This campaign has hit a roadblock and sponsors are still short of the necessary two-thirds majority – 129 votes from a total of 193 members. According to one reliable source, 88 or so countries have signed up. In addition, there are verbal promises of support. The foreign ministers of Brazil and Japan said last June that more than 100 nations support the resolution. They are close, but the magic figure of 129 is still not assured.
The main reason for the shortfall is that the African group, which has 54 members, is committed to the unrealistic demand for two permanent seats with veto powers and most African states are still undecided on the G-4 resolution. It is therefore no wonder that India and its partners in G-4 have recently discovered how deeply they love Africa and the Africans, and have been showering the continent with promises of economic handouts.
Recently, Nigeria and South Africa, the two leading contenders for the proposed African permanent seats, have been pressing for flexibility in the African position. Once a significant number of African countries can be persuaded by the G-4 to support their draft resolution, its passing would be assured.
Pakistan and the other members of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, which opposes the creation of more permanent seats, must devise a strategy quickly to meet such an eventuality. Above all, they need to do more to highlight the greatest weakness of the G-4 campaign: that support for the G-4 comes from small states, including nearly two dozen mini and micro states. All the “heavyweights” are either in the UfC camp or, like Indonesia and Egypt, have been sitting on the fence in the vain hope that they might get a shot at permanent membership. Once the penny drops and the fence-sitters realise that they stand no chance, they too would make common cause with the UfC.
The result would be to divide the UN membership into two irreconcilable camps. On one side would be the four to six countries hopeful of getting permanent seats, backed by a large number of small states; and on the other side would be a sizeable number of “heavyweights” excluded from permanent membership.
It is inconceivable that these “heavyweights” would consent to being reduced to the level of third-class states. They had no alternative when the UN was set up by the victor powers at the end of the Second World War. But now they have a choice. Some of them would exercise it by leaving the UN. Pakistan should let it be known that it would seriously consider this course. Such a step will not be without some price, but the costs of not taking it would be even greater.
Even if many of the heavyweights do not leave the UN, the result of elevating a few countries to permanent membership would be to fracture and cripple the organisation. This could spell the end of the UN as we know it, or at least deprive the Security Council of legitimacy, seriously compromising the ability of the UN to perform its primary task of maintaining international peace and security.
The challenge before the UfC is to bring home this message before a vote on Security Council reform takes place in the General Assembly. The G-4 foreign ministers are expected to meet again in New York this September to push their candidature for permanent seats. The UfC countries should consider holding a parallel meeting at the same level to reject the G-4 ambitions and serve notice that the creation of more permanent members would irretrievably harm the UN system. Washington and the others will have to listen and pay heed. (The End)
Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com