SECURITY COUNCIL SHOULD ENLARGE MEMBERSHIP, REVIEW VETO POWER TO INCREASE LEGITIMACY, EFFICIENCY, GENERAL ASSEMBLY TOLD

Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Plenary

30^th & 31^st Meetings (AM & PM)

SECURITY COUNCIL SHOULD ENLARGE MEMBERSHIP, REVIEW VETO POWER TO INCREASE

LEGITIMACY, EFFICIENCY, GENERAL ASSEMBLY TOLD

Speakers in the General Assembly today emphasized the need for a more representative, democratic, transparent and accountable Security Council, and put forward a variety of proposals, each intended to realize the common objective of increasing that organ’s legitimacy and efficiency.

As the Assembly debated reform of the 15-nation body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, the areas of reform considered crucial by most States included the future of the veto and whether and how to expand the Council’s membership.  On the latter issue, the majority of States were divided into two camps -– those favouring expansion of both categories of membership and those favouring expansion only in the non-permanent category.

The broadest consensus was expressed on the need to scale back the power of the veto, as many delegates suggested its use should be limited to Chapter VII cases, with a view to its gradual and complete elimination.  Whether the veto should be extended to any new permanent members on the Council, was also a subject of discussion.

The representative of the Russian Federation, who rejected outright the diminution of the veto, counselled that the right of veto for any new Council members should be considered only after agreement had been reached on who those members would be.  His country remained open to constructive proposals for the enlargement of the Council’s membership, on the understanding that expansion in each category must include both industrialized and influential developing countries.

In a similar vein, Paraguay’s representative supported expansion in both categories of membership, to include greater representation for developed and developing countries, while Germany’s representative advocated enlarging both categories, with large regions receiving additional permanent and non-permanent seats.

For his part, the representative of Egypt recalled the position of the Non-Aligned Movement, which favoured the expansion of Council membership to at least 26 members, allowing for an increase in both permanent and non-permanent categories, as well as the position of the African Group, which called for seven African seats in the Council, with two rotating permanent seats.

The creation of new permanent seats, noted Italy’s representative, would not be coherent with the objectives of strengthening the Council’s efficiency and effectiveness, since it would create new “centres of privilege”.  Indeed, the representative of Argentina warned, creating new permanent members, with or

without the power of the veto, would leave the Council divided into different classes of membership.  Reform must not undermine the Organization’s legitimacy, which was its key asset and justified its very existence, he added.

Experience had shown, stated the representative of the Republic of Korea, that the Council’s action had been limited in the event of clashes in the strategic interests of its veto-wielding permanent members.  A larger permanent membership would make it even more likely for the Council to be paralysed.  The most practical and equitable solution to the reform process was to increase the Council’s non-permanent membership, factoring in a geographical perspective. 

The representatives of Japan, Kuwait, Algeria, Brazil, Iran, Bahrain, France, Ukraine, Libya, United Arab Emirates, San Marino, India, Cuba, South Africa, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Tunisia, Sweden, Belgium, China, Venezuela, New Zealand, Croatia, Myanmar, Botswana, Singapore, Syria, Iceland, Sudan, Mongolia and Austria also addressed the Assembly today on that issue.

Also this morning, the Assembly heard additional speakers on the subject of the annual report of the Security Council.  Delegations voiced appreciation for the increasingly transparent working methods and strengthened interaction with non-Council members, reflected in the report, even as they urged further progress in those areas.  They also welcomed the Council’s depth of involvement in activities related to peacekeeping and conflict resolution, especially in Africa, while expressing concern over its inability to effectively address the conflict in the Middle East and the situation in Iraq. 

The representatives of India, Indonesia, Slovenia, Austria, Gambia, Kazakhstan, Mozambique and Liechtenstein addressed the Assembly on that subject.

The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 15 October, to begin its consideration of progress in the implementation of and international support for the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).

Background

The General Assembly met today to continue its consideration of the annual report of the Security Council.  It was also expected to begin consideration of the question of equitable representation, on and increase in the membership of the 15-nation body.  For background, see Press Release GA/10171 issued on 13 October.

Report of Security Council

A. GOPINATHAN (India) regretted the Security Council’s inability to reach satisfactory agreement on the Iraq issue earlier in the year, a situation he attributed to a lack of balanced representation in the Council’s current composition.  As his prime minister had stated in his address to the Assembly, in order for the Security Council to represent genuine multilateralism in its decisions and actions, its membership had to reflect current world realities.  There was ample recognition within the United Nations of the need for the Organization and its architecture for the maintenance of international peace and security to adapt to the needs and realities of the times.

It was the non-permanent members of the Security Council that had taken upon themselves the responsibility to pursue the agenda of greater transparency and reform in the working of the Council.  Regrettably, that had not always been the case.  In the period under review, new and ingenious methods appeared to have been invented to confuse and often exclude the general membership from specific projects they had pursued in the Council.  He cited delayed decision-making on the format of discussions; experimentation with different modes of participation under rule 31 of the rules of procedure, discrimination between members and non-members of the Council on time-limits for statements, and “surprise” scheduling of open debates with selective notification, as some of the examples of the tactics that had emerged.

He did not raise those issues with the intention of castigating those involved, he explained, but rather with the desire to bring to the attention of the Assembly and the select membership of the Council the areas where greater transparency, predictability and some even-handedness would be welcome, and thus, could add to the Council’s effectiveness.  Among other things, he suggested that, unless an item was introduced in reaction to major events of the day, all open debates involving the participation of the general membership, be announced at the beginning of the month.

YURI O. THAMRIN (Indonesia) said that while the report of the Security Council was important because it faithfully detailed that body’s work, it remained little more than “a blow-by-blow account, one that could have been easily prepared by individual Permanent Missions to the United Nations, or obtained from the Dag Hammarskjold Library”.  The report contained previously publicized documents, but little analysis or explanations of the Council’s actions and decisions.  In addition, it was sent late to Member States every year, and there was a clear contradiction between its contents and the amount of time needed to process it.  Despite all the events that took place in connection with the Iraq file, just over two pages were devoted to the issue, and the report made no mention of the hostilities.

He stressed that when the Council reported to the Assembly, it was not a concession by one organ of the United Nations to another, but the fulfilment of a Charter obligation.  That obligation should be wholly and consistently fulfilled in the interest of the peoples of the United Nations by both the Secretariat and the Security Council.  However, in spite of the previous criticism, he was pleased with what the Council had been able to accomplish despite its increased workload.  He noted progress with regard to conflicts in Africa, the Middle East and counter–terrorism as some of the accomplishments.  On Africa, he said that while there was new instability in Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia, the Council demonstrated laudable commitment when it sent two missions to different locations in the continent at the same time.

In spite of the setbacks, he hoped the Council would find ways of encouraging the parties to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and steering the peace process carefully and with determination towards the stated objectives.  On the issue of Security Council reform, he was concerned that in the nearly 10 years since the establishment of the open-ended Working Group, no substantial progress had been made on the issue.  The events of the past year had underlined the fact that comprehensive reform of the Council was long overdue, if the decisions of that body were to continue to enjoy the support of the larger membership of the Organization.

