IN TWO-DAY DEBATE, 110 MEMBER STATES AIR VIEWS ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Press Release
GA/9827

IN TWO-DAY DEBATE, 110 MEMBER STATES AIR VIEWS ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Despite General Agreement on Need for Reform, Few Signs of Consensus on How to Bring It About

The first thing in balancing matters such as expansion of the Council and the right of the veto was to do no harm, the representative of Turkmenistan told the General Assembly, as it concluded its consideration of the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

She said the international community must not limit itself to partial solutions, and reforms should not be of a revolutionary nature. The Council should become representative, but, at the same time, it should remain functional. Reform must be designed to bring clarity to the Council’s working methods, but also to provide for its balance and broad representation.

This session's debate, which started on Thursday morning, reflected the opinions of 110 speakers on such matters as expansion of the permanent and non- permanent membership of the Council, the Council's working methods and the veto.

[According to Article 108 of the United Nations Charter, amendments to the Charter can only come into force when they have been adopted by two thirds of the members of the Assembly and ratified by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.]

Most delegates thought that a majority of two thirds of Assembly members did exist to go forward with reform proposals, but the representative of Rwanda wondered whether ratification by the Council's permanent members was realistically achievable. He said all signs showed that none of the Permanent Five was ready to surrender its veto, for a number of reasons: the need to keep it as a deterrent; the fear of the others’ undeclared intentions; and the vested interests and acquired privileges linked to their current status.

Many delegates called for a better and more equitable representation in both the permanent and non-permanent category of the Council's membership. Echoing the Non-Aligned Movement’s position, Tunisia's delegate said tonight that expansion of both categories should be based on equitable geographical representation. The current make-up was disadvantageous to developing countries, which constituted two thirds of the United Nations membership. Africa called for two rotating permanent seats, she said, as well as two additional non-permanent seats. That was vital not only because African countries made up a quarter of the

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9827 67th Meeting (PM) 17 November 2000

membership of the United Nations, but also because a majority of the Council’s problems related to the African continent. African representation could better help the Council in dealing with the conflicts and tensions there.

Expressing understanding for “the delicacy and complexity” of the matter, numerous delegates called for limiting the right of veto of the Permanent Five, with a view to abolishing it as being undemocratic. There were also calls on the Permanent Five to voluntarily limit the veto to matters entailing Chapter VII of the Charter.

While three permanent members did not address the veto issue, during yesterday morning's debate, the representative of the United States said the veto had real value in helping the Council maintain international peace and security, and that it would continue to oppose any effort to limit it.

Tonight, the representative of the Russian Federation said the veto was not a privilege, but a serious factor for ensuring consensus and effectiveness of Security Council decisions. The veto was the backbone of the coherent work of the Council, a guarantee against an arbitrariness of unilateral actions against the interests of the United Nations Members on whose behalf the Council acted. Any attacks against the institution were counterproductive, and would only mislead United Nations Members without contributing to the success of Security Council reform.

If the Council membership were to be expanded, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria and Tunisia would support Japan and Germany, the Marshall Islands would support Japan, and the Russian Federation would support India for a permanent seat.

The representatives of Guyana, Djibouti, Poland, Fiji, Ghana, Federated States of Micronesia, Syria, Ecuador, Kuwait, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Nauru, Republic of Moldova, Israel, Nepal, Chile, Albania, El Salvador, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Sudan, Grenada, Greece, Ethiopia, Iraq and Cameroon also spoke.

The Assembly will meet again Monday, 20 November, at 10 a.m. to take up the question of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and the report of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and for the Former Yugoslavia.

General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9827 67th Meeting (PM) 17 November 2000

Assembly Work Programme

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

Statements

SAMUEL R. INSANALLY (Guyana) said, following the discussions of the Millennium Summit, all could agree that consensus existed at the highest level on the need to reform the Council. As the Caribbean Community had said in 1997, it would be possible to produce a resolution capable of eliciting the support of more than two thirds of the Member States. The total number of an enlarged Council could be resolved without too much difficulty, now that some of the proponents of a very limited expansion had indicated their willingness to consider a somewhat higher number. That made possible a balanced expansion in the categories.

He said, however, a major obstacle remained: to reform the veto. Again, the Millennium Summit had made clear the almost universal support for limiting the application of the veto. In the face of such overwhelming sentiments, the permanent members must move on that issue to demonstrate their good faith in the reform process. A realistic first step would be to voluntarily restrain its use to Chapter VII issues, and then explain the use of veto. The Assembly and the Working Group must continue to make deliberate efforts to achieve other reforms, since enlargement of the Council would not by itself fully address core issues.

One of the most important impediments in the current impasse was the concern on the part of the majority that any ill-advised reform might compound rather than remedy the deficiencies of the present Council, he said. The five permanent members of the Council and their prospective partners could make concrete commitments to provide adequate levels of financing for both peacekeeping and development. That might provide the spark to ignite the interest of many developing countries, which had yet to be persuaded of the priority for reform in relation to their other pressing needs.

