GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Press Release
GA/9693

GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

As the General Assembly concluded its consideration of the reform of the Security Council this afternoon, a number of speakers emphasized that despite six years having elapsed since its establishment, the high-level working group on the question of the equitable representation on an increase in the membership of the Security Council had achieved very little.

Sudan’s representative noted that at the threshold of a new millennium, Council reform was still a mirage. The working group had met and concluded its work without concrete results. Nothing had been done about enlargement of the Council despite the fact that there were now 188 Member States. The Council was less representative today and its working methods were undemocratic. Decisions which decided the future of countries were taken without involving those countries or hearing their points of view.

The representative of Turkey suggested that perhaps a small group could be gathered to assist the working group in an advisory capacity “to inject fresh thought into the sterile debate”. The group could be composed of eminent personalities drawn from different regions and subregions and diverse cultures who could approach the daunting task of Council reform from the perspective of the broader interests of the international community.

He said the discrepancies between the priorities within a limited club and the ever-increasing demands of the much wider international community was becoming more evident and acute. Adding a few members, some on the strength of their financial contribution and some on regional recognition, could not render the Council more democratic and representative.

Guyana’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said an amendment to the United Nations Charter and concurrent change in the membership of the Council would prove more acceptable if it were accompanied by the creation of a review mechanism. It would be of great merit to develop that proposal in such a manner as to allow the Assembly to comprehensively revisit the composition of the Council -- every 15 years, for example -- in light of possible changing circumstances and the continual needs of the international community.

Cameroon’s representative (on behalf of the African Group) said the discussions taking place on the exercise of the veto should recall Article 24 of the Charter. By the terms of that Article, Member States had conferred upon the Council the basic responsibility for peace and international security. That body

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9693 86th Meeting (PM) 20 December 1999

was, therefore, acting on the behalf of Member States and the United Nations. As such, it should act in a responsible manner that was compatible with its duties. However, its decisions were suffering from a dual crisis: one of legality, and one of credibility. It seemed that the Council no longer represented international society and reflected nothing more than an antiquated international reality.

Austria’s representative said that while credible progress had been made in the past few years, there was an impasse on certain critical issues. Member States should not limit themselves to repeating entrenched positions, but rather should engage in serious negotiations with a view to really moving Council reform forward in the foreseeable future. Progress on the sensitive issue of reform could only be achieved if it were approached with new ideas and new political will. “Unless there is a serious reconsideration of positions in the major capitals of the world, we will not be able to achieve any substantial progress”, he said.

Statements were also made this afternoon by the representatives of Chile, Botswana, Poland, Hungary, Cambodia, Guatemala, Ghana, Georgia, Uruguay, El Salvador, Mongolia, Samoa, Uzbekistan, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, Paraguay, Mauritius, Cape Verde, Israel, Papua New Guinea and Lesotho.

The Assembly will meet again on Wednesday morning to take up the reports of its Second Committee (Economic and Financial); continue its consideration of the strengthening of the coordination of the humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations; resume consideration of the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development and take action on related draft resolutions.

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this afternoon to continue its consideration of the question of equitable representation on and increase in membership of the Security Council and related matters.

Statements

JUAN LARRAIN (Chile) said the discussion on Security Council reform was a good one for two reasons: first, it was being discussed in the General Assembly –- the most democratic organ of the Organization; and second, the working group was required to consolidate different initiatives and proposals. The United Nations was the best forum for ideas and was the place where the willingness for change and progress finally prevailed. The opportunity provided today was symbolic and gave the reform process new impetus.

He said reform must be inspired by the need to increase not only the sufficiency of the Council, but its representative nature and legitimacy. Another objective was limiting the right of the veto according to Chapter VII of the Charter and, in the long term, its elimination. He believed the whole concept of the reform package was commonly accepted, but there was need for clarification. The package was born out of the need to increase the number of members and improve the transparency and working methods of the Council. However, the original idea had been distorted and that had created a dangerous relationship based on conditionalities. He also asked whether it was worthwhile to discuss the numbers and distribution of seats in view of the many impediments.

