OPINION ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM OFFERED BY THIRTY-NINE MORE MEMBER STATES AS ASSEMBLY DEBATE CONTINUES

Press Release
GA/9825

OPINION ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM OFFERED BY THIRTY-NINE MORE MEMBER STATES AS ASSEMBLY DEBATE CONTINUES

Issues of Expansion, Use of Veto, Geographical Balance Remain Central; Large Number of Countries Still to Be Heard From

The General Assembly heard statements from a further 39 Member States this afternoon and evening, as it continued its debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

Again, discussion centred on possible increases in the permanent and non- permanent membership, the use of the veto and changes in the Council’s working method.

The representative of Spain said he realized that those who had the veto were not likely to renounce it, and the role of the permanent member was intrinsically linked to the veto power. The unavoidable question was: whether the international community was ready to grant this huge power, potentially paralysing, to a new handful of States, even if excellent relations were enjoyed with them.

The representative of New Zealand said while supporting Japan’s aspirations for a permanent seat, his country could not contemplate any extension of the veto.

On the issue of equitable geographical representation on the Security Council, the delegate of Togo said that the African continent was, compared to other regions in the developing world, under-represented in the Council. The representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic echoed that sentiment, stressing that the permanent membership, given the current realities of international relations, must comprise three members from developing countries and two from industrialized countries.

The representative of China, a Permanent Member of the Council, said that under-representation of developing countries was an overriding priority in the reform of the Council.

Also taking part in the debate were the representatives of Argentina, Indonesia, Angola, United Kingdom, Turkey, Canada, Peru, Republic of Korea, Myanmar, United Arab Emirates, Burkina Faso, Venezuela, Portugal, Egypt, Italy,

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9825 65th Meeting (PM) 16 November 2000

Brazil, Kenya, Czech Republic, Denmark, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Belarus, Belgium, Colombia, Malta, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Cyprus, Yemen, San Marino, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Mongolia, Gambia and Nigeria.

The Assembly meets again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 17 November, to continue its consideration of the question of equitable representation on, and increase in the membership of, the Security Council and related matters.

General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9825 65th Meeting (PM) 16 November 2000

Assembly Work Programme

The fifty-fifth regular session of the General Assembly met this afternoon to continue its debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

Statements

ARNOLDO LISTRE (Argentina) said that the task of reforming the Security Council was “neither easy, nor without controversy”. Its impact on the United Nations was so significant that most delegations believed the solution must be acceptable to all; for that reason, it should be reached by consensus, he said. Argentina reiterated its position that the Open-ended Working Group was the most appropriate forum for dealing with the arduous and difficult issue, where decisions could neither be hurried nor artificial deadlines imposed, because that could be counterproductive to the goal of reforming the Council.

Reform did not entail merely increasing the number of its members. Improving its working methods and settling the matter of the veto were issues that had to be addressed, if the international community wanted a more representative, accountable, democratic and transparent Council. During the Millennium Summit, the heads of State and government had called for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects, meaning there should not be partial solutions. In the category of Permanent Members, Argentina did not accept the view that countries contributing more money than they were required to deserved the privileges of permanent membership and the veto. His Government had traditionally been against privileges and distinctions within international organizations, which had also been its position in the League of Nations in 1920, he noted.

Argentina felt the new non-permanent members should be elected on the basis of the criteria established in Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations: their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security and equitable geographical distribution. He believed regional groups should decide how new seats would be attributed among their Member States, because that procedure had been efficient and must be maintained. In reference to the right of veto, his country urged the five Permanent Members to consider ways to limit the privilege for a period of time until its ultimate elimination was negotiated. He invited the minority of countries holding to archaic privileges to stop obstructing the reform of the Council and to abandon their elitist stance.

Sir JEREMY GREENSTOCK (United Kingdom) said it was essential that the Security Council be made more representative of the membership of the United Nations: the membership on whose behalf it acted, and whose full confidence it needed, when meeting its primary responsibility for international peace and security. The Council must also work in as transparent a manner as possible, allowing for extensive consultation with non-members as well as with troop contributors and with individuals or organizations with relevant expertise. It must, at the same time, retain the necessary efficiency to tackle the many and complex conflict situations on its agenda in a timely and effective manner. On 30 December 1999, in his capacity as President of the Security Council, he had issued a note setting out a number of points to improve procedural practice. Those provisions had now been put in effect. Matters concerning the Middle East, the Balkans, African States such as Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and East Timor had been the subject of briefings and debates in public meetings in the Council Chamber, with the wider membership in attendance, rather than in informal consultations of the Council.

The balance between public meetings and informal consultations might still not be quite right, and there was further work to be done on matters relating to participation. He said that the Council had shown that it could use new formats to take its work forward; an example of that was the Ambassador-level meeting between Council Members and troop contributors. In its recent resolution on United Nations Peace Operations (SCR/1327), the Council had underlined the importance of an improved system of consultation among troop-contributing countries, the Secretary-General and the Council. He welcomed that undertaking and supported its early implementation.

Far less progress had been made on the equally important issue of Council enlargement. The Open-ended Working Group had worked hard on a conference room paper that set out the options and encouraged a more focused debate. Several areas of general agreement had been identified, including on the principle of enlarging both categories of membership. It was also clear that there was broad agreement that expansion must include both developed and developing States. He expressed the United Kingdom’s full support for those two fundamental principles, which would underpin any final agreement on enlargement.

JOAQUIM MANGUEIRA (Angola) recalled that the Charter had been adopted by 50 States when political, economic and military prestige allowed those States to impose their point of view on the Organization. Since that time, the number of sovereign States had nearly quadrupled. They all played an active role in a world radically changed both politically and economically. Further, the involvement of developing countries in international affairs was leading to the emergence of new economic powers that were transforming the old realities.

