrangements of a regional nature, however, needs to go along with the understanding that such arrangements, if required by a specific region, are supplemental in nature and do not supplant the Charter requirements.   


11.    Approval and agreement of a representative from a region by all Member States is a sine qua non at the UN.   All members of the Council act on behalf of all States and on all issues. They do not merely act on behalf of a specific region and are also not limited to action on issues of a region.   In essence, we stand ready to examine any supplemental arrangements that are offered by an established geographical region but do not think these can supplant the established process of equitable geographical distribution. It goes without saying that while we ought to be respectful to the unanimous desires of a region, we cannot replicate it elsewhere where such desire does not prevail. 


Co-chairs, 

 
12.    The size of a reformed Council is inextricably linked to both the need for equitable geographical distribution and a desire for all stakeholders to have a greater opportunity to participate in it. As the representative of Philippines has many a time articulated with figures, the increase in the number of states and population of the world, since the adoption of the Charter, has been more than three-fold. Yet, all expansion models have projected an increase that is less than that number. It reflects a willingness of all of us to be realistic. 


Co-chairs,


13.    The Council's size is a choice of all, for all, by all. It cannot be allowed to falter on the altar of difficulty in adaptation of current working methods. By definition, working methods adjust to changes in composition. We cannot stave off change for want of the provisional rules of procedure (which have proved flexible on so many counts) not being able to accommodate aspects of size. 


14.    Also, all of us have a preference on every issue and so is the case with size. However, working in the context of the General Assembly's mandate, we also accept the sovereign equality of States as the basis of decision making. Hence, at this stage, it is not helpful to the process to seek recourse to other than the principles that determine decision making arrangements in the General Assembly. We will have more to say in this regard tomorrow. For the present, I would end by saying that issues of linkages are complex. They need to be addressed as part of a negotiation process that has detailed proposals available on paper, not through general statements. The earlier we go down that path the greater are chances of clarity. Until then the scope of our discussion will remain limited. 
       

    Thank you.