Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Plenary

28^th & 29^th Meetings (AM & PM)

DELEGATIONS AGREE ON NEED FOR SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM, DIFFER ON HOW

 

TO PROCEED, AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCLUDES THREE-DAY DEBATE

The overwhelming consensus over the last three days in the General Assembly about the need to reform and expand the membership of the Security Council was overshadowed only by the differences in opinion by various regional groups on the size and composition of a new and revitalized organ, that would be well equipped to shoulder the task of maintaining peace and security around the world.

As the remainder of the 106 speakers who addressed the Assembly since Monday, in the joint debate on the report of the Council and the question of equitable representation on and increase in that body’s membership, took the floor today, Nauru’s representative noted that Council reform had been a fundamental part of the United Nations politics for decades.  While all had agreed on the need for enlargement of that body, so far the only consensus was that the process would be arduous.

And while some speakers continued to stress that significant progress had yet to be made on substantial matters, such as the Council’s size and composition and the veto power, others warned that pace of reform should not bend to pre-determined and superficial timetables, as hasty decisions would harm the delicate process that was critical to all Member States.

Proposals for the enlargement of the Council were varied, although not considerably, with calls for increases in membership starting at 20 but never exceeding 30, and clear preferences for an enlargement that would expand membership to between 24 and 26.  While proposing additional numbers, a number of delegations stressed the importance of maintaining the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council, and warned that too large an expansion could have a direct and adverse impact on that.

Sri Lanka’s representative said that, bearing in mind the Council’s crucial role, as well as the binding nature of its decisions, there had been wide acceptance that the 15-nation body should be expanded to reflect modern -- rather than decades-old -- geo-political realities.  And while it was clear that the Council’s number could not be increased to the extent that it became unwieldy, everyone had to admit that efficiency and effectiveness could not be assured by enforcing size limitations.

The main lobbies that have advocated expansion plans over the last 10 years include Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, Eastern and Western Europe, as well as the Group of Arab States.  In the expansion of the non-permanent category, numbers ranging from one to five were proposed in the last three days, while between three and four were advocated for the permanent category.

Wrapping up the three-day debate, Assembly President Jean Ping (Gabon) said that although delegations had hailed the Council’s wide-ranging agenda over the past year, as well as the large number of items the body had taken up, they also expressed concern that the Council often rendered decisions or adopted resolutions on countries without representatives of those nations being present.

Delegations believed that expansion of the Council should make it possible for developing countries to be better represented, he said.  While some felt that only non-permanent seats should be increased, a majority called for an expansion of both categories.  Some believed that seats should not be allocated to States, but to regional groups, and it should be left up to those groups to allocate seats to specific countries.  Expansion should take into consideration equitable geographic distribution, and it was felt by many that African, Asian, Eastern European and ArabStates deserved consideration.

Addressing the issue of the Council’s accountability, Iran’s representative said that while transparency, openness and consistency were key in that body’s activities and approaches, sadly it appeared to have neglected those important factors on numerous occasions.  He cited, among other things, the reluctance to convene open meetings on issues of high significance, and discriminating between members and non-members on the sequence and time limits of statements during such meetings.  A disturbing fact was the Council’s attempt to gradually encroach on the powers and mandate of the Assembly by addressing issues that traditionally fell within the competence of the latter or even the Economic and Social Council.

Expressing some uneasiness about the Council’s annual report, the representative of Cyprus said that although it was informative, it had uncovered deficiencies in the overall functioning of the United Nations.  The relationship between the world body’s two main organs was not what it should be, and the shift of attention away from the Assembly to the Council could presage a further erosion of the Organization as the primary instrument for managing contemporary international relations.  As Member States tried to work towards more effective multilateralism, with the United Nations at the core, it was critical to restore or build truly interactive dialogue between the Assembly and the Council.

The representatives of Indonesia, Tuvalu, Poland, Benin, Uzbekistan, Kuwait, Romania, Barbados, Albania, Republic of Moldova, Rwanda, Bulgaria, Zimbabwe, Colombia, Zambia, Fiji, Guatemala and Morocco also made statements today.

The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 14 October, to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development.

Background

The General Assembly met today to continue its joint debate on the report of the Security Council (document A/59/2), and the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council and related matters.  (For background, see Press Release GA/10273 issued on 11 October.)

