India, backed by a large number of UN member states, has firmly rejected the suggestion that the 15-strong Security Council be expanded only in the non-permanent category with a provision for review after 10 years, seeking increase in membership in both segments.
The member states made known their strong opposition to the proposal contained in the report of the task force comprising representatives of Bangladesh, Chile, Djibouti and Portugal during a debate on the document in the Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Tuesday.
The task force was appointed by UN General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim.
Describing it just a tactic to scuttle real reform of the Council, they asked what would change in 10 years that would make taking a decision easier then. The interests of the states are not likely to change much during next 10 years, they asserted and called for confronting the issue right now rather than deferring the decision.
Rebutting the argument that the draft being prepared by some 30 nations including India would hinder the reforms, Indian UN Ambassador Nirupam Sen warned that if a decision taken to start inter-governmental negotiations cannot be implemented by consensus, then clearly it would have to be implemented by alternative means.
Sen did not amplify what the alternative means could be but diplomats says it could mean bringing a resolution in the General Assembly for expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories.
Replying to a question as to how the draft would play out, a spokesman of the General Assembly President told reporters he was aware of the move and if the member states preparing it feel they have two-thirds majority, they could move it in the 192-member Assembly. That's how system works.
But the countries which have taken the initiative say that their move is only aimed at preparing a consensus document to start inter-governmental negotiations but do not rule out the possibility of taking the issue to the Assembly.
OEWG has been discussing the issue since 1994 without reaching any conclusion. The difference between the two processes is that while OWEG only tries to build consensus, in the inter-governmental negotiations, specific proposals are discussed and there could be give and take.
However, the spokesman did say that Kerim opine that there is growing recognition of the possibility of pursuing an intermediary approach as the highest common denominator option at this stage of the Council reforms process, a contention that India and a majority of member states reject.
Intermediary approach is euphemism for expansion in non- permanent category only with a provision for review after 10 years. But he also agreed that ultimately, it would depend on member states.
During the discussion, Sen, who has been playing a significant role behind the scene, told the OEWG that all regions want expansion in both categories.
So much so that when the recommendations of the task force became known, the Arab Group shot out a letter to Kerim that the task force does not incorporate its views on the Council expansion and put on record the necessity to guarantee a permanent representation to it in any reform process.
Without naming Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram who strongly opposes the expansion in the permanent category, Sen chided him for ignoring the communique of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) which speaks of representation in all categories which "logically includes permanent category."
"He has to decide whether he belongs of UFC or OIC," he remarked.
UFC (Uniting for Consensus), also known by nick name Coffee Club, is led by Pakistan and Italy and opposes expansion in the permanent category.
