GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONTINUES DISCUSSION OF SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Press Release
GA/9689

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONTINUES DISCUSSION OF SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Speakers Address Veto Privilege and Expansion of Council Membership

If the permanent members of the Security Council agreed to limit the scope of their privileges, they would be giving a tangible sign of their political will to reform the Council and of their desire to adapt it to present realities, the General Assembly was told this afternoon.

As the Assembly continued its consideration of the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council. The representative of Mexico said it was difficult to accept the statement made by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the five permanent members on 23 September that any attempt to restrict or curtail their veto rights would not be conducive to the reform process. He noted that Mexico had submitted proposals for amendments to seven articles of the Charter, with a view to restricting the exercise of the veto to the issues for which it had been designed.

The representative of the United Kingdom said the voting rights of the existing permanent members were fundamental to both the authority of the Council and to its ability to function effectively. Those rights ensured that the Council’s decisions would be implemented with resolve and determination. The United Kingdom would therefore firmly oppose any restriction of those rights. It recognized, however, the Council’s responsibilities under the Charter and was committed to working for consensus wherever possible. His country would continue to exercise its voting rights with restraint and in a manner consistent with its Charter obligations.

Croatia's representative said her country favoured abolition of the veto. If, however, political realities precluded evolution of the decision- making process in the Council in such a direction, Croatia supported, as a fallback position, the use of the so-called double veto, where two negative votes would be required for the veto to be effective.

Myanmar's representative said although abolition of the veto represented an ideal solution and the ultimate goal in the democratization of the Council's reform process, there was need for realism. Before the veto could be abolished, its application should be limited and should be exercised only under Chapter VII of the Charter. It should also not be delinked from the reform and the enlargement process of the Council. The veto was unjust and anachronistic, and its elimination was the most logical conclusion.

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9689 82nd Meeting (PM) 16 December 1999

[Chapter VII of the Charter addresses actions with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.]

Among other issues raised today by speakers were the concept of rotating permanent seats and the criteria for selection, expansion of both categories of membership, the closed nature of informal consultations and the resulting lack of transparency.

Namibia's representative, speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) said the Commission fully subscribed to the Organization of African Unity (OAU) position that Africa should be allocated no fewer than two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats in an expanded Council. Africans would decide who should get the two permanent seats in accordance with the system of rotation based on the current established criteria of the OAU. Democratization of the Council implied transparency in the decision-making process. It was for this reason that the Commission had called for open regular meetings to hear the views of non-members.

Statements were also made this afternoon by the representatives of Kyrgyzstan, Spain, Ukraine, Australia, Senegal, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, Cuba, Germany, Côte 'Ivoire, Venezuela, Peru, China, Czech Republic, Brazil, Portugal, Iran, France, Canada and Costa Rica.

Also this afternoon, the Assembly agreed to postpone its date of recess to Wednesday, 22 December.

The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. to take up the reports of the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this afternoon to continue its discussion of Security Council reform (For details, see this morning’s Press Release GA/9688 dated 16 December).

Statements Made

ZAMIRA B. ESHMAMBETOVA (Kyrgyzstan) said security required a comprehensive approach. Therefore, the Security Council should be made more effective through such steps as the increasing of membership in both categories. A larger Council on which all countries were fairly represented would promote greater democracy in the United Nations. Her country would support the activities of the working group and cooperate on all aspects before it.

JUAN LUIS FLORES (Spain) said that the veto was a core issue of Council reform, as it directly impinged on that body’s functions and was linked to the question of an increase in its membership. Limitation of the veto was increasingly relevant in the light of events during the past year. There had been many proposals regarding the veto; and the recent one by the Secretary-General –- to the effect that a qualified majority of Council members might override the veto -- deserved attention.

He supported increasing the Council’s membership, he said, adding that more democracy did not logically entail an increase in the number of privileged members, but suggested rather an increase in the number of members elected according to equitable criteria. He also stressed the necessity for more transparency in the Council’s working methods.