Statements

REZLAN ISHAR JENIE (Indonesia) said that despite the Security Council’s efforts on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, the reality on the ground had not improved but worsened.  Regrettably, the Council had been prevented from adopting a just and balanced approach on the issue.  If permitted to do so, the Council could persuade Israel to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories and end its settlement activities, in accordance with relevant Council resolutions.  Failing to implement its own resolutions could jeopardize the Council’s credibility.  While welcoming the Council’s efforts to return sovereignty to Iraq, he noted that peace, security and stability had remained major concerns in that country.  He called on the United Nations to take a leading role, particularly for establishing appropriate conditions on the ground for the January elections.

He commending the Council for its collaboration with regional organizations, which he said had been successful due to the intimate knowledge such bodies had of regional conflicts and their willingness to commit resources.  In spite of limitations, the value of those evolving partnerships was clearly demonstrated in Africa, where the Council had enlisted the support of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union.

He expressed concern over the actions taken by the Council, which had law-making implications, to achieve non-proliferation and counter terrorism goals.  In addition, he felt a strong and active relationship between the Council and the Assembly was essential to the effectiveness of the United Nations.  Only a transparent, democratic and representative Council, whose membership and practices reflected the realities of the twenty-first century, would be capable of guaranteeing the maintenance of international peace and security.

MEHDI DANESH YAZDI (Iran) said a closer link between the Security Council and the general membership of the United Nations was imperative to enable the Organization to effectively address the issues and crises that adversely impacted international peace and security.  While transparency, openness and consistency were key elements that the Council should observe in all its activities and approaches, sadly that body appeared to have neglected those important factors on numerous occasions.  In that respect, he cited the “surprising” scheduling of open debates with selective notification; reluctance to convene open meetings on issues of high significance; restricted participation in some open debates; and discriminating between members and non-members on the sequence and time limits of statements during open sessions.  A disturbing fact was the Council’s attempt to gradually encroach on the powers and mandate of the Assembly by addressing issues that traditionally fell within the competence of the latter or even the Economic and Social Council.

The prevailing international situation had often prompted the Council to resort to Chapter VII to deal with certain incidents, he noted.  A careful review of that trend was a reminder that the Council could have opted for alternative provisions to respond more appropriately to particular cases.  The Council could, instead of excessive use of Chapter VII, develop a mechanism to see how that Chapter and Chapter VI could be fully utilized for the peaceful settlement of disputes, and what role it, the Secretary-General and other United Nations bodies, as well as regional arrangements, could play in the peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts.  Turning to Council reform, he said that despite debates and discussions in the last 11 years, significant progress had yet to be made on substantial matters such as size and composition of the Council, as well the veto power.  But despite the lack of progress on the main issues, he still believed that the process of reform should not be subject to any pre-determined and superficial timetable, since any hasty decision would run the risk of harming the very delicate process that was vitally important and of great interest to all Member States.  Since Council reform would have far-reaching impact on the whole world, all efforts should be made to reach the broadest possible agreement among Member States.

He said the key issues on reform were improving the working methods of the Council and enlarging the permanent and non-permanent categories.  Under those issues, the under-representation of developing countries and fairer representation for more than one billion Muslims needed to be addressed.  Hopefully, that would all lead to genuine reconsideration of the most undemocratic practice in the Council –- the veto, which was considered by the vast majority of Member States to be an anachronistic, discriminatory and undemocratic instrument.  There was general support for curtailing, as well as limiting, its power and finally eliminating it.  Those calls should be heeded, he said.

ANDREAS MAVROYIANNIS (Cyprus) expressed some uneasiness about the essence of the Security Council’s annual report, which, though informative, had uncovered deficiencies in the overall functioning of the United Nations.  The relationship between the world body’s two main organs was not what it should be, he said.  And the shift of attention away from the Assembly and to the Security Council was a symptom, rather than a remedy, and could presage a further gradual erosion of the United Nations as “the last line of defence” –- the primary instrument for managing contemporary international relations.  As Member States tried to work towards more effective multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, it was critically important to restore –- or build –- a truly interactive dialogue between the Assembly and the Security Council.