ROMAN KIRN (Slovenia), referring to Iraq, said the Security Council’s unity of purpose and action continued to be questioned.  He called the Council to strive towards resolutions that would command international support, improve security, and speed up the democratization process, institution-building and social and economic well-being.  Such crises demonstrated the limitations of engaging unilaterally, and served as a reminder of the need to adapt the Council’s permanent and non-permanent composition and working methods, including the right of veto.  The trend towards transparency in the Council was commended, and the increasing practice of holding open sessions contributed to that end, rendering opportunities to the general membership to participate in the Council’s work.  The growing practice of Council Missions, such as those to Central and West Africa, and consultations with the troop contributing countries were welcomed.  He expressed optimism with the Council’s ongoing attention to women, peace and security, and children and armed conflict.

He commended the Council’s focus on Africa, adding that the French-led European mission to eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo had set a positive example that cooperation among regional partners in crisis management was feasible.  As such, he recommended exploring cooperation of the United Nations with existing regional partners.  In the past year, the Organization, including the Council, had been seriously challenged.  Therefore, it was important that the Council be part of any United Nations reform.  The open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform had been a useful forum for producing good ideas.  Yet, its work was at an impasse.  He called for a more ambitious framework, based on a common need for change.

GERHARD PFANZELTER (Austria) welcomed the Security Council’s continued dialogue with the Assembly on the performance of its duties, as it enhanced the relationship between the two bodies in promoting the purposes and principles of the Charter.  An adequate flow of information towards non-members was a necessary prerequisite to understand and assess how the Council dealt with political issues.  That should be strengthened as much as possible.  The role of the Council’s presidency was crucial in the process of keeping the general membership fully informed about the deliberations of the Council.  In that respect, the monthly forecast on the work of the Council constituted a useful tool for all delegations.

He also noted further improvements in the briefings of the respective presidencies, and the information they made available electronically on their home pages.  The increase in public meetings underlined the willingness of the Council to take into account the views of Member States, and to use them in its decision-making process.  He also welcomed the reduction of closed meetings from 32 to eight, and described as positive the inclusion of a brief analytical assessment of the Council’s work, noting that the assessment’s usefulness could be further increased by analysing more extensively the decision-making process in that body. 

Continuing, he said the experience of peacekeeping operations had clearly underlined that the Security Council could only act successfully if it was engaged in a substantial dialogue with Member States.  Austria, as a traditional troop contributor to peacekeeping operations, especially welcomed the Council’s efforts to increase the number of meetings with troop contributing nations.  The cooperation between them and the Council at an early stage was essential when considering new mandates of United Nations peacekeeping missions.

CRISPIN GREY-JOHNSON (Gambia) said Africa had dominated the work of the Council for yet another year.  Citing examples such as United Nations involvement in Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and Sierra Leone, he stressed that the Council had indeed played its part and responded well to the many challenges on the continent.  Additionally, the Council’s Ad Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa continued to closely monitor the situation in Guinea-Bissau, including working with the Group of Friends and helping to resolve the region’s humanitarian crisis.

Overall, although conflicts appeared to have simmered down in much of Africa, their causes had not yet been completely removed.  The Council, together with the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), should begin examining issues of governance, poverty, exclusion and corruption, which he believed were the root causes of conflict in Africa.  Similar measures could be taken, in relation to small arms and light weapons, as well as the problem of mercenaries, whose prevalence in West Africa had kept countries in that subregion constantly in the shadow of war.  The Council’s cooperation with regional organizations, such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in the Liberian conflict could be an efficient and cost-effective means of conflict resolution.

On the situation in the Middle East, he said that the Council should continue to be patient and become more imaginative in its search for a solution to the problem.  “Ways must be found to realize the creation of a sovereign Palestinian State, side-by-side with a secure State of Israel”.  In spite of the outbreak of war in Iraq, the Council should set its sights on the future, and begin the necessary actions to bring the United Nations to the service of the Iraqi people in terms of their emergency humanitarian and development needs.  Also, he hoped the panel on reform measures, proposed by the Secretary-General, would thoroughly review the workings of the Security Council with a view to recommending concrete ways of reforming it, including the veto power.

YERZHAN KH. KAZYKHANOV (Kazakhstan) said his delegation endorsed the Council’s continuing efforts to address ongoing conflicts.  He believed that United Nations peacekeeping operations were one of the main elements of the maintenance of international peace and security, and a key instrument available to the Council in the settlement of conflicts and disputes.  While, he generally supported the Council’s working methods, particularly the trend of holding thematic debates and more open meetings, he believed its work could be even more effective if there were more opportunities for Council and non-Council members to hold interactive discussions.

“We wish to see a reformed Security Council, open to dialogue and sending the international community a clear message that it stands ready to meet new challenges”, he continued, stressing that pressing ahead with negotiations on revitalizing the Council was highly important.  He looked forward to receiving recommendations from the Secretary-General on the main aspects of strengthening the United Nations system, including reform of the Security Council, based on the work of the proposed panel of eminent persons.

MANUEL MARIA CACERES (Paraguay) said that Member States had both the right and duty to fully consider the work of the Security Council, as it acted on behalf of all.  Yet, while the report showed considerable progress in terms of its format and content over previous reports, it still did not fully reflect the amount and importance of the Council’s work.  The Council must be further encouraged to submit a truly useful and substantive document.  Furthermore, while there had been progress toward greater transparency in the Council’s working methods, including holding more public meetings, briefings by the Council President after closed sessions, “wrap-up” sessions and meetings with troop-contributing countries (TCCs), most of the body’s substantive deliberations continued to take place behind closed doors.

After more than 50 years, he stated, non-Council members should be invited to greater participation, the provisional rules and procedures should be made permanent and the Council’s interaction with the Assembly and other organs should be improved.  Perhaps it would be advisable for the Council President to submit special reports on priority issues to the Assembly, in addition to the annual report.

The issue of Security Council reform could no longer be postponed, he added.  That body must be made more democratic, representative, equitable and transparent, in keeping with the realities of today’s world.  Thus, cognizant of a general agreement on the need for Council reform, he supported the expansion of both categories of membership, to include greater representation for developed and developing countries.  That latter category was presently under-represented.  Moreover, the question of the veto must be analysed, with a view to its gradual elimination.  In the first instance, its use should be limited to Chapter VII cases.  The door should also be left open for additional periodic reforms, so as to reflect future realities and requirements.  One must conclude that, ten years after its establishment, the open-ended Working Group had accomplished little in terms of real progress.

FILIPE CHIDUMO (Mozambique) said the Security Council’s annual report needed to go beyond containing a mere list of meetings, and should carry a detailed analytical account of its proceedings, with substantial information on the environment, discussions were held in, and the decisions reached.  Such a substantive report would contribute to a better understanding of the Council’s affairs, enable Member States to take informed decisions, and further bridge the gap between members and non-members of the Council.  The report underlined the need for reform to ensure openness, inclusiveness, democratization, transparency, and accountability, as well as to restore the Council’s credibility in the eyes of both world opinion and Member States.

