STATEMENT BY MR. NIRUPAM SEN, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE, AT THE SEVENTH INFORMAL MEETING OF THE OPEN ENDED WORKING GROUP ON THE QUESTION OF EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION ON AND INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

ON MAY 3, 2007

Madam President,

At the outset I would like to sincerely thank you for initiating this process to move forward the UN Security Council reform agenda. I would also like to join others in appreciating the effort put in by the five facilitators in preparing their Report on their consultations on ‘The Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other matters related to the Security Council’.  At the outset also, let me thank the Permanent Representative of USA for supporting one of the G-4 and the Permanent Representative of France for supporting all the G-4.

All the Facilitators are friends and we have the greatest respect for them.  Any criticism is, therefore, not for the sake of criticism (even though the reform may sometimes appear to be for the sake of reform) but to understand the difficulties in order to clarify the way forward.  I can understand the predicament of the facilitators, baffled by a history of long debate without solution, therefore desperate to leave aside the impedimenta of relative weights of opinion on the one hand and internal logic on the other and map a trajectory based on their opinions alone.  However, this has led to problems which have to be recognized and corrected in order to move forward.  I am, therefore, offering an immanent critique, that is in terms of the internal logic of the Report itself. 

  First, it is not only a question of recognizing the realities of today but even of recognizing the totality and long term effect of the realities of 1945.  At that time, at least three of the P-5 spoke on behalf of and exercised the Veto for many countries other than themselves, countries that have since broken free.  It is well known that soldiers from the colonies contributed substantially to the victories of the World War II. Even then the anti-colonial movements were powerful and Mahatma Gandhi’s struggle, dynamically considered, shaped the course of the world - including anti-apartheid and anti-colonial struggles in Africa, the civil rights movement in USA, Solidarity in Poland, Charter 77 in then Czechoslovakia, to name a few.  A comprehensive reading of history, therefore, would have prevented the facilitators from emphasizing ‘the acquiescence by the current permanent members of the Council’ in terms of Article 108.  Article 108 is on ratification by P-5 legislatures which cannot be conflated with the views of P-5 PRs today.  This is also the lesson of 1963-64 reforms where some P-5 PRs were opposed but their legislatures subsequently ratified the reforms. Incidentally, in the last Section of the Annexure, on Working Methods, some of the P-5 state that working methods should be adopted by UNSC and not imposed by the GA. If the facilitators went by the logic that their acquiescence is required then the facilitators should not have said much on working methods at all. 

  In the Section on the Veto in the Annexure the P-5 are clearly stated to be not at all opposed to expansion of permanent membership and even, in some specific circumstances to the extension of the Veto.  But this acquiescence of the P-5 is not carried over into the Notions on the Way Forward. Again the Section on Categories of Membership, rather coyly, speaks of ‘a large group’ in favour of enlargement in both categories, ‘a group’ in favour of enlargement in non-permanent category and only ‘some’ in favour of an interim model.  Yet none of this, strangely enough, finds any reflection in the Notions on the Way Forward.  In short, these notions are simply notions and have no relation whatsoever to the logic of the Report and the Annexures.  The fourth notion was articulated by minority opinion representatives on December 11, 2005.  The second and third notions are simply variants of Model ‘B’ in Part 4 of the High Level Panel Report on Threats, Challenges and Change of December 2004.  Part 4 (page 81) states that Model ‘B’ ‘creates a new category of eight four-year renewable-term seats’.  This was also interim since it was subject to review in 2020. Even without any questionnaire, the different debates on the Security Council showed that there was never more than 1/3rd support for these ideas.  As against this, for expansion in both categories there was almost 2/3rd support.  It is certainly new in terms of logic to think that ideas that had less than 1/3rd support can now get universal support.  Since this is as old as December 2004, it is not the notion that is new but the use of the word ‘new’ that is new.  The idea itself is old hat and, not only old hat but a hat that the majority declined to wear. In terms of the logic of the Report and the Annexures, a logical, practical and fruitful basis for a negotiating text would have been to take the majority view and integrate into it the minority view in terms of, for instance, not just one review after fifteen years but periodical reviews thereafter at similar intervals. 

  It is precisely by not doing this that efficiency is seen only in terms of numbers rather than the optimal impact on decision-making of a new composition of permanent and non-permanent membership; that working methods are seen as a ‘continuous dynamic process’ in stark opposition to the historical fact that there has no implementation whatsoever of the April 1949 GA Resolution on Working Methods.  It is by not doing this that the argument is advanced in the Annexure on the size of an enlarged Security Council that expansion in the non-permanent category will rebalance power without giving the argument borne out of historical experience that it has not done so for the last sixty years - in respect of the problems of peace and security, access of small States and non-members to the Council bodies, participation in decision-making of TCCs (mandated even by the Charter), encroachment and the like. 

  In the Section on Working Methods the concern for small States fluctuates between rhetoric and magic: for these States improved working methods and better access as non Council Members is of ‘essential importance’.  Without new permanent members held accountable for ensuring this, so how would this be achieved? What can we say about using such an argument and remaining silent on such a sequel.  The opinion of the vast majority of NAM countries are ignored in this Section which states (incorrectly, in simple arithmetical terms), that ‘most’ felt that the issue of encroachment cannot be discussed in the context of UN Security Council reform. If this is so then we may mildly suggest that some part of the blame may attach to keeping out majority views from the Notions on the Way Forward. 

Madam President,

  On the slender basis of these Notions, what should be the way forward?  The facilitator’s Report has proposed ‘result-oriented negotiations’ (and not consultations) over which Member States should have ‘collective ownership’. Given that the Report is more than fair to minority views, it is inexplicable that some representatives of minority views are ready only for further consultations. The time now is for negotiations. We support that proposal as well as the suggestion that you designate a couple of Facilitators to prepare the negotiation process. It would be useful to follow a time-table by which the co-Facilitators would coordinate and present by the end of this month two or three alternate models, containing elements, so that the negotiations on them can commence during June 2007. We look forward to constructively engaging in such negotiations so as to secure meaningful and comprehensive Security Council reform at the earliest.

Thank you, Madam President.