LEUTLWETSE MMUALEFE (Botswana) fervently insisted that the Security Council should be expanded in both permanent and non-permanent seat categories. He said that Africa was under-represented, particularly in the permanent seat category of the membership of the Security Council. Out of a total of 53 countries, Africa was currently allocated three non-permanent seats on the Council. Africa should be allotted two permanent seats and two additional non- permanent seats during the current phase of Security Council reform. “In our view”, he said, “the Security Council should be expanded to no less than 26 members.”

Reform of the Council, however, went beyond numbers, he said. “Our determination is not only to bring about equity in geographical representation, but to instil a culture of democracy in the manner in which the Council conducts its business.” The veto was an undemocratic instrument, he said. It served narrow national interest and should be abolished.

The Security Council should be more transparent in its conduct of business, he said. Informal consultations were necessary, but they should not substitute transparency and accountability. The Council must hold more open meetings. Also, it should change its habit of organizing debates when it had already concluded consultations among its members.

In an orderly and accountable culture, the Security Council should find it worthwhile to hear the view of non-members first, so that such views could effectively be taken into account during consultations among its members, he said. That way, decisions would be truly reflective of the will of the larger United Nations community.

MICHAEL SCHMIDT (Austria) said the legitimacy of the United Nations organs was of primary importance in making the Organization fit for the next century. Security Council reform was, therefore, a priority. Austria had been very active in participating in the high-level working group on Council reform and had made its position very clear.

While credible progress had been made in the past few years, there was an impasse on certain critical issues, he said. That impasse had led to understandable frustration. Many good and workable ideas had been put forward. Member States should not limit themselves to repeating entrenched positions, but rather should engage in serious negotiations with a view to really move Council reform forward in the foreseeable future. “The mere fact that we are having this debate for two days now and that so many distinguished members have felt the necessity to express themselves on the issue should, in itself, testify to the urgency with which Security Council reform is considered by the majority of the United Nations membership”, he said.

Progress on the sensitive issue of reform could only be achieved if it were approached with new ideas and new political will, he said. “Unless there is a serious reconsideration of positions in the major capitals of the world, we will not be able to achieve any substantial progress.”

ZBIGNIEW MATUSZEWSKI (Poland) said the size and composition of the Council should reflect the momentous changes in the geopolitical scene that had taken place since the last reform more than three decades ago. To strengthen its ability to discharge its Charter obligations, the Council must be enlarged in both permanent and non-permanent categories. While aware of the various opinions as to the make-up and selection processes for an enlarged permanent component of the Council, Poland believed that the international role of Germany and Japan, including their commitment and contributions to maintaining international peace and security, should be recognized in their election as permanent members. Likewise, the representation of the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin American and the Caribbean should be brought into line with their status in contemporary international relations by increasing the number of permanent States in the Council. The parallel enlargement of the category of non-permanent members should include an additional seat for the Eastern European Group of States, whose number had more than doubled in the past decade.

Further exchange of views was needed on the Council's decision-making processes, he said. It was important that there be no discrimination between new and present members. Also, the solution finally adopted should take into account the widely shared opinion that in order to be an effective guardian of peace, the Council must be able to act promptly and decisively whenever circumstances required. Regarding the Council's working methods, he concurred with those who believed it was an integral part of the reform process and that it should not be separated from other issues.

After several years of discussion, the time had come to explore avenues that would be more conducive to success, he said. One such avenue would be the wider use of informal negotiations under the auspices of the chairman and both vice-chairmen of the open-ended working group, to identify areas of possible agreement and narrow existing differences where possible. The chairman had produced a questionnaire to seek members' views on the main issues of the Council's reform. A written summary of States responses could help further talks.

ANDRÉ ERDÖS (Hungary) said the weaknesses and failures that had emerged in the Security Council had been attributed to the absence of reform. The number of speakers in the current debate testified to interest in the topic. He encouraged the President of the Assembly to continue to make full use of the various consultation mechanisms that were available to help move the process on. The composition of the Council should reflect world changes. Hungary favoured increasing the number of Council members in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. While the specific parameters of that process were as yet unknown, discussions in the working group should provide guidance towards a working solution.