As an African State, he said, Angola agreed with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on Security Council reforms. The membership should be increased to a total of 26 permanent and non-permanent members. Africa must have two permanent seats based on the rotation principle, with the same rights as current Permanent Members, including the right to veto. Finally, the decision-making process in the Council must be changed. The veto, for example, must not be allowed in cases concerning admission of a new member.

To accomplish those goals, the present Permanent Members must have the political will to understand majority concerns. They must also be more flexible about reform proposals. For the Charter to be implemented in light of new realities, there must also be better balance in the competencies of the main bodies, for example with regard to preventive diplomacy. Finally, the Council’s work must be more transparent. Non-members must participate more actively in the Council’s deliberations, particularly when directly involved in the situation being considered.

MAKMUR WIDODO (Indonesia) said it was now universally recognized that the membership and structure inherited in 1945 was outdated and obsolete, and did not reflect the political, economic and demographic realities of the time. Permanent Members remained the same, while developing countries continued to be disfranchised -- an anomaly which could not be perpetuated. Two thirds of the world’s population in the developing countries were without representation in the permanent membership. Adequate expansion in the non-permanent seats would ensure more balanced geographical distribution and lend greater legitimacy to the Council’s decisions, secure broader support for those decisions and facilitate the sharing of responsibilities by an increasing number of Member States in the maintenance of international peace and security.

With regard to the use of the veto, he said that insistence on that right or even threat of its use, as had occurred in recent times, had led to the marginalization of the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. There was a near unanimity to progressively curtail and restrict the use of the veto. In the interim, to encourage a more responsible exercise of the veto, he supported the proposal by Germany to explain the reasoning behind the casting of vetoes.

He said that open meetings of the Council should become the rule, and informal consultation the exception, as questions relating to international peace and security were, indeed, the collective responsibility of all Member States.

UMIT PAMIR (Turkey) said that, since the Security Council acted in the interest of all Member States, it was totally legitimate for those States to make their voices heard in the Council's work. The changing character of the United Nations role in maintaining peace and security had only increased Member States’ interest in a comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Every member of the United Nations had the right to look upon the Council as a common asset. That meant transparency and accountability in its work, decision-making not guided by privileges and, most importantly, more frequent opportunity for all Member States to serve on the Council. Were those not the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of members? he asked.

Unfortunately, the Working Group had been dragged into futile discussions over the last seven years by attempts to place conditions on even partial realization of those legitimate goals. Similarly, progress on improving the working method of the Council was excruciatingly slow. It seemed that the Permanent Members and a limited group of others, all fearing the loss of their “exclusive club rights”, were unwilling to strive to make the Council truly transparent and accountable. He did acknowledge, however, the modest steps the Council had taken over the past few years to make its work and meetings more accessible to non-members. Still, there was no alternative to a comprehensive revision of its methods of work.

The issue of the veto was central to any discussion of Council reform. It was the major weapon that Permanent Members wielded, and was the invisible mould that shaped the Council's actions. Yet, whenever the Working Group took up the issue of the veto, it was met by a deafening silence on the part of the Permanent Members. While there might be no broad agreement on adding new Permanent Members to the Council, at least there appeared to be general expectation that its work needed to be more democratic and representative. That could be achievable, if no strings were attached to increasing Council non-permanent membership. That idea should also be supported by the Non-Aligned Movement. He also agreed that developing countries should be given wider representation on the Council.

ROLAND Y. KPOTSRA (Togo) said Member States needed to seek elements that could lead to a general agreement on all reform questions. It could be recognized that considerable progress had been made in several areas. The injection of a larger dose of transparency in the work of the Council should not lead to complacency, however. The Security Council needed to continue to improve the process of decision-making for greater openness and efficiency. The development of international relations over the past years illustrated the need to work to reform the Security Council. However, there was a shared feeling on the part of a majority of States that progress was slow.

Divergent views still existed over membership categories, the number of members and the right of veto. Member States were confronted with the fact that certain States were against increasing the membership beyond 20 or 21, as it could diminish efficiency. That was hampering the debate. The Council did not reflect the realities of the modern world, and needed to be more representative and democratic. Fifty-three of the 189 Member States of the United Nations were African, and about two thirds of Security Council deliberations affected Africa; yet, compared to other regions in the developing world, the continent was under- represented on the Council. Africa must be allocated at least two permanent and five non-permanent seats in an enlarged Security Council, conforming to the wishes of the heads of State and government of the Pan-African Organization at its thirty-third Summit. Another important area was the right of veto, which directly compromised the functioning of the Security Council. The Permanent Members of the Council still persisted in their opposition to any limitations on that right.

INOCENCIO F. ARIAS (Spain) said that some countries, presenting themselves as the champions of reform, had recently affirmed that there was a “natural majority” in favour of reforming the Security Council, while a minority was blocking progress towards that reform. The statement was fallacious for at least three reasons. Firstly, all Member States favoured reform, Spain as much as any of them. Secondly, if there was a majority as regarded Security Council reform, it was composed of those countries that wanted the Security Council to be more transparent, democratic, representative and accountable. Thirdly, the issue of reform was too essential to be simplified in a game of majorities versus minorities. An effective, democratic and fair reform would only be possible if consensus was reached on all aspects involved.

Spain supported the usefulness and necessity of the Open-ended Working Group for three reasons. Firstly, the greater transparency achieved in the Security Council’s working methods was the result of efforts exerted by many delegations in the Working Group. Secondly, the General Assembly was far from reaching agreement on the expansion of the Security Council, thus discussion must continue. The Working Group was the only existing forum that could achieve comprehensive reform. Thirdly, the Working Group was the only forum in which members could discuss the veto. The issue at hand was of capital importance. A clear majority of States wished to eliminate that colossal tool of power, and an overwhelming majority favoured curtailing it.