Noting that the bulk of its work was on Africa, he urged the Council to continue that trend, so that its decisions on Africa were commensurate with the time and efforts it dedicated to the continent.  That included, acting as expeditiously as possible against any possible threats to peace and security there.  Acting in such a way would contribute to easing the concerns expressed by Member States in the past, with regard to specific conflicts that had emerged on the continent.  He urged the Council not to wait until a situation deteriorated, in order to take action, adding that that had been the most recommended course of action in such cases as Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  In addition, the recent positive developments in Burundi should be encouraged by the adoption of a Council resolution endorsing the African Mission in Burundi (AMIB).

Continuing, he stated that in reviewing the composition of the Security Council, the criteria for its expansion should not be restrictive, but rather representative and equitable.  He called for the allocation of two permanent seats for Africa on the Council, with equal rights as the current permanent members, as well as two additional non-permanent seats, since Africa was the most under-represented continent on the Council.

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) said he had been disappointed to see that the Assembly had reverted to the practice of holding separate debates on the Security Council’s annual report and on expanding representation in the body.  Given the overlap in the substance of the issues, he found it hard to understand the change, especially in light of the urgent need to engage in radical reform of the Assembly.  The report itself was more concise and more accessible than in previous years, as a result of coordination between the Council and the Assembly.  He believed such coordination would become even more substantial and meaningful over time.

He said that the Council was looking back on one of the most difficult years in its history.  Rarely, had its work been followed with more public interest -– and rarely had more people turned way from the Council in frustration and disappointment.  The time had clearly come to rethink the established mechanisms in the area of international peace and security.  He continued to strongly believe in openness, transparency and accountability in the Council’s work and membership.

In that regard, he noted, important steps had been taken to change the body’s relationship with States, by, among other things, holding informal briefings and increasing open debates.  He welcomed the initiative of the United Kingdom, during its Council presidency last month, to look closely at matters related to justice and the rule of law.  As a guardian of the rule of law, the Council must look at its decisions and ensure they were at all times consistent with international norms.  Thus, it was regrettable that the Council had again taken a decision that did not fulfil that criterion by adopting resolution

1487.  That text was likely to do damage to the Council in the long run, and he hoped that the Council would refrain from its renewal next summer.

Question of Equitable Representation on Security Council

ARNOLDO M. LISTRE (Argentina) said that the international community now faced some difficult decisions on the future of the collective security system embodied by the Organization.  While meeting that challenge, the international community must concur on the need to undertake a reform of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council.  The international environment of 1945 had been much different from that of today.  While, it had expressed its reservations on the format of the Council at the time, Argentina had accepted that the five-power structure, while not democratic, responded to the balance of powers at that time.

However, that balance had now been radically changed, he continued.  Thus, while acknowledging the necessity of reform, he disapproved of some proposals, which advocated the retention of old, and the creation of new, privileges. Such proposals claimed the solution was to create new permanent members, with or without the power of the veto.  Any such expansion would leave the Council divided into different classes of membership.  The reform must not undermine the Organization’s legitimacy, which was its key asset and justified its very existence.

Thus, he stated, the representativeness of the least democratic and transparent body of the United Nations would only be improved through the expansion of membership in the non-permanent category.  The non-permanent members had exhibited greater representativeness under the current structure, and the Council should represent all Member States.  Moreover, the veto and other privileges of the permanent members should be considered, and the working methods of the Council must also be dealt with in the context of the Council’s expansion. While he supported the complete elimination of the veto, he would agree for the time being, that its limitation to use only in Chapter VII cases would be an acceptable first step.

KOICHI HARAGUCHI (Japan) expressed strong dissatisfaction with the current lack of progress of the Working Group on the reform of the Security Council, whose work started more than ten years ago.  Most of the blame for that stalemate lay with the Working Group itself.  Leaving the current situation as it was would call into question the ability of the United Nations to adjust itself to changes in the world.  As the Working Group was the only body established by the Assembly to discuss Council reform, it was imperative that every effort was made to achieve concrete results during the current session.  If no progress was made in the Group’s next meeting, it might be necessary to review the way that body managed its discussions.  In that connection, he looked forward to the leadership of the new Assembly President, Julian Hunte, as the chairman of the Working Group and its Bureau.

He took seriously the Secretary-General’s strong case for United Nations reform proposed in his report, “Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration”.  He was of the view that a political decision was needed on the occasion of such a review, by holding a meeting of heads of State and government, regarding the reform of the Organization and that of the Council, in particular.  In his report, the Secretary-General proposed that 2005 be set as a deadline for reaching agreement on the changes needed in international institutions if they were to meet new challenges.  That was also the year in which a review of progress on the Millennium Declaration would take place. 

He said that the perpetuation of the same basic structure of the Security Council, of 60 years ago, led many to question the legitimacy of the system under which the United Nations operated.  To that end, he urged all Member States to take concrete steps to strengthen the functioning of the Organization and thereby restore its legitimacy.  He reiterated his country’s determination to play a positive role in those efforts.

AHMED ABOUL GHEIT (Egypt) said that for the eleventh year running, the Assembly was taking up the question of increasing the Council’s membership.  While, he did not wish to repeat his delegation’s position, he reiterated its support for the recommendation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which had stressed that the Council should expand to at least 26 members.  That would allow for an increase in both permanent and non-permanent members and improve working methods.  He also supported the position of the African Group, which called for seven African seats in the Council, with two rotating permanent seats.

He went on to express concern at the slowness with which the Organization seemed to be coming to grips with the fact that wide-ranging reform could no longer be postponed.  He wondered if the current representation of the Council truly reflected geopolitical balance.  Could that representation really maintain international peace and security?  Had the experiences of the last six months proved the paralysis of the Council, as well as the urgent need to reform the body?  He also wondered if the current make-up could act in the interest of the developing world or even address modern realities.  All parties must generate the requisite political will to put together a package of reform initiatives that would achieve fair and equitable goals.  All must decide what they really wanted, whether it was reform, change, or expansion.  He hoped his questions would give rise to serious debate on the philosophy that underpinned the general notion of reform.

MANSOUR AYYAD AL-OTAIBI (Kuwait) said the question of equitable representation on the Security Council was one the most important items on the Assembly’s agenda.  Discussions within the Working Group had emphasized the need to reform the Council, in order to render it stronger, more representative and transparent.  However, after ten years, the Working Group had been unable to come to a consensus on how to conduct that reform, although there was almost general agreement on some measures.  He reiterated the fundamental principles of his country’s support for reform. 

Kuwait, he said, favoured only a moderate expansion of the Council’s membership, so as to preserve the effectiveness of that body’s work.  That expansion should be in harmony with principles, such as equality among Member States and their sovereignty, as well as equitable geographic representation.  It should also reflect the reality of the current international system.  He also supported a limited increase in the category of permanent membership to those States that had demonstrated their ability to work with the United Nations in the economic, social and cultural arenas, in accordance with the Charter.

With regard to the Council’s working methods, he favoured those proposals aimed at greater transparency and increasing the flow of information.  The retention of the current method for selecting the Council’s non-permanent members was also favoured, as it gave smaller countries a greater chance at membership.  He agreed that the use of the veto should be limited, and supported the Secretary-General’s suggestion to establish a panel of eminent personalities to reach consensus on Council reform.

