Fifty-eighth General Assembly

Plenary

36^th Meeting (PM)

‘WIDELY DIVERGENT’ VIEWS EMERGE DURING GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S DEBATE

ON REPORT OF SECURITY COUNCIL

Urging Reform, Speakers Call for Equitable Representation to Reflect

Current Global Realities, Enhanced Working Methods, Review of Veto Power

The General Assembly today concluded its consideration of the annual report of the Security Council, and questions of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of that 15-nation body.

Wrapping up the debate, Assembly President Julian R. Hunte (Saint Lucia) said that, over the course of three sessions, 40 speakers had addressed the Council’s annual report.  The representative of the United States, in his capacity as Council President for the month of October, was the only one of its five permanent members to speak in the debate on the item.  Of the 10 non-permanent Council members, four presented views on the report.

It was said to be a pity, President Hunte continued, that so few Security Council members –- particularly permanent members -– spoke in the debate.  Delegations had suggested that, to get more and better information, all 15 members of the Council should be requested, in adopting the report, to give their views on it.  Some had proposed that a special meeting of the Council be held to hear the Assembly’s response to the report.

He said there were widely divergent views on the quality and usefulness of the report.  On the one hand, it was applauded as a comprehensive, yet concise document, evidence of the Council’s hard work and productivity.  On the other hand, some felt it reflected neither the depth nor importance of the Council’s work and was characterized by an abundance of information, but little in the way of explanation or analysis.  That led some to conclude that the report did not lend itself to the in-depth reflection that it should command.

During the debate, many speakers put forward a number of proposals on Council reform, including the need to ensure equitable geographical representation by increasing the number of permanent members.  The States most often mentioned as prime candidates were Germany and Japan, Brazil and India.  At the same time, delegations recognized the importance of ensuring that Africa was adequately represented on the Council, and suggested two permanent seats and two rotating non-permanent seats for the continent.

In addition, delegations suggested that the veto power be limited, and eventually phased out altogether.  That view was echoed today by the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who said that any reform should seek to redefine the veto privilege.  In fact, the veto should not exist in an organization based on the principles of pluralism and democracy, in which all States were equal.

Calling for increased transparency, accessibility and accountability, the representative of the United Kingdom said his country had sought to build collaborative relationships between the Council and other parts of the United Nations system.  Beyond improvements in its working methods, the Council needed to become more representative of the modern world.  There must be progress on Council reform, and soon, he stressed.  However, to achieve progress, regional groups must either arrive at a conclusion or relinquish their stranglehold on progress.

At the top of the meeting, the Assembly took note of a letter from the Secretary-General dated 16 October, informing it of the minimum amounts required by 12 countries to reduce their arrears so that they remain below the gross amount assessed for 2001 and 2002.  Those countries were Burundi, Central African Republic, Comoros, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Liberia, Niger, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia and Tajikistan

This follows the Assembly’s decision yesterday that those States, with the exception of Liberia and Iraq, should be permitted to vote in the Assembly until 30 June 2004.  Under Article 19, a Member State in arrears cannot vote in the General Assembly “if the amount of the arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two years”.

Also addressing the Assembly today were the representatives of Ecuador, Colombia, Yemen, Pakistan, Denmark, Philippines and Guyana.

The Permanent Observer for Palestine also spoke.

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representative of Israel and the Observer for Palestine.

The Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 20 October, to consider the report of the Economic and Social Council, and matters related to the strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, including special economic assistance.

Background

The General Assembly met this afternoon to conclude its consideration of the annual report of the Security Council, and the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the 15-nation body.  For background information, see Press Release GA/10171 issued on 13 October.

Statements

F.E. ZULU KILO-ABI (Democratic Republic of the Congo) said that among the Council’s main concerns had been the situation in the Middle East, terrorism and the need for peace in Africa.  He recalled that his President had expressed his people’s appreciation of United Nations efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  He trusted that the international community would help to organize free and democratic elections, and to establish a United Nations fund to deal with the immeasurable damage that had been done to his country.