ROBLE OLHAYE (Djibouti) said there was a general consensus for continuing with the Working Group deliberations, despite the frustration and resignation of some, which was understandable. He supported consolidating the gains achieved with care and creativity and believed that additional measures needed to be considered, if not instituted, to strengthen that process. Djibouti felt that a properly reconstituted Security Council reflecting the reality of today’s interconnected world was essential for global development, peace and security.

He took note of the fact that half the agenda items demanding the attention of the Council pertained to Africa. Yet, it did not have the privilege, indeed, the right, to represent itself adequately and permanently in the Security Council to promote and defend its interest. That was unacceptable, and it was one more reason why the reform of the Council must move -- and move fast. His Government considered “the make or break” matter in Security Council reform to be that of the veto, which most countries thought had outlived its usefulness. Although Djibouti supported abolishing the veto privileges, it, at the same time, favoured the right of veto to accompany all permanent membership. New permanent members should have the same rights as existing members.

The deliberations of the Working Group for the reform of the Security Council were part of the overall effort to reform the United Nations, he said. In that regard, the General Assembly was clearly capable of expanding its role on Council reform, particularly the question of veto, and should seek to do so. One procedure worth consideration would be that of a General Assembly review of any veto exercised in the Council. If a majority of Member States opposed such a veto, it would indicate that its use did not represent the will of the majority. In conclusion, the United Nations was under pressure from many quarters and must be strengthened. Security Council reform must be an integral part of that process.

JANUSZ STANCZYK (Poland) pointed out that the United Nations could not enter into the new millennium with the confidence necessary to perform its increasingly complex and demanding tasks without an efficient and representative Security Council. The maintenance of international peace and security, he went on, remained the core function of the Organization. It was also a necessary prerequisite to success in other areas, such as improving the conditions of millions who still suffered due to a lack of resources and opportunities for development. Poland was encouraged by the message from the Millennium Summit because it showed there was clear support at the highest levels for moving the reform process forward. While the leaders of the world had spoken in favour the reform, it was the task of the Member States to find practical ways of expressing the prevailing will.

But if the past discussions within the Open-ended Working Group were an indication, that was no easy task, he said. Although differences remained on expansion and decision-making in the Council, his country believed the Working Group, primarily as a result of flexibility on the part of key participants, had made progress. He expressed the view that the Security Council must be perceived as a body representing the whole membership of the Organization and acting on behalf of all the Member States, as provided for in the Charter. Poland supported the concept of expanding the permanent category by five members: two from the industrialized states and three from regions currently under-represented, specifically Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Expansion in the second category of membership should take into account the fact that the number of states in the East European Group had doubled.

Reforms of decision-making processes was also crucial to the success of Council reform, he said. Its main purpose must be to increase the efficiency of the Security Council, including its capacity to take timely decisions. There should be no discrimination between new and old permanent members. Furthermore, the review process was essential to a successful reform, since it would assure better accountability of the members and guarantee the ability of the Council to adapt to future needs. Deliberations on the working methods of the Security Council should continue. Poland was encouraged by the progress in this field and looked forward to a growing convergence of opinions in the coming year. He felt confident that the Working Group would continue to make progress in its work and urged Member States “to seek innovative ways of narrowing the existing divisions” through informal consultations.

AMRAIYA NAIDU (Fiji) said that global peace and security operated within the same matrix that global trade, economy and development must necessarily evolve in. Therefore, mechanisms for responding to the interactive mix of those influences must evolve accordingly. The Security Council, he said, was initially mandated to react to brewing conflict, rather than a proactive organ with the mandate and structures to anticipate and pre-empt conflict. However, the latter was the ideal that Fiji held for a restructured Security Council.

Expansion of, and equitable representation in, the Security Council were now imperative, she said. Furthermore, in the age of dialogue, negotiation and peaceful compromise, the veto stood out clearly as an archaic tool that, at best, belonged in the nineteenth century. Fiji envisioned a modernized concept of the veto that was more humane and effectively responsive to requirements, on the ground, for global security. Such a power should not be exercisable by only a single member. Tendencies for national or political interests to overtake the critical global agenda should be diffused.

NANA EFFAH-APENTENG (Ghana) said that, as the United Nations became more involved in global issues, from peace and security to development, the Council would need to become more representative of the United Nations general membership if it were to be effective. Council reform involved two primary aspects. One was the expansion of membership and the other was improvement of its working methods. The suggestion from the Non-Aligned Movement to increase Council membership by 11 seats was fair and reasonable. It also accommodated the legitimate claims of all regions for representation in an organ that carried the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

As supported by the 1997 Harare Declaration and the 1999 Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit, Africa’s claim to two permanent seats should be addressed on the basis of its being the largest group in the Organization, he said. Other Non-Aligned Movement recommendations about the Council structure should also be implemented to avoid perceptions of selectivity and to deal impartially with conflicts. Proper consultations would also confer more legitimacy on the Council and facilitate implementation of its decisions. Finally, while consensus was desirable on Council reform, absolute unanimity on every issue was not necessary. A few members must not be allowed to frustrate the majority will of the United Nations membership.

