Pakistan has mounted a strong opposition in the UN General Assembly to a draft resolution from India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, aspirants to permanent seats in an expanded Security Council, calling it a "selfish" demand for "unequal privileges".
"The seekers of special privileges and power masquerade as the champions of the weak and disadvantaged, asserting that the special privileges they seek would make the Council more representative," Pakistan's UN Ambassador Munir Akram said in a hard-hitting speech.
"History has witnessed many, who proclaimed that they came to bury, not to praise Caesar," he added.
At the start of the debate, Brazil's UN envoy Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg introduced the G4 draft, which calls for enlarging the Council from the current 15 members to 25 by creating six new permanent seats without veto power and four non-permanent seats.
The G4 countries are pressing for an early vote on the draft, which is co-sponsored by 23 countries, including France, possibly as early as late this week.
But experts here doubt that the G4 draft has any chance of achieving the required two-thirds or 128 votes in the 191-member General Assembly needed for adoption.
"Instead of a divisive vote, let us opt for a decisive dialogue," the Pakistan ambassador said in a well-argued, 15-minute address that dominated the proceedings.
He also took the opportunity to promote the virtues of Italy/Pakistan-led "Uniting for Consensus" (UfC) group's "equitable and fair" draft resolution seeking the Council's enlargement in non-permanent category only. The UfC draft was also circulated in the 191-member Assembly on Monday.
"We will not choose to anoint six states with special privileges and stamp ourselves as second class members in this Organisation," Ambassador Akram said, calling the G-4 plan "unequal" as it would give permanent membership to 11 states, "consigning 160 others to compete for 14 seats."
"It will enlarge the 'club of the privileged', who will have a vested interest in addressing most issues in the Security Council further draining the oxygen out of the General Assembly, and enhancing the domination of the Security Council," he added.
All speakers in the debate agreed that the Security Council, which reflected the balance of power at the end of World War II needed reform but differed over how to do it.
Supporting the G-4 text were Japan, France, Latvia, Poland, Sweden and Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Tuvalu, Latvia and Bhutan.
Jordan, a member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (SIC), in a surprise move, also said it was in favour but noted that an Arab nation had to have a seat on the council.
Opposing besides Pakistan were Algeria, China, Argentina, Colombia and San Marino.
A key participant was Mauritius, representing the African Union's 53 crucial votes. Its UN ambassador, Jagdish Koonjul, said the AU would put down its own resolution calling for 11 additional seats, six permanent "with veto power" and five non permanent, one more than the G-4 and UfC.
Pakistan and other "Uniting for Consensus" members strongly opposed the draft resolution, giving the following reasons:
The proposal was contrary to the principle of sovereign equality of States enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Most States, when entering the United Nations, had been given no choice regarding the existing permanent members, but today they did have a choice.
They would not choose to anoint six States with special privileges while stamping themselves as second-class members of the Organisation. They had entered the United Nations as sovereign and equal States and could not compromise the very basis of their membership.
The proposal was unequal, giving permanent membership to 11 States, consigning 180 others to compete for 14 seats.
It would erode, not enhance, democracy and accountability in the Security Council. The ratio of permanent (unelected) members to non-permanent (elected) members would increase from 1:2 to almost 1:1. Half of the Councils membership would be unaccountable (the word accountability did not appear in the draft resolution).
It would enlarge the club of the privileged who would have a vested interest in addressing most issues in the Security Council, further draining the oxygen out of the General Assembly and enhancing the domination of the Security Council.
It would reduce, not improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council by requiring the constant reconciliation of the interests of 11 instead of five permanent members.
The zero-sum proposal (with six winners and 180 losers) would increase divisions and tensions, not only within the United Nations, but also within various regions, contradicting the objective of promoting peace and security.
Finally, the G-4s complex, three-phase approach would lead to a dead end. It could fail to receive the two-thirds majority at any one of the three stages. And, given the opposition to the proposal from a number of significant States, as well as the opposition or reservations of some of the five permanent members, it was highly unlikely that a Charter amendment approach would ever come into effect. Following the G-4 into such a 'cul-de-sac' would squander the present opportunity to realise an equitable and acceptable reform of the United Nations.
Commending the UfC proposal, the Pakistan ambassador said that in proposing an increase of the Councils membership from 15 to 25, it did not discriminate between Member States. All would be eligible for election or re-election in accordance with the principle of sovereign quality.
OTHER FEATURES WERE THAT IT WOULD: Increase the Councils representativeness by changing the ratio of unelected to elected members from 1:2 to 1:4.
Enhance accountability through the mechanism of periodic election.
Ambassador Akram said the text was simple, proposing direct approval of Charter amendments. It was realistic, with the ability to accommodate the interests and positions of all Member States, including the five permanent council members and, thus, more likely to secure eventual ratification than the G-4 proposal.