He said the presence of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa as permanent members could strengthen the democratic nature and credibility of the Council. He also felt that there should not be a difference between older and newer permanent members. He was aware that current reform exercise was a very lengthy undertaking. However, even the modest achievements and gradual measures attained should be valued without losing sight of the long-term objective of changing the Council. While there were difficulties that still needed to be overcome, the alternative would be a freeze of the status quo, which could perpetuate a situation long since overtaken by world events.

OUCH BORITH (Cambodia) said the Security Council would not be meaningfully reformed unless it was expanded and its decision-making process was made more transparent and democratic. His country was, therefore, part of a large group of States that supported an increase in both permanent and non-permanent membership categories. The legitimacy and quality of the Council’s work could only be enhanced and reflect the realities of the international community if a few more responsible Member States were elected to perform their agreed mandate. The addition of both industrialized and developing countries as new permanent and non-permanent members was essential to adapt the Council and its mandate to the changing world. In that respect his delegation favoured the idea of increasing the permanent membership with two States from the industrialized countries and three from the developing world.

He said the second issue was the power of the veto. Limited use of the veto in the decision-making process would let the Council efficiently protect the interests of the international community, as well as promote democracy within its framework. Transparency and openness also needed to be strengthened in the working methods of the Council. It would be useful if representatives of States outside of the Council had the opportunity to participate in the discussion on the issues related to their countries. Failing that, they should be allowed to make a statement to explain the situation or be invited to listen to what was being discussed.

GERT ROSENTHAL(Guatemala) said the need to adapt the structures of the Organization to the changing realities of the world was so obvious that it required no discussion. Nevertheless, the wide-ranging differences in the positions of the various members on the matter had stymied action. The growing divergence between the composition and the mode of operation of the Security Council, on the one hand, and contemporary realities, on the other, tended to marginalize the Council -- and the United Nations itself -- by inhibiting its intervention in the situations for which it was created.

Reform of the Council rested on a number of principles, tempered by a degree of flexibility, he said. There was a need for expanding the membership of the Council to a range of 21 to 27 members. Some actors on the international scene carried greater weight than others, which was why some system of weighting in the decision-making process was acceptable. If the distinction between permanent and non-permanent members would be maintained, the idea of assigning a permanent seat to each region was not without appeal. There was also a need for greater transparency in the work of the Council, provided that that expedient was not abused.

Strengthening multilateralism and the United Nations was the strong preference of his country, he said. Concessions to the composition and the functioning of the Security Council, in the interest of accomplishing that higher objective, could be made. He hoped that other delegations also believed in the importance of strengthening the United Nations, and that one could re-examine with a fresh mind how best to move forward in the long-delayed reform of the Council.

YAW O. OSEI (Ghana) said that because decisions made by the Security Council bound all members of the United Nations, Council reform must be guided by the principles of democracy, sovereign equality of States and equitable geographical representation.

He supported the Non-Aligned Movement’s position on all aspects of the question of increase in membership of the Security Council, complemented by the African position, as expressed in the Harare declaration of 1997. “Africa’s claim to at least two permanent seats should be adequately addressed, since it is the largest regional group in the Organization”, he said.

He also endorsed the Movement’s proposal that a periodic review of the Council was necessary in order to enable it to respond better and more effectively to new challenges in international relations, especially with regard to international peace and security. It was only through a restructuring of the Council that perceptions of selectivity in dealing with issues of international peace and sustainable development could be avoided and the causes of conflict dealt with in an effective and impartial manner.

SONIA FELICITY ELLIOTT (Guyana), on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said that the geopolitical alliances and realities that had dominated and shaped the years immediately following the birth of the United Nations could no longer serve as a useful model for the development of international relations. One of that era's anachronistic features was the current formation of the Security Council. The CARICOM subscribed to the Non-Aligned Movement's position calling for expansion in the non-permanent category of Council members. At the same time, general agreement on expansion in the permanent category would be acceptable providing there was an adequate balance between the industrialized and developing nations.

The continued existence of the veto was anachronistic and anti-democratic and should, therefore, be abolished, she said. But given the prevailing political realities, CARICOM was prepared to consider, for the time being, a restriction of its use to Chapter VII issues. Moreover, the veto should not be extended to any new permanent members.