ELDAR KOULIEV (Azerbaijan) attached great importance to the equitable geographical distribution of non-permanent seats in the Council and, in that regard, to representation of States of the Eastern European Group. Equally, the representation of the States of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean should be in keeping with modern political realities and adequately reflect the increased significance of those regions.

As to expansion of the permanent membership, he said careful consideration should be given to the bids of those States that expressed their ability and readiness to carry the increased responsibility, including financial responsibility, in the maintenance of international peace and security. He believed Germany and Japan were able to be permanent members of the Council. Regarding the core issue -– the right of veto -– he said a voluntary and partial limitation of the use of that right might be a solution. He also favoured a periodic review of the composition of the Council.

He said Security Council reform was aimed at preserving its authority, as well as strengthening and enhancing its effectiveness and efficiency. It meant that the decisions of the Council must be respected, implemented and complied with by all. In that connection, he was concerned that Council resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993), dealing with the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, had remained a dead letter.

TADAO P. SIGRAH (Federated States of Micronesia) said that the Security Council’s mandate in preserving international peace and security made it one of the most pivotal organs of the United Nations. The plain fact was that the readiness of the most powerful nations to accept rational and realistic change in the Security Council was a key indicator of the future of global multilateral relations in general, and of the Organization in particular.

He was well aware that the consideration of the Council’s reform had to be carried out in-depth if it was to be made more representative, transparent and democratic. Reform needed to bear in mind today’s realities, and so an increase in both permanent and non-permanent membership must be considered favourably. He realized that reform was not an easy task, but he asked all delegations to work in a cooperative way in order to succeed. In that respect, he was open to whether the permanent members of the Council should be able to exercise the veto power, while believing it most practicable to maintain the status of the permanent five, including their veto, to facilitate their agreement.

MIKHAIL WEHBE (Syria) said Member States were repeating themselves, with no substantive matters being discussed. It was important to continue because the Millennium Declaration had asked for the intensification of efforts to reform the Security Council. He said the Non-Aligned Movement was keen, at the end of the cold war period, to reform the United Nations and the Security Council, after they realized that non-aligned Member States did not have real influence in the Organization. His Government affirmed the non-aligned position that there should be at least 26 members in the Security Council. There should be a permanent seat for the Arab States.

The Security Council, he said, should be more representative, democratic and transparent. In all reform matters, the equality of States must be fully respected. The participation of developing countries in an effective manner was important, because those were usually the States in which Security Council resolutions were implemented.

AKSOLTAN T. ATAEVA (Turkmenistan) said the question addressed today and for so many years was an important one for the international community. The reform process aimed to make the Council more democratic and objective. In balancing matters, such as expansion and the right of the veto, the first thing was to do no harm. There had been failures in the work of the mechanism, but one should not be too hasty in making a complete change.

The international community must not limit itself to partial solutions, she said. Reforms should not be of a revolutionary nature. The Council should become representative, but, at the same time, it should remain functional. Reform was designed to bring clarity to the Council’s working methods, but also to provide for its balance and broad representation.

She supported the need to limit the right of veto and, eventually, eradicate it. Regardless of progress made, the reform should be seen as a whole. Reform was necessary right now. Unfortunately, there was no solution in sight reflecting the political realities of today. But there was a need for serious reform, so that each Member State was able to say that the Council was acting on its behalf. MARIO ALEMAN (Ecuador) said the Charter was the highest statute of the international community. There were new realities in the post-cold war world, and those realities required an organ entrusted with peace and international security to be more representative, more democratic and more transparent in its negotiations and decisions. Ecuador had participated in the Open-ended Working Group to achieve compromise, undeterred by seven years of inconclusive consultations. His Government believed it was time to open up a new avenue of negotiations and pay attention to the initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement, which proposed an increase in non-permanent membership of the Security Council if there was no agreement on permanent membership.

He recognized that there had been important progress in the working methods of the Council. His country took note of attempts to give the veto legal trappings; however, one could not explain legally what was principally a concession by small- and medium-sized States. Today, the veto was an anachronism, in conflict with sovereign equality; furthermore, it had paralysed the work of the Security Council because individual interests took preference over the collective will of the international community. The veto should be circumscribed; without taking that step, it would be difficult to achieve comprehensive reform. The Council had primary responsibility for preserving or re-establishing peace, and its mandate required adaptation to curtail imbalances. There must be greater transparency in its proceedings. Ecuador was open to all negotiations within the natural venue, the Working Group, to achieve successful reform of the Security Council.

MOHAMMAD A. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) said that the deliberations of the Working Group had illustrated the need to reform the Security Council, to make it more effective and to enhance its role in the maintenance of international peace and security. His country supported the increase in the membership of the Council, but that should not be too large, in order to retain efficiency. The increase should and must conform to the principles of equality and sovereignty among Member States and the principle of equitable geographical distribution. If and when an agreement on increasing permanent seats was attained, such an increase should be limited to countries that had proved their ability and capacity to contribute. Those should be elected by the General Assembly.

