Permanent Representative of Malaysia
"Towards Permanent Regional Representation"
Working Group on the Security Council
New York City
28 February 1996
Mr. Chairman,
As this is the first formal intervention by my delegation, let me begin by welcoming the Thai Permanent Representative as one of the two co-Vice-Chairman of this Working Group. I have no doubt that like his distinguished predecessor he would provide effective leadership to our Working Group.
I wish to congratulate the President of the General Assembly, and the two co-vice-chairmen for Document A/AC.247/7 of 16 February 1996 regarding the Draft Programme of Work. I believe the contents in the document reflects the attempt by the Bureau at synthesizing the various inputs from delegations. It is no easy task but despite differing points of views, my delegation would like the Bureau to persist and where necessary take bold steps to catalyze ideas and positions even if there will be opposition.
Those of us who attended the meetings of this Group at the beginning of this month (Feb 1 & 2) would recall how difficult, if not divisive, the discussions were, even when we were ostensibly looking only at organisational issues. My delegation would like to see movement, though without having to be rushed. As NAM has maintained, 'no quick-fix solution,' will be accepted.
We also believe that 2a in Document A/AC.247/7 (i.e."proposals on rotation or shared seats, including Article 23.2 of the Charter") deserves consideration in this Working Group. While it is true that in the last two years, much has been said, I am of the view that not all have been said either. Hence the need for us to elaborate and clarify certain issues, even if positions seem entrenched.
What are the seemingly entrenched position? Briefly it could be summarized as follows:
One, those who believe that the expansion of the permanent membership is the raison d'etre of this Working Group. An expansion of this category would resolve all other related issues. So much has been heard of this position.
Two, those who are opposed to permanent membership and believe that the question of equitable representation and indeed the legitimacy of the Council could be resolved by expanding the non- permanent membership and making the Council accountable to the larger membership including through its transparent working methods. This position too has been well articulated.
Then Third, those who believe that expansion should include both permanent and non-permanent and improvement of the Council's working methods, including in the application and utilization of the veto. In the light of the entrenched separate positions of the above two, the 3rd position as a composite package of reforming the Security Council in all necessary aspects has not been given its proper due and also many small countries are feeling that their views and needs in the context of Security Council reforms are not being highlighted enough.
I could make further categorization, but I will stop with the three, as in my mind, that is where we are today, two years after the establishment of this Working Group, notwithstanding the fact that this agenda item has remained on the General Assembly agenda for more than 13 years. Seriously we are looking at an impasse that will bring joy only to those that oppose reform of the Security Council.
It is because we are far from consensus, that I welcome the decision of the Bureau to engage delegations in further discussions and consultations. I do not share the view that the UN suffers from a bad press because we have not resolved expeditiously the issues covered in this Working Group. UN's problems are far more fundamental, including the need for member states not to violate its Charter provisions, such as on the issue of mandatory contribution. And the issue of reform of the Security Council provides us an opportunity to establish a framework which is equitable and yet which accommodates the realities of the day.
The realities of the day cannot be reduced to an addition of one or two members primarily on power consideration, be it military, economic, land or population. The reality to me is also that the derivatives of the power of the FIVE as provided for under the Charter cannot be removed, unless they consent. And the reality is they would not consent. We are faced with a hierarchial world even after 50 years of the UN's inception but not even those countries in the higher echelons of a hierarchial world structure can ignore the sweep of changes that are being brought about; and these have to take place in the Security Council.
In addressing those changes, one has to recognize diverse and accelerating developments towards identifiable growth poles revolving around regions. The point can be made that emphasis given to the power, rights and accouterments of the nation state can prove to be barriers to effecting real change and reform in mechanisms like the Security Council whose actions have a global reach and implications. Entrenched positions I referred to reflect very much responses of individual states not to be less than any other. The concept of regionalism was recognised even in 1945 as reflected in the appreciation shown for regional organisation in Chapter VIII of the Charter. Countries within regions are becoming linked no longer by the quirks of history and geography, but by an increasing awareness to cooperate and collaborate in the common cause of improving the lot of their people. Regional organisations have taken root; some indeed have blossomed. Regionalism has developed as it serves the interest of all, the big, the small, the weak and the strong.