MANUEL TELLO (Mexico) said his country did not support an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council, only in the number of non- permanent members. The proposal to increase both categories raised a number of questions. How would expansion take place? How would the new permanent seats be distributed? What would be the role of the regional groups in selecting the candidates for them? Would the new seats be truly permanent, with a fixed occupant, or would they be rotating seats, as some had suggested? What would the privileges of the permanent members be? Would some mechanism be established for periodically reviewing the structure of the Council? Each of those questions entailed serious political, legal and constitutional problems. If it were decided to grant genuinely permanent seats to a lucky few, the names of the new privileged members would have to be included in article 23 of the Charter, which named the permanent members.

"If we accept that this pattern is to remain forever, there will be no major problem", he continued, "but if, as some of the aspirants themselves have proposed, a review system is designed, we would automatically be assuming a commitment to amend the Charter at fixed intervals, with all the complications such an exercise entails". If the Assembly were inclined towards the contradictory notion of rotating permanent seats, the distinction between them and the non-permanent seats would have to be clearly indicated. A system favoured by some would be to award the truly permanent seats to the developed countries, leaving the rotating ones for the developing world. Such blatant discrimination would be unacceptable. Apart from the tremendous privilege of the veto, the current permanent members had other prerogatives -- some of them written, others derived from practice. Would new permanent members have those same rights? While the need to correct the current imbalances in the composition of the Council was recognized by all, the schemes proposed to date did not meet that objective.

He asked why the European Union would want three permanent seats, why the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) felt the need to have four, and why six of the eight members of the "powerful Group of Eight" should belong to the privileged category. In such a Council, the privileged group would be predominantly European and, obviously, developed. Mexico had submitted proposals for amendments to seven articles of the Charter, with a view to restricting the exercise of the veto to the issue for which it had been designed. He was disappointed by the intransigent attitude taken by the five permanent members. If they agreed to limit the scope of their privileges, they would be giving a tangible sign of their political will to reform the Council and adapt it to present realities. In that light, it was difficult to accept the statement made by the Foreign Ministers of the five permanent members on 23 September to the effect that any attempt to restrict or curtail their veto rights would not be conducive to the reform process.

MARTIN ANDJABA (Namibia) speaking on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), said his organization attached great importance to the reform of the Security Council because it constituted one of the important and necessary components needed to strengthen, revitalize and democratize the United Nations. There was a need for a Security Council that was responsive, equitably representative, transparent, efficient and cost effective. To achieve that, it was necessary to increase the number of permanent and non-permanent members. The Council must reflect the principles of equitable geographical representation and sovereign equality of States.

He said that the SADC fully subscribed to the Harare Declaration of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), to the effect that Africa should be allocated no less than two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats in an expanded Council. The Africans would decide who should get the two permanent seats, in accordance with the system of rotation based on the current established criteria of the OAU. The SADC believed that the exercise of the rights of veto should be progressively curtailed until abrogated.

He concluded by saying that the democratization of the Council implied transparency in the decision-making process. It was for that reason that the SADC had called for open regular meetings to hear the views of non-members.

VOLODYMYR YEL’CHENKO (Ukraine) expressed concern about the absence of tangible progress in negotiations on the issues of the veto right and the enlargement of the Council. The offices of the working group could achieve very few results without a strong impetus and incentives from the outside. The total size of the enlarged Council should be from 24 to 26. He would support an increase in both categories of membership. Ukraine understood the desire and willingness of Germany and Japan to become permanent members. It would support an enlargement that would add to the permanent membership three new seats for developing countries -- from Africa, Asia and Latin America and Caribbean, respectively. Redressing the obvious under-representation of the Eastern European countries remained a sine qua non condition for the approval of any comprehensive Council reform proposal.

He said that, given present political realities, the veto, at least in its present form, was absolutely obsolete and unjustified. Moreover, he could not find any sustainable argument on defence of the obviously undemocratic character of that institution. Ukraine was convinced that the existence of the veto right was one of the major reasons why the Council found itself so frequently prevented from discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

PENNY WENSLEY (Australia) expressed disappointment that 20 years after the question of Security Council reform had first been proposed to the Assembly, a point of agreement on a package of reform measures had not yet been met. The structure of the Council had remained the same for 34 years, since its expansion to accommodate a burgeoning United Nations membership of 113 States. The issue was inherently complex and political, but compromises must be found that would deal effectively with the central issues of expansion, the veto, working methods and periodic review.