She said that an amendment to the United Nations Charter and concurrent change in the membership of the Security Council could prove more acceptable if it were accompanied by the creation of a review mechanism. It would be of great merit to develop that proposal in such a manner as to allow the General Assembly to comprehensively revisit the composition of the Council -- every 15 years, for example -- in light of possible changing circumstances and the continual needs of the international community.

PETER P. CHKHEIDZE (Georgia) said the Security Council should be enlarged in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. His country supported the enlargement of the permanent member category with the addition of two industrialized countries, Germany and Japan. It also supported the addition of four non-permanent seats to provide equitable geographic representation in the Council. Those would include countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. Such changes would increase the Council’s authority, legitimacy and capacity. Also, the number of the members of the Council should be in the low twenties. Proper reform of the structure and working methods of the Council required that expansion of the non-permanent membership category be approached only jointly with the enlargement of the permanent membership.

He said review of the use of the veto should be an integral part of the whole reform package of the Council. It was an absolute necessity that present and new permanent members of the reformed Council have equal power. Careful consideration needed to be given to the means of maintaining the effectiveness of the Council as a decision-making body, if that type of reform were to be implemented. His country also shared the view that the issue of enlargement of the Council and reform of its structure and working methods should be subject to review by the Assembly once every 10 years -– or in accordance with the request of two thirds of the members of that body.

JORGE PÉREZ-OTERMIN (Uruguay) said that after six long years of discussion and numerous tedious meetings on the issue of Security Council reform, the working group should avoid further waste of time and energy. It was now necessary to act with clear political will to carry out the reform process. This will must not be only numerical, but also reflective of the abilities of all Member States to shoulder their responsibilities under the United Nations Charter.

All Member States must work together on the issue of Security Council reform to achieve agreement in the context of the political, geopolitical and social realities of the new millennium, he said. While he felt that this was not the proper forum to discuss the issue, he reiterated his country’s support of the reform process.

RICARDO G. CASTANEDA-CORNEJO (El Salvador) said that the issue of Security Council reform could no longer be deferred. The ineffectiveness of the Council at times to carry out its duties under the United Nations Charter had called into question the efficacy of the Organization as a whole.

It was regrettable to see that more progress had not been made on the issue, he said. It seemed that the working group was at a standstill and was now trapped in a vicious circle of inaction. This was particularly troubling for developing countries that continued to see their views overlooked or ignored.

He said an increase in both permanent and non-permanent members with equal rights was necessary. This increase should also include developing nations. The Security Council must adapt to new realities of the coming century or risk perpetuating a situation that would be rejected by the majority of members.

Inflexible and antagonistic opposition to Security Council reform weakened trust in the system of collective security, he said. A general, equitable and just agreement should be reached. But, if the differences were truly irreconcilable, then Member States should try new methods of negotiation to effect the reform of the Security Council.

JARGALSAIKHANY ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said that any erosion of the Security Council's authority could only marginalize it, be it through decisions taken outside the Council about issues falling within its competence, by misuse or abuse of the veto, or otherwise. There was a growing perception that the Security Council tended to apply a double standard when it came to some regional problems or specific cases. The debate on the question of humanitarian intervention, held in the plenary and elsewhere earlier in the current session, was the reflection of that perception. Mongolia supported a proposal requiring any State that used the veto to explain to the General Assembly its reasons for doing so. That would mark a step towards increasing the Council's accountability to the general membership.

Supporting the position of the Non-Aligned Movement, he said that the expansion of the Council, in both categories, should ensure that the small States were duly represented and their interests reflected. Within efforts to improve the Council's efficiency and effectiveness, periodic open debates should be held on crucial international issues related to different aspects of conflict prevention or to the strengthening of international peace and security. That would allow the Council to take into consideration the views of Member States on those issues, particularly small States. That would be important and of practical use since most of the Council's agenda items dealt with questions related to small States.