MARCELLO SPATAFORA (Italy) said that the Security Council needed to be strengthened and be made more efficient and effective for United Nations reform to be truly significant and complete.  The current reform process should be aimed at enhancing the Council’s effectiveness and representative character, together with its legitimacy and credibility.  The creation of new permanent seats would not be coherent with those objectives, since it would create new “centres of privilege”.  Indeed, new permanent members endowed with veto power would make it more difficult for the Council to swiftly define and implement collective actions, impairing the effectiveness of the Council’s decision-making process and increase the risk of inaction.  A comprehensive reform of the Council should, therefore, also address the power and exercise of veto.

He pointed out that the proposal to add new permanent members without veto also entailed serious drawbacks and would not help the cohesion of the United Nations membership.  It would create further divisions in the Council membership and establish a new layer of hierarchy that would be detrimental to the United Nations.  Member States might decide that, after 10 years of debate, it was now time to reach agreement on a formula that could build on common ground and receive the largest support within the Assembly.  If so, the only realistic formula would be a limited increase in the number of non-permanent members for the time being.  Such an enlargement would increase the Council’s representative character and the legitimacy of its actions in the eyes of the international community.

Still speaking in his national capacity, he insisted that the more the European Union became a stronger and cohesive international entity, the more it would be able to provide valuable inputs to the United Nations and to shaping Security Council deliberations.  The recently signed Joint Declaration on European Union-United Nations cooperation in crisis management was an example of the Union’s determination to enhance its role in peace and security-related issues at the United Nations and to help the Organization achieve its goals.  He hoped that the Union would progressively enhance its capacity to contribute to an effective multilateralism centred on the United Nations.

LARBI KATTI (Algeria) said it was urgent for the international community to reach agreement on a programme of common security, reflecting a global consensus on the principle threats to peace and security.  It must not turn away from the need to improve the structure and functions of the United Nations and other international institutions to respond to current challenges.  Thus, the international community must undertake to reform the Security Council, the principle guarantor of international peace and security, and make more representative.  Although past experience of failure and disappointment in reforming the Council had made his country sceptical, the issue remained important because the strength of the Organization was found in its legitimacy.

Despite some improvement in the Council’s functioning and working methods, he continued, no final version of its rules and procedures had yet been provided, so as to prevent those positive changes that had been achieved from being dependent on the whim of certain members.  Among others sources of concern were closed-door meetings, in which all the important decisions were taken, and the veto powers increasingly deciding beforehand the outcome of Council deliberations.  Additionally, some members sometimes acted as if motivated solely by their own defence and the promotion of national interests.  The Council should consult with those States directly or indirectly concerned by situations under discussion, as well as with regional and subregional organizations.

The Council should also give greater effect to the Charter’s provision whereby any State could consult the Council when it found itself in difficulty over the application of preventive or coercive measures created by that body.  Moreover, the broad consensus on the need to encourage further progress in the transparency and effectiveness of the Council’s working methods should be formalized.  That formalization was made more desirable by the lack of progress, in relation to the issues of expanding the Council’s membership and eliminating the veto.

SERGEY V. LAVROV (Russian Federation) said his delegation had always believed and continued to believe that a strong and efficient United Nations was a key instrument for collective regulation of international relations and forming a multi-polar world order, on the basis of the Charter and the rules of international law.  Security Council reform must be aimed at strengthening its potential to fulfil its responsibilities under the Charter.  He was sympathetic to the concerns expressed by many delegations that the pace of Council reform had been slow and that the body itself needed to reflect current international realities.  At the same time, he believed that, given the profound differences among States on the issue, the work should progress “gradually and quite cautiously”.  He stressed that Council reform could only be successful if it did not result in a split or division.  Rather, it should draw States together in support of the 15-nation body.

The basic guideline, he said, continued to be achieving the broadest possible agreement on all aspects of Security Council enlargement.  “We cannot afford division within the United Nations on this question”, he said, stressing that Russia was prepared to continue meticulous work to narrow the differences among existing State positions, particularly on the key issue of the Council’s future composition.  He was open to considering constructive proposals on the categories in which the Council’s membership might be enlarged, on the understanding that the expansion of each category must cover both the industrialized and influential developing countries, granting them equal rights and obligations.  In the event of creating additional permanent Council seats, Germany, Japan, and India would be worthy candidates, as would a representative from Africa.

Such an approach, he said, would make it possible to ensure an adequate balance of interests and affirm the trend for reaching consensus within the framework of the Council.  He was convinced that ideas implying the diminution of the prerogatives and powers of the Council’s permanent members, including the right of veto, were counterproductive.  “The unjustified criticism of the veto institution only fuels unnecessary emotions and is not conducive to reaching the needed agreement on reform parameters”, he said.  As for the right of veto for any new Council members, that issue should be considered only after agreement had been reached on who those members would be.  It was essential to preserve the Council’s compact composition, as excessive expansion could have a negative impact on its productivity and effectiveness.

RONALDO MOTA SARDENBERG (Brazil) said that, despite it being the tenth year since its establishment, the Working Group had, regrettably, not lived up to the expectations that led to its creation.  The lack of results was by no means a discouragement, since the issues were complex and involved many difficulties.  But, that should not detract Member States from continuing to seek institutional developments that adequately reflected the political and security realities of the twenty-first century, and that could better represent their views.  The need for such reform had existed for many years, but its urgency was underscored by the grievous international developments witnessed this year.

The very existence of new challenges to the international order was a matter of paramount concern for all, he said, and should propel everyone forward, both in preserving the commonly agreed purposes and principles for international conduct enshrined in the Charter, and in redoubling efforts aimed at reforming the Organization, particularly the Security Council.  He supported the Secretary-General’s initiative to establish a high-level panel of eminent personalities to recommend ways of strengthening the Organization.  Also, the open-ended Working Group should carry on with a view to fulfilling its mandate.  Although on the major issues, general agreement had so far been elusive, its work on procedural and practical matters had yielded important results, helping the process.  It was high time for the international community to squarely confront the question of reform of the principal organs of the United Nations, in order for them to better respond to world needs.

MOHAMMAD H. FADAIFARD (Iran) said that while the open-ended Working Group had made some considerable progress in the ten years since its establishment, significant differences on substantive matters remained, such as the size and composition of the Security Council, particularly regarding increasing permanent membership and the veto.  If no agreement could be reached on the expansion of the permanent membership, then the expansion discussion should be limited for the present to non-permanent membership.  The overall membership of the Council should be increased to at least 26, so that the developing world could be better represented.  Moreover, dissatisfaction with the veto should be heeded.  The general support for limiting its use, with a view to its eventual elimination, should be explicitly reflected in the final outcome of the Working Group.

The fundamental question, he added, continued to be how to advance from the current Council to an organ more representative and democratic but no less efficient.  The Working Group had had a positive impact on the Council’s working methods, as that body now conducted its business in a more transparent manner than in the early 1990s.  More progress on other issues, including the modality of holding meetings and consultations with States directly affected by issues under consideration, was required to ensure increased accessibility and transparency.  Finally, Council reform should not be subject to any predetermined timetable, as forcing a premature decision would incur the risk of doing harm rather than good.