Spain was aware that those who had the veto were not likely to renounce it, and the condition of the Permanent Member was intrinsically linked to the veto. Bearing that in mind, the unavoidable question was: was the international community ready to grant such power, potentially paralysing, to a new handful of States, even if excellent relations were enjoyed with them? Was it wise to increase the number of Permanent Members and grant them an omnipotent prerogative that might weaken any resolution? In the twenty-first century, when there was an uproar among Member States bent on curtailing the current veto power, it would seem, at least, curious that it should be granted to a new group of countries. Apart from the paradoxical, a new class of privileged States would be established, doing a disservice to the United Nations.

ALOUNKEO KITTIKHOUN (Lao People’s Democratic Republic) said the world was far from safe or peaceful. A solid basis and foundation were needed to guarantee international peace and security. It was essential that the United Nations be reformed in order to function well and to achieve its objectives. A strong United Nations would benefit from the support and confidence of all its Member States, the poorest and most disadvantaged included. In that connection, one could not ignore the reform of the Security Council. That reform had been considered for seven years, and he regretted that the objective of reaching a global agreement on expansion had not been reached.

Laos’ position on the issue was well known, and had been stated in the Assembly several times. There must be an increase in the number of permanent and non-permanent members. He suggested that the Permanent Members, given the current realities, should be increased by three developing-country members and two members from industrialized countries. He said that formula could constitute a basis for discussion. With regard to non-permanent members, the idea that each region had a representative seemed valid and deserved close examination. Like other members of the Non-Aligned Movement, Laos was in favour of transparency in the Council’s working methods, particularly in the decision-making process. More transparency would lead to an understanding of the basis of decisions taken, and would help the Security Council regain its credibility among Member States.

MICHAEL POWLES (New Zealand) said general agreement, at least a two-thirds majority, already existed on many key facets of the question. Everything hinged on what could be done about the veto power. The Group of Ten Countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Slovenia) had said that, given the concerns of Member States about the current scope and application of the veto, agreement on its possible extension to new Permanent Members might depend on the willingness of the existing Permanent Members to accept restrictions on its use. The Permanent Members had answered that any attempt to restrict or curtail their veto rights would not be conducive to the reform process. That situation clearly needed to be addressed with determination if there was to be any progress. There was an historic opportunity offered by the reform process to wind the veto back. If the veto could not be eliminated, its curtailment should be at the heart of any reform.

His country had expressed support for Japan's aspirations for a permanent seat, but it could not contemplate any extension of the veto. Imagine that five new veto-toting Permanent Members were added. The P5 would become the P10. The elected members, even if their number were increased, would become increasingly irrelevant. Very few countries capable of meeting the criteria in Article 23 of the Charter, which included a willingness to put one’s citizens in harm’s way in the service of the United Nations and the cause of peace, would bother to seek election. Statistics advanced by the P5 on the rarity of the veto’s formal use were misleading. It hovered ever-present about the Council's informal consultations. It was exercised by the raising of an eyebrow, a turn of phrase or studied indifference. The notion that some kind of “periodic review” might help impose accountability was a chimera. Once a Member State had veto power, there was no going back.

The broad outline of a reform package was discernible where the lines of general agreement intersected. There were other possible elements, such as reconfiguration of the anachronistic regional groups, which might allow for new, smaller, more homogeneous groupings. The missing key ingredient, however, was political will, including greater readiness on the part of those who had virtually untrammeled power within the Organization, to negotiate with the rest of the membership on the veto power. On that score, leadership was now urgently required.

WANG YINGFAN (China) said his delegation had always maintained that proper expansion of the membership of the Security Council and improvement of its working methods would allow the Council to better exercise its responsibilities. To address the under-representation of developing countries on the basis of the principle of equitable geographical distribution was, thus, an overriding priority of Council reform. He hoped that, during this session of the General Assembly, the Open-ended Working Group would strengthen its steps on the core issues of enhancing the representation of developing countries, on which broad agreement had already been achieved.

Security Council reform bore on the vital interests of every Member State, and was pivotal to the future of the United Nations. One could not turn a blind eye to differences on the issue, he said. The one and only right solution was to be found in full discussions, in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation, among all Member States with a view to achieving consensus and achieving reforms which would represent the collective will of all Member States.

In China’s view, it was of vital importance to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Council to strengthen communication and consultation between Council members and non-members, including consultations with troop- contributing countries and regional organizations concerned. At the same time, the Security Council’s working methods must be improved step-by-step; openness and transparency must only be increased in a manner that enhanced effectiveness.

PAUL HEINBECKER (Canada) said his country had approached this debate from a new perspective because the debate came at the end of Canada’s two-year mandate in the Security Council. The most important recent development was the reform of the Council’s working methods, which had significantly reversed the trend of meetings held behind closed doors. Reform would not have been possible without the acceptance of those changes by all the Permanent Members. At the same time, judicious recourse to private meetings remained necessary. It allowed the Council an intermediate course, balancing the sensitive nature of the issue under discussion and the need to respect the right of participation of Member States, in accordance with the Charter. However, participation meant more than mere attendance.

The most pressing and far-reaching reforms were needed with respect to peacekeeping missions and cooperation with troop-contributing countries. The international community must rethink fundamentally how peace missions were conceived and provided with political and military guidance. A means must also be devised to allow troop contributors to have access to the Secretariat as missions were planned, as well as access to the unfolding information and intelligence available to the Secretariat. All of that should be a matter of right, not privilege.

