DRAFT SAYING SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM POSSIBLE ONLY BY ARTICLE 108 OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER CALLED 'DIVISIVE AND DAMAGING'
Press Release
GA/9510
DRAFT SAYING SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM POSSIBLE ONLY BY ARTICLE 108 OF UNITED NATIONS CHARTER CALLED 'DIVISIVE AND DAMAGING'
19981120 United Kingdom Tells General Assembly Procedure Is Unacceptable; Others Say Text Protects Interests of Small States from Those Seeking 'Quick Fix'The divisive and damaging tactics of those who wished to pre-empt full discussion of some aspects of Security Council reform by pressing ahead with the draft resolution before the General Assembly were deplorable, the representative of the United Kingdom told the Assembly this afternoon, as it continued its debate on Council reform, including expansion of its membership.
He said the resolution was unacceptable because it contained an operative paragraph that was contrary to the United Nations Charter. Article 18 of the Charter clearly provided for such decisions to be made by a simple majority -- a majority of those present and voting -- except in the case of important questions, which required a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. Article 108 was unambiguous, he said. It applied only to the adoption of amendments to the Charter. It did not apply to resolutions which only had implications for Charter amendment.
The Assembly was continuing its consideration of a text which, if adopted, would emphasize that any resolution with Charter amendment implications -- among which would be a decision to change the Security Council membership -- must be adopted by the two-thirds majority of United Nations membership, as referred to in Article 108 of the Charter. The Assembly would also note the determination by heads of State of the Non-Aligned Movement that any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by the two-thirds majority referred to in Article 108.
[Article 108 of the Charter states that for an amendment to the present Charter to enter into force -- in addition to being adopted by a vote of two thirds of the General Assembly -- the amendment must be ratified by two thirds of the Organization's membership, including all permanent Council members, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.]
General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
The Assembly was also considering amendments to the draft introduced by Belgium this morning.
The representative of Japan said the draft had legal implications. According to Article 18 of the Charter, Assembly resolutions were either adopted by a simple majority, or, in the case of important issues, by a two- thirds majority of Members. The majority mentioned in Article 108, which included ratification by two thirds of the membership of the Organization, applied only to Charter amendments. However, the draft entailed amending the Charter through a different voting procedure that was not provided for in the Charter itself.
The representative of Pakistan said the draft resolution defended the interests of small and medium-sized States. The presenters of the amendments were trying to achieve Council expansion and reform with a vote which could be less than half the total United Nations membership. He hoped others would desist from procedural manoeuvres and amendments, which were no more than a transparent attempt to confuse the issue in the murky waters of a "quick fix".
The representative of Zimbabwe said the draft resolution covered African concerns which sought two permanent and three non-permanent seats on an expanded Security Council, with new permanent members enjoying the same privileges as the current ones. Africa's permanent seats would be on a rotating basis, as determined by Africans themselves. The draft encouraged an early conclusion to the debate, but did not stipulate any time frames.
Statements were also made by the representatives of the Czech Republic, Ghana, Finland, Namibia, Venezuela, Lithuania, Swaziland, United Arab Emirates, Nigeria, Lebanon, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Philippines, Cuba, Libya, San Marino, Iran, Sudan, Syria, France, Tunisia and Kazakhstan.
The Assembly will meet again on Monday, 23 November, at 10 a.m., to conclude its consideration of Security Council reform and to consider support by the United Nations system of the efforts of governments to promote and consolidate new or restored democracies and United nations reform: measures and proposals.
Assembly Work Programme
The Assembly met this afternoon to continue its debate on Security Council reform -- including equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council -- and discuss a related draft resolution and an amendment to that draft.
By the terms of the draft resolution (document A/53/L.16), the Assembly would note that, while a convergence of views on a number of matters relating to enlargement and reform of the Council has emerged, important differences still existed on many others; and that the Assembly Open-ended Working Group reviewing reform had not yet reached the general agreement called for by the Council when it began efforts to agree on Council reform, adopting resolution 48/26 during its forty-eighth session.
By the draft, the Assembly would note that the heads of State or government of the Non-Aligned Movement meeting in South Africa in September, in discussing Council reform, had reaffirmed the determination that any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by the two- thirds majority of United Nations Members referred to in Article 108 of the Charter.
[Article 108 states that: amendments to the present Charter shall come into force when adopted by a two-thirds majority of General Assembly Members and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional process by two thirds of United Nations Members, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.]