He supported proposals that would make the work of the Security Council more transparent. He also supported the maintenance of the mechanism for the election of non-permanent members of the Security Council, as it allowed better opportunities for the smaller States to attain membership and contribute to its work. With regard to the veto, he had noticed that the deliberations of the Working Group had shown semi-unanimity to put restrictions on that right. He hoped that the deliberations of the Working Group would lead to consensus and make the Security Council capable to face the challenges of the next century.

RADHIA ACHOURI (Tunisia) said reform of the Security Council, for which the overwhelming majority was calling, constituted a major step in the reform of the United Nations as a whole. She appreciated the delicacy and complexity of the task, but a comprehensive reform had to be reached as soon as possible. The political momentum of the Millennium Summit should be put to use to reach the objective of a Council that was more democratic, more representative and more transparent.

Her country supported the Non-Aligned Movement’s position, that expansion of both categories should be based on equitable geographical representation. The current make-up was disadvantageous to developing countries, which constituted two thirds of the membership. Africa called for two rotating permanent seats, as well as two additional non-permanent seats. That was vital not only because African countries make up a quarter of the membership of the United Nations, but also because a majority of the Council’s problems related to the African continent. African representation could better help the Council in dealing with the conflicts and tensions in Africa.

She supported the aspirations of Germany and Japan for a permanent seat. There were divergent views on the veto, but she thought the majority’s view -- wanting to limit the veto to matters falling under Chapter VII -- a reasonable one.

SUN SUON (Cambodia) said the rationale to democratize the Council was initiated on the legitimate need of Member States, which had grown from 51 to 189, with a view to adapting the United Nations system on a wider context in a rapidly changing world. A reform of the Security Council was, indeed, mandatory following the cold war. The growing sense of urgency regarding the need for reform was clear. It appeared that a consensus had prevailed since the last debate.

With regard to the question of the expansion of membership of the Security Council, he said he fully supported the proposal to increase the membership in both categories; that is, both permanent and non-permanent members. The Security Council would not be fully reformed without the enlargement of its membership and the addition of both industrialized and developing countries. It was essential to meet the legitimate aspiration of countries from Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean region. He also reiterated his full support for Japan, Germany and India as permanent members of the Security Council. He remained flexible with regard to the size of an enlarged Security Council, but thought it should be increased up to 26 members in total, in which the developing countries must have their proper place.

The question of the veto was inherently linked to the enlargement of the Council itself, he said. It had been recognized that the scope of application of the veto had posed a number of concerns of a legal nature to the permanents members of the Council in their decision-making process. The use of the veto must be linked with the principle of checks and balances. It must be limited so that the majority was not prevented from taking a vital decision that reflected the entire community’s common interest.

PEDRO PADILLA TONOS (Dominican Republic) said the Secretary-General’s report, aimed at defining the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century, was motivated by a clear mission of democratization. While the principles of the Charter had been proven over time, its structures did not meet the demands of globalization.

He said it was the view of the Dominican Republic that reform could not be postponed. It must take account of the sovereign equality of States, equitable geographical representation and the different levels of development. His Government supported the increase in permanent and non-permanent members, which would allow the Organization to play its proper role as the true representative of international democracy. It was unacceptable, he said, for Security Council reform to favour the developed countries to the detriment of developing. He said the Dominican Republic wished to affirm its desire to be a non-permanent member of the Security Council, in order to continue its pacific traditions, respecting the norms of international law and the Charter.

VINCI NIEL CLODUMAR (Nauru) said that, during the Millennium Assembly, the Secretary-General challenged the leaders of all nations to make bold commitments that would reinvigorate and renew the Organization, particularly by expediting reform of the Security Council. It was his delegation's hope then that the Council's newest members -- Singapore, Ireland, Norway, Mauritius and Colombia -- would seize the opportunity to promote fresh and innovative ideas that could help increase the interaction between the Council and the other Member States of the United Nations on important matters of peace and security. “The ball is back in our court,” he said.

With all that in mind, he was dismayed that during its initial 2,500 days, the Open-ended Working Group had not achieved unanimity on any one issue. Indeed, many of the world leaders attending the Millennium Summit had been frank in expressing their disappointment at such slow progress. His delegation implored the facilitators of the Working Group to utilize as their mandate the directive of the heads of State and government and resolution 53/30 to get the job done in the shortest time possible.

He said that he was mindful, however, of the financial impact of creating and sustaining peace operations and related activities. He was also aware of the cash-flow problems faced by the Secretariat, since the Organization’s largest contributor had unilaterally decided to place a ceiling on its contributions. He believed, therefore, that there should be a link between permanent membership in the Council and the capacity of members to support the decisions made thereto -- in terms of financial contributions as well as manpower. Accordingly, his delegation advocated the expansion of both categories of membership. While his delegation had not taken a position on the use of veto power, that special privilege placed a special duty on those that were or would become permanent members not to “wimp” on their capacity to pay. Moving the process forward would require a step-by-step approach, starting with settling outstanding issues for which there seemed to be wide support, and then tackling the more contentious problems.