He went on to stress the need to ensure transparency and accountability in the work of the two bodies, and he urged delegations to keep in mind that the outcome of the Security Council reform efforts should enhance its effectiveness as well as its ability to carry out its duties and obligations under the Charter. Cyprus had always believed that the Council’s credibility and legitimacy could be ensured with a broader and more equitably representative composition, as well as more efficient working methods.  Cyprus sought a more contemporary body, adequately reflective of the tremendous global political changes that had taken place over the past 50 years.  And while, he, like others, awaited the report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel, he stressed that a reformed Council must certainly be built around a more balanced representation of geographical groups. Supporting the French and German positions on enlarging the Council, he added that more should be done to involve troop contributing countries and all other major stakeholders in that body’s deliberations.

VINCI NIEL CLODUMAR (Nauru) said the decision of the Security Council to end operations in Timor-Leste and Bougainville, due to financial constraints would be premature, as those missions were still necessary and the hard earned peace over the years could unravel and regress.

He said reform of the Council had been a fundamental part of the United Nations politics for decades.  And while all had agreed on the enlargement of that body, so far the only consensus was that the process would be arduous.  Also, while many recognized the link between the question of the veto power and the Council’s expansion, beyond the various references to expanding the permanent and non-permanent categories, there had not been much said on the veto.  He supported expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories and believed that countries who were willing and able to make meaningful contributions to world peace should be considered.  Nauru supported Germany, India and Japan as candidates for permanent membership on the Council.

BERNARD GOONETILLEKE (Sri Lanka) said that, bearing in mind the Security Council’s crucial role, as well as the binding nature of its decisions, there had been wide acceptance that the 15-nation body should be expanded to reflect modern -- rather than decades-old -- geo-political realities.  And while it was clear that the Council’s numbers could not be increased to the extent that it became unwieldy, everyone had to admit that efficiency and effectiveness could not be assured by enforcing size limitations.  Nevertheless, that and other concerns should be taken care of by introducing measures to improve the Council’s working methods.

He believed that expansion should reflect the principle of equitable geographical distribution and that due consideration should be given to the developing world’s current lack of representation, particularly since developing countries made up such a large part of the United Nations membership.  Both the Council’s permanent and non-permanent members should be increased, he added.  Among the issues that the Working Group needed to address was the relationship between the Assembly and the Security Council.  Given the Council’s responsibilities and in light of its limited membership, it should have a closer relationship with the Assembly, which represented the wider United Nations.

ENELE SOSENE SOPOAGA (Tuvalu) said he observed with great anxiety the growing challenges and threats confronting global security.  The international fight against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, the consequences of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and civil unrest in the Middle East and parts of Africa had clearly underscored the complex nature of the Council’s work.  They also clearly highlighted the urgent need for appropriate reforms in the United Nations, to ensure a more efficient and responsive Council.  Welcoming ongoing efforts to improve the Council’s work, he emphasised the importance of wider consultations on security issues through opportunities for public debates in the Council.

The primary role and responsibility of the Council -- the promotion of international peace and security -- was crucial to all, especially to the survival of weak and vulnerable States like his.  Therefore, increasing the Council’s membership was a vital issue.  He was supportive of Council expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, and believed that Japan deserved a permanent seat, in view of its substantial contribution towards international development, peace and security.  Germany, India and Brazil also deserved similar consideration.  In addition, he believed that, in light of their extreme vulnerability to external forces, small island developing States needed to be considered for permanent representation on the Council, a move that would make that organ and the United Nations truly universal and democratic.

BEATA PEKSA-KRAWIEC (Poland) said the Council’s credibility could only be ensured when its decisions were taken in a transparent manner, and with the involvement of the broader membership.  Further, the complexity of new threats and challenges made it necessary to establish better coordination between the Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council.  Closer cooperation with the troop contributing countries was also necessary, and those nations should be given more influence in the creation of missions and their mandates.  With regard to reform, Poland was not calling to end the veto power by current permanent members, but believed that it should be used in a responsible way and when there was a need to protect international law and the principles of the Charter.

The key to a more effective and legitimate Security Council was not in the number of its members but in their conviction to act in the common interest, she said.  Poland called for a larger and more representative Council, and changes in both categories of membership.  Germany and Japan were ready to take on the responsibilities of permanent members, she said, and major contributors from Asia, Africa and South America should also be given permanent seats.  At the same time, non-permanent membership should be enlarged in a way that reflected changes in regional groups.  The Eastern European Group had more than doubled its membership since its creation, and its experience with conflict and overcoming threats gave them the right to better representation.