Regarding terrorism, there must be mobilization on a common front to terrorize the terrorists.  His country had set up a committee to coordinate national anti-terrorism efforts.  The maintenance of international peace and security and the development of friendly relations and international cooperation were the founding principles of the United Nations.  The attainment of such goals required, among others, recognition of the principle of sovereignty, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the non-use of force.  However, recent events had frustrated those principles and the present world situation was one in which sophisticated nuclear weapons were being hoarded and small arms and light weapons trafficked.  In addition, the prevalence of anti-personnel landmines, retreat from multilateralism, the division of the world between rich and poor, transnational crime, and blind terrorism posed grave dangers.

Faced with that situation, he concluded, there must be a new plan to reform the international system to ensure international peace and security.  The focus should be on collective action and strengthening the Security Council, including through expanding its membership and addressing its decision-making process.  The principle of equitable representation should be adhered to, with one non-permanent seat for each of the five continents.  The Council’s relationship to the Assembly should also be redressed, while greater cooperation with regional and subregional organizations should be fostered in conflict resolution and preventive diplomacy.

LUIS GALLEGOS (Ecuador) said the Security Council must undergo reform to meet its present challenges, which were diametrically different from those that where taken into consideration during its creation in 1945.  The Working Group, created 10 years ago, had not advanced significantly, and it was clear that the world demanded more information on public affairs issues at the worldwide level.  The United Nations could not escape that plea.  Council reform could not happen without the political will of all Members, and it was in that reform that the answer to the demands of the international community would be found.  Increasing the number of members in the Council was a step in the right direction, but it was not sufficient.  New mechanisms were necessary to make the Council more efficient in carrying out its objectives.

Regarding the use of the veto, he said that any reform should undertake a new definition with respect to that privilege.  In fact, the veto should not exist in an organization based on the principles of pluralism and democracy, in which all States were equal.  The use of the veto had preoccupied all Member States, especially when one of the non-permanent members mentioned its concern with the use of the “silent veto”.  The majority of Member States asked that reform be carried out with a vision towards statesmanship.  The Secretary-General’s initiative to convene a panel was interesting, but after a year of work, it may reach the same point in which Member States found themselves today -- immobilized because of a lack of agreement.

BEATRIZ LONDOÑO (Colombia) said her country had expressed its opposition to the use of the veto in the past.  The veto had impeded the Council from taking effective measures to maintain international peace and security.  Moreover, the world landscape was now different than at the time of the San Francisco Charter Conference.  The Working Group on Council reform had a clear mandate from the Assembly to decide on questions related to the expansion of membership on the Council, as well as its working methods.  That should include the veto, which was an undemocratic and anachronistic institution.  At a minimum, its use should be restricted to cases under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Moreover, in light of recent events, she continued, it was important to expand the membership of the Security Council.  However, as there had been no agreement on expanding the Council’s permanent membership, the focus should now turn to its non-permanent membership.  She noted the improvements in the working methods of the Council, particularly with respect to transparency.  She reaffirmed her country’s readiness to continue to push for progress in that area, and welcomed the setting up of a high-level panel of eminent persons, whose recommendations would be a valuable contribution to the work of the Working Group, and to the entire United Nations, as it considered the need for reform. 

ABDUL-DAYEM M.S. MUBAREZ (Yemen) said that new ideas for Council reform had not been developed in recent years.  In 1945, a certain design had been established for the Council, but that was not relevant today, and it was necessary to update that body.  The Council also needed to review its decision-making process, its working groups, and the number of its members.  There were rapid changes taking place in the world.   Iraq, for example, he said, was a test for the international community, and had shown the extent to which divisions could arise in the Council.

The decisions of the Council, and the use of the veto, had questioned its credibility, he said.  He called the Council’s decision-making process anachronistic.  Hence, the need for the Working Group, which sought to reform the body.  The reforms needed to be comprehensive, integrating the issues of transparency and equitable representation, which, at the same time, was not undermining the Council’s working methods.  In terms of ensuring equitable representation, Council expansion should include States that had contributed to international peace and security.  The credibility of the Council hinged on its reform.  He hoped that Member States would take on the responsibility of change.

RAZA HAYAT HIRAJ (Pakistan) said the objective of the Working Group must be the evolution of a transparent, democratic and effective Security Council that enjoyed the support and confidence of the entire membership of the United Nations.  There was obviously a need to make the Council more representative since the Organization’s membership had increased from 111 in 1963, when the Council was last enlarged, to 191 today.  Additionally, its composition must be enlarged, principally to reflect the larger membership of the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, who, with few exceptions, did not wish to acquire privileges, merely representation on the Council as non-permanent members.  Having completed 10-years of debate, he believed the reason for the deadlock was the demand of a few countries to acquire the unequal status of permanent membership.