The Assembly, if adopting the draft text, would emphasize that any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by the two- thirds majority of the United Nations Members referred to in Article 108 of the Charter. The Assembly, stressing the matter of Council reform while deserving urgent attention, would also stress that it is of such fundamental importance that it could not be subjected to any imposed time frame, and, therefore, recognized the need to allow Member States adequate time to further reflect on the question, with a view to identifying solutions on which general agreement could be reached.
Also, the Assembly would reiterate that the Open-ended Working Group would continue its work in 1999 in order to examine all proposals and submit a report to the General Assembly before the end of its current (fifty-third) session.
Co-sponsoring the draft are: Afghanistan, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Indonesia, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Republic of Korea, San
General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Swaziland, Syria, Turkey and Zimbabwe.
Also before the Assembly are amendments to the draft (document A/53/L.42). The proposed amendments are as follows:
-- in the fourth preambular paragraph, the words "matters relating to" (amendments to the Charter of the United Nations) would be deleted;
-- in the fifth preambular paragraph, the words "which reaffirmed the determination" (relating to two-thirds majority) would be replaced by the words "which, inter alia, reaffirmed their determination";
-- the sixth preambular paragraph (relating to consent of no less than two thirds of the Members) would also be deleted;
-- operative paragraph 1 would be reworded to read as follows: "Stresses that the matter of Security Council reform deserves urgent attention, while recognizing the need to allow Member States adequate time to further reflect on the question with a view to identifying solutions on which general agreement can be reached";
-- operative paragraph 2 (on Charter amendment implications) would be replaced by the following: "Considers that the notion of general agreement referred to in its resolution 48/26 implied the consent of no less than two thirds of the States Members of the United Nations".
Co-sponsoring the amendment are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, United Kingdom, United States and Uzbekistan. (For more details, see Press Releases GA/9508 of 19 November and GA/9509 of 20 November.)
Statements
VLADIMIR GALUSKA (Czech Republic) said that, at first glance, consensus on Security Council reform might seem to be within easy reach. All Member States wanted the Council to be geographically equitable, democratic and efficient. They all wanted to improve its working methods, and almost all of them would like to see the unlimited use of the veto curbed. However, there were limitations to what could be achieved since all of those issues were interdependent.
To maintain a functional and operational Security Council and to have what was wanted -- equitable representation, democratization, more transparency and efficiency -- Member States had to find the balance between requirements and feasibility, between geographical equitability and efficiency, between
General Assembly Plenary - 4 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
transparency and the need for informal negotiations, between democratization and the unlimited use of the veto.
He said that to counterbalance the additional burden on the operational ability which an enlargement would bring into the Security Council, its working methods and decision-making processes would have to be modernized. It would be necessary to develop the procedures that enabled wider participation and transparent decision-making, while facilitating prompt and effective action. Member States had already seen the first signs of erosion of the Council's credibility, caused by insufficient geographical representation. He cited the decision of African States concerning sanctions against Libya. It was up to Member States to decide what kind of Security Council they wanted to have in the next millennium, whether they wanted to continue living in a world based on post-war realities, or if they wanted to make an update. There were good chances for success if dialogue was kept alive in a positive and constructive manner.
JACK WILMOT (Ghana) said the argument for equitable geographic representation in the Security Council had been clearly defined in the Non-Aligned Movement statements and working papers presented to the Open-Ended Working Group. He, therefore, aligned himself with the statement made by the representative of Jordan, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. His country also reaffirmed its support of the common Africa position, which called for the allocation of two permanent rotating seats to the continent. In that connection, the Organization should avoid the creation of a new underprivileged class.
However, he disagreed completely with those States that called for a maximum size of 20 to 21 for the enlarged Security Council. That call might be aimed at setting a new mandate for the Open-Ended Working Group. It might also be a ploy to include the best of two irreconcilable worlds, on the one hand supporting expansion and equitable representation, while on the other advancing proposals that knowingly stood very little chance of obtaining a general agreement, which was a prerequisite for a Charter amendment, as stipulated in Article 108. Moreover, the matter of Security Council reform should not be subject to any imposed time frame. He sided with the Non- Aligned Movement proposal that such expansion should take place only in the non-permanent category, for the time being, if no other agreement could be reached on other categories of membership.
MARJATTA RASI (Finland), on behalf of the Nordic Group (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), said those countries favoured enlargement and reform of the Security Council, in order to make it better equipped and strengthened in its capacity to discharge its responsibilities under the Charter in the maintenance of international peace and security in the face of the challenges of the new millennium.