The issue of electoral reconfiguration, which was of longstanding interest to the Australian Government, went further than Security Council reform, she said. The substantial disparities in the size of existing groups, and the inadequate level of representation available to many subregions, must be addressed.

IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said that after six years of negotiations by the working group, it was clear that reform of the Security Council was one of the most difficult and sensitive issues facing the United Nations. There were many differing views on how the process of reform should be conducted and this had resulted in a feeling of powerlessness to achieve any of the goals. Reform of the Council therefore remained a missing link in the overall process of reform of the United Nations. The work was delicate and it was obvious that there was a lot at stake.

He suggested that the only way to move ahead in the reform process was to focus on the areas where there was common agreement and to then move gradually towards finding solutions on areas of disagreement. There was evidence that the gradual approach towards consensus was possibly the best way.

He regretted, however, that although the Working Group had achieved some progress, much remained to be done. It was clear that the majority of States were dissatisfied with 21 members sharing two categories of seats and that was why his delegation suggested that efforts should be focused on consultations aimed at finding an acceptable compromise.

The restructuring of the Security Council was an incontrovertible requirement for the promotion of peace and international security, he continued. In the recent past, the Organization had witnessed the Council being sidelined on matters of international importance as illustrated by the Kosovo crisis. This situation could only be aggravated further by the absence of consensus on Council reform. Africa, with the greatest number of conflicts, suffered more than most regions from the hesitation and divisions within the Security Council. He concluded by calling for a Council which reflected the changing realities of today’s world.

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the expansion of non-permanent membership -- an issue relatively easy to agree on -- should be the main area for reform. It would allow for fair distribution of additional seats by giving priority to developing countries, which made up more than two thirds of the membership of the Organization.

It was reasonable to defer deliberation on expanding the permanent membership, however, because of the divergent views of countries. That complicated issue should not be allowed to hinder the expansion of the non- permanent membership. Furthermore, if the permanent membership were expanded on the basis of Member States’ consensus, priority should be given to developing countries, which were often denied opportunities for participating in deliberations on the maintenance of international peace and security. If the permanent members with veto power continued to adopt conservative positions in defence of their privileged status, reform of the Council would not be realized.

AHMED ABOUL GHEIT (Egypt) said the report of the working group contained useful conclusions. The divergent views on expansion of the membership of the Security Council needed an innovative approach. It was important to study the consequences and the implications of every position. To achieve a Security Council more representative, more democratic and more capable of responding to the challenges, the process of expansion must be based on principles of equitable geographical representation and equitable sovereignty.

The report of the working group also confirmed that it was not possible to deal with the expansion of the Council without considering the issue of the right of veto. To specify the scope of the veto was imperative. The authority of the veto had led in many cases to the marginalization of the Council.

Regarding the methods of work of the Council, he said the report reflected progress that had been achieved. The Council’s public meetings confirmed the need for transparency in its work. That proved that the fears of certain States were not founded.

MAKARIM WIBISONO (Indonesia) said the issue of increase in the Council’s non-permanent membership touched on its representative character, as only 8 per cent of the Organization’s membership was represented on that body. And although United Nations membership had grown by nearly 60 per cent since its last increase in 1965, there had been no corresponding increase in Council membership since then.

Concerning the veto, he noted that approximately 280 had been cast to date most of them during the cold war era. To contend that they had been cast in the interest of the international community would be a distortion of fact. On the contrary, they had been widely used to promote the national interests of the countries concerned. That evoked the widely shared perception of the Council being used as an institution for imposing the will of the strong over the weak, and of world affairs being run by a small group of powerful nations. Insistence on that privilege might buttress the disturbing trends, marginalization of the Council’s role and erosion of its authority.

The increase in the number of open meetings, increased transparency in the proceedings of sanctions committees and the practice of holding briefings at the conclusion of informal consultations were all indicative of the beneficial impact of the Working Group’s deliberations, he said. However, the secrecy surrounding decision-making during informal consultations, in which Member States, particularly those involved in disputes, were denied an opportunity to express their views, continued to be a cause of concern. BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said the Security Council did not represent the interests of Member States in its current state and therefore needed far reaching changes and urgent reform. This year, the world had witnessed the Council acting when it was not supposed to and overlooking its duties when it was supposed to take action. The NATO attack in Kosovo had taken place in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. Those events had further weakened the credibility of the Council.

