NAM Security Council Reform

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

 

 

Co-Chairs,
 

Thank you for organizing this meeting and for providing a revised version of the Food for Thought paper.

 

My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the distinguished representative of St Vincent & Grenadines on behalf of the L.69 & the Permanent Representative of Brazil on behalf of the G-4.

 

Your initiative has invigorated delegations to start focusing their responses on the topics listed for today in terms of elements outlined in your paper, even though views on the entire document are scheduled to be articulated tomorrow.

 

This confirms our understanding that a document brings focus to discussions and stimulates progress. We, therefore, appreciate the process that you have adopted.

 

Now for our views on the substantive issues you have raised for consideration today.

 

Co-Chairs,

 

We are not in favor of the introduction of any categories which have been examined and discarded in the past. Options whose sell by date has long been over and are now being repackaged as new offerings are unacceptable.

 

The unrepresented and underrepresented want parity. Offering them comfort in terms of length of serving on the Council is inadequate. These options neither reflect the new political realities nor address the crisis of legitimacy that confronts the United Nations Security Council.

 

We have heard just a while earlier the distinguished Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group offer two options.  One only focused on expansion of 2 year non-permanent seats and the other on introduction of a new category of longer term members who can be re-elected.  In the interests of interactivity can it be clarified, for example, how is Africa's quest for being represented in the permanent category  satisfied by giving longer term representation through a new category? African states already are represented in the non-permanent category on a continuing basis. Are they to be perpetually satisfied with serving longer terms and not breaking through the barrier of being unrepresented in the permanent category? Is a new category a new glass ceiling that will now stand in their way?

 

On the other hand, African states have been innovative. They have articulated their aspiration by providing an inter-linkage between the issue of categories and regional representation. Their desires need to be respected just as the desires of others who do not wish to opt for such arrangements.

 

There are also other calls for representation, such as that from the SIDS, which have been made beyond the traditional understanding of regional groups. The Arab States are formulating their responses taking into account that they too straddle different regional groups.

 

In this context, we find the reference in the recent version of the Food for Thought paper about principles in the Commonalities Section on Regional Representation [Section I 6(c), page 2] inexplicable. Can we be informed of when there was agreement on these listed principles relating to regional representation? As far as we know, no GA decision has referred to these in the way mentioned in your submission. Are we planning to have conditions listed on the basis of which Africa will be represented in the permanent category? Similarly, are we to start measuring the SIDS aspiration for representation on the basis of some unclear set of principles? We must not create an impression that conditions are being put on any aspect of the process and especially on any form of representation, ahead of even negotiations on a text.

 

Similarly, the issue of size of the Council is already referred to in the elements paper prepared by your illustrious predecessor and consensually accepted by all of us. Why then are we raising issues midway through this process on already agreed elements?

 

The various queries [Section II 3, page 3] made regarding size of the Council and working methods in the Food for Thought paper are disconcerting. In the process that is underway, we need to build on what is already in place, without taking away from what has been built already.

 

This should not happen unless we are in a new situation i.e. negotiations with a text, where of course as many things as wished by member states can be opened up as we are all aware that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

 

Co-Chairs,

 

We believe that all our positions can find a place in this paper or any other document/text without feeling the urge to undermine each other. Your stewardship of this process will be crucial to ensure that this happens. We stand ready to assist you in any way possible and in creating such a document on the basis of the discussions.