GUNTER PLEUGER (Germany) said that the role and decision-making mechanisms of the Security Council had been the subject of fervent discussion within the past year, as that body engaged the world public as seldom before.  Given that situation, it was crucial to reform the Council to maintain the credibility and legitimacy of its decisions, and to promote respect for its decisions in the interest of peace and security.  The legitimacy of the Council was based upon its representativeness; Member States must feel represented by that body, in order to accept and implement its decisions.  However, the composition of the Security Council -– which continued to reflect a distinction between the “victors and vanquished of 1945” -– no longer reflected the current political and economic realities of the international system, in which the bulk of today’s Member States came from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Working Group, established in December 1993, he added, had brought the United Nations almost with reach of true reform during the presidency of Razali Ismail.  Yet, the law of diminishing returns had since shown its effect on the work of that body and one must consider whether the Group remained worthwhile.  Appreciating the strong new impetus for reform, called for by the Secretary-General, and emphasizing the undesirability of “quick fixes”, he advocated enlarging both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership on the Council, with large regions receiving additional permanent and non-permanent seats.  The reform of the Council’s working methods was also desirable, as was a broader reform of other United Nations organs.

TAWFEEQ AHMED ALMANSOOR (Bahrain) said that as the winds of change had swept the world, the Organization had failed to keep up with those changes.  Along with wide-ranging reform, one of the most important issues for Member States had been modernizing the Security Council.  Despite the fact that the Working Group had not reached a decision on reform and expansion of the Council, the work it had undertaken thus far, remained important.  Restructuring the Council and improving its working methods was something desired by all countries and regional groups and there had been marginal consensus on certain issues.  But, a major push toward reform was needed, particularly as the membership of the United Nations had increased and the issues considered by the Council were becoming more numerous and more complex, particularly in post-conflict situations.

Still, there had been some improvement in the Council’s working methods, he continued, particularly the larger number of open debates and monthly “wrap-up” session.  At the same time, political will and sincere desire was required to maintain such positive momentum.  There must be equitable representation and States must refrain from using double standards, particularly in the use of the veto.  All States should feel secure in the knowledge that the Council worked in their interests equally.

JEAN-MARC DE LA SABLIERE (France) acknowledged that the Charter of the United Nations had endowed the Security Council with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.  He felt the membership of that body should be expanded; so as to better reflect the reality of the current international system.  In the context of the permanent membership, Germany and Japan should be given permanent seats, as should the major countries of Asia and Latin America -- India and Brazil. Meanwhile, the representation of Africa in the non-permanent category should be increased, so as to better represent developing countries.

Noting that the discussion on Council reform had reached a deadlock, he said a new impetus for progress was needed.  A strengthened authority and increased effectiveness in its mission should also accompany the Council’s reform.  The Secretary-General had made proposals to re-launch the reform agenda, and in that regard, France supported the decision to convene a panel of eminent personalities.  Moreover, all members of the United Nations must commit to reform of the wider Organization, not just of the Security Council.

MARKIYAN KULYK (Ukraine), speaking on behalf of the GUUAM countries -- Azerbaijan, Georgia, Republic of Moldova, Uzbekistan and Ukraine -- said there was a broad recognition of both the necessity and urgency, of making the Security Council stronger and more effective, in responding to the challenges facing the world community in the field of peace and security.  Transforming the composition and geographical representation of the Council was an important prerequisite for further improving that body’s effectiveness.

He went on to suggest that while both categories of the Council’s membership –- permanent and non-permanent -– should be expanded, it was most important to ensure equitable geographical representation in the non-permanent seats.  Any comprehensive reform proposal must take into account the interests of every regional group.  With respect to creating new permanent seats, he continued to believe that those countries able and willing to take the greater responsibility, including financial, in the maintenance of international peace and security, which enjoyed international authority and the support at both regional and global levels, should receive permanent member status.

KIM SAM-HOON (Republic of Korea) said that all could agree that the current composition of the Security Council did not reflect present geopolitical realities.  Yet, while the expansion of the Council had been on the Assembly’s agenda for a decade, no conclusions had been reached on the issue, due primarily to the divergence of views on how to characterize the structural changes that had taken place on the international landscape.  He felt that the increased number of medium powers, possessing the willingness and capability to make substantive contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security, was a structural change of equal magnitude to the emergence of global and regional powers whose resources and influence could compete with or exceed those of certain current permanent members.  Those medium powers should not be marginalized or alienated by the expansion of permanent membership, which could weaken the institutional vitality of the Organization.

Such an increase, he continued, would create serious problems in the Council’s operations, hindering it from discharging its responsibilities in a timely and efficient manner.  Moreover, experience showed the Council’s action had been limited in the event of clashes in the strategic interests of its veto-wielding permanent members.  A larger permanent membership would make it even more likely for the Council to be paralysed.  If the Council was increasingly unable to act in grave situations, and gave way to unilateral initiatives or actions led by coalitions of the willing, it would become irrelevant.  Thus, the most practical and equitable solution to the reform process was to increase the Council’s non-permanent membership, factoring in a geographical perspective.  Those States more capable of contributing to the Organization’s activities should also be given more opportunities to serve on the Council.

JUMA AMER (Libya) said that, after more than a decade, he hoped that the work of the open-ended Working Group would culminate in a decision to reform the Council, so that it equitably represented all groups, and transparency became rooted in its work.  The process of reforming the Council would require, among other things, the expansion of its membership.  He added that the Council must also reinforce its links with the Assembly -– beyond one-time limited cooperation, on the annual report -– as well as with other United Nations bodies.

He went on to say that any moves to expand the Council must be based on achieving absolute equality.  He favoured expanding only the non-permanent category.  The decisions must not be taken selectively or tied to conditions, such as who financed peacekeeping missions.  That would only reinforce hegemony.  Latin America was not represented, nor was Africa.  That was particularly troubling since Africa represented two-thirds of the Organization’s membership.  That was a defect that must be remedied.  He reiterated the African position that an expanded Council must include two seats for Africa.  He also advocated limiting and eventually doing away with the veto.  A reformed Council must do away with special privileges, which had previously been given to only a few countries.

ABDUL AZIZ NASSER AL SHAMSI (United Arab Emirates) noted that, ten years after its establishment, the Working Group could not reach agreement on the increase in membership of the Council nor the use of the veto.  Such a delay could only be explained by a lack of political will on the part of some States, who continued to put forward obstacles to impede consensus on those matters.  For its part, his country supported the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent membership, in a ratio aimed at strengthening the Council’s efficiency and its capacity for decision-making.  That increase should be in conformity with the principle of equality of all Member States, as well as with the principle of equitable geographical representation.

The current imbalance in the Council’s geographical representation must be addressed, he continued, so as to ensure greater representation for developing countries.  The Arab Group should be allocated a permanent seat.  Priority in allocating permanent seats should be given to those States that had demonstrated their commitment to keeping international peace and security.  Parameters and controls on the right to the veto should also be adopted.