Canada, he said, had been disappointed by the tendency towards a two-tiered Council. The Permanent Members were prepared to -- and often did -- act collectively and exclusively. For example, during the Sierra Leone crisis in May of this year, minutes after briefing the Council on the state of events on the ground and insisting that options for Council action could not yet be discussed, the Secretariat hosted a meeting to which only five members of the Council were invited, concerning options for Council action. Again, on the Iraq Compensation Commission a month ago, the P5 had met and agreed amongst themselves. There were other examples. One wondered which among the elected members was regarded as so politically powerful or intellectually dominant that the P5 could not risk normal meetings. It could be said that, if there were any members of the Council with special responsibilities, it was the elected members of the Council who had mandates from the voters of the General Assembly to act on their behalf. Furthermore, there were non-permanent members who did more good in terms of contributions to the preservation of peace and security than some of the current or prospective privileged -- although the latter could doubtless do more harm.

Canada would ask the Permanent Members of the Security Council to join it in working for comprehensive reform, knowing that this would entail a curtailment of the veto. It was anachronistic, and even a bit perverse, that an organization with such an impressive record in helping countries to develop democratic institutions should accept that an exception be made in its own governance for five out of 189 countries. The Working Group should no longer be regarded as a forum for a handful of Member States to insist that they be accorded the privileges of individual permanent seats on the Council. Also, adding vetoes would only make the Council more sclerotic. The veto, or the threat of veto, was omnipresent. Five vetoes already impaired the good functioning of the Council. How would adding five more help, and who would it help? The Organization was, after all, according to Article 2 of the Charter, “based on the sovereign equality of all its members”.

JORGE VALDEZ (Peru) said that discussion of Security Council reform must be in the spirit of consensus. Moreover, genuine concern over participation in the Council’s decisions should not be hidden behind other issues, such as the reinforcement of its efficiency and transparency. There was a need for the entire membership to assign greater trust in the functions delegated to the Council, a need that would still exist even if the membership increased. In that regard, the political will of the Permanent Members was the essential factor. Peru was pleased that the number of open sessions taking place in the past year had increased, though not to a sufficient level. It welcomed the measures approved by the Council underlining the importance of consultations between troop contributors, the Secretary-General and the Council.

In reforming the Security Council, it was indispensable to reinforce the role of the General Assembly as the supreme body of management and decision, with jurisdiction over matters of peace and security which were of universal application. Reinforcement of the Council should, therefore, result in an empowered General Assembly, and establish clear criteria of action for each body, along with clear linkages.

In the Council itself, both categories of members should be expanded. For equitable representation, Permanent Members should include both developed countries and those from the three developing regions. The current ratio between permanent and non-permanent members should be maintained. Should agreement not be reached on expansion of permanent membership, however, the non-permanent membership at least should be increased. The veto must be eliminated and, until that occurred, restricted to actions taken by the Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. As for the operations of the Working Group, he was concerned at what was perceived as growing fatigue and stagnation, which translated into a lack of progress. He appealed for serious and responsible negotiation; with realism, flexibility and political will, general agreement could be reached.

SUN JOUN-YUNG (Republic of Korea) affirmed the value of Council reform despite the difficulty, frustration and slow pace of the process. The Millennium Declaration had confirmed the comprehensive nature of the reform, which had far- reaching implications in such areas as the strengthening of peacekeeping, readjustment of the financial structure, and upgrading of the United Nations role in economic and social development. Apparently, there was no one simple solution. The answer was to start with basics and work towards a comprehensive conclusion.

Reform in both structure and decision-making should be guided by democratic principles reflecting the current reality, he said. A majority agreed that veto rights needed to be changed. That issue would have to be decided before progress could go forward on the question of enlargement, but a quick and partial solution would sidetrack reform objectives. The past year's enhanced consultations with non-members had led to a more participatory and transparent working process, but still there had not been enough discussion on which countries might be eligible for permanent membership, whatever the criteria might be. More seats filled for limited terms through regular elections seemed a viable option.

WIN MRA (Myanmar) said that, owing to the complexities of the issues involved and their profound implications for the future, discussion had not attained the ultimate aim of a final package. After seven years of discussion on this important question, it would be a devastating blow to the credibility of the United Nations if another round of consultations next year produced another impasse. A positive course of action must entail focused attention to core issues such as the total size of the enlarged Security Council. It would require a show of flexibility by all concerned, without undermining the principle -- which appeared to be generally agreed -- that the Council should be expanded in both categories -- permanent and non-permanent members.

The question of expansion was another important question that deserved priority attention in the forthcoming discussions of the Working Group. It was undeniable that there had been a convergence of views on the idea of enlarging the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent membership. Similarly, a majority of countries appeared to agree that the new members of the Council should come both from developed and developing countries.

He reiterated Myanmar’s position on the use of the right to veto. Although Myanmar continued to hold the view that the veto was unjust and anachronistic, and that its elimination should be the ultimate aim, it was ready to subscribe to the view that the same rights and privileges of the current members should be extended to the new members, who would be entrusted with the heavy responsibilities.

MOHAMMAD J. SAMHAN (United Arab Emirates) said that, since 1993, there had been some agreement over procedural matters and the modus operandi of the Security Council. However, clearly divergent views had also been reflected, notably on expanded membership of the Council and on the Council’s methods, including the regulation of the use of the veto and transparency in the decision-making process. Those divergences impeded the equitable balanced agreements which might otherwise have been implemented.

The Non-Aligned Movement, in the context of the Working Group, had expressed the need to strengthen the United Nations and the Security Council and to make its methods more transparent, just and balanced. That would entail taking into account the increase in United Nations membership by increasing both permanent and non-permanent members. He stressed the importance of a permanent seat being dedicated to one of the Arab States, on a basis of rotation and coordination with the African and Asian groups.