General Assembly Plenary - 5 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
She said they supported an increase in both categories of Council member, non-permanent and permanent, and would welcome Germany and Japan as new permanent members, alongside more developing countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. She said the Nordic countries have noted with interest the rotation formula for Africa agreed at Ouagadougou last June by the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The General Assembly should take account of any proposal by the regions concerned when taking its final decision on the matter.
The Nordic countries believed the improvement measures taken by the Security Council were, to a large extent, inspired by the thorough work of the Working Group. There was a need for review of the working methods and transparency of the Council on a permanent and continuous basis. All Member States should engage in real negotiations to bring the reform process forward. The Nordic countries were not advocating any artificial time frames or deadlines; they were simply urging that the Open-ended Working Group live up to the calls for concrete and specific proposals to be considered by the General Assembly.
MARTIN ANDJABA (Namibia) said that, although views differed as to the composition and size of the Council and the veto power, it was important to note that significant progress had been made in improving transparency and the Council's working methods. Those measures should be institutionalized to encourage a more participatory and open decision-making process in the Council. Its reform constituted an important component in efforts to strengthen, revitalize and democratize the Organization.
The existing imbalance in the Council's composition should be corrected to enhance its credibility and effectiveness, he said. Any expansion which overlooked the principles of equity and representativeness would be unacceptable. Nor could his delegation accept selective or partial expansion of the Council. It should be enlarged in both permanent and non-permanent categories. Developing countries must be adequately represented, and, in that connection, the common position taken by African countries favoured two permanent seats and additional non-permanent seats.
He said Namibia opposed the veto, which only perpetuated differences and discrimination among Council members. It was anachronistic and should be abolished. It was self-defeating to champion the cause of democracy at the country level, but, at the same time, oppose that principle at the international level. For any action or inaction of the Council to be credible and legitimate, it should reflect the majority of Council members.
He said any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the Organization's membership, as referred to in Article 108 of the Charter.
General Assembly Plenary - 6 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
IGNACIO ARCAYA (Venezuela) said the activities of the Working Group showed that it was not possible to think of partial or "quick-fix" solutions. It would be contrary to use different procedural arguments to distort the process. At the present stage, it was important to be flexible on the issue. Venezuela was convinced that the Working Group remained the appropriate body to promote advances to achieve a general agreement to better serve the interests of the international community.
Venezuela believed that Council reform was linked to reform of the United Nations, he said. Greater efficiency, transparency and democratization had to be brought about in the organ entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security. Council membership had to be increased. Future expansion of the Council would not infringe on its effectiveness or authority. Rather, it would strengthen its capacity.
Since peace was a unitary concept, he said, reform of the Council had to be achieved on the basis of the sovereign equality of States and equitable geographical distribution. Those were the principles which had been restated by the Non-Aligned Movement. The Charter must be reviewed so that the veto was exercised only with relation to actions under Chapter VII.
OSKARAS JUSYS (Lithuania) said a reformed Security Council would not only be more fairly representative, but also more effective. Properly balanced membership would give greater legitimacy to its decisions, and hence greater authority and respect for them worldwide. It was regrettable that disagreement between the vast membership and a few influential States about the size of an enlarged Council had been one of the most difficult stumbling blocks. The fundamental component of Lithuania's position was a search for compromise, and in the Working Group, it identified areas where compromise might be achievable, including enlargement of both categories of membership, size of the Security Council, review of mechanism, regional rotation and other areas.
On the procedure for achieving reform, he said the next logical step would be to identify the degree of support for each of the options. The question of majority was complicated not only by the search for a number, but also by speculation as to the stage of decision-making at which this or that majority was required. The appearance, for a second straight year, of particular draft (L.16) had been inspired precisely by that confusion. Charter amendments would come into force only after ratification by at least 124 States, including the permanent five members of the Council. That provision ruled out any danger of "someone sneaking into permanent seats through backdoors, windows, chimneys or any other loopholes".
MOSES M. DLAMINI (Swaziland) said that he supported the common African position for two permanent seats, with the full rights enjoyed by the current
General Assembly Plenary - 7 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
membership in that category. Swaziland opposed to any partial or selective expansion of the Council to the detriment of developing countries. That would run the risk of being unacceptable to a significant number of the Organization's membership. Expansion of the Council must be accompanied by an understanding on the scope of the veto. He could not envisage a situation where new permanent members would not enjoy the use of the veto, but his country shared the view of the Non-Aligned Movement that the veto be curtailed, with a view to its elimination. It should apply only to actions taken under Chapter VII of the Charter.
He said the implementation by the Council of the comprehensive set of measures to enhance its working methods and transparency was a positive development. The adoption of those measures would enable the Council to provide timely reports to the Assembly as required by Articles 15 and 24 of the Charter.
