Pakistan dismisses UNSC reform plan as “flawed”

Pakistan has vehemently disagreed with a proposed UN Security Council reform model put forth by the countries vying for permanent seats (India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan). It claims that any growth in the permanent category will exacerbate the paralysis of the 15-member body and bar most small and medium-sized governments from serving on it.

The proposal, which was made on Thursday by India on behalf of the so-called Group of Four countries, suggests increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members on the council from 15 to 25–26. It also makes a suggestion about “flexibility” with regard to the veto problem.

The permanent representative of Pakistan to the UN, Ambassador Munir Akram, told the ongoing Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) at the UN that their position has consistently opposed the issue of the creation of new permanent members. The goal of the IGN is to restructure the Security Council to make it as accountable, representative, and effective as possible.

The UfC group has put up a new membership category that is not permanent but has extended term limits and the ability to be re-elected.

Ambassador Akram emphasized that expansion and equitable representation were the two fundamental reform vectors. He said that the G-4 model would focus the effort in the “opposite direction,” adding that it would add six new permanent seats but only five new non-permanent seats, increasing the ratio of permanent to non-permanent members.

Since they started in February 2009, the intergovernmental negotiations to overhaul the Security Council have not progressed. Member states have not reached a consensus on specifics of the UN reform process, despite a general consensus on expanding the UNSC.

Currently, the UNSC is made up of ten non-permanent members chosen for two-year terms and five permanent members: the United States, Britain, China, France, and Russia.

In the G-4 model, in a 26-member council, the equation would be 1 to 1 — 11 permanent members to 14 or 13 non-permanent members. This would reduce the proportionality between the two membership categories by half and lessen the chances of representation for the remaining 182 countries that will not be permanent members on the Security Council. This is what the Pakistani envoy pointed out.

He presented the UfC’s viewpoint in detail and made a compelling case for the rights of developing nations before saying, “So, this is a major flaw and goes in the wrong direction of what is the purpose of Security Council reform.”

According to Ambassador Akram, fairness and equal representation in the Council also imply that all forms of diversity within the UN membership are represented.

“The model that the G-4 has presented will curtail and limit the rights of large, medium, and small states, as well as different geographies, civilizations, and the nature of various states and governance systems. This is because the model is predicated on the idea that certain states have a more equal right to be on the Council permanently than others.”

The Pakistani ambassador stated that increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members on the Security Council would also lessen the likelihood of increased regional and fair representation. “It would diminish our current equity while simultaneously strengthening the influence of the permanent members and not containing it.”

According to him, 26 out of 54 Asian nations compete for a single seat. He also indicated that under the UfC model, the number of Asian nations seeking non-permanent seats will treble, with 13 members competing for a single seat.

“It would be reduced to say 1 to 15 in the G-4 model,” Ambassador Akram said, labeling it a “bad deed.”

The G-4 model has uneven regional seating as well. According to such paradigm, there would be six Asian groupings and seven African groups.

According to Ambassador Akram, even the distribution of the permanent seats in the G-4 model is unfair, with two going to Africa, three to Asia, and four to the Western European group.

He doubted that the permanent-5 members of the Council would permit that permanent membership to be available, pointing out that even in the event that they did, veto power would not be granted to new permanent members.

Therefore, he stated, “equity will be sacrificed because the G-4 model offers us this clever solution of delaying the new permanent members’ veto for 14 or 15 years until we have a review.”

With certainty, I can state that this will be forgotten. And should this be approved, the new permanent members will have no veto power.

Ambassador Akram said, “In which democracy does an election for a permanent office take place?” in response to G-4’s claim that the General Assembly will choose the new permanent members. Only in dictatorships and kingdoms does that occur. In a democracy, no one is elected to a permanent position. The core tenets of democracy would be undermined by this.

“If you elect these 5 or 6 new permanent members permanently, they would have no accountability,” he stated, highlighting the fact that elections are done on a regular basis to provide accountability.

The Pakistani ambassador informed delegates, “This reform process was not designed to promote the individual national ambitions of any state.”

There are pronouncements that state, “Well, so and so should be permanent members,” when we list the nations that ought to be permanent members. Who has granted any UN member the power to suggest candidates for permanent membership?

“That power ought to arise through a democratic process, but that democratic process cannot be one that establishes a new dictatorship on the Council’s general membership and permanently elects individuals,” he continued.

He questioned, “Is its size, its contribution to peace and security?” about the objective standards by which a member would be eligible for permanent membership.

Ambassador Akram said that there were two active hostilities, one in Gaza and the other in Ukraine. “What is the contribution of the members of the G-4 to allaying these wars?” he inquired.

It was Saudi Arabia, an OIC member, that made the most effort to advance peace efforts in Ukraine. The four have not yet made any contributions.

“Looking at the voting record in Gaza, which nations have supported the likely genocide occurring there, and which ones have cast their votes against it? Who are the people providing the aggressor in Gaza with weapons? How do they contribute to security and peace?

He questioned how the G-4 model would take into account and address the aspirations of cross-regional groups like the OIC, the Arab group, and SIDS (Small Island Developing States). There are just two options available: either we generate a significant number of non-permanent seats or, as suggested by the Africans, we create regional seats.

Additionally, we convert a few of Europe’s permanent seats into regional EU seats. Likewise, we designate an Asian seat chosen by Asia for Asia.

“Is the G-4 ready for a dialogue on how we could accommodate these cross-regional aspirations of the Arab and the OIC countries and of the African group together in one model, that could be revised, and we would be prepared to enter into such a dialogue?” Ambassador Akram asked, pointing out that the G-4 model does not offer those solutions.