Some items had been on the agenda of the Security Council for a long time, such as Palestine, the Middle East conflict and African countries, as a result of the double standard applied by some members who held permanent seats in the Council. The genocide by the Government of Israel against the Palestinian people was counter to all humanitarian laws; yet it persisted, due to the continued double standards and bias of the Security Council. He called for a serious and comprehensive review of Security Council procedures, which would highlight the challenges and rationalize the use of the veto power.

MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso) said that Security Council reform was vital. But instead of evolving towards reform, the debate was getting bogged down and pivoting around the influential members. Security Council reform should not only be measured on the basis of power or the weighing of ambition, but by analysing and seeking a response to humanity’s wishes. The power to decide on intervention or on the imposing of sanctions presupposed impartiality and institutional legitimacy. Only a fully representative Security Council would be in a position to impose the rules and positions for the preservation of international peace and security. With its 53 States, Africa -- to remain within the realm of reality, justice and equity -- needed at least two permanent and two non-permanent seats.

The expansion should also benefit other continents, and regional groups should have the right to speak about the future distribution of States in the Security Council in order to avoid future misunderstanding. As long as the current Permanent Members did not seriously reconsider their position, no progress could be achieved. His country endorsed the idea that reform should respect the current geopolitical situation. Yet if this was done over a considerable period of time, as some had suggested, progress might never be achieved.

WILMER MENDEZ (Venezuela) said the changes registered on the international scene were good reason to adapt the United Nations to the exigencies of today. Action was necessary in order to ensure and reinforce the leadership of the Organization as a starting point for international dialogue and cooperation. In the process of renovation and change, reform of the Security Council represented an unavoidable and pressing objective that concerned all Member States. From that perspective, and energized by the spirit of the Final Declaration of the Millennium Summit, the international community must redouble its efforts to reform the Council and ensure its credibility as a democratic, transparent and impartial body. It must be a body in which no country had the right to paralyse action agreed upon by the majority through the exercise of a veto, which must be abolished in consonance with the principle of the sovereign equality of States.

Although some thought the Working Group had reached a dead end after seven years of work without an agreement, Venezuela called for flexibility. In the search for an integral solution, one had to remember the principle of sovereign equality and the right of Member States to be respected by the bodies of limited composition, notably the Security Council. Given the importance and controversial nature of those matters, the discussions of the Working Group must develop in an environment free of pressure, avoiding the imposition of artificial deadlines which could affect the acceptance of a general accord.

The Working Group had registered important advances in some areas, particularly the improvement of methods of work and the increased transparency of the Council. But there remained important differences over the number of Member States to be included in an enlargement of the Council. His Government would not be pleased with fragmented, partial solutions, he continued. He hoped that the Working Group would make progress for a workable solution to the delicate responsibility entrusted to it.

ANTONIO MONTEIRO (Portugal) supported expansion of the Council in both categories. Only in that way could the Council respond adequately to the current needs of the international community. The expansion had to take into consideration the need to remedy the existing misrepresentation of the developing countries, and also the changes that had occurred in international relations. Only to increase the number of non-permanent members would increase the imbalance in the composition of the Council and in the membership categories.

The veto “threat” continued to be present in every aspect of the Council's decision-making process. Whether by promoting weak decisions or by imposing immobility on the Council, the “hidden veto” could often be more negative than the expressed veto. The Group of Ten had submitted a number of concrete proposals with regard to the restriction of the use of veto. He hoped the necessary flexibility could be found in the consideration of the matter.

He supported a periodic review because it would enable the Council to adjust to the needs of the international community and the United Nations. Much had already been achieved in the Working Group. A clear improvement had taken place, reflected in a Council that was more open to the general membership. The task of importing the Council’s methods of work was, by definition, never concluded. The new composition of the Council would determine other adjustments with necessary repercussions in its methods of work. However, the principles of transparency and participation would always apply, he said.

AHMED ABOULGHEIT (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country’s position on this issue, as Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement’s Working Group and as part of the African continent, was well known and had been formulated in many forums. The Working Group had made many observations which must be taken into account in approaching Security Council reform. It had recognized that there were differences of opinion concerning Security Council expansion, including which categories should be covered in the expansion. It was important to keep in mind the objectives of the reform: strengthening the Council in order to enable it to carry out its responsibilities, to be more representative, more democratic, more transparent and more responsive to the challenges of international peace and security. In that connection, the principle of equitable geographical distribution and equal sovereignty could not be underestimated. Attention must also to be paid to increasing the efficiency of Council working methods. Those objectives were the minimum by which Security Council must be guided.

It was not possible to deal with expansion without considering the use of the veto. There was a need to settle the question of curtailment and restriction of the veto. It had to be settled before any reform of the Security Council. It had to be remembered that the Security Council was supposed to act on behalf of the membership of the United Nations. However, the right of the veto was not in keeping with that objective. Its use or the threat of its use had allowed national interests to take precedence over international peace in many cases. That had created a privileged elite which did not take into account the opinion of the majority. That was not democratic, and would lead to the marginalization of the Security Council.

SERGIO VENTO (Italy) said that the exercise of Security Council reform continued to be held hostage to particular interests. A certain fatigue was setting in, making shortcuts seem attractive to some. The permanent objectives of reform must be to make it representative, transparent and accountable. Behind closed doors, effective decisions were threatened by the veto or by double standards. The crucial political issue was that of accountability. The general membership exercised democratic control over non-permanent members. The Permanent Members should act on behalf of all members as a whole. The interests at stake in the Security Council decisions were of a political nature, therefore, there was no link between permanent membership and financial contributions to peacekeeping budgets. All the international community had was the historical reality of five individual countries. That should never be repeated. Since 1945, decolonization and the end of the cold war had led to the emergence of over 100 new Member States, yet there had been no corresponding change.