JOEL W. ADECHI (Benin) commended the wide gamut of Council actions in Africa and stressed that now commensurate action was needed to be taken at a local level to support that body’s decisions and assistance.  Yet, conflicts abounded and there seemed to be no end to grief and death.  During this year’s general debate, Member States had reaffirmed their commitment to have a more representative Council.  Since the formation of the United Nations, new States had evolved, some of whom now had a certain amount of democratic and economic power.  Reforming the United Nations in general would also strengthen the Security Council and enable it to better carry out its mandate, which involved the responsibility to maintain international peace and security.

He supported the position advocated by the non-aligned countries vis-à-vis Security Council reform, and also supported the aspirations of Japan, Germany and Brazil for permanent seats.  He said there could be no selective or biased expansion of the Council.  On that basis, Africa had to have two permanent seats on the Council, as there must be geographic and balanced expansion, as well as two non-permanent seats.  In addition, the veto power must be democratised, and non-permanent members, during their presidency of the Council, should also have temporary veto power.

ALISHER VOHIDOV (Uzbekistan) said that, given the fact that new challenges had emerged on the international scene, there was an urgent need to enhance the Council’s effectiveness by ensuring that it could react properly to modern threats.  In addition, that body’s powers for dealing with threats had to be expanded.  He believed the way to accomplish that was by admitting more members to the Council.  In that regard, he favoured an expansion of the Council’s membership, and considered both Japan and Germany as worthy candidates. 

However, he cautioned that merely increasing the numbers of Council members should not be considered as an end in itself, and urged that the process be undertaken with a view to enhancing that body’s effectiveness, as well as improving its working methods.  It was equally important that issues concerning the maintenance of international peace and security be discussed by all members of the Organization and not confined to a select group.

JASEM AL-NAJEM (Kuwait) stressed the need to improve the Security Council’s working methods without waiting for agreements on other issues, such as representation and the veto.  He called for an increase in the membership of the Council, but cautioned against making it so large that it would affect its work and decision-making process.  An increase in membership should be in line with the principle of equitable representation of regions.  Small nations and developing countries should also not be overlooked.

With regard to the veto, he noted the importance of placing limits on it and expressed the need to use that power correctly.  It was necessary to have a realistic view on increasing the membership of Asian and Eastern European nations, as well as on giving one permanent seat, on a rotating basis, to the Group of Arab States.

MIHNEA MOTOC (Romania) said it was necessary that the Security Council adjust to new international challenges, become democratic and balance its geographical representation.  As an elected member of the Council with nine months of service, Romania had tried to contribute to the efforts aimed at improving the Council’s working methods.  The public debate organized by the Romanian Presidency in July, and its follow up process, would help in re-thinking the relationship between the Council, regional and sub-regional groups to promote cooperation.

He called for a robust enlargement of the Council, with, at a minimum, one additional elected seat to be afforded to the Eastern European group.  Any decision on Council reform should enjoy consensus or, at least, the broadest support possible within the United Nations membership.

CHRISTOPHER HACKETT (Barbados) said last year’s Security Council deadlock over Iraq, and the eventual decision of a group of Member States to pursue a partisan approach despite the deadlock, threatened the principle of collective security as enshrined in the Charter, as well as the legitimacy of the Organization.  All members of the United Nations, large and small, had a stake in Council reform because the most meaningful way to ensure international peace and security lay in a collective response to global challenges and crises.

The Council needed to be reformed so it could serve as an effective and legitimate tool for the maintenance of international peace and security, he said.  That meant that it had to have the capability to reduce and contain threats to international peace and security.  The time had come for the Organization to make some of the tough decisions on Council reform.  Although it could be rightly argued that the Council’s performance in recent years had raised questions about its legitimacy and effectiveness, he believed that it could become an important instrument for peace if its shortcomings were addressed.

He said the Council had to be made more representative of today’s membership, as well as more transparent in its working methods and more democratic in its decision-making.  Thus, he called for the expansion of the Council in both its permanent and non-permanent categories, noting that representation was key in helping determine the legitimacy of that organ.  He also urged that the use of the veto be re-examined.  If it could not be eliminated altogether, then its use should be significantly curtailed.  In a world where the ideals of good governance were being emphasised, the continued use of that most undemocratic device should not be allowed to frustrate the broader will of the Organization’s membership.