The majority of Member States, he stressed, would not like to repeat the mistakes of 1945, when a few countries decided how the Council should be structured, and how the permanent members should enjoy privileges which eroded the fundamental principle of sovereign equality.  “There was no consensus on the issue in 1945, there is even less today”, he noted.  On the question of reform, he said it was unfortunate that a few countries appeared to believe that the only yardstick by which progress could be measured was on the achievement of their ambition to become a permanent member of the Council.  He stressed that the United Nations was created on the basis of sovereign equity of States, and in the twenty-first century the Assembly could not be expected to bestow special privileges on some, while denying them to the vast majority of nations.  There was no “quick fix” for the new aspirants, nor those hanging on to their coat-tails to find a place in the “Exclusive Club”.  He did note some positive trends in the Council’s working methods under Cluster II issues.

LARS FAABORG-ANDERSEN (Denmark) said the issue under discussion was crucial for the future of the United Nations, and agreed that there must be a parallel strengthening of the Organization and its Security Council.  He hoped that new inspiration and ideas would be forthcoming from the report of the Secretary-General’s high-level panel of eminent personalities.  Desirous that the United Nations continued to be the core of efforts to tackle old and new security challenges, such as terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, he felt that a comprehensive reform of the Council was needed to ensure greater representation.  Other central questions revolved around the need to improve the efficiency of the Council’s decision-making process and to ensure compliance with Council resolutions.  A division of labour and cooperation with regional and subregional organizations would also be welcomed, as a means of overcoming divisions and managing problems.

He said he was unsatisfied that, after 10 years, the Working Group had been unable to finalize its work.  New impetus was needed for results to be achieved.  One solution was to address Clusters I and II issues separately.  However, the issues of enlargement of the Council’s membership and the question of the veto should be addressed as a package.  Most likely, Cluster I issues would not be solved by the Working Group and would have to be tackled at the political level. Member States, he concluded, had to take credible and efficient action to meet the challenges of the new millennium, for which Council reform was essential.

BAYANI S. MERCADO (Philippines) said the Council needed to address the issue of its composition with great urgency.  His delegation was committed to promoting consensus on measures aimed at achieving a more open and transparent decision-making process of the Council, as well as finding an acceptable compromise on the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members.  On the working methods of the Council, a number of improvements had been made in the past few years.  Nevertheless, the Council’s procedures and recent positive innovations regarding its working methods remained provisional and ad hoc in nature.  He supported more dialogue between Council members and the Assembly’s Open-Ended Working Group.  In addition, it might be useful to consider submitting periodic reports to keep the Assembly informed of the Council’s work.

He was pleased to note that the year under review was marked by significant events, highlighted by the Council’s timely actions to stabilize security conditions and improve humanitarian situation in conflict areas, particularly in Africa.  The Council was able to benefit from its missions to Central and West Africa and attain first-hand knowledge of the political and security conditions in those areas.  The thematic debates of the Council were useful and should be continued.  However, they should also aim to be action-oriented and synchronized with debates on the same issues in the Assembly, so that decisions or policy action were on par.

EMYR JONES PARRY (United Kingdom) welcomed the establishment of the high-level panel of eminent personalities to look at how the United Nations might be strengthened by the reform of its institutions and processes.  As the Security Council had the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, considering how the Council might be adapted better to meet challenges should be part of the panel’s mandate.  He recognized that permanent membership on the Council brought both obligations to the Council itself and to the wider constituency of non-Council member States.  His country had worked to fulfil its obligations and held that the Council as a whole must seek to draw strength from the underpinning support of the Assembly.

Calling for increased transparency, accessibility and accountability, he noted that his country had contributed to the functioning of the Council on each of those fronts.  It had sought to build constructive and collaborative relationships between the Council and other parts of the United Nations system, including the Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Secretariat.  However, beyond  improvements in its working methods, the Council needed to become more representative of the modern world.  There should be enlargement in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership.  His country had long supported permanent membership for Germany and Japan.  India and Brazil were obvious candidates from Asia and Latin America, and permanent representation from Africa was also supported.  There must be progress on the reform of the Council, and soon, he concluded.  However, to achieve progress regional groups must either arrive at a conclusion or relinquish their stranglehold on progress.

