INTERVENTION BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF PAKISTAN TO THE UNITED NATIONS BEFORE THE OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP ON THE QUESTION OF EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION ON AND INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND RELATED MATTERS ON 10 JUNE 1997.
Mr. Co-Vice Chairman,
I intend to address the many questions that have been raised by the circulation of CRP.8 on 29 May 1997 by the distinguished members of our Bureau. The parallel between this paper and the vision tabled by the Chairman himself on 20 March 1997 is rather striking. That paper too had created more problems than it offered solutions, and you will recollect that my delegation had specifically outlined a number of those consequential questions in serial form in my intervention before this Working Group on 20 March 1997. We were promised answers from the Chair, which we never got.
2. Following the debate in our Working Group, the Bureau was expected to prepare a consolidated paper containing all the proposals tabled or advanced by delegations on both Cluster I and Cluster II issues. This is the normal exercise that is carried out in any Working Group towards the end of every session. A similar exercise had been carried out at the end of the first session when the Group had asked the Bureau to update NAM's Cluster II paper of 10 March by preparing a new paper incorporating all the views expressed on the NAM paper. It was on the same lines that the Bureau had to prepare a new paper now, setting out the views expressed in the Working Group on both Clusters during the second session of the Working Group.
3. As against that, we have been graced with a "distillate", which was not asked for, and which is certainly not what is wanted or required in the Working Group at this stage of its proceedings. As it stands, therefore, this paper is not acceptable to us. Lest we be accused or misunderstood as being peremptory or negative, let me without going into substantive details explain some of the reasons why that is so.
4. Page 2 of CRP.8 is a mis-representation of the views expressed in the Working Group on the composition of the Security Council. Surprisingly, the proposals contained in paragraphs 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) of the Chairman's vision paper of 20 March have been reproduced almost intact on this page. This is despite the fact that we have had no in depth discussions on these proposals in the Working Group to date. We have merely heard some statements, some for, some against. If not in the Working Group itself, then in what dark corners of which dark forest has this so-called distillate been then prepared.
5. Paragraph 7 of CRP.8 is similarly a total reflection of the voting procedure and phased approach contained in the Chairman's vision paper. According to our recollection, these proposals have never been discussed in the Working Group either. Even the fundamental provisions of Article 108 of the Charter on voting procedures for Charter amendments have been arbitrarily modified in this paragraph. Any expansion of the Security Council, in whatever form, is a Charter amendment. Once again, on what basis, and where, and how, has this distillate been prepared.
6. In the enthusiasm to espouse the Chairman's vision, all the other proposals on the table have disappeared from the distillate, no Italy, no Mexico, no Turkey, no Tunisia, no NAM, no Africa, no Arab, no anybody else. Compare that sweeping elimination of the opinions of others, to the paragraph on the curtailment of the veto which treats the opinions of 180 countries at par with the opinions of the remaining 5.
7. More importantly, Part (A) of CRP.8 completely ignores the NAM position adopted by consensus at the ministerial meeting in New Delhi on 8 April 1997. As we all know these 113 NAM countries have a position both on the number, and on the distribution of seats regionwise, based on the principle of equitable geographical distribution. That number, for example, was, not less than 26. The figure of 24 which has crept into CRP.8 comes from the Chairman's personal vision, and has now been elevated to the same status as the figure put forward by 113 other member states. Neither the number nor the distribution now set out in Paragraphs 3 and 5 of CRP.8 thus reflect the views of the large number of member states which constitute the Non-Aligned Movement.
8. The clearly enunciated NAM position regarding the possible expansion in the non-permanent category alone has also been deliberately modified in Paragraph 6. That NAM position read as follows: If there is no agreement on other categories of membership, expansion should take place only, for the time being, in the non-permanent category. The mandatory "should" has been inexplicably converted into a weak and unauthorized "will be considered".
9. We also know that the 53 African countries meeting at Summit level in Harare have enunciated their position clearly and unambiguously. That entire demand has been relegated to the ignominy of an asterisk. Why, one might ask, is this large group of states being treated in this manner.
10. Another large group of 22 member states has been totally ignored. The Arab group position, clearly enunciated before this Working Group on 9 May 1997 surprisingly finds no place in the ingredients from which this distillate has been prepared.
11. Equally surprising is the selective distillation applied to the different parts of the two legs of this paper. While the authors have, for some mysterious reason, applied a vigorous distillation process to Cluster I issues, in the process completely by-passing the actual debate in the Working Group, no such commitment to distillation appears to be visible in Cluster II issues. As a result, the one leg which relates to Cluster I issues has been assigned just two and a half pages, mostly from the Chairman's vision paper, while the second leg on Cluster II issues is spread over sixteen and half pages. Obviously such a document can only develop a rather pronounced limp.
12. In all informal conversations that we have had with those involved in this distillation, members of the Bureau keep referring to their confessional meetings. Obviously, confessional meetings cannot form part of the record of this Working Group, unless the Bureau tables its findings in detailed tabulated form, member state by member states, so that we can all know the exact identity and exact position of each country supporting one proposal or the other.
13. So much for CRP.8, which we see as a document with no future at all, no more than the clandestine distillates produced in this country during the era of Prohibition. The question now is whether we can move forward beyond the dark age of confessionals and visions and distillates into the more normal procedures of the United Nations. This Working Group has had a long and laborious debate, with a wide diversity of views. It now needs to start working on the Report that it has to submit to the 52nd Session of the General Assembly. That Report is important, because the Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement have said that they would like to consider developments, if any, when they meet in New York sometime in October. The African Heads of State and Government who attended the Harare Summit have also decided that they would like their Foreign Ministers to re-visit the subject when they next meet.
14. What we need, therefore, is a fair and accurate report of the actual proceedings of this Working Group, to be drafted in accordance with the standard procedures of Working Groups of the General Assembly. My delegation would be happy to get down to work seriously on drafting that Report.
Thank you, Mr. Co-Vice Chairman.