AHMAD KAMAL (Pakistan) said he was against any increase in the permanent membership of the Council, since it would serve to accommodate the interests of only a few countries and alienate the small and medium-sized countries, who constituted an overwhelming majority in the Assembly. He advocated an increase in the non-permanent category only in order to proportionately reflect the increase in the general membership of the United Nations. The language of the draft resolution (L.16) drew directly from the position of the Non-Aligned Movement, reiterated in Durban. It defended and safeguarded the interests of the smaller and medium-sized States. It was clear that those who presented the amendments were trying to achieve Council expansion and reform on the basis of a vote which could be perhaps less than even half of the total United Nations membership. It was his hope that others would desist from their procedural manoeuvres and amendments, which were no more than a transparent attempt to confuse the issue in the murky waters of a "quick fix".
The amendments proposed (in L.42) were an attempt to spread confusion for a number of reasons, he said. First, it proposed to replace the operative paragraph of L.16, which related to the minimum threshold of votes required for the passage of any resolutions on Council reform in the Assembly, with a paragraph which merely attempted to define, and in fact lower, the meaning of the phrase "general agreement". Secondly, it proposed that the first operative paragraph of the draft resolution, which was clearly based on the position of the Non-Aligned Movement summit, be replaced with a new one which completely deleted the essential non-aligned position, which was that efforts at reforming and restructuring the Council should not be subject to any time frame.
Other amendments, he said, were similar attempts to distract the attention of the membership from the core issue of the voting threshold in the Assembly in a matter as important as Council reform.
General Assembly Plenary - 8 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
MOHAMMAD J. SAMHAN (United Arab Emirates) said that in spite of the desire of the international community to reform the Security Council, expand its membership and enhance its work methods, the deliberations so far had reflected the complexity of the issue. The differences in points of view were essentially obvious in the debate on the questions of the scope of expansion of the Security Council, the distribution of permanent and non-permanent seats and equitable geographic representation.
He expressed full support for recommendations of the Non-Aligned Movement, which were made in Durban, South Africa, according to which international negotiations on the Security Council should cover all aspects of the reform, as a package deal. He said the need for better representation of the developing countries should also be taken into consideration. It was necessary to guarantee transparency in decision-making and prevent selective approach in the work of the Council. It was necessary to strengthen coordination of the Security Council with the General Assembly and countries directly affected by the decisions of the Security Council. It was also necessary to make sure that interests of those countries were taken into account.
YUKIO SATOH (Japan) said an increase in the permanent membership of the Council should be realized through the inclusion of both developed and developing countries. The methodology for selecting new permanent members from among the developing countries should be left to the respective regions to determine. The matter of Security Council reform concerning the veto was complex and it was advisable, given the delicate nature and fundamental importance of the issue, that a high-level working group should consider it and come up with recommendations. By taking that approach, Member States could avoid the danger that an impasse on the veto question might prevent progress on the other aspect of reform.
The task in the next round of the Open-ended Working Group was to further advance the negotiations with a view to working out a final reform package, he said. Japan wished to make clear that a "so-called framework draft resolution", which some delegates had referred to and which draft resolution L.16 seemed to pre-empt, did not exist. Furthermore, such a framework, if it existed, would not be presented to the General Assembly without prior consultations with the Member States. Draft resolution L.16 had profound legal implications. According to Article 18 of the Charter (on General Assembly voting), Assembly resolutions were either adopted by a simple majority or, in the case of important issues, by a two-thirds majority of members present at the voting. The majority mentioned in Article 108 (which refers to ratification by two thirds of the entire membership of the Organization) applied only to amendments to the Charter. However, the draft resolution (L.16) in effect entailed amending the Charter through a different voting procedure that was not provided for in the Charter itself. To put that draft resolution to a vote at this time could result in unnecessary confrontation among Member States. As a co-sponsor of the amendments to the
General Assembly Plenary - 9 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
draft, Japan wished to make clear that the Charter clearly stipulated that Charter amendment could be effected only through the procedure laid out under Article 108.
ALHAJI SHEHU MALAMI (Nigeria) said the notion of reform was positive, since it aimed at enhancing the efficiency, relevance and flexibility of the Organization. The Working Group had identified the intricacies of Security Council reform and was divided along competing approaches to resolve the issue. One approach sought to perpetuate the status quo to prevent regional rivals from becoming permanent Council members, while another approach tended to articulate national policies.