At the political/security level, regionalism has helped boost confidence and blunt the sharp edges of suspicions and bilateral conflict. Given the role that regionalism plays in interstate relations, we must benefit from this development, as we consciously veer away from inter state power politics and asymmetries of power which has long-dogged us. Power politics continues to be the bane of international peace and security. Regionalism contributes towards international peace and security. Regionalism's role in global security cannot be ignored nor minimized.
Mr. Chairman,
Given the important role of regionalism, Malaysia has been favourably disposed towards a form of regional representation in the Council, rather than representation based solely on the so-called power which individual countries wield. We do believe that permanent regional representation is the only way to move on the issue of permanent membership. Given the rocklike position of those for permanent membership expansion and the equally strong opposition by those deadly against, an elaboration and acceptance of permanent regional membership may be the only way out. It would also bring regions into a position to bear more the burden of added financial responsibilities, troop contribution and of adhering as a group to universal criteria suitable and expected of, for the full discharge of all responsibilities of the Security Council.
My delegation is further inclined towards thinking that in the event reform of the Security Council can only be done without additional permanent seats, that too can only be satisfactorily and fully accepted by recourse to a regional mechanism.
A form of regional representation has been elaborated by Zimbabwe which has talked of two permanent seats to Africa, and that the seat would be rotated among its members. There are other permutations which some of our own colleagues have worked out, including my distinguished colleague from Belize.
The Zimbabwean proposal can be further developed that takes into account not merely physical rotation but other considerations, one worked out by the regions responding as a region to global responsibilities as contained in the Charter. The essential considerations are indeed reflected in Article 23.1 of the Charter dealing with the requirements/criteria of membership. In defining the requirements of serving in the Council, the regional members may have to accede to the prospects of some members serving more often than the others, but the collective interest will determine how a country would be selected. Also a region would be in a position to reflect on country's qualifications in terms of adherence to universal standards.
In relation to the VETO, does permanent seat imply veto as well? Justice is not served by the veto; the veto serves power needs of states. In a situation where the application of the veto has been defined, the veto should be accorded to those representing regions so as to provide a sense of parity vis-a-vis the P5. My delegation looks forward to elaborating our position on the veto as and when this Group considers that issue.
Mr. Chairman,
I would also like to share my views on the issues discussed earlier, namely on Cluster II issues dealing with the relationship of the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as the relationship between the General Assembly and the other principal organs.
In order to be brief, let me associate myself with the specific observations and proposals which my colleagues from NAM including Egypt, Colombia, Philippines, Pakistan and Singapore made on these issues. My delegation calls on the P5 to be more forthcoming to the proposals of the rest of the membership for the Council to become more transparent and to improve its working methods. These issues are central to the work of this Group.
If indeed changes have been made and implemented now as claimed by some permanent members, why do they resist proposals to institutionalize these changes? These changes must be incorporated into the provisional Rules of Procedure. In addition it is more than timely that the Council adopt the Rules of Procedure, as opposed to the provisional one.
I also wish to underline the importance of implementing Articles 31 and 32. Its necessity has been made amply clear not only where bilateral conflicts which threaten international peace and security arise, but when one party to the conflict is a sitting member of the Council, while the other is not. Basic laws of national justice demands that both parties to a conflict be heard in equal measure before judgment is passed.
It is equally important that the Council ensure that requests for a debate be attended to immediately from non-members of the Security Council. The debate should be convened within 24 hours of the request. Justice is not served, indeed it is denied when procedural recourses are applied when members seek to at least pronounce themselves on urgent developments which threaten international peace and security.
I thank you.