The reform process should not be linked to the ambitions of a handful of Member States, otherwise reform would not be within our grasp. Regional groups should also play a decisive role in identifying new members of the Council. The only practical solution in the short term was an increase in non-permanent seats, and the possibility of regional rotation should be explored. In recent years, the United Nations had opened up to the contributions of civil society. Civil society could not be ignored when it expressed a strong and independent view. The Working Group had been widely criticized, but that was due to deep divergences among Member States on questions of governance. To achieve reform, the international community should stop pointing to majorities and minorities. The Working Group must continue its work, but it must work better.

GELSON FONSECA, JR. (Brazil) said he believed that the Security Council should be perceived as a body that enjoyed unquestionable authority and legitimacy. To achieve that, the Council needed to be made more accountable to the general membership; its methods of work must provide for greater transparency and participation by non-members of the Council; its composition must be adapted to better reflect the increased membership of the Organization and the enhanced role of developing countries in world affairs. Brazil favoured an enlargement in the number of both permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council, increasing the total number of members to a figure in the mid-twenties, to be allocated both to industrialized and developing countries. Brazil also favoured a curtailment of the veto, with a view to its gradual elimination.

If the Working Group did not benefit from further guidance from the General Assembly, the same arguments would continue to be repeated -- with no sense of direction and with the risk of decreased interest on the part of the Member States in the meetings of the Working Group. The joint Vice-Chairmen of the Working Group had indicated that there was a substantial body of support for expansion of the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. He was convinced that there was also a substantial body of support for an increase of the membership of the Security Council to a total number in the mid-twenties; for the assignment of new permanent seats both to industrialized and developing countries; and for a movement towards gradual elimination of the veto.

FARES M. KUINDWA (Kenya) felt that the principle of sovereign equality of States was one of the cardinal pillars of the United Nations, but, at the same time, it was not an absolute. The Security Council had the obligation to safeguard and guarantee the survival of the human race and, because it was such an important organ, it must, therefore, be representative, democratic, impartial and accountable. The institutions and instruments that were established in 1945 reflected the political, economic and security needs of that time. “Since then, times have changed.” In particular, Africa in 1945 was rather insignificant; today, Africa had 53 States represented in the United Nations -- in other words, nearly one third of the total membership of the Organization, yet the institutions and organs had not changed to accommodate that reality.

President Daniel arap Moi, addressing the Millennium Summit, had reiterated Kenya’s position that Africa must have two permanent seats in the Security Council, on the same footing as existing permanent seats, which would be shared on a rotational basis. His country called on the General Assembly to engage in deeper negotiations to narrow existing differences and finalize the matter. Kenya did not believe that Africa had received its due from the Council: he cited Angola, Somalia, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone, where the response by the United Nations had been lukewarm and inadequate. There was also a lack of transparency in the Council, which was a threat to international peace and security. Furthermore, the veto power should be progressively curtailed and eventually eliminated. His Government held that the Council continued to play a crucial role in the maintenance of international peace and security. It was necessary to make adjustments and changes to revitalize the dynamism of the Council by making it more democratic and representative of diverse interests. In conclusion, reflecting the universal character of the United Nations membership would enhance the Security Council’s effectiveness and legitimacy, he said.

VLADIMIR GALUSKA (Czech Republic) said the Council should be enlarged in both categories: five additional permanent seats and four or five additional non- permanent seats, including one for Eastern Europe. He favoured some reduction of areas where the veto could be applied, possibly through individual commitments by Permanent Members and other steps which did not necessarily require Charter amendments. A proposal, submitted by the Group of Ten in 1998, was still valid in that regard.

In the area of council working methods, he welcomed any motion towards greater openness and transparency. Some recent developments -- often thanks to the initiatives of non-permanent members -- were encouraging. He assured the Assembly that his country’s views were not “frozen”. They were flexible to some degree, and his country was always pleased to see some flexibility from others. A very good example of increasing flexibility had come from the United States delegation concerning the number of seats in the enlarged Council. He hoped that signal would have a follow-up.

JORGEN BOJER (Denmark) spoke on behalf of the five Nordic countries (Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark). He said they firmly supported the view that the Security Council must be able to react swiftly and effectively to threats to international peace and security. The Council should be able to agree on early and appropriate action, throughout the spectrum of conflict management -- from early warning, fact-finding and conflict prevention to launching new peacekeeping operations and, if necessary, taking action in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. When pursuing Council reform, Member States must aim at the twin challenges of increasing the efficiency of its decision-making and enhancing its openness and transparency toward the general United Nations membership, on whose behalf the Council acted.

He felt that greater representativity on the Council required a balanced increase in its membership, which would also enhance the legitimacy of its actions. Chief among the prerogatives conferred in 1945 upon Permanent Members was the right of veto, which opened unique aspects of decision-making in the Security Council. Today, new methods were needed to deal with new problems. His Government called on the Permanent Members of the Council to limit the use of the veto, taking account their responsibility for the interests of the Organization as a whole. If they, nonetheless, chose to exercise the veto power, the Permanent Members should fully explain their reasons.

On paper, the conclusions of the Open-ended Working Group seemed meagre, but Denmark believed that some achievements had been registered. Complex and interlinked issues regarding the Council needed the political will of Member States. It was time for all Member States to engage in negotiations on Security Council reform swiftly, responsibly and openly in order to bring the reform process forward. The Council must be given the credibility it required. His country hoped that the political momentum generated by the Millennium Summit last September would be allowed to play its role in discussions of Security Council reform.

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said Security Council reform was the most sensitive and complicated issue within the United Nations. He noted with regret that it appeared this would remain the case, as another year of Working Group meetings on the subject had ended with no concrete results. In his delegation’s view, the Group’s discussions had been prolonged by attempts by some States to assume privileged status within the Organization as a result of the reform process. Indeed, a major obstacle to Council reform was the proposed expansion of the permanent membership, particularly as that would affect veto power within that body. The general view was that no decision on expanding the permanent membership of the Council should be made before the question of the veto was resolved. Furthermore, some countries had argued that the existing permanent membership constituted a violation of the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the Charter.