The majority of Members at Working Group sessions tended to support an increase in both permanent and non-permanent categories. The United Nations must correct the anomalies in the Council's composition, and he noted the lack of African representation on the permanent membership category, despite the fact that 53 African Member States constituted almost one third of the Organization's entire membership.
Council reform, he continued, also had to do with its working methods and procedures, and better equipping it to tackle global challenges in the new millennium. That required greater transparency in the conduct of Council business and closer cooperation and consultation between it and the Assembly. Such measures should increase the participation of Member States in matters which affected them. He called for improving Council and Assembly relations, and for fine tuning consultations between the Council and countries contributing to peace-keeping.
SAMIR MOUBARAK (Lebanon) said his country believed, along with the Non- Aligned Movement and the Arab Group, that the Security Council should expand in both permanent and non-permanent categories. The Arab countries represented 12 per cent of the general membership of the United Nations and requested to be represented in the Council in proportion to their number in the Organization, in accordance with the principle of equitable geographical representation. If additional permanent seats were to be added in the Council, the Arab group requested to be allocated one permanent seat with all its prerogatives. The Arab Group would seek this goal in coordination with the African and Asian groups to which they belonged.
The founding fathers of the United Nations had not foreseen in 1945 the day would come when new permanent seats would be added to the existing Five. The Charter did not take account of the dramatic changes to come 50 years later. That was why the Asian Group had to agree on criteria and on the number of Asian new permanent seats. For the time being, the Asian Group lacked a common approach, but few Asian countries refused to allow the Group deal with the fundamental topic in its proper setting, while allowing the
General Assembly Plenary - 10 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
discussion on the representation of the Group in other bodies of the United Nations.
MACHIVENYIKA T. MAPURANGA (Zimbabwe) said the draft resolution covered the concerns of his country and of Africa, which sought two permanent and three non-permanent seats on an expanded Security Council, with new permanent members enjoying the same privileges as the current permanent members. Africa's permanent seats would be on a rotating basis, as determined by the Africans themselves.
In order to be truly representative, the Council needed to be expanded to 26 members. Its democratic decision-making mechanism required that the veto be restricted to matters under Chapter VII, with a view to its eventual elimination, and that no new Council members be discriminated against regarding the use of the veto.
As has been the position of Africa and the Non-Aligned Movement all along, he said, the draft encouraged an early conclusion to the debate, but did not stipulate any time frames. Rather, any decisions regarding the new and expanded Council should take into account the concerns of all regions. In an attempt to quell any rumours, his delegation had co-sponsored the draft in favour of Council reform in good faith, and not against Japan or Germany or any other Member State. The time had simply come for the "silent majority" to speak out on the two operational principles enshrined in the text, so that future actions would be rooted in the agreed guidelines.
LEE SEE-YOUNG (Republic of Korea) said particular care should be given to ensuring that all nations could serve on the Council with reasonable frequency, commensurate with their capabilities to contribute to international peace and security. Utmost caution must be exercised to prevent empowerment of a select few with a privileged status. The number of veto holders must not be enlarged.
As to the question of permanent membership, he said, many questions remained unanswered. Non-permanent membership through periodic elections, by definition, better ensured the democratic representativeness of the Council. Given the recent enlargement of the Asian Group, it deserved a special consideration in the composition of an expanded Council. Any decision on a reform package should be taken by at least two-thirds majority of the entire membership, as stipulated by Article 108 of the Charter, because any reform package would require Charter amendment.
Speaking about the draft (L.16) resolution before the Assembly, he said that, contrary to some arguments, it did not ask for a complicated decision, but posed a very simple procedural question. It provided a very-clear-cut answer, consistent with the letter and spirit of the Charter. The language of that draft was a faithful reflection of the decision taken by the recent
General Assembly Plenary - 11 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
summit of the Non-Aligned Movement. The amendment posed by draft resolution L.42 were unacceptable, failing to address the real questions posed by L.16, namely, the decision-making procedure of the General Assembly itself. It was trying to create another rule to be applied without the legal basis of the Charter, basing its argument merely on another Assembly resolution. Many doubts existed about the political intentions behind L.42. His country expected its co-sponsors to come closer to the position maintained by L.16, so that it could be adopted by consensus.
FERNANDO ENRIQUE PETRELLA (Argentina) said the discussion of the past five years had helped the international community realize the serious difficulties that Security Council reform implied. The new Council should be built in such a way that would not affect the essential aspects of its structure. Trying to return to 1945, a time when the United Nations aimed to bring civil society within the Organization, was unrealistic.