MARTION BELINGA EBOUTOU (Cameroon), on behalf of the African Group, said the convergence of views on expanding the permanent and non-permanent member categories and the use of the veto should not mask the firm positions held by countries on the size, composition and distribution of the five proposed new permanent members and use of the veto. The discussions taking place on the exercise of the veto should recall Article 24 of the Charter. By the terms of that Article, Member States had conferred upon the Council the basic responsibility for peacekeeping and international security. Thus, in fulfilling its duties in accordance with that Article, the Council was acting on behalf of Member States. That simply meant that Council members were the empowered representatives of the Member States and the United Nations as a whole. As such representatives, they should either individually or collectively act in a responsible manner that was compatible with their duties towards common objectives. Today, however, the Council’s decisions were suffering more and more from a dual crisis: one of legality, and one of credibility, he said. More and more, it seemed that the Council was no longer representative of today’s international society. Indeed, the present composition reflected nothing other than an antiquated international reality. International society had undergone profound changes, and new States had imposed their views on geopolitical realities. For those reasons, the Council must be reformed in order to be in a position to meet the challenges of the next millennium. The African Group favoured an expansion of the Council of up to 26 members in both categories. They advocated increasing permanent members from five to 10, and the number of non-permanent members from 10 to 16. Africa, which had the largest number of Members States in the Organization, should have at least two of the five new permanent seats and five of the non-permanent seats.

TUILOMA NERONI SLADE (Samoa) said that the composition of the Council did not accurately reflect the present-day membership of the Organization. Developing countries especially were not properly represented. A review of regional groupings and fairer representation of subgroupings was needed. There seemed to be broad agreement that membership of the Council, permanent as well as non-permanent, should be enlarged. That could not be done piecemeal, for the unfairness of representation in one category could not be resolved without attention to the other.

The Security Council reforms should be as comprehensive as possible, and must address all aspects as a whole, including the veto, he said. The veto should be curtailed and restricted to a narrow range of issues. Since appreciable time had been allowed for the difficult and critical process, and the issues were now clear, it was the right moment to consider moving on to a more definitive phase in the current efforts to reform the Security Council.

ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) said Security Council reform was an important component of the evolution of the entire United Nations system, and it could not be delayed. Germany and Japan both had the right to be represented as permanent members of the Council, so that they could assume their full responsibilities in the international community. Permanent seats for those countries would, in turn, strengthen the Council itself.

Optimum expansion of the Council would involve two to thre3e more non- permanent members. Total Security Council membership should not exceed 21. The working group was the best forum for these decisions, and it should, therefore, continue to seek a consensus, he added. While the process would not be fast and easy, it should not effect the Council in the day-to-day business of maintaining international peace and security.

ELTFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said six years had elapsed since the establishment of the high-level working group on reform of the Security Council. Unfortunately, at the threshold of a new millennium, that reform was still a mirage. The working group had met and concluded its work without concrete results. Nothing had been done about enlargement of the Council, the number of members, and the permanent and non-permanent categories. That was despite the fact that there were now 188 Member States. The Council was less representative today and its working methods undemocratic. Decisions which decided the future of countries were taken without involving those countries or hearing their points of view. He said the right of the veto was an antiquated paradox dictated since the Second World War by the victors who directed the course of the Charter. Many of them had threatened that the Organization would not be established if the right of the veto was not accepted. That veto had turned the Council into a paralysed organ where international peace and security could not prevail. The bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan by the United States was one such example of that paralysis. In that instance, what had the Council done to protect international peace and security? Nothing. It had also not taken Sudan’s interests into account because of the hegemonistic factors at play within its own framework.

He said the right of the veto must be restricted and confined to Chapter VII of the Charter until it was completely eliminated. Another issue was that the bureau of the working group had a tendency to resort to informal consultations. Such consultations should not be used unless there were a small number of problems that required a rapprochement of view points. The working group should also be the only official forum in the Assembly to examine the issue of Council reform.

CONSTANTINE MOUSHOUTAS (Cyprus) supported the expansion of the Security Council by increasing both permanent and non-permanent members on the basis of an equitable geographical distribution of seats, whereby the present imbalanced situation between developed and developing countries could be addressed. Enlargement of the Council was necessary in order to render its decisions more credible and authoritative. “What is needed for the enlargement of the Council is political will and flexibility for an overwhelmingly supported decision”, he said.