Deeply concerned by the Council’s continued failure to carry out its mandate and responsibilities, with regard to the Middle East, he said that it had shown a trend towards selectivity and prejudice, especially regarding Israeli aggression against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.  Israel continued to violate international law, including through its violation of Syrian sovereignty earlier this month.  Although that action had been deplored by the international community, the Council had taken no action against it, due to the position of a permanent member of the Council.  That implied a hidden encouragement for Israel to continue its defiance of international law, and sent a message to other States that aggression and violation would be allowed.

GIAN NICOLA FILIPPI BALESTRA (San Marino) said the frustration of those who wanted to see some quick concrete results on the reform of the Security Council, was just as understandable as the concerns of those worried about a decision taken under pressure and with an inflexible timeframe.  Those sentiments were understandable because the reforms being asked for, sought to substantially modify the most important organ that dealt with mankind’s peace and security, a task that was far from easy.  He favoured an increase of the non-permanent members only, and opposed any reform that was likely to raise inequalities among Member States.

Further, he considered that a “quick fix” solution would represent an approximate solution and would crystallize an Organization that should, on the contrary, reflect the political, social and economic challenges in the world today.  In addition, an increase in non-permanent members would be the only possible outcome for the time being.  In his opinion, any enlargement should equitably address all Member States, correcting the current imbalances.  Regional groups were called on to continue to play a basic role in the allocation of Security Council seats to their members.

A. GOPINATHAN (India) said, within the United Nations there was ample recognition of the need for the Organization and its architecture to deal with the maintenance of international peace and security and to adapt to the needs and realities of the times.  He stressed that a subject, as complex and intricate as Council reform, could not have a time line or “quick fix” imposed on it, even as he conceded that Council reform was urgent, pressing and must be administered in a reasonable time frame.

He said the questionnaire which was circulated to Member States last May was a dynamic initiative because it brought to the fore some very pertinent issues, apart from defining the position of the mainstream.  It also demonstrated that the majority continued to favour a comprehensive approach on Council reform.  Also, there must be a simultaneous reform in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, and Cluster I and II must be dealt with in tandem.  He said there was broad agreement on that issue and perhaps the time had come to start concrete proposals for reform on Cluster I issues.

BRUNO RODRÍGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said the illegal war in Iraq and inaction in the Middle East were among the eloquent and irrefutable examples of the fact that the Security Council was not fulfilling its duties under the Charter, nor acting on behalf of Member States.  The Council distorted the spirit and provisions of the Charter and had affected an increasingly voracious and intrusive agenda, which usurped the functions of ECOSOC, as well as the Assembly.  The body was “seriously inequitable” and had become “anti-democratic”, acting conspiratorially and from within the opacity of informal consultations.  Its non-permanent members were routinely ignored and excluded, he added.

“There will be no United Nations reform without Security Council reform”, he continued.  As long as the Council exercised totalitarian power, the United Nations would not be a democratic organization.  The veto was an example of the “super-Power dictatorship” which prevailed -- established by the force of arms and money.  But the veto was also evidence of an international imbalance.  All Member States agreed that the veto should be eliminated, he declared, stressing that it was not necessarily the veto’s legitimacy that was problematic, but rather the “powerful forces” that wielded it to the detriment of other Council members, the wider United Nations and the international community.

While those forces continued to try to keep the Assembly from regaining its powerful functions under the Charter, in the meantime, “let us continue to work”, he said.  The Council should expand to include new permanent and non-permanent members, and if agreement was not reached on other categories, non-permanent membership should be increased immediately.  The new seats should have exactly the same prerogatives as the current ones.  The aim should be to correct insufficient representation of developing countries and, in that regard, two or three African nations, two or three Latin American and Caribbean nations, and two or three Asian developing countries should join the body.

JEANETTE NDHLOVU (South Africa) supported an expansion in both, the permanent and non-permanent, categories of Security Council membership, with new members getting equal status as the existing members in those categories.  In addition, the reform process must be transparent, with due consideration given to equitable geographic representation in a package of reforms that did not disadvantage developing countries.

There had been arguments that the size of the Council could only be increased slightly from the current 15, so that it did not become cumbersome and thus, unable to respond rapidly to crises.  She pointed out that South Africa’s experience with the Council had shown that its credibility in dealing with crises was not an issue of size, but that credibility emerged when there was a sense of transparency, legitimacy, representativeness and accountability in the Council’s deliberations and actions.  Similarly, the Council’s size was not the basis of slow reactions or even the lack of action.  More often, it was the use, and the threat of use, of the veto, as well as a lack of political will of individual powerful States that often frustrated the will of the majority of Council members.

The question of the veto, she said, remained contentious in the debate of Council reform.  When one examined the record on the use of the veto, it was clear that the situation could not be allowed to continue where individual Member States served narrow national interests against the overwhelming voice of the international community.  Therefore, it was important that members shed their traditional divisions on how to reform the Council in favour of seeking agreement on the composition and the working methods of a Security Council that would serve everyone in the context of new geopolitical realities.

KIM CHANG GUK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the issue of Council reform had been repeatedly deliberated with no result at all.  That was largely due to the pursuit of unilateral interests, which constituted a violation of the basic purpose of that reform.  In order to ensure the Council’s thorough democratization, priority should be given to ensuring the full representation of the developing countries that made up the overwhelming majority of Member States.  Only with such action could the transparency and effectiveness of the Council’s work be enhanced and its democratization speeded up.  While, it was important to first increase membership in the non-permanent category, to afford representation to developing countries, there must also be a serious approach to the expansion of the permanent membership.

The Council, he continued, must adhere to the principles of justice and impartiality in its activities.  Due to the unilateralism and high-handedness of the super-Power, the Council had been unable to properly carry out the missions entrusted to it within the United Nations Charter.  That situation had defamed the trust and dignity of the organ authorized to ensure peace and security.  If, however, the Council was incapable of observing those principles of justice and fairness, then the value of its existence should be questioned.  The Council must fundamentally improve its working methods and strive to represent fully the will and interests of all Member States, in order to restore its credibility in the international community.

ALI HACHANI (Tunisia) noted the progress that had been made in the Council’s working methods, and its continuing interest in ongoing conflicts in Africa.  But, there was a lot that remained to be done to enhance that body’s work.  The Council’s report showed that inaction on the situation in the Middle East posed a serious threat to the region, as well as to the Council’s own authority.

On the question of equitable representation in the Council, he said the critical importance of reform had been on the Assembly’s agenda since 1993.  Efforts to effect real and concrete reform needed to be strengthened, particularly in light of emerging international and geopolitical realities.  While, revitalization of the Council should be a part of initiatives to reform the wider United Nations, expanding the 15-nation body need not wait until all other aspects of organizational change had been addressed.

He said there was a need to consider the question of the veto in parallel with the issue of expansion and equitable representation.  On the issue of the veto and Council reform, what was lacking was not a wealth of proposals, but the requisite political will to effect change.  The Council must reflect demographic realities and that could not be achieved unless both its permanent and non-permanent membership were increased.  He supported the African position that recommended two permanent seats and at least two non-permanent seats for Africa. 