As far as Africa was concerned, he said, the Security Council had given verbal commitments but had failed to match them with action, and the allocation of resources to that Continent was still not focused. Although membership of the United Nations had increased threefold since its inception, the number of permanent members of the Security Council had only increased from 11 to 15 -- barely representing eight per cent of Member States. Developing countries were still under-represented. The Security Council must be expanded to include more permanent and non-permanent members to reflect a more equitable geographic representation.

He said Cuba believed that the current number of permanent members should be increased to 26 and anything less than this would be unsatisfactory. Africa, Asia and Latin America should be allocated two permanent member seats. He was convinced the use of the veto was undemocratic and often only served the interest of permanent members. While the progress achieved by the working group should not be over-estimated, but Cuba was encouraged by the recent transparency in the Council.

DIETER KASTRUP (Germany) said the three main components for substantial visionary reform had been frequently repeated. First, there was a need for a Security Council that reflected the political, economic and demographic geography of the twenty-first century and which did not remain stuck in the post-war era, as well as one with democratic legitimacy to act on behalf of Member States in maintaining international peace and security. That clearly required an expansion of permanent and non-permanent membership as had already been indicated by many delegates. Visionary reform meant that petty national interests should not be the main focus.

Second, reform was inconceivable without also addressing the question of the veto, he said. The Council must be capable of acting. Its incapability had been evident during the Kosovo crisis, as well as during the protracted Iraq discussion. He felt that self-restriction, for example giving an explanation when using the veto, would be a first step in the right direction. Finally, improved transparency of the Council’s work and a periodic review of a reform package were elements which would underline the fact that it was a body with borrowed authority only, acting on behalf of Member States and not pursuing purely national interests.

He welcomed the recent more frequent applications of the “private meetings” format, and added that the Council must arrange for non-members to participate in its deliberations when they showed genuine interest or were partners in a peacekeeping operation. He expressed concern that the dispute on the scale of assessment might further delay the reform discussions in the coming months.

JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said that Security Council reform required urgent attention. The Council needed to be enlarged to reflect the political and economic realities of the modern world; its working methods needed further improvement so it could fulfil its primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security with the full confidence of the United Nations membership. He believed that in order to make progress, the Organization needed to identify those areas in which general agreement could be reached. There was a significant majority of members that supported expansion in both categories of membership and this would be a sensible point from which to start. One of the most important arguments in favour of enlargement was to achieve better representation on the Council for developing countries. Better representation should include permanent seats. His country supported permanent membership for Japan and Germany and believed three other new permanent seats should be created for non-industrialized nations.

On the issue of voting rights of the existing permanent members, he believed that these were fundamental to both the authority of the Security Council and to its ability to function effectively. These rights ensured that the Council’s decisions would be implemented with resolve and determination. The United Kingdom would therefore firmly oppose any restriction of these rights; it recognized, however, the Council’s responsibilities under the Charter and was committed to working for consensus wherever possible. His country would continue to exercise its voting rights with restraint and in a manner consistent with its Charter obligations.

CLAUDE S. BOUAH-KAMON (Côte D’Ivoire) said that, over the past six years, different positions had been underlined by the majority of Member States about the reform of the Security Council. On the issue of the working methods of the Council, efforts to improve had been clearly expressed by the majority of the members of the working group. Regarding the right of veto, he said there were three different positions: those who did not want to touch it since it was a prerogative of permanent members; those who wanted to limit its use, with a view to abolish it, since it was undemocratic; and those who forward a unilateral commitment of permanent members to see consensus in the Council, to restrict the use of veto, and to explain the grounds leading to the use of it.

Turning to the composition and size of the Council, he said it was not possible to take a final decision without deciding the number of the new members and their status. Despite different interests and positions, it was important to reform the Council, and to adapt it to the new realities. The reform of the Council constituted the only point of agreement between States since all of them considered it of paramount importance. However, implementing modalities to that end was hard.

The working group was far from completing its activities on the reform of the Council. He called upon the group to continue the discussions. Côte D’Ivoire would like to expand membership in both categories, through the creation of new non-permanent and permanent seats. Africa’s aspirations should be seriously considered, he added.