ION BOTNARU (Republic of Moldova) said the sheer number of delegations taking part in the debate over the last two days was a clear indication of a collective resolve to achieve the envisioned reform of the Security Council. That issue had also been discussed extensively in the Open-ended Working Group and significant progress had been made on certain aspects, especially relating to the Council's working methods. Unfortunately, the Working Group had still not facilitated a consensus on what was considered the core issues of Security Council reform, including the expansion of membership and the use of the veto.

He said that reform of the Council lay at the heart of the general reform of the United Nations. It should be guided by principles of equitable geographic representation, democracy, effectiveness, efficiency and transparency. It was on that foundation that the composition of the Council could be modernized and brought in line with the increase in general membership since 1965, the year of the previous Council reform. He was in favour of moderate enlargement of the composition of the Council, as well as a reasonable increase in the number of permanent and non-permanent members. In terms of numbers, he considered that a total membership of 24 or 25 members could ensure the right balance. He said that expansion of the non-permanent membership should include an additional seat for the Eastern European Group of States, whose number had more than doubled during the last decade. It was important to note that periodic review of the Council's composition would help maintain its representative character in the future.

JOSEPH MUTABOBA (Rwanda) said he supported the position of the OAU to enlarge the Security Council membership, to reflect the realities of the moment and to be fair. However, since Article 108 of the Charter stipulated that amendments to the Charter had to be adopted and ratified by two thirds of the members, including all the permanent members of the Council, he wondered whether fairness was realistically achievable.

It seemed that none of the five permanent members was ready to surrender the veto. They felt the need to keep it as a deterrent. There was fear of each other’s undeclared intentions. Vested interests and acquired privileges linked to their current status were also a factor.

He said the Assembly should remember that Africa was not represented, even though the Council dealt with African matters almost on a daily basis. The Non- Aligned Movement, the largest group within the United Nations, was not reflected in the Council’s permanent membership. That not only led to unnecessary antagonisms, but also called into question the entire integrity and impartiality of the Organization. The Council should realize that most of its work was concentrated in Africa, Asia and Latin America, continents whose countries were not adequately consulted on their problems and their proposed solutions.

AARON JACOB (Israel) said that the end of the cold war, the trend towards democracy, the sweeping tide of globalization, the rise of new economic powers, had all combined to profoundly alter the shape of the world and the ways in which nations related to each other. The Security Council must adapt itself to reflect those new geopolitical and economic realities. At the same time, the effectiveness of the Security Council must be maintained. As an obvious step, membership must be increased to reflect the increased membership of the United Nations as a whole. That expansion must be conducted with a view to ensuring that the Council continued to be representative of the larger will of the Organization, and to making certain that the Council’s membership drew proportionately from all regions of the globe.

Furthermore, meetings must generally be conducted in an open format, and written documents and records must be readily made available. That would ensure the availability of reliable information, clear up misunderstandings and reinforce confidence in the Council’s decisions. Beyond that, there were a number of other ways in which working methods could be improved. Meetings and deliberations of the Council must be open-ended, and briefings must be conducted by the President of the Council on a regular basis; draft resolutions and statements circulated during informal consultations must be made available to the general membership as early as possible. All of that would serve to increase the Council’s credibility and effectiveness, as well as enhance the confidence of the international community in the Council in particular, and in the United Nations as a whole.

With regard to the issue of expansion, he pointed out that this past year marked Israel’s admission as a full, though temporary, member of the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG). Inclusion in WEOG would help to rectify an anomaly that had affected no other Member State and was an important step, albeit a first step, towards Israel’s full integration into the United Nations. To fully realize the principle of sovereign equality, Israel’s acceptance in a regional grouping must be extended to all United Nations headquarters around the world. Israel must also become eligible for the same candidature, as were all other United Nations members. Until that time, Israel’s status within this Organization would remain unequal, a fact that must be of concern to all Member States.

MURARI RAJ SHARMA (Nepal) said that, while countless hours had been spent debating the issue of Security Council reforms, the Open-ended Working Group was no closer to putting together a consensus package of reforms that inspired the confidence of the wider United Nations membership. The challenge, therefore, was to maintain the momentum of Council reforms, ensuring that the process did not run out of steam. Indeed, Council reform needed to be pursued with a renewed sense of urgency. That was mainly because the Council neither reflected present-day political and economic realities, nor was it representative of the increased United Nations membership since 1965. Also, the credibility of and confidence in the Council were steadily eroding; there were legitimate concerns that the Council had lost touch with its constituency.