PIERRE SCHORI (Sweden) said the world had changed tremendously since the foundation of the United Nations in 1945, and it was agreed that the Organization must adapt to changing realities to safeguard its primary role in international peace and security.  Global threats must be defined and addressed collectively, and multilateral solutions were required.  He stressed that only the Security Council could provide the legitimacy for the use of force beyond the right of self-defence.  But, that legitimacy was closely linked to how the Security Council was perceived by the entire United Nations membership and the international community as a whole.  For that reason, he felt the Council must be representative of the 191 Member States, and reflect the geopolitical realities of the twenty first century.

He insisted that Council reform was essential if that body was to stay relevant in the eyes of the world.  Rather than trying to find the optimal solution for decades to come, States should instead accept that any reform might have to be re-thought again in five or ten years time.  A swift agreement on the Council’s expansion would demonstrate to the world that the Organization was indeed prepared to “adapt and adjust, in order to safeguard and strengthen its legitimacy and efficiency in global politics”.  To achieve that, he suggested that the Council be enlarged fairly quickly with a number of non-permanent members, especially from developing countries.  However, adding non-permanent members now, did not exclude the possibility of agreeing on additional permanent members at a later stage.

JEAN DE RUYT (Belgium) said he could not avoid the feeling of weariness with the open-ended Working Group charged with considering reform, as a result of it not having made any progress.  Each year that passed, reinforced the fact that the current composition of the Security Council did not reflect geopolitical realities.  It was impossible to ignore that fact, as the credibility and legitimacy of the Council was now at stake.  The inability of Member States to do something now could erode the Council and the Organization as a whole, dramatically effecting world peace and security.

Member States had national positions to defend, he stated, but it was critical that in the collective interest, States committed to a constructive search for compromise.  He supported the Secretary-General’s statement from

23 September, and congratulated him on the initiative to re-launch the process of reform.  He looked forward to the proposals to be produced by the panel of eminent persons.  He hoped the panel would shed light on the reform debate, and lead the Council toward a new dynamism.  It was not new ideas that were needed; solutions were already on the negotiating table.  What was lacking was the political will to move forward.  He called for a balanced, realistic reform to meet the vast majority of Member States’ needs, with the limited use of veto.

WANG GUANGYA (China) said that positive progress had been made in the Council’s efforts to seek solutions to the situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire, which contributed to the maintenance of peace and stability in the countries and regions concerned.  However, the Council had also been confronted with an unprecedented challenge, which had led to feelings of frustration, as it had failed to achieve consensus on the issue of Iraq.  And although some were worried about the Council’s ability to fulfil its responsibility for maintaining peace and security, a basic consensus had emerged during the general debate that the role of the Council should be further enhanced not weakened, its authority reinforced rather than reduced.

He shared the view of the Secretary-General on the need to reform United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, he said.  Priority should be given to increasing the representation of developing countries on the Council, according to the principle of equitable geographic distribution.  Given that the debate on that subject had been going on for ten years, there must be patience for extensive and in-depth discussions, urgency to speed up the reform and wisdom to make appropriate compromises.  His country remained ready to participate in a constructive manner with the Working Group.  He also supported further improvements to the Council’s working methods aimed at increasing transparency and efficiency.  Marked progress in that area had been achieved, including the holding of more open meetings and improved communication and cooperation with troop contributing countries.

MILOS ALCALAY (Venezuela) said efforts made by the Working Group on Security Council reform had not borne the fruits expected of it by the wider United Nations system.  Every year that passed, laid bare the urgent need to ensure that the Council became a representative and democratic body.  And, while there had been improvements in the Council’s methods of work, particularly in its meeting and consultation structure, efforts to ensure equitable representation or concrete reform had been stifled.

He supported the view that the Council’s make up should reflect current geopolitical realities, particularly regarding increased representation for developing countries.  He also supported Brazil’s aspiration to become a permanent member in the Council.  It was time, he said, for all States to pool their efforts to capitalize on the expectations and high hopes that followed the Secretary-General’s call for reform at the opening of the session.  In that regard, he looked forward to next year’s review of the work of the proposed panel of eminent personalities.

TIM MCIVOR (New Zealand) said that events over the past year had made the need for Security Council reform greater than ever.  People had watched closely, as deliberations on Iraq proceeded, and there had been public debate on the effectiveness of the Council.  Yet, despite the criticisms, there was widespread global support for the Council’s role and great importance attached to its decisions.  People wanted the Security Council to play a lead role in international peace and security but they also wanted a more representative Council.

He strongly believed that, to be credible and effective, the Council must have the full trust and support of the international community.  As it was the international community’s pre-eminent legal body addressing threats to peace and security, the Council must be seen as more representative of today’s international community.  He called for continued progress in the Working Group.  At the same time, no matter how effectively the existing Council discharged its duties, if it was not considered sufficiently representative, its authority was diminished.  The Working Group could not break the impasse on structural Security Council reform.  Therefore, he hoped the establishment of the panel on reform would bring fresh impetus to the process. 

He stressed that reform of the Council, or indeed the United Nations, was not a zero sum game.  Everyone could be a winner if discussions were premised on the vital need to make the Council more effective in the twenty first century.  There were encouraging developments regarding reform, but there were also some areas where the Council remained worryingly closed to outside consultation.  While there were instances when closed door consultations needed to take place, it was important that Member States be kept informed of the issues under consideration.  He cautioned that closed doors could all too easily lead to misunderstanding and misinformation.  Lack of communication could undermine the very work the Council was trying to achieve.

VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia) declared that although everyone was aware that the Security Council was in dire need of change and all had a number of ideas how to do it, it had not yet been possible.  The aim of creating an efficient and representative Security Council would not be achieved by partial reform that tackled only bits and pieces of the problem, he said.  What was needed was comprehensive and thorough reform that could be achieved only in a package that encompassed all the elements of Clusters I and II issues.  All provisional or partial solutions would just press members into an endless circle of new rounds of negotiations.

In his view, the members’ ability to debate had been amply demonstrated over the years, and it was now time to show that they could produce results, not just words.  He said, major decisions on the Council’s reform were still out of reach and members placed their confidence in the General Assembly President to find new avenues to start the process of negotiation.  The importance of the problem was such that no obstacle or disagreement, regardless of its nature and size, could be an excuse for derailing the debate.  He said it was not just time that was pressing members to come up with solutions for the Council’s reform; it was an ever-changing political environment, with dynamics that might leave the Organization behind, as being too rigid in its structure or too slow in its reactions.

U WIN MRA (Myanmar) said he was glad to observe that the Security Council had reformed its working methods, including holding frequent public meetings, “wrap-up” sessions, and press releases of all statements made by the President of the Council.  He also observed that the Council’s report had dealt with priority issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa, but he felt that an analytical report would have served a “more useful purpose than a mere descriptive one”.

He said counter-terrorism remained one of the major areas of concern of the Security Council and Myanmar was working closely with the committee on the issue.  He said that while some procedural changes and initiatives taken by the Security Council were to be commended, there was still concern over the unrepresentative and undemocratic nature of its composition and decision-making process.  There were differing opinions on reform but there was a consensus view that at the “bare minimum”, the Council should be expanded to conform to the present-day realities of the enlarged membership of the United Nations.