CARLOS BIVERO (Venezuela) said the adjustments currently taking place in the United Nations should be directed at upgrading its principle organs based on the principal of the sovereign equality of all States and the undeniable right of all to equitable representation in the main organs. In the process of reform and expansion of the Security Council all elements related to the process took on a critical nature and pointed towards reform of the Charter. Eventually, however, all the time and effort invested would be rewarded. The international community would have its collective interests promoted in an objective manner.

He said there was still a need for greater efforts to reach the necessary consensus on all spheres of the working group's mandate. The groups’ efforts on the whole had been productive. It was necessary for the group to continue its work so that consultations would focus on the specific elements of the reform. Open and continuous dialogue was necessary for the success of that programme.

He said he hoped the President would be open to dialogue. There was also need for an objective assessment of the six years of negotiation on Council reform. He hoped that under the new President the authority of the working group would be strengthened. He also hoped progress would be made in reaching consensus.

FRANCISCO A.TUDELA (Peru) said reform of the Security Council should be more representative and efficient. To that end, debates should seek to bring positions closer together to meet the real needs of all Member States. Given the current realities, there was a move towards general agreement for reform. There was a need to maintain a quantitative and qualitative balance on all related issues including the veto. There was also general agreement that the ability of the Council to act should be strengthened and its working methods improved. However, it must be remembered that that increased membership would not be enough to retain real reform.

The Council’s permanent members should not forget their mandate and should act responsibly and in keeping with the United Nations Charter and not pursue national interests, he said. They should also not abdicate their responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The weakness of the Council to act when necessary affected the international community as a whole.

Peru believed that both forms of membership of the Council should be expanded to include developing countries, he continued. An enlarged Council would have a more equitable representation. His country also supported the elimination of the veto and, that until then, its scope should be limited. If and if agreement could not be reached on the increase of the number of permanent members then Member States should work towards increasing the number of non-permanent members. He called on the Council to fulfil its primary role of maintaining international peace and security and reminded members that the success of its actions represented the success of the whole Organization.

JELENA GRCIC POLIC (Croatia) said that, in the past year, emerging and wide- based agreement on the fundamental elements in the Security Council debate had been witnessed. Those elements were: the Council lacked credible representation; it was threatened by an erosion of legitimacy and effectiveness; it suffered from some arcane and non-transparent working methods; it must be enlarged in both categories of membership; enlargement should reflect the changes that had taken place in international affairs; and the Council's working methods must be further democratized and made accountable. Croatia believed that only the enlargement in both categories of membership would introduce a difference into the operations of the Security Council that would make a difference in terms of the existing imbalances and inequities. That, in turn, would positively impact upon the lack of credibility and eroding legitimacy, and therefore its effectiveness.

Regarding possible rotation of the permanent posts, she said it was entirely up to the regions to come up with their own arrangements, provided that each Member State consented to such an arrangement of its own free will. Five new permanent seats should be created, out of which two should be allocated to the industrialized and three to the developing countries. Regarding the allocation of non-permanent seats, out of four such seats, one should go to Africa, one to Asia, one to Latin America and the Caribbean and one to the Eastern European region. Croatia favoured abolition of the veto. If however, the political realities precluded evolution of the decision-making process in the Council in such a direction, it supported, as a fallback position the use of the so-called double veto, where two negative votes would be required for a veto to be effective.

In the interim, Croatia held that permanent members should have the same rights and obligations. Some permanent members, though, might choose to carry on a course of conduct by which they would demonstrate their awareness for the widely-shared views on the unpopularity of the veto, and thereby show their respect for the democratic majority that held such views. Croatia had been on the record for some time now as favouring expansion of the Council up to 24 Seats. Her country held that the issue of periodic review must be part of the reform package, because it provided democratic mechanism to enforce accountability.

QIN HUASUN (China) expressed satisfaction that after years of strenuous efforts by the working group, it had been agreed that there should be more representation of developing countries in the Council. He hoped that the Group would engage in even deeper discussions on the issue during its next phase of work. China had always maintained that efforts for expansion should not be bound by imposed time limits.