His delegation profoundly believed in the need for comprehensive reform of the Council, in terms of its expansion and its working methods. Not all past deliberations of the Working Group had been in vain, he added. They had contributed to some progress on procedural issues and had helped Member States better understand each other’s sensitivities and interests. While reiterating the urgent need to pursue progress, he noted that a quick-fix or partial solution would surely distort the reforms and create resentment among the membership. Nepal, therefore, supported limited enlargement of the membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Equitable geographical distribution and optimal balance between developed and developing countries should be top priorities.

Finally, the issue of veto power remained the principal obstacle to reaching consensus on Council reform. It was completely anachronistic and undemocratic. Ideally, a total elimination of the veto power would strengthen the United Nations and inspire countries to practice greater democracy. Until removed, the veto power must be curtailed, its use limited to Chapter VII action only. The reform process was likely to drag on indefinitely, and the legitimacy of the Council would continue to erode if that key impediment was not removed.

VLADIMIR SOTIROV (Bulgaria) said Bulgaria shared the view that the Security Council must encompass both categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent, as a more adequate way of reflecting the sweeping changes in the world since the end of World War II. The expansion by five additional permanent members and by a similar number of non-permanent seats, bringing the total number of Security Council members to the mid-twenties, would restore balance and would add more credibility and legitimacy to Council decisions. It was Bulgaria’s firm conviction that equitable geographical distribution was a solid basis for Security Council enlargement. Bulgaria would favour an expansion taking into account both increased United Nations membership and the increased role and political and economical potential of certain States (such as Germany and Japan) that could assume the responsibility of permanent members.

Since the Eastern European regional group had doubled its members during the last decade, Bulgaria considered that one of the additional non-permanent seats must be allocated to that group, bringing to two the total number of non-permanent seats belonging to his region in an expanded Council. With regard to the veto powers of the permanent members, he believed that they were appropriate in the past. Bulgaria considered that the veto power could be modified without introducing amendments to the Charter. Permanent members of the Security Council, mindful of the fact that they were acting on behalf of the Organization as a whole, must limit the exercise of their right to veto. A number of exclusion clauses for the application of the veto might be agreed upon and applied. It was encouraging that during the debate in the Working Group, aspirant countries had joined their voices to appeals for a more restricted use of the veto.

CRISTIAN MAQUIEIRA (Chile) expressed concern over lack of progress on reform of the Security Council. Since the process had begun back in 1992, his Government recognized that it would be a long exercise. Nevertheless, a generalized feeling of the need to transform the Security Council had filled Chile with optimism. But a strange process had occurred, with the General Assembly stressing the urgent need for reforming the Council, in the absence of substantive results from the Open-ended Working Group. As a result, his country’s mood had changed to one of fear that the appeals by 150 heads of State would not be enough to produce a positive result.

Chile agreed with the need to reform the Council and supported the enlargement of the body. It recognized that the Security Council’s working methods required greater transparency. Moreover, those methods must be dependent on the rights and duties of the Council, not on the good will of the permanent members. The veto should be limited and should ultimately disappear. It was clear that the present impasse did not bode well for the future. One thing was obvious -- mere reiteration would not lead to the results expected by the international community. The time had come to recognize that the current paralysis necessitated the exploration of other avenues

ADRIAN SPIROLLARI (Albania) was pleased to see that some progress had been achieved on democratization of the Council’s working methods. The Millennium Summit had adopted an important Declaration in which Member States embraced the idea that Council reform should be comprehensive and should include all aspects of the reform. His Government shared the view that the expansion of the Security Council should be meaningful and comprehensive, and should increase the legitimacy and transparency of that principal body of the United Nations.

Albania believed it was necessary to make the Council more accessible to Member States. He urged, in light of the increased membership of the Eastern European Group, an additional non-permanent seat for that regional grouping. Every Member State had an important role to play and a right to be heard, he continued. Therefore, it was essential that discussion of Council reform proceed in the Working Group with a view to finding the necessary political will. In conclusion, there must be a comprehensive and long-term solution, that would enjoy the support of the entire membership of the United Nations.

JOSE ROBERTO ANDINO SALAZAR (El Salvador) said results, so far, had been limited in the area of Security Council reform. Over the last decade, the international community had seen the beginning of a new era of international relations. There had been strengthened cooperation among the great Powers, which had generated new hopes. The new spirit had generated the idea to review the question of the Security Council membership. Those aspirations were soon diluted as a result of the opposition of interests among the members of the international community.

He said El Salvador was concerned that, despite much negotiation, the issue of Council reform had not been solved. The commitment of the Millennium Declaration had given his country hope that the international community would understand the need to strengthening the Organization. The Security Council must become more democratic, responsible and transparent. The number of members should be increased and be representative of the political and economic structure of the world at present. The use of the veto should be limited to Chapter VII of the Charter, and ultimately be eliminated.

NASTE CALOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said progress in reforming the Council should be matched by reforms in the Assembly, through a show of political will for a division of labour, as set out in the Charter. In other words, the Security Council should strengthen its task as the Organization's executive organ in maintaining international peace and security. The deliberative and policy-making functions should be left to the Assembly. The goal of the reform could then be described as a strengthening of the role and relevance of both principal organs, in parallel and at the same time, so that the Assembly was not marginalized.

