Trusteeship Council Chamber

Pakistan’s position on Security Council reform is well known. In this forum we have elaborated and detailed our ideas on all five key issues of reform. And we will continue to do so in this year’s IGN as well.

We stand for a reformed Council that is more democratic, representative, accountable, transparent and effective. The Council’s expansion is a necessity but its expansion must allow equal and equitable opportunity to all Member States to get elected. Upholding this basic principle of UN membership is the key to making progress on reform.

The goal set by General Assembly Decision 62/557, which created the IGN process, was to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council on five equally important and interlinked issues, seeking a solution that could enjoy the “widest possible political acceptance”.

This decision also provided that the basis of negotiations would be the “proposals and positions of Member States and negotiating groups.” Through out the course of this IGN’s history, Pakistan repeatedly asked a series of clear and fundamental questions. Let me mention four of these.

• How would additional permanent seats add to or ensure the Council’s accountability?
• How would permanent seats enhance the Council’s representative character?
• How will the addition of new permanent members, veto-wielding or otherwise, add to the Council’s effectiveness?
• What would be the impact of additional permanent seats on the Council’s working methods, decision-making, transparency, and its relationship with the GA?

We never received a satisfactory reply from the countries that have been campaigning for a permanent status for themselves for decades. We know why though. Because answering these questions would expose the fallacy of their positions and undermine their mirage of “majority”.

This is why these countries call for texts or draft papers by others so that they can deflect and obfuscate substantive questioning of their position. They want to hide behind others’ texts because any focus on their comprehensive position uncovers and exposes the nature of artificial convergences on which their so-called “majority” rests. Naturally then, they seek procedural shortcuts rather than engage in genuine efforts to bridge divergent positions and find common ground.

In the critical area of political governance, the concepts of representation and accountability epitomize the essence of what humanity has learnt from centuries of history and experience. In the 21st century it is inconceivable to establish or run an institution – national or international – which does not embrace the fundamental principles of representation and accountability. But here we are – gridlocked in reforming the Security Council because some among us want a status that defies the basic norms of democratic representation and accountability.

It is apparent that the countries demanding a permanent seat for themselves on the Security Council have been unable to justify their demand on the grounds of principle, logic or reason. Yet they continue to push their demand, believing that they can wrest advantage through power politics.

But the two-decade old deadlock has made it amply clear that these countries also do not have the capability to dictate their terms to the wider membership.

What is, however, incomprehensible to us is their inability to understand, much less acknowledge, these simple facts for over twenty years. In this process, what is unfortunate is the consequence of this stance for the wider membership, whose genuine demand for equitable representation in the Security Council continues to be retarded and jeopardized.

The entire case for additional permanent seats is anchored in power politics. We have often heard that the Council should “reflect the realities of the 21st century” to enhance its legitimacy. Taken at face value, there is little to disagree with this. But then some use this disingenuously as an argument to further their self-proclaimed candidacies for permanent seats based on contentious criteria for qualification.

Their claim however does not stand the test of accuracy because many States compete with them and even surpass them in all such criteria. Moreover the criteria they lay out for permanent seats is exactly the same as provided in the UN Charter for the non-permanent seats. So, if the criteria is the same, why the difference in character and responsibility?

Perhaps nothing negates the argument for permanent seats as persuasively as the process of reform itself. Reform reflects our collective desire to adapt to a changing environment. But how can a fixed solution, such as a permanent seat, be an answer to an ever-changing global reality?

We all know that compromise and flexibility are essential to successful multilateral negotiations. The same is true for the IGN on Security Council reform.

For its part, the UfC has twice revised its proposal in a genuine spirit of compromise to find a solution that works for all. As for others, we can only hope. But we should remain under no doubt that fixed positions and rigidity will keep this process stalled and deadlocked. Had there been flexibility in the unjustified demand for permanent seats, many Member States would already have played a positive role in the Security Council. Together we would have contributed to international peace and security at a pivotal moment in world history, when challenges abound but so do opportunities.