There was a sense of urgency for reform, but there should be no haste, he continued. The Council’s reform was a major issue for every country and significant differences in the area remained. It was unrealistic to think that reform could be accomplished overnight. Results of such reform would not be able to stand the test of history. To reach consensus all Member States should continue to engage in patient and thorough discussions and consultations in the working group for fair and reasonable reform. The process should be kept open and transparent. Only then could confrontation be reduced to the minimum and ensure representation of the will of most Member States. The Security Council had made efforts to improve its working methods. Reform would require a gradual and self- correcting process.

VLADIMIR GALUSKA (Czech Republic) said as to the size and composition of the Security Council, current global realities would be most appropriately reflected through enlargement of the Council in both categories. His choice would be five additional permanent seats and four to five additional non-permanent seats, including one for Eastern Europe. He respected the option of rotating permanent seats for specific regions, but no country or region should be forced into such a scheme. Regarding the question of the veto, he favoured some reduction of areas where the veto could be applied.

Turning to the Council’s working methods, he welcomed and supported any motion towards greater openness and transparency. In that regard some improvements had been made since the Council members had opened their deliberations on a more frequent basis to non-members and the new idea of opened briefings had come to life.

GELSON FONSECA, JR. (Brazil) said that recent challenges to United Nations authority in the area of peace and security and the widespread perception that the Council decreasingly mirrored the will of the majority of Members reinforced the urgency of Security Council reform. In resuming its activities, the working group could not indulge in another round of exploratory discussions. Its work during the past six years had already laid the foundations for an initial set of conclusions to be drawn. Consequently, general agreement should be met on specific proposals already expressed.

He said that the central purpose of the reform was equitable representation on and increased membership in the Council. Concurrently, its working methods and transparency must be addressed. However, improvement in the way the Council conducted its work would only be possible if its composition was more equitably representative. Any expansion that maintained or aggravated the present imbalance in the permanent membership would be considered discrimination against developing countries. Brazil did not favour creating new categories of members on the Council and ruled out the idea of permanent rotating seats. Also, more equitable representation would be impossible unless membership was in the mid-twenties.

A reform package should also include some curtailment of the veto power, he continued. The ideal was to advance towards gradual elimination of the veto. He noted that as a confidence-building measure to promote convergence of views in other areas, an early agreement should be met on a specific number of years after which a periodic review would be undertaken.

ANTONIO MONTEIRO (Portugal) said it was important to have an expansion of the Security Council in both categories. Only in that way could the Council respond adequately to the current needs of the international community. According to resolution 48/26, the expansion of its membership had to take into consideration the need to remedy the existing misrepresentation of the developing countries and the changes that had occurred in international relations -- changes that were not currently reflected. It was important to envisage balancing and reflecting those aspects in both categories. To increase only the number of non- permanent members would increase the imbalance in the composition of the Council and the relations among members and categories of members.

He supported the establishment of a mechanism that would provide a periodic review of the decisions taken in all aspects of the reform of the Council. The periodical review -– the time frame of which could be set between 10 and 15 years -- should allow for the adjustment of the Council to the interests of the international community and the United Nations at the time of the review, and would substantially increase the accountability of the Council, as well as the responsibility of its members, in particular the new permanent members, before the general membership.

Turning to the question of the working methods, he said the most effective way to improve the methods of work was the gradual, step-by-step approach, rather than engaging in an abstract exercise. He recalled the initiative during last month’s presidency to make available on the Internet information concerning the daily activities of the Council, including statements to the press. Moreover, the Council was meeting more often in public meetings to consider thematic issues and specific situations.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN FADAIFARD (Iran) said the concerns of developing countries which represented the majority of Members States of the Organization were not fully considered in the Security Council although all the issues before it directly affected them. Indeed everyone agreed that the current composition of the Council, which emerged mainly in 1945, was obsolete and anachronistic and did not reflect the political and economic realities of the era.

The Non-Aligned Movement, comprising 114 Member States -– approximately two thirds of the United Nations -– was now represented on the Security Council by only five non-permanent members. His country believed that any review of the membership should take the current imbalance in representation into account and that reform should be carried out on the basis of equitable geographical distribution and the principle of sovereign equality of States. The Non-Aligned Movement would therefore like to see a membership increase of no less than 11 States. In this context, Iran also believed that as Islamic States represented about a billion people, they should also be allocated one permanent seat in the Council with the same privileges enjoyed by current members.