Recently, there had been a rumoured push for a so-called “framework resolution” which would make expansion of the Council a fait accompli. That would only make matters worse. It almost seemed impossible to reach an agreeable solution to the issue. His delegation’s suggestion had long proposed that the non-permanent membership be expanded first, and the issue of expanding permanent membership be put on the back burner for the time being. The maintenance of international peace and security was not necessarily dependent on the increase in the number of permanent seats, he added. The solution, therefore, should focus on giving each region the maximum opportunity to participate in the work of the Council following its expansion. Even if the expansion of membership was agreed upon by consensus, a country like Japan, which made no apologies for its past crimes against humanity, was not qualified for permanent membership. He strongly urged Japan to make sincere efforts to maintain international peace and security by apologizing to the international community for its past actions, instead of making frantic attempts to acquire a permanent seat on the Council.

SERGEI LING (Belarus) said that, in the context of ensuring transparency, democracy and accountability in the working methods of the Security Council, he supported improving the flow of information regarding the Council’s activities, increasing its cooperation with the Assembly and further rationalizing the preparation of its annual reports to the Assembly. Transparency of the Council's work could be enhanced by providing adequate information on the outcome of closed consultations and on the activities of the sanctions committees. He also advocated orientation discussions at the level of Ministers for Foreign Affairs on the most important issues of the international agenda.

Any expansion of the Council must be based on principles of equitable geographical distribution and sovereign equality of States, and the membership in both categories should be increased by at least 11. Additional seats in the permanent member category must be allocated to the developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean. In the absence of general agreement on the expansion of the permanent member category, expansion should take place in the non-permanent member category only, taking into account the interests and needs of all regional groups, without exception.

STEPHANE DE LOECKER (Belgium) said there was a large measure of support for Council reform. He favoured enlargement of the Council in both categories, permanent and non-permanent, according to an equitable regional distribution. He also favoured a voluntary and partial restriction of the veto right, and a periodic review of the Council so that it would be in line with the development of the geopolitical situation in the world.

The fact that there had been slow progress should not be discouraging. In the coming months, he suggested, attention should be given to areas where progress was possible in the short term. That debate should enable the Bureau to take the process forward in the Working Group. He was confident a way would be found to engage those delegations which had not participated in the discussion in the past. Reaching an agreement on reform was a complex but possible task, if flexibility and openness was shown. The credibility of the institution was at stake. The Council must either adapt to changing geopolitical realities, or lose its prestige and authority.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia) said the challenge for Member States was to make the United Nations Organization a more effective instrument. Colombia believed that, in some aspects of reform such as the methods of work of the Security Council, progress had been made in the seven years of discussions. He called for greater interaction between the Open-ended Working Group and the Council. Comprehensive reform of the Security Council was needed to include transparency, the decision-making process and, above all, the question of the veto. Recent experience had shown the need to democratize the Council, in order to strengthen its legitimacy. Colombia felt that the question of the veto was crucial. Sovereign equality of States and equitable geographical representation must be preserved. Regional groups must participate in assigning seats for its members.

WALTER BALZAN (Malta) said that for international institutions to function at their optimum level, they must be guided by the principles of democracy, transparency and accountability. A restructured Security Council must allow for more members to be elected for limited terms, in a manner that respected the role of regional groups. The decision-making process must reflect the reality that there was no monopoly on wisdom or knowledge among the members of the Council, and non-members should, thus, be encouraged to play an active role in bringing the Council to the best possible conclusions.

Troop-contributing countries as well as those most affected by an issue under consideration by the Council deserved particular attention.

He said progress could not be achieved if Member States adamantly stuck to their positions, but only from the flexibility that was the hallmark of a true negotiating process. The Open-ended Working Group remained the only viable forum where the process could take place in a manner that ensured the principle of the equality of all Member States.

ELMIRA S. IBRAIMOVA (Kyrgyzstan) said today’s discussions were aimed at giving the reform process a new impetus. The Council continued to play a complex role which not only directly affected the prospects for United Nations development, but also the future structure of world security.

There were still clear differences as to the size and geographical representation of the proposed increase in membership, and on the question of the veto right.

She said expansion in the membership must be responsive to the changed global, political and economic climate, and in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality among all States and equitable geographical distribution. Without decisive measures and actions to reform the Council, the universal mechanism for peacekeeping, preventive diplomacy and post-conflict reconstruction would grow ever less functional.

SORIN DUCARU (Romania) said that, after six years of examination, elements of Security Council reform were already on the table. The time had come to act. Romania supported credible reform -- an increase in new non-permanent members (including some from Eastern Europe) and also in new permanent members, including representatives from developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

On the right of veto, he said the issue was both complex and delicate, while being inextricably related to the enlargement of the Security Council. There must be greater transparency for the Council. His Government also advocated a periodical review mechanism, which could exert a positive influence. Romania looked forward to the adoption of the draft resolution in the working group report, and was prepared to cooperate with Member States to meet the objectives. SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) said enlargement of the Security Council was needed, to reflect the increase in the membership of the United Nations. Such an increase would render the Council more participatory and credible, as well as make it more representative of the States on whose behalf it was mandated to act.

His delegation supported increasing both permanent and non-permanent members on the basis of equitable geographical distribution. Criteria to be considered in according permanent seats should include considerable contribution to the budget, to the maintenance of international peace and security, and to other purposes of the United Nations.