GEORGE TALBOT (Guyana) said reform of the Security Council was arguably the most difficult decision that the Organization had to face, but it was a decision from which it could not escape.  The alternative was a status quo that could be preserved only at a great cost to the Organization.  The cost would result in the loss of legitimacy, which would mean the end of the United Nations.  The risk of such loss had grown with a Security Council that, at its core, remained “wedded to the past”.  With the expanded membership of the Organization over the past half-century, the Council had become increasingly less representative and increasingly more inequitable.

Guyana had called for the elimination of the veto or at least its limitation to matters under Chapter VII of the Charter, and for expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories.  He believed that in expanding the permanent membership, there should be no distinction with respect to rights and privileges between the current and new permanent members.  What was required now was the political will to move forward, taking due account of the interests and concerns of all Member States.  His country was prepared to take decisions that would lead to the early achievement of that goal.

NASSER AL-KIDWA, Observer for Palestine, condemned the criminal aggression against a group of Americans on the way to Gaza three days ago and extended his condolences to the families of the victims.  The Palestinian Authority would make every effort to bring the criminals responsible to justice.  Turning to the Security Council, he said it had not acted with any effectiveness when assessed on the basis of the situation in the Middle East, where it had completely failed in discharging its duties for international peace and security.  The Council had failed in the first instance because of the use of the veto by one of its permanent members, who had wielded that power 27 times.  It had also failed due to its inability to follow through with the implementation of resolutions it had adopted.  That situation could not continue if the Council was to fulfil its role under the Charter.

On the Council’s methods of work and composition, he said the situation was catastrophic.  The Council worked in a “quasi-secret” manner, behind closed doors, where the rest of the United Nations and those parties concerned by an issue were not even allowed to listen.  Moreover, the Council worked in an unclear and impermanent manner, due to the continued provisional nature of its rules of procedure.  Agreeing that there must be expansion in both categories of membership, he said the lack of consensus on that issue should not impede agreement from being reached on other important issues, including the working methods and the restriction of the veto.

Rights of Reply

Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of Israel said that the Palestinian Observer had spent much time blaming others for his failure to advance his own goals in the Security Council.  The Observer had blamed the Council’s working methods, as well as the permanent member that had done more than any other to advance the cause of peace.  The Palestinian representative was indignant that the Council did not swallow his portrayal of the conflict as one of “black and white” rather than as a conflict involving two peoples, each with responsibilities.  Israel stood ready to meet its responsibilities, he affirmed, as it had proven through concrete action.  However, it was still looking for partner to work with.

Everyone knew that the reason the draft resolution on the separation wall had not been adopted three days ago was due to the Palestinian refusal to negotiate a fair and balanced text that made reference to both Israeli and Palestinian responsibilities, he added.  The Palestinian representative had wanted blind acceptance of the text.  Yet, when five members –- two permanent members -– would not submit to the Palestinian “dictat”, there was outrage.  The Council’s desire to include a clear condemnation of terrorism and a call for the fulfilment of Palestinian responsibilities had been unbearable.  The refusal to swallow whole the “warped interpretation” of the Palestinian Observer had led to the calling anew of the tenth emergency special session of the Assembly, so that more time could be spent listening to how everyone but the Palestinians were to blame for the present predicament and producing a new resolution that cast Israel alone as the villain and the Palestinians as the victims.  That charade, which masked the Palestinian reluctance to fight terrorism, should be brought to an end.

The Observer for Palestine said he was unsure whether the representative of Israel had been addressing the same issue as was under consideration at the present time.  Perhaps, the Israeli representative had written his intervention before the beginning of the meeting and now he must deliver it, irrespective of the issue under discussion.

He had submitted some facts in his intervention, he said.  Yet, he had heard no response to those facts.  It was a fact that 37 resolutions had been adopted by the Council with regard to the situation in the Middle East.  None of those resolutions had been heeded by Israel as the occupying Power.  It was also a fact that since 1976 one permanent member had used the right to veto 27 times.  A third fact was that no other permanent member had exercised the veto on any of those resolutions.  Those facts had nothing to do with the “political hallucinations” or discourse of the Israeli representative.