He said the criterion that should be considered in according permanent- seat status should be considerable contribution to the budget and to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as the other purposes of the United Nations, as was the case of India. Security Council reform was not only a matter of composition and size, it also entailed the review of its working methods in order to provide even more transparency and greater accountability. “The more accountability, the stronger the Security Council”, he said.

Finally, he welcomed the progress that had been made in the Council’s working methods, especially on the issue of transparency. He also supported the proposal of the Indian delegation of the incorporation in the annual report of an assessment by the Council on the usefulness of its own actions. His delegation would also be willing to discuss the German delegation’s proposal for reporting to the General Assembly on the use of a veto.

MISHECK MUCHETWA (Zimbabwe), supporting the Non-Aligned Movement position that the veto must be curtailed, said that if those wielding veto power in the Security Council were unwilling to have it curtailed, any new permanent members of a reformed Council must enjoy the same prerogatives as those exercised by the current permanent members. He reiterated the Organization of African Unity (OAU) statement on Security Council reform made at the 1997 Harare Summit. Africa expected two permanent seats, whose occupancy would be decided by the Africans themselves on a rotational basis, as well as three non-permanent seats. That was a reasonable demand, for at the formation of the United Nations five permanent seats had been created out of a total membership of 50. Today, there were 53 African States that had not been accommodated in 1945.

He noted that during Security Council debates, including last week's interactive debate, no permanent member had fully represented Africa's interests. African issues were often taken lightly or at times debated for public consumption. Africa would better represent its own interests on the Council. A major area of concern was the Council's frequent use of informal consultations. While recognizing that informal consultations might be necessary in certain cases, they should be the exception rather than the rule. Instead, open debates should become the order of the day, for the operations of the Security Council must be above board.

VICENTE PAPPALARDO (Paraguay) said it was important to emphasize that the Secretary-General’s reform of the United Nations would not be complete without reform of the Security Council. When there was a crisis, the world looked to the Council. The attack by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had gone against international law. The central problem plaguing Council reform would only be solved by increasing the number of seats in both permanent and non-permanent categories. Developing countries were entirely unrepresented. Any increase should include two industrialized countries which were established as global contributors. Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Africa should also be represented.

He said the adoption of resolution 53/30 in November last year had been a substantive step in reaching general agreement on reform of the Council. The debates on the issue next year would have to aim at rapprochement and avoid confrontations. Given the current circumstances, the right of the veto was now a privilege of some and should, therefore, be exclusively confined to issues which fell within Chapter VII of the Charter. A formula must be sought to limit its power until it could be eliminated, he added.

VOLKAN VURAL (Turkey) said the working practices and transparency of the Council had improved somewhat. Although modest in nature, those changes had been achieved through the persistent work of reform-minded members, both within and outside the Council. However, fundamental differences still existed over the core issue of expansion of, and equitable representation on, the Council. Perhaps, Member States should question why they had failed to come to an agreement; were they trying to satisfy incompatible demands and conflicting needs through a single reform package?

The discrepancies between the priorities within a limited club and the ever-increasing demands of the much wider international community were becoming more evident and acute, he continued. Adding a few members, some on the strength of their financial contribution and some on regional recognition, could not render the Council more democratic and representative. Turkey could not remain indifferent to the marginalization of the Security Council. However, reform of the Council for the sake of reform was not a sound approach.

He suggested that perhaps a “small group of wise men” could be gathered to assist the working group in an advisory capacity “to inject fresh thought into the sterile debate”. The group could be composed of some eminent personalities drawn from different regions and subregions and diverse cultures who could approach the daunting task of Council reform from the perspective of the broader interests of the international community.

ANUND P. NEEWOOR (Mauritius) said that the right of veto gave undue weight to Security Council permanent members. One single permanent member had the right and the power to hold the Council, and indeed the whole membership of the United Nations, hostage. It also meant protracted negotiations and undue delays in decision making until compromises, often bad ones, were made with an unwilling member. The elected members of the Council played only a secondary role in process. The system represented a legacy of a by-gone colonial era.

Africa had been denied for far too long its rightful representation in the Council, both in the permanent and non-permanent categories, he said. India, as the second most populous country, the largest democracy in the world and an industrial and economic power-house, more than deserved a seat in its own right on the Council in the permanent category.