AGIM NESHO (Albania) said that Security Council reform was an important component of wider Organizational revitalization.  It should be carried out in line with the principles of the Charter and should address the need to strengthen and increase the efficiency of the Council.  He supported the view that Council reform should embrace a democratic spirit, aiming to enhance the participation of the wider United Nations membership and promote equitable geographical distribution.  He urged all delegations to work towards the broadest possible consensus on those issues.

He went on to caution that efforts to expand the Council should not overshadow other equally important efforts to ensure true and effective Council reform.  Indeed, he believed that the progress already achieved in improving the Council’s working methods should continue, particularly with a view to making the body’s work more transparent and ensuring broader participation of United Nations Member States.

VSEVOLOD GRIGORE (Republic of Moldova) said the Security Council’s composition must mirror the changes that had taken place in the international context since its establishment.  Regretfully, the activities of the Open-ended Working Group remained without results after ten years.  He looked forward to concrete recommendations from the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.  It was necessary, he said, to make the Council more efficient, a task that could be achieved by improving its representation, legitimacy and transparency.

He was in favour of a moderate enlargement of the Council’s composition, with reasonable increases in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, which should correspond to the principles of fair geographical representation and adequate balance between developed and developing nations.  He called for the expansion of the non-permanent category to include an additional seat for the Eastern European Group.

STANISLAS KAMANZI (Rwanda) said that the changing nature of threats and challenges, which had now begun to call into question the traditional approaches to the maintenance of peace and security, had made the need to create a more representative and proactive Security Council almost unavoidable.  It was crucial that all the countries of the world had a permanent voice in that body, he said, adding that no one could be left by the wayside.  Neither could a “new” Council have some members who wielded more influence than others.

African and Latin American countries should have a voice in an expanded Security Council, he said, supporting expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats.  He believed that some decisions required the contribution of non-Council members, particularly if those States were at the centre of the Council’s discussions or proposed actions on a specific question or issue.  Indeed, such countries should be consulted every step of the way during the Council’s deliberations.  An innovative and proactive Council should seek to use all the resources available to it in order to act properly and resolutely.

STEFAN TAFROV (Bulgaria) noted the steps taken by the Council to more thoroughly consult with members of civil society, such as non-governmental organizations.  At the same time, a lot more remained to be done in that area.  Bulgaria attached particular importance to enhancing cooperation between the Organization’s main organs, and fully shared the common will of the rest of the membership to carry out the United Nations reform.  He supported the increase of the Council’s membership in both categories and said that Europe deserved an extra seat in that body.  He added that strengthening and enhancing cooperation and relations between regional organizations and the Security Council needed to be encouraged.

GEORGE VENGESA (Zimbabwe) said the continued failure to progress on the issue of Council reform was no longer acceptable to his delegation.  Eleven years after the establishment of the Open-ended Working Group, the path travelled was littered with gridlock, with no positive end in sight.  It was critical, in reforming the Council, that consideration be given to creating an organ that was reflective of today’s international realities.  He warned against the creation of disequilibrium in the Council.  While it was necessary to move with speed, it was also necessary to proceed with caution.  The Assembly was the only democratic and genuinely representative organ of the United Nations, capable of achieving consensus on that issue.  Any attempt to circumvent the Assembly would achieve the opposite and unintended effect of alienating the majority of the United Nations membership.  He supported the expansion of the Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories.

MARIA ANGELA HOLGUIN (Colombia) stressed the need to ensure broad participation by all States in the work of the United Nations and its major organs.  The Organization could not have first and second class countries.  The drive to reform the Council had been sparked by what many perceived as a lack of true accountability in an organ that was supposed to represent the views and desires of all nations.  As currently composed, the Council was not democratic and did not reflect the views of the wider United Nations membership.  The right of veto bestowed upon some Council members also undercut the body’s democratic thrust.  To that end, she believed that the veto should be eliminated or failing that, should be limited to matters that came under the purview of Chapter VII.