He said the ambitions of a few were creating the difficulties that the Organization now faced. It was a contradiction to reform the Council, making it less democratic and more exclusive when the Group of Seven industrial nations demanded more democracy and greater transparency from the financial organizations under a new international financial architecture.
He said Member States must avoid some of the arguments formulated during the debate on the draft resolution in document L.16, which was strictly of a procedural nature. It did not seek to create a third category of decisions not contemplated in Article 18 of the Charter. It only sought to guarantee that decisions with amendment implications were adopted in accordance with Article 108. Without L.16, he continued, a decision on Council reform could be adopted by only 70 or 80 votes, clearly contradicting the Charter. Insisting that L.16 produced extreme legal consequences was taking its text out of context. Hurried analysis of L.16 was a response to selfish interests and it created divisions, since those opposing it saw it was an obstacle to obtaining a permanent Council seat with the support of only 60 or 70 votes. The United Nations and the interests of those countries would benefit more if their aspirations were legitimized by means of a general agreement that paved the way to clear constitutional majorities.
FELIPE H. MABILANGAN (Philippines) said that, in light of his country's long involvement in the United Nations, it had a vital stake in the reform process. The membership of the Organization had multiplied fourfold, but the Security Council had remained small, undemocratic and opaque. The Philippines supported the Non-Aligned Movement position on reform through improvements in the Council's working methods and decision-making process, including the veto. The veto, short of abolition, had to be curtailed. The Working Group must see that the Charter was amended so that the veto was used only on actions that fell under Chapter VII. At its next session, the Group should undertake an
General Assembly Plenary - 12 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
in-depth discussion on the issue of the veto that went beyond general statements and moved towards concrete results.
Other sources of tension, such as human rights and the environment, were increasingly considered as factors affecting international peace and security, he said. Furthermore, a truly reformed United Nations required a greater balance of sharing of responsibilities, especially between the Assembly and the Council, due to the growing number of issues affecting peace and security. Decisions taken by the Council had to reflect the views of the general membership of the Organization.
He said he hoped a consensus would be reached before action on the draft was taken. More time was needed to complete the work already begun. All Members must exercise flexibility.
BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said that the Security Council must become democratic, which it was not at present. The imperial privilege of the veto must disappear. The Security Council, with increasing frequency, rode roughshod over the Charter and over the General Assembly. The participation of the Member States of the United Nations in the work of the Council was a fantasy. The supposition that the Council acted in the interest of the Member States was pure fiction.
Simply put, he asserted, the "dictatorship of the Security Council" was a violation of the principle of equality of the Member States. The substantive problem was the veto and its indiscriminate use, from the election of the Secretary General to the determination of new Members of the Organization and the use of the prerogative of the permanent members in a way that amounted to hegemony. If the use of veto were not limited to Chapter VII of the Charter, if informal consultations were not eliminated to be replaced by official meetings, and if temporary rules of the Council were not made definitive, then there was no transparency and democracy. If the Assembly did not "recover its faculties", reform would not take place.
MOHAMED H. MATRI (Libya) said that to achieve an equitable expansion of the Security Council, new international realities and increased membership of the United Nations should be reflected. Negotiations should be able to overcome the obstacles in the way of the reform. His country reiterated that the non-permanent membership of the Council should be increased. Any expansion of the permanent membership would increase the unfairness of the present system, but if such membership were indeed enlarged, then Libya supported the position that Africa should be given two additional permanent seats on the Council.
He said there had been few measures to improve consultations with members. Informal consultations had become a rule, rather than an exception. The Council just endorsed decisions, arrived at by members in informal
General Assembly Plenary - 13 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
consultations. The Council must consult more with Member States, especially those affected by its decisions. Transparency in the work of the Council would make its decisions more legitimate.
The power of veto was in contradiction with the principle of democracy and equality of States, he continued. It served the vested interests of the minority. The argument about the right of veto being commensurate with contributions was wrong, for some members with the right of veto were deeply in arrears. New members had arrived, and they had a right to be heard. Certain countries should not be able to impose their views on the majority of the membership. Opposition to certain views must not be interpreted as a need to conclude the work on the reform. The Non-Aligned Movement summit had confirmed that negotiations on the reform of the Security Council should not have a deadline. Any amendment of the Charter must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the membership.
GIAN NICOLA FILIPPI BALESTRA (San Marino) said the outcome of the Working Group had not been satisfactory. Reform would take place only if countries were ready to give up some of their own expectations and to meet those of others. That could not be imposed or given rigid time frames. Increasing permanent membership involved many problems besides the question of veto. There were issues, such as the other main or secondary organs, committees and commissions of the Organization, where permanent members had a permanent seat. If more permanent members were meant to be seated in those organs, without increasing the global number of components, the presence of the other countries would clearly decrease. The smallest ones would pay for the consequences.