Assembly President’s Assessment

Wrapping up the debate, JULIAN R. HUNTE (Saint Lucia), President of the General Assembly, said that over the course of three sessions, 40 speakers addressed the report of the Security Council, which had been introduced by the United States, in its capacity as President of the Council for the month of October.  The United States was, however, the only one of the five permanent members of the Council to speak in the debate on the item.

Of the 10 non-permanent members of the Council, he said that four presented views on the report in the debate.  It was said to be a pity that so few Security Council members -– particularly permanent members -– spoke in the debate.  It was suggested that, in order to get more and better information, all 15 members of the Council should be requested, in adopting the report, to give their views on it.

Regarding the outcome of the Assembly’s consideration of the report of the Security Council, it was proposed that a special meeting of the Council should be held to hear the response of the General Assembly to the report.  According to the proposal, that might be done through a statement to be made by the President of the Assembly, or alternately through the adoption of a formal document to be presented to the Council.

Highlighting the major points of discussion, he said that there had been divergent views regarding the separation of discussion of the Council’s report from item 56 on reform of the Council.  Among those who specifically addressed that issue, some thought that separate debates on those two priority issues were warranted.  However, disappointment was also expressed concerning the return to separate debates.

He said there were also widely divergent views on the quality and usefulness of the Council’s report.  On the one hand, the report was applauded as a comprehensive, yet concise document, evidence of the Council’s hard work and productivity, and an invaluable source of reference information and insight into the activities of the Council.

On the other hand, some felt it reflected neither the depth nor importance of the Council’s work; was too descriptive, excessively lengthy and devoid of elements that would allow an assessment of the work of the Council; lacked clarity; and was characterised by an abundance of information, but little in the way of explanation or analysis.  That led some to conclude that the report did not lend itself to the in-depth reflection that it should command.

It was the widely held view, he said, that the Council’s report needed to be a document more useful to Member States, one that had greater analytical content and that provided the full accounting to which the Assembly had a legitimate right.  It was said that the report should not be confined to what the Council had achieved, but, importantly, should also address what has worked, and why.  In that way, the Assembly would be in a position to evaluate in depth the workings of the Council.

The wider issue of the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council was also taken up in the context of the Council’s report.  A satisfactory relationship between the principal organs was considered to be fundamental to the work of the United Nations.  Some contended that the report reconfirmed the rules that regulate the rapport between the Assembly and the Council, and provided an important opportunity for the Assembly to examine in depth the activities of the Council and to identify action that should be taken to achieve the improvements required.  The Council’s report was also seen as providing a rare opportunity for dialogue between the Assembly and the Council, a dialogue that should not be ritualistic.

Also on the relationship between the Assembly and the Council, he said some expressed the view that the Presidents of both bodies should consult frequently, particularly during crises.  It was also pointed out that the Assembly still did not receive special reports for the Council, as envisaged by the Charter.  If such specific reports were received, it was contended, they would contribute to promoting an active relationship between the bodies.  They would also provide a basis whereby the Assembly could formulate recommendations for the Council.

On the Council’s working methods, he said its open meetings received notable support, as did the monthly briefings by its President and the periodic “wrap-up” sessions to which non-members were invited.  It was suggested that those “wrap-up” monthly sessions could be institutionalized to enhance interaction and promote synergies between the work of the Assembly and the work of the Council.  It was pointed out, however, that the Council’s changing of open meetings to open debates, though welcomed, was often done without adequate notice, leaving non-members unable to take full advantage of the opportunities.

Although speakers also commented on the initiatives taken by the Council in respect of non-members, he said concern was nevertheless expressed regarding the Council’s lack of transparency and its failure to give due attention to the views of the wider membership.  The importance of giving all non-members of the Council the opportunity to express their views on issues before it, and more systematic consultations with non-members, was emphasised in that context.

It was suggested, however, that where decisions were taken before the debate was held, and non-members were heard after Council members had spoken, the contribution of non-members could not be really effective.  The tendency for decision-making to be concentrated among the permanent members was considered to be an undemocratic process, undermining the legitimacy of Council decisions and the authority of Council action.  It was emphasized, in that regard, that the views of non-members should be taken into account before the Council made decisions.

* *** *