Further, he believed there was a need for a balanced interaction between the General Assembly and the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. While the Security Council had been actively engaged in this field, the Assembly regrettably, had found little opportunity to discharge its responsibility in this regard in cooperation with the Council as provided for in the Charter.

ALAIN DEJAMMET (France) said Member States were interested in the issue of the reform of the Security Council. That confirmed the participation of delegations in the current debate and in the working group. Moreover, it confirmed the importance of that topic for the future of the United Nations. The work of the working group had been positive. That was testified to by the report which contained general observations on which a consensus had been reached. The report also contained useful documents on the working methods of the Council and on transparency of its activities. The preparation of those observations and of those documents had been facilitated, in particular, by the distribution of questionnaires to delegations.

Through the activities of the working group, developments had been made, in particular concerning transparency, he said. He supported the increase in the number of membership in both categories and was in favour of permanent seats for Germany and Japan. He also supported the creation of new non-permanent seats. Stressing the importance of an increase, he said the total number should be between 21 and 25.

U WIN MRA (Myanmar) said if the Security Council was to become more representative of contemporary political and economic realities and better represent today's United Nations of 188 Member States, it should be expanded in both categories. His delegation's preference was for enlargement of up to 26 members . Myanmar also subscribed to the Non-Aligned Movement position that if there was no agreement on the other categories of membership, expansion should take place for the time being in the non-permanent category. “We are of the view that in the event other options have failed to command enough support, the idea of rotating permanent seats should also be considered as one of the options in the permanent membership category”, he said.

He said that another key issue facing the reform of the Council was the question of the veto, which was an integral part of the reform package. Although abolition of the veto represented an ideal solution and the ultimate goal in the democratization of the reform process, there was need for realism. Before the veto could be abolished, its application should be limited and should be exercised only under Chapter VII of the Charter which addresses actions with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

He said the issue of the veto should not be delinked from the reform and enlargement process of the Council. The veto was unjust and anachronistic, and its elimination was the most logical conclusion. He also believed that the new permanent members of the Council should enjoy the same privileges as the current permanent members.

ROBERT FOWLER (Canada) said when his country had assumed its seat last January, the norm had been one open meeting of the Council each month. In contrast, the open briefing on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo held earlier today was the third opportunity in the past two weeks for non-members to attend Council deliberations. Also, the open discussions planned for next week on East Timor, Somalia, Guinea-Bissau and Bosnia and Herzegovina gave credibility to the Council. Citing other examples of increasing transparency of the Council, he expressed the hope that it would soon adopt a Note by the President that would include other such measures.

He said that because a Member State was a major financial contributor to the Organization, or influential in other ways, did not mean that the tangible recognition for that contribution or influence ought to be a permanent seat on the Security Council. He did not exclude the possibility that in other areas of the Organization, it might be appropriate that disproportionately large contributions would warrant some right of more significant participation in the appropriate financial bodies. What he did exclude was that seats on the one organ whose decisions were binding on all Member States should be allotted on the basis of a Member’s financial contribution to the United Nations. Membership on the Security Council could only be determined through election by peers in accordance with criteria laid down in the Charter.

BERND NIEHAUS (Costa Rica) said reform of the Security Council was vital for the future of the United Nations and in order for it to be successful, mankind must have a just mechanism for the maintenance of international peace and security which reflected the new realities of international politics. Reform could not just be increased membership -- true reform should ensure that the Organization was able to shoulder it responsibilities to maintain international distribution of power and responsibilities in accordance with the Charter. The Security Council was acting on behalf of all Member States, whether they were small or large, armed or unarmed, and they should all have the same level of representation as an economic or military power. Council members should also remember that they were not just accountable to their respective governments and the body should not become an instrument for any one power.

Costa Rica found it unacceptable for the Security Council to ignore conflict situations because one or some of its members were involved in those situations. True reform of this body would make it more just and impartial. Small but important steps for reform had already been achieved through an agreement on general observations, and positive results were possible if all members made a real effort and set realistic goals.

* *** *