Adopting a new work arrangement for the Assembly to meet year round would be the answer, he said. Numerous sub-organs could then be abolished, which were not only costly, but ineffective because most States couldn't participate. Having the Assembly meet year round would also be apt, since the Security Council had only a few members, while the Assembly was the Organization’s representative organ.

Further, he continued, the present political reality favoured the Council’s democratization, while the Working Group needed to make progress on ensuring the Council’s work was more transparent and effective. It could be argued that, in view of the present international situation, the future of international cooperation and the Charter’s provisions, the Council was working just fine, while the Assembly needed reform.

ELFATIH MOHAMED AHMED ERWA (Sudan) said that report contained general observations and important elements that needed to be considered objectively. There was still a divergence of view on the reforms of the Security Council, but the Working Group remained the appropriate framework bringing about reform. The report constituted a good basis for the continuation of discussions on expansion and reforming working methods. The Sudan attached great importance to the promotion of the role of the Security Council and believed it should represent all members in an equitable manner.

He reaffirmed the Sudan’s commitment to the position of the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, and supported the allocation of two permanent seats to Africa on the basis of a rotation determined by the OAU. The report of the Open-ended Working Group had reflected that there was consensus concerning the need for reforms, but he regretted that the Working Group had not, until now, reached agreement on the size of the expanded Council and the right of veto.

He had great hopes that the Security Council would continue to improve its working methods in order to forge about the maximum transparency. He highlighted the importance of equitable geographical representation. Furthermore, the Sudan was against Security Council interference in the purviews of other United Nations organs, such as the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The veto contradicted the principle of sovereignty of States and contradicted the simplest principles of democracy, he said. That was a privilege that could not be acceptable in the United Nations. The Sudan sought abolition of the veto, and rejected any attempt to put a date limit on discussions of reform. Reform was a difficult process which required patience and perseverance.

LAMUEL A. STANISLAUS (Grenada) said he was guided by the following admonition: “Let thy speech be short, comprehending much in few words; for sometimes speech is nothing more than a device to say nothing.” He said that the common thread in all statements made from whatever level -- including the distinguished Secretary-General -- was that the Security Council needed reforming. Terms such as “anachronistic”, “arcane”, “unrepresentative”, “unrealistic” and “antiquated” had been frequently used to stress the need for reform of the Security Council. But the general agreement was the need for reform. What was at stake was the modus operandi –- the elusive formula to accomplish the reform, especially when dealing with the two categories of membership: permanent and non- permanent.

Change or reform did not come easily, even when it was for the common good. In the case of the permanent members, some members of the Security Council were more prone to wielding power than sharing power with others. Power, access and influence went hand in hand and were not easily relinquished. When contemplating an increase in the permanent membership, the following questions arose. By how many and what was the optimum number? Which States would qualify for membership? What formula would be applied? Would all members be equal, or some more equal than others? Would the veto power be abolished?

In the pursuit of that elusive formula for reform, there were some who believed that the best approach was the holistic, that is, to tackle both categories -– permanent and non-permanent -- at the same time, difficult as that might seem. Similarly, there were others who advised that reforming the non- permanent category first would present less of a problem. In short, “don’t wait to do everything before doing nothing”, he said.

ELIAS GOUNARIS (Greece) said the Security Council had shown that its inability to solve problems of magnitude was due both to its structural deficiencies, and also to the unwillingness of Member States to allow it to become effectively involved in matters where State sovereignty and vital interests were considered to override international concerns. He said Greece supported a more representative Security Council, but expansion and other aspects of reform should be part of a common package, and should not harm the Council’s effectiveness and efficiency.

Any enlargement of the Council’s membership must not diminish the possibility for all States to serve. The principles of sovereign equality and the democratic principle were interlinked, and they were best served if States -- large, medium and small -- took part. A more accountable, expanded Security Council should undergo a periodic review, that would provide re-examination by the General Assembly of decisions taken in all aspects of the reform in the Council. That mechanism would enable the Security Council to adjust periodically to the changes and the needs of the international community.

ADI NIWIN (Marshall Islands) said that the geopolitical landscape had changed dramatically since the signing of the Charter, with the membership quadrupling in the last 55 years. Furthermore, while the main actors in the international scene in 1945 were governments, today civil society, other international agencies and the private sector were increasingly becoming active players in the world scene, even vying for equal partnerships in addressing global issues and challenges.

The Government of the Marshall Islands, therefore, supported appropriate reform measures, and thus the expansion of the Security Council, thus better confronting the reality of today and the challenges of tomorrow. His Government supported an increase in the Security Council membership, so that both permanent and non-permanent members were included, and strongly believed that expanding the membership of the Security Council should be based on equity. The Marshall Islands wished to express its full support for the permanent membership of Japan on the proposed expansion of the Council.