Expansion of the Council and the improvement of its working methods would better prepare that body to address the vast challenges of the new millennium, he continued. There was already general realization that reform of the Council was inevitable; what was needed now was political will and flexibility to achieve an overwhelmingly supported decision. Reform of the Council was not only a matter of composition and size. It also entailed reviewing its working methods, aiming to provide more transparency and greater accountability.

IBRAHIM AL-ADOOFI (Yemen) said the study of Security Council reform, and the continuation of the consultations, constituted a new and praiseworthy trend which should make it possible to reach a common formula. The objective was to expand the Council in a way that reflected the changes in the modern world. It should be an expansion on the basis of equality, legality and justice; the Council must be truly representative.

Reform of the Council in areas such as equitable representation, increase in the number of its members -- especially from the developing countries -- and the need to cut back the right of veto were all issues on which agreement had still to be reached. He understood that Japan and Germany aspired to become Permanent Members, but, in that regard, he said he must refer to statements of the non- aligned countries that called for equity in representation.

GIAN NICOLA FILIPPI BALESTRA (San Marino) said it was odd that no agreement had been reached on Security Council reform, although everyone pursued the same goal, namely, to make the Council more representative, more democratic and more transparent by improving its structure and its working methods. Sadly, the lack of flexibility had prevented the introduction of needed changes. Most of the States engaged in the discussion had maintained their initial positions without introducing adjustments which would make things more acceptable to the other parties.

Some were attempting to connect the reform of the Security Council with decisions related to the scale of assessment of the contributions to the budget of the Organization. Such approaches, characterized by serious divergences and fractures, could seriously jeopardize the future of the United Nations. San Marino was in favour of the increase only in the number of non-permanent members of the Council. It opposed any reform that might create inequalities among States.

LEUTLWETSE MMUALEFE (Botswana) said that the African Group of States had proposed, and maintained, that the Security Council should have 10 permanent members and 16 non-permanent members -- making a total of 26. The new permanent members should have the same privileges as current members, including the use of the veto. The African Group should be allocated three seats in the non-permanent category and two in the permanent category.

He said he was encouraged by the progress achieved by the Open-ended Working Group, and he was pleased to note that, on the ground, there was much improvement on how the Council conducted its business. There were now open meetings on important issues, as well as open briefings to non-members which had proved useful. The work of the working group was beginning to pay dividends. However, much still needed to be done in ensuring those good practices were permanently institutionalized, so that they could become the standard against which to measure the Council's performance.

JOHAN THANI ABDULLAH (Brunei Darussalam) said he favoured expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent membership of the Security Council, based on equitable geographical representation. However, Brunei Darussalam supported the Non-Aligned Movement view that there should be no quick fix solution to the expansion question. He said the issue of the veto was intrinsically linked to the issue of expansion. Use of the veto should be curtailed, with a view to its eventual elimination.

He said his country welcomed the improvements made in the Council’s working methods and the increased interaction between members of the Council and other Member States, made possible through informal consultations of the Council. However, other issues needed attention, such as strengthening the cooperation and coordination between the Security Council and other bodies of the United Nations on international peace and security.

JARGALSAIKHANY ENKHSAIKHAN (Mongolia) said an important way of affirming the pledge made by world leaders during the Millennium Summit to spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing the goals of peace and development would be through reform of the Security Council. While discussions on the issue of reforming the Council had shown modest results at best, clearly the first steps towards greater transparency and accessibility were to be welcomed. He was pleased to note the ongoing efforts to assure greater participation of non-Member States, through the organizing of thematic debates and discussions. More open meetings and more frequent consultations would certainly contribute to the overall reform efforts. That was especially the case with peacekeeping operations, where regular consultations with troop-contributing countries could be useful for enhancing their effectiveness.

Despite progress, he continued, the reform process had not come closer to resolving some of the fundamental issues on the agenda of the working group, especially enlarging the Council's membership. It was his delegation’s view that Council reform should lead to enlargement of both permanent and non-permanent membership categories, with a view to ensuring equitable representation of both developing and developed countries. A reasonable increase in the non-permanent membership would reflect the representative character of the Council and enable a growing number of States to contribute to its work. The use of the veto should be considerably curtailed.

JULIANA G. BALDEH (Gambia) said her country associated itself with the statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, that reform of the Security Council must begin with expansion. She regretted that, after seven years of

discussions, there was still a substantial number of unresolved issues, such as the issue of new permanent memberships.

It was inconceivable, she said, that, despite the substantial increase in the membership of the Organization, certain countries that could make a significant contribution to the United Nations were still denied the opportunity to do so.

Among non-permanent members of the Council, under 10 per cent of Member States had representation. She said the veto was a glaring contradiction to the ideal of democracy, because a limited number of countries had unchecked capacity to wield power. Thanks to the Open-ended Working Group, there had been some improvement in the working methods of the Council; but there was still a long way to go. It was important that reform was real and not cosmetic.

ARTHUR C.I. MBANEFO (Nigeria) said the present composition of the Security Council was lopsided in favour of a particular group. The United Nations would not be strengthened if reform concentrated only on cost-effectiveness, efficiency and better coordination. Regrettably, the Open-ended Working Group had not made any appreciable progress. Nigeria believed the time had come for review of the working methods and perhaps the decision-making process of the group. He said Nigeria unequivocally supported the position of the OAU which called for the allocation of two permanent seats for Africa in an enlarged Security Council.

Nigeria, he continued, supported the curtailment of the use of the veto, and even supported its abolition, if it was the consensus of the international community. However, if the veto was to be maintained in its present form, it should be extended to new permanent members of the Council. A denial of the veto to new permanent members of the Council would not only be discriminatory, but would create two different classes of permanent membership. To avoid any abuses of the exercise of the veto, if the veto were retained, it may be necessary for the General Assembly to adopt a resolution reminding the Permanent Members of the fact that they were acting on behalf of the United Nations as a whole.

* *** *