He said San Marino had decided to co-sponsor draft L.16 because the lack of consensus would have deleterious effects on the issue. The purely procedural text aimed solely to ensure that the vital question of the reformed Council's composition be decided by the two-thirds majority as stated in Article 108. All countries would benefit, and the legitimacy of the new Council would be enhanced by the adoption of the draft.
HADI NEJAD-HOSSEINIAN (Iran) said he favoured a mechanism that would further enhance the authority, legitimacy and representativeness of a reformed Security Council. Any decision on the matter which did not enjoy the support of a credible majority of the entire United Nations membership would be a disservice to the Charter, and even to the States that would eventually become the additional members of the Council. Any decision to reform the Council in terms of its size and composition would entail amendment of the Charter. As such, it would require a two-thirds majority support of the United Nations membership, in accordance with Article 108. That was also the position of the Non-Aligned Movement, to which his country belonged.
General Assembly Plenary - 14 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
He said it was in that context that his delegation co-sponsored draft resolution L.16, conceived to safeguard the credibility of a reformed Council, "by remaining true to the spirit of Article 108 of the Charter". The size and composition of a reformed Council was an issue of vital importance to developing countries, as they were disproportionately under-represented in that body. Therefore, any increase in the Council's membership would have to take the concerns of developing countries into account.
As had previously been noted by the President of his country, the Islamic States, representing 1 billion and several hundred million people, deserved a permanent seat in the Council. Another important issue that had to be examined was the question of veto power; indeed, that was at the heart of the reform exercise. That voting procedure resulted from a "heavy-handed approach of the victors of World War II", and was anachronistic and democratic.
Sir JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said his delegation wanted detailed consideration of its ideas in the Open-ended Working Group. It was committed to seeking wide agreement on the essentials of a reform package. It had never advocated permanent seats only for industrialized countries. Those who had heard Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech in September would have noted the emphasis he had placed on the need to strengthen the authority of the Security Council by giving permanent seats to developing countries, as well as to Germany and Japan.
He said the United Kingdom would like to see an additional five permanent seats on the Security Council -- three for developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America; and two, open to all comers, would be for industrialized countries. As for the overall size of the Council, some States had registered strong opposition to a number of 21. A figure of 24 offered a more realistic basis for agreement, while still enabling the Council to maintain its procedural and substantive effectiveness.
With regard to the veto, the United Kingdom could not accept any restriction on the veto rights of the existing permanent members. But it would continue to exercise the veto with restraint -- it was almost nine years since it had last cast a veto -- and in a manner consistent with its responsibilities under the United Nations Charter.
He said the United Kingdom deplored the divisive and damaging tactics of those who wished to pre-empt full discussion of some aspects by pressing ahead with resolution L.16. It continued to hope that progress could be made soon, so that the composition of the Council could better reflect the realities of the world today. The United Kingdom accepted that the eventual Charter amendments implementing enlargement of the Council must be adopted under Article 108 of the Charter. There could be absolutely no debate about that.
It would be wrong to link the political commitments made in the Open- ended Working Group about the need for general agreement on the issue with a
General Assembly Plenary - 15 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
legal base they did not fit, he said. The United Kingdom could not accept resolution L.16 because it considered operative paragraph 2 to be contrary to the Charter. Article 18 of the Charter clearly provided for decisions to be made by a simple majority -- a majority of those present and voting -- except in the case of important questions, which required a two-thirds majority of the Members present and voting. Article 108 was unambiguous. It applied only to the adoption of amendments to the Charter. It did not apply to resolutions which only had implications for Charter amendment.
He said the implications of L.16 went far wider than the apparently procedural nature of the text. The revisions to L.16 introduced by the co-sponsors earlier today did not alter that fact. That was why, given the complexity and importance of the issue, the United Kingdom could not support the draft.
ELFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said he supported the African position on the enlargement of the Security Council. Five years had passed since the establishment of the high-level working group, during which many sessions had been held, but that had not led to results which gave his country hope. The international community was in dire need of Council reform.
The balance of power in 1945 had compelled the world to accept the right of veto, he said. The countries who were victorious at the time stated that if the veto was not included, the United Nations would not have been born. Yet, the veto had become a hard fact, and its use had become a weapon which was flaunted when there was an issue before the Council.
He said reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council, should be judged by the ability of the Organization to assume its proper functions, and to translate the function of creating peace and tranquillity for vulnerable people into reality. Otherwise any reform, especially of the Security Council, would be to no avail.
MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) said the changes that had taken place in international relations, and the increase in the number of States in the Organization, necessitated reform of the Security Council and an increase in its membership. To achieve reform, the process had to, in no way, be governed by an imposed time frame, but by the principle of achieving general agreement. Any process at reform and expansion had to be endorsed by the overwhelming majority of United Nations Members. Therefore, Article 108 had to be applied on the issue. The Non-Aligned Movement statement reaffirmed that any resolution implying an amendment to the Charter had to be adopted by a majority of two thirds of the membership. For that reason, Syria joined the sponsorship of the procedural draft, L.16, since it was fully in conformity with the Charter.
He said States had to work in a spirit of solidarity to apply the principles of the Charter. Circumventing the Charter with narrow interests
General Assembly Plenary - 16 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
did a disservice to the Organization. Syria supported the proposal of the OAU regarding Council expansion; the Group of Arab States had submitted a working paper in July 1997 stating that when expansion of the permanent membership was approved, Arab Member States should be given a permanent seat to be occupied on a rotational basis.
ALAIN DEJAMMET (France) said that his country favoured an increase in both categories of the Council membership. Germany and Japan should become permanent members, along with three countries from the developing world.
To improve the geographic representation in the Council, additional non- permanent seats should be created; so as not to jeopardize the capacity of the Council to respond rapidly, the increase should be below 25, but more than 21. New members should enjoy the same prerogatives as present members.
He said the deliberations of the Working Group had made it possible to achieve progress due to the adoption of a phased approach. The first stage would consist of the Assembly adopting a resolution defining the framework of the agreement. Next, there would be election of candidates for new permanent seats, possibly on the basis of regional rotation. And the third stage would involve amendments to the Charter. Such an approach would give Member States sufficient time to reach general agreement.
Deliberations of the Working Group at the fifty-second session had not produced an agreed proposal on the questions under its consideration, he said. In that context, the thought was given to the significance of general agreement and the procedure which would permit enlargement of the Council. Simple common sense dictated that the work on the composition of the Council could be conducted only through amendments to the Charter in accordance with the rules. For that reason, his country subscribed to the amendments to draft resolution L.16, and he hoped that consensus would be achieved on the issue, which would allow the General Assembly to pass from the phase of deliberations to the phase of action.
M. HABIB KAABACHI (Tunisia) said the search for a compromise on enlargement of the Council was the most difficult task facing the Working Group. Tunisia's position was the same as those of Africa, of the Non-Aligned Movement, and of the OAU, in particular, on the proposal that two rotating seats on the Council belonged to Africa. He said the OAU conference at Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, had set modalities for rotating seats for African States from the five African subregions. Such a proposal would be democratic and allow as many African countries as possible to hold such seats.
His country believed that the international community should also reconsider continuing the use of the veto to matters under Chapter VII of the Charter. The use of sanctions should be reviewed, because sanctions had a particularly great effect on women and children. The time had come to recognize Africa's claims and to translate them into Council reform.
General Assembly Plenary - 17 - Press Release GA/9510 65th Meeting (PM) 20 November 1998
AKMARAL ARYSTANBEKOVA (Kazakhstan) said the global changes that had taken place in the world since the Organization was founded needed to be reflected in the reform of the Security Council, the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. There was a need to ensure more equitable representation of Member States in the Council, in order to give it a balanced composition and strengthen its authority and effectiveness in discharging its increased obligations. An increase in Council membership could be brought about only on the basis of equitable geographical representation and respect for sovereign equality of all Member States of the United Nations.
She confirmed Kazakhstan's position regarding the expansion of the number of permanent Council members, through the inclusion of Germany and Japan, and also of three developing countries from the Asian, African and Latin American and Caribbean regions. This would be with a view to ensuring a balance of interests and an adequate reflection of the existing geopolitical realities. In order to maintain the functionality and effectiveness of the Council, its numerical composition must be limited.
The regions would determine themselves the mechanisms for putting candidates forward for permanent seats, with the election of the new members taking place in the General Assembly. Kazakhstan was also in favour of giving the new permanent members the same prerogatives as were vested in the existing permanent members, so as not to create a new category of Council membership.
On the issue of whether the changes should be adopted on the basis of Article 18 or Article 108 of the Charter, she said a great deal depended on the text of the resolution containing the proposed amendments to the Charter. Kazakhstan felt that resolution L.16 would not help to preserve the spirit of cooperation and trust between the States, and called for further consultations to seek compromise and a mutually acceptable solution.
* *** *