On the question of the veto, he said an ideal solution would be to limit its application, to be exercised only under a special chapter of the United Nations Charter.

LEUTLWETSE MMUALEFE (Botswana) said it was regrettable that little progress had been achieved regarding reforms in the Security Council.  The current report of the open-ended Working Group reflected considerable divergence of views on issues relating to the expansion of the Council’s membership, decision-making and the use of the veto.  It was noted, however, that there was more agreement on how the Council should conduct business, and in that regard, more open debates were being held in which non-members participated.  The present membership of the Council was not reflective of geopolitical realities, or of socio-cultural and linguistic diversity, and remained predominantly Euro-centred.  Yet, today’s challenges required the participation of all Member States to be effective.

He said that defied logic that membership in the Council, especially in the non-permanent category, should remain unchanged, and that the greater number of the United Nations membership should not equally participate in matters of international peace and security.  He called for the allocation of two permanent and two non-permanent seats for Africa, thus aligning his delegation with the position of the African Union.  The working methods of the Council also required improvements, including additional public debates with the general membership.  In addition, the use of the veto required urgent review, as some States used it to preserve national interests.  Thus, it was critical that the veto be replaced with a democratic decision-making process based on the sovereign equality of States. 

KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) said that after all the speeches, with member after member calling for reform, one would believe that such change was eminent.  But the reality was that despite seemingly unanimous agreement, there had been no forward movement.  That was because the Organization had been “putting the cart before the horse”.  Member States had been discussing the “shape of the cart and how many seats it should have”, but there had been no discussion or decision about where the cart would be headed.  There was no consensus on the primary role and function of the Security Council.  Was the 15-nation body a “fire station”, which reacted to calls for help immediately and without prejudice, or would it mull over its decisions with an eye toward the self-interest of a few States?

Another important issue that needed to be addressed, he said, was the role to be played by small and developing countries.  It was clear that major powers -- which held the most prerogatives in the Council -- did not need the body to ensure their security.  It was small States that needed the Council, and were, therefore, more than deserving of fair and equitable representation in it.  He also called on the Assembly to move beyond discussions of the formal use of the veto and address the “hidden vetoes” used every day in the course of the Council’s informal consultations.  Also, if the Assembly was to truly address the issue of reform, all States must reach an understanding about the responsibilities of permanent membership.

A mistake had been made at the inception of the United Nations, he said.  Member States had given away the right of veto but had never attached any responsibilities to its use.  That was why there were so many volunteers raising their hands when there was talk of the availability of permanent seats in the Council -- because there were no specific and defined responsibilities that went along with permanent membership.  Addressing that issue would really start the Organization on the road to real reform.  Still, he supported reform of the Council according to the views of NAM.  He also stood by the call for the permanent membership of Japan and Germany.

FAYSSAL MEKDAD (Syria) said that, in today’s environment, it was no longer only a question of increasing the number of Security Council members, but a question of meeting new challenges to international peace and security.  It had been a difficult year for the United Nations, and the war against Iraq had been a test of the Organization’s strength.  Reform of the council proceeded from a number of premises based on the charter.  Implementing collective security was the most important step in avoiding conflict, as was noted by the Secretary-General in his report earlier in the year.  The veto was the manifestation of the absence of democratization, and should be restricted with an aim towards eventually eliminating it.  International peace and security had been a victim of the veto power, and it was, therefore, critical to set criteria which would avoid its arbitrary use.

An increase in the Council’s membership was an integral part of creating equitable geopolitical representation.  He called for the expansion of the Council in both categories to ensure equitable representation for developing countries.  The Arab group had emphasized that a permanent seat be set aside for Arab countries, to be filled on a rotational basis.  In addition, a non-permanent seat should also be filled by an Arab nation, and the number of expanded council members should total 26.

HJÁLMAR HANNESSON (Iceland) welcomed the growing practice of open Security Council meetings, which he said had contributed to the closer involvement of all States in its work by providing them the opportunity to express their views on subjects that the Council considered.  He supported an increase in both permanent and non-permanent seats on the Council, with new permanent members enjoying the same rights and obligations as the current permanent members.  He further proposed a restriction of the right of veto and the establishment of an obligation to state the reason for its use, saying, “We should attach a responsibility to the veto”.

Although the Working Group had been working hard and long hours to reach agreement on the issues of the Council’s expansion and the question of the veto, very limited results had been achieved.  While reform options had been narrowed down and were now on the table, delegations should not underestimate the differences among them regarding the goal of reforming, democratizing and strengthening the legitimacy of the Security Council.  The Open-ended Working Group was still the most appropriate form for negotiating that important issue, and he urged all members to show flexibility and a willingness to compromise. 

MAGDI M. TAHA (Sudan) said his delegation would stress that in these crucial times, if the Council did not manage to regain the confidence of the international community, all its efforts to resolve the complex issues of maintaining international peace and security would be impaired.  Indeed, the work of the Organization as a whole would likewise be impaired.

As the United Nations membership had increased and the issues with which the Organization dealt had become more complex, the Council had not kept up, and it must rise to confront those modern realities.  To that end, his delegation supported the expansion of the Council.  On the veto power of permanent members, he called for the immediate elimination of the right, which conferred special privileges on a few States and seemingly contravened the very spirit of the Charter.

CHOISUREN BAATAR (Mongolia) shared the concern over the slow pace of reform at the United Nations, and said that innovative approaches and political will were prerequisites for any reform to succeed.  Today’s world was vastly different than the one of 50 years ago, with great advances in democratization and globalization.  It was critical that a universal organization such as the United Nations, and such a powerful body as the Security Council, not remain behind such historic changes.  He supported a just and equitable enlargement of the Council by increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent seats, which ensured equal representation of both developing and developed countries.  Review of the veto power constituted an essential element of reform, and further achievements were needed to enhance openness and transparency.

However, expanding Council membership by itself would not necessary mean increased effectiveness, he said, adding that another goal for reform efforts be centred around increased effectiveness.  It was important to attach importance to the further democratization of working methods and decision-making practices.  Questions regarding veto power should be examined, including whether or not to restrict it, and when and during what circumstances it should be used.  The recommendations of the High-level Panel of Eminent Personalities would be welcomed.  The need to carry out reform was led by a desire to strengthen multilateralism and the Organization’s ability to respond to new challenges.

GERHARD PFANZELTER (Austria) said he strongly believed that the strengthening of the main organs of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, would provide a framework for achieving the goals of the Millennium Declaration.  In its present form, the Council neither reflected the growing number of United Nations members nor regional balance.  Therefore, enlarging and balancing its membership, as well as increasing its transparency was essential.

He welcomed the Council’s recent efforts to increase the transparency in its working methods, by conducting more open debates and urged that more be done.  Progress in the open-ended Working Group could not be limited to reform of working methods alone.  Member States also needed to overcome the deadlock in the deliberations on membership and the veto.  He suggested eliminating extreme positions that didn’t enjoy the support of the wider United Nations membership.  That could reduce the plethora of different options in the Working Group’s report.  Efficiency, transparency and legitimacy remained equally important goals that ought to guide reform efforts.

* *** *