ABDULMEJID HUSSEIN (Ethiopia) said that General Assembly resolution 48/26 stated that the expansion of the membership of the Council in both permanent and non-permanent seats must aim, first and foremost, at redressing existing imbalances in the representation of developing countries, whose membership in the United Nations had increased substantially. In that respect, Africa’s representation must be addressed in accordance with the position taken by the OAU Summit. In order to effectively undertake the mandate entrusted to it by the United Nations Charter, the Council must win the trust and confidence of the membership, which had that conferred upon it the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The current practice of decision-making, surrounded by secrecy, closed meetings and informal consultations, therefore required immediate and substantial reform and change. The Security Council must, as a general rule, meet in a public format open to all States members of the United Nations. Informal consultations and private meetings, or the so-called open briefings, must not be the rule, but exceptions. Inclusiveness, accountability, transparency and democratization, which had become the yardstick by which the legitimacy of national governments and their policies were judged, should not be ignored or resisted in the international system, especially in the composition and functioning of United Nations organs like the Security Council, which, after all, were founded on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members.

GENNADI GATILOV (Russian Federation) said that Russia’s position on the issue was consistent and principled. Russia proceeded from the premise that an enhanced effectiveness and authority of the Security Council in world affairs must be the final goal of its reform. Anything less would merely leave the Council unable to react promptly to acute threats to regional and global stability. The renewed Council must be made representative and balanced through the inclusion of new members, both from industrially developed countries and influential developing States pursuing an independent foreign policy. Without that, it would be impossible to strike a necessary balance of power reflecting the tasks of building a multipolar world. The Russian Federation considered that India was a strong and worthy candidate for a permanent membership seat in the Council, should it be decided to enlarge the Council in both categories.

On the issue of categories for expansion, the Russian Federation was flexible and ready to support any commonly acceptable decision to that end. He believed that such an approach was better than imposing the positions of some to the detriment of the interests of others. Preservation of the prerogatives and powers of the current Security Council permanent members, including their veto right, was an issue of principle to the Russian Federation. The veto was not a privilege, but a serious factor for ensuring the consensus and effectiveness of Security Council decisions. It was the backbone of the coherent work of the Council, a guarantee against arbitrariness of unilateral actions against the interests of the United Nations members, on whose behalf the Council acted. Attacks against the institution were counterproductive, and only misled United Nations members without contributing to the success of Security Council reform.

He could not ignore criticisms sometimes directed at the permanent members, to the effect that the “Five” were responsible for the sluggishness of the reform process. In his opinion, the answer to those unsubstantiated attacks was given in a politically important statement issued on behalf of the heads of State and government of the five permanent members on 7 September. In that statement, their commitment to fostering a more transparent and broadly representative Security Council had been reaffirmed.

SAEED HASAN (Iraq) called for a review of the Open-ended Working Group after its seven years of deliberations. Council reform should be oriented away from the rule of might and towards the rule of law. Iraq believed that too much weight was given to expansion of the Security Council, which could undermine the mandate entrusted to the Working Group by the Council. There was a need to restore balance. Expansion was not the highest priority. What was needed was the rectification of present imbalances, making the Security Council more transparent and more democratic. The reform of the Council must lead to credibility, not to the double standards often applied.

The imposition of one Super-Power’s sanctions on Libya, Sudan and Iraq was a clear case. The Zionist invasion of occupied Palestine had been seen on television for two months, but the Security Council had done absolutely nothing because the United States had threatened the use of the veto. Iraq believed that the best way for restoring credibility and legitimacy was through abolition of the veto, since it was undemocratic and did not help the maintenance of peace and international security.

Iraq took note of Articles 41 and 42, which were too general and designed for the private policies of influential States. Both had been exploited by the United States against his country, contradicting human rights and international humanitarian law. It was clear that the United States had exploited both those articles to direct its destructive military might against the Iraqi people, creating an environmental and health crisis in his country. The United Nations should adopt additional guidelines to prevent the use of those articles for vindictive purposes. In addition, reparations must be provided for targeted countries. Member States had the right to hold the Security Council accountable.

In closing, Iraq urged that membership in a reformed Security Council must become a trust, not an empty honour.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU (Cameroon) said it was necessary to reform the Security Council membership. Today, there was practically general agreement on the question of expanding the Council so as to represent the new geopolitical composition of the Organization. There was also agreement on the need for a new openness in the Security Council, and Cameroon appreciated the efforts towards greater transparency within the Council. Yet a lot remained to be done if Member States were to agree on the scope of Council expansion and the distribution of seats. The question was how Member States were to proceed in working together to reach a final agreement on those crucial points.

The Working Group had received from the Millennium Summit a new spirit and impulsion for reform. To ask questions about the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century also meant to examine the role of its principal organs. What should be the approach to their new missions and their new shape? It was a question of knowing what kind of Security Council the Member States wanted to give the United Nations. An organ was needed in which all of the States of the world governed together: therefore, equitable geographical representation was urgently needed.

* *** *