From time to time, the Council President would hold open discussion on important issues, he said. The right moment to hold such open discussion was before resolutions on important issues were adopted by the Council, rather than afterwards. Furthermore, the Council should reach out to regional and subregional organizations and seek their opinions on issues of concern to them. The Council should desist from acting as a kitchen cabinet of a selected few in formulating decisions that had important bearing on the people concerned. Transparency enhanced credibility, and in the United Nations it should be ensured at all levels, especially in the Security Council.

JOSE LUIS MONTEIRO (Cape Verde) said that a major obstacle in Security Council reform was the fear on the part of some large and powerful nations that expansion would erode their position of control. That fear was unfounded. In fact, wider participation in the Council would make its decisions more legitimate since it would be more representative of the wider United Nations membership. The Council would also be stronger -- larger nations should welcome increased participation as an opportunity to add to the strength of the international community. These powerful nations would also gain more openness and understanding.

There was no reason to have a contradiction between efficiency, transparency and democratization, he said. The roads leading to a global solution would become clear. As the working group continued its deliberations, Cape Verde would voice its full views on the issue of Security Council reform in the near future. The representative did suggest, however, developing a questionnaire that could be used to collect the views of Member States. That would be an interesting and useful way for their positions to be issued and discussed.

YEHUDA LANCRY (Israel) said his country shared the vision of a Security Council that was equitable and transparent in its work and accountability, and more representative of Member States. However, any talk of that issue was incomplete when it omitted the most glaring case of inequity and lack of representation that tarnished the Organization today, namely, the fact that Israel was still denied membership in a regional group. Israel, alone, was prevented from being able to be elected to the main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. A recent judicial opinion from the International Court of Justice noted that the exclusion of Israel was a form of discrimination and was in violation of the Charter, he said. The right enjoyed by every other Member of the Organization - - large and small -- was promised in the admission of Israel in 1949 as a Member of the United Nations. “Fifty years later, we have yet to enjoy it”, he said.

Israel yearned for an opportunity to participate fully in the initiatives launched at the United Nations. It was not merely its right, but also a manifestation of Israel’s deepest aspirations as a people and as a country. The Secretary General had said the exclusion of Israel from the system of regional groupings, along with other circumstances, had given a regrettable impression of bias and one-sidedness.

No reform of the Security Council could be complete without facing that injustice, he continued. “I ask that this anomaly in the United Nations system finally be addressed and rectified. As long as one Member State is denied the equal participation granted to all others, the purposes and principles of the Charter remain unfulfilled.”

PETER DONIGI (Papua New Guinea) reiterated his delegation’s position that the geographical landscape of the United Nations must be reconfigured. In such a reconfiguration, his delegation would anticipate that each subregion must be represented on the Security Council. Alternatively, some discussion must be focused on creating opportunities for subregions to be represented. That would necessarily entail some discussion of the composition of the subregions.

He agreed that there must be expansion of the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent member categories. “There must, however, be no second class permanent members. The veto powers must, therefore, be limited to certain areas of global concerns.” He also believed that permanency and the right to vote must be tied to commensurate obligations, in particular, contributions to international peace and security.

PERCY MANGOAELA (Lesotho) aligned himself with the statements by Cameroon, on behalf of the African Group, and Namibia, on behalf of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). He said Africa's position on Security Council expansion was well known, having first been articulated at the 1994 OAU Summit in Tunis. It had been reaffirmed in Harare and Ouagadougou in 1997 and 1998, respectively. The positions of many other countries had been adequately articulated in the last six years. Fresh momentum was now required to move the matter forward. Continued and unending discussion would only discredit the United Nations as a talking shop.

Clearly, the remaining task should be to narrow down the differences and begin working towards a negotiated compromise, he said. It would be useful to continue finding ways to make progress in reforming the Security Council's working methods and then to take on the difficult task of narrowing the differences regarding the Council's expansion. It was worth recalling that large majorities already existed in support of certain positions, but that minorities were significant either in numbers or in their influence on the Organization's work. The starting point should be closure on the question of whether the Council's expansion should take place in one category only or in both. There was no point in talking further about expansion unless that basic question was resolved.