She said that expansion of the permanent membership was not supported by some of the Council’s current permanent members, so reaching consensus on a way to expand non-permanent members would provide equitable representation for all.  The process for selecting candidates for non-permanent seats should be legal and legitimate, she said, adding that many of the Council’s failures had been due to its post-Second World War configuration.  The Council’s shortcomings exposed a lack of understanding of modern realities.  Among other things, she was concerned about the Council’s frequent practice of taking decisions on States that were not even present during consultations or debates, and which found out about the outcomes of Council meetings after the fact.  States whose situations were under consideration must be present.  She urged delegations to ensure that both the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council were strengthened in order to regain the space that had been lost to the Council.

MWELWA C. MUSAMBACHIME (Zambia) said that Council reform had been on the Agenda for more than a decade without any conclusive resolution.  Zambia stood ready to continue participating in the reform process to ensure progress.  Sharing the view of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the African Union, he called for expansion in both categories of the Council’s membership.  Developing countries, in particular, needed to be better represented to reflect current realities.

He emphasized that the relationship between the Council and the Assembly should be one of mutual respect, and should be enhanced by increased transparency and improved working methods.  Regrettably, he had noted the gradual encroaching on the powers and mandate of the Assembly by the Council.  That had to be avoided in order to enhance specialisation and the reduction of overlap on issues.  The veto, he noted, had been abused, and its continued use eroded the principles of transparency and accountability.  The veto should be used for the benefit of all Member States.  On many occasions, it had been used to protect national interests. Permanent Council members should exercise responsibility when using the veto or abolish it completely.  He concurred with the proposal to make it possible to overrule a Council veto by a two-thirds majority vote in the Assembly, under the uniting for peace formula.

FILIMONE KAU (Fiji) said that while debate on Council reform had been limited to the key areas of the expansion of its membership, its structure and its working methods, reform had to be undertaken in a comprehensive manner, in the context of the reform and revitalization of the United Nations.  The Council’s decision-making process had to, as much as possible, reflect the new world order.  To that end, he supported the expansion of the Council’s permanent and non-permanent membership.  He also supported efforts to review the powers of permanent members, with a view to ensuring that those powers were used to contribute positively to the Council’s role in preventive diplomacy and not as an unnecessary impediment to it.

In addition, he backed efforts to improve the Council’s, and the Organization’s, reaction time to peacekeeping calls, saying that the issue had been a subject of continuous debate.  Furthermore, with the establishment of standby facilities and personnel, the Council would be able to better respond to peacekeeping calls.

JOSE ALBERTO BRIZ GUTIERREZ (Guatemala) said that the ever more frequent practice of holding public meetings had contributed to greater involvement of all States in the Council’s work, which provided them with an opportunity to express their views on issues under consideration by the Council.  There was also a perception that even permanent members had been more receptive than before to the criticisms that had been addressed regarding the closed nature of the Council’s work.  At the same time, it must be recognized that the relationship between the organs of the United Nations, particularly between the Council and the Assembly, left much to be desired.

He was convinced of the need for the Council to be more representative, transparent and efficient, and advocated an increase in both categories of membership.  In arriving at that goal, due regard had to be paid to the need to ensure adequate geographical representation.

MOHAMED BENNOUNA (Morocco) shared the goal of Council reform and said it could not be met by a mere cosmetic change but by a rethinking of the architecture of the organ, to make it more representative, credible and legitimate.  The Council needed to adapt to today’s realities.  While it was difficult to abandon the heritage of the past, it would be better to reduce the effects of that heritage.  Regarding non-permanent members, it was wise to focus on their number and their duration, which could be modulated.  Any revision to the Charter to change the Council must take into account the past and must provide the Charter with the flexibility to absorb future developments.

It would be necessary to revisit the capacity of the Security Council in the area of disputes and breaches of international peace and security, he said.  The job of the Council was to respond to crises and to specific situations, and the function of the Council and the Secretary-General must complement each other.  He awaited the recommendations of the High-level Panel, which he hoped would help trigger reforms.

Wrapping up the three-day joint debate, Assembly President JEAN PING (Gabon) said that 106 speakers had taken the floor, which demonstrated the overall importance of the issue of Security Council reform.  On the Council’s annual report, he said that delegations had been pleased to see an analytical section included in that document, but called for it to be more thorough in the future. While hailing the Council’s wide-ranging agenda over the past year, as well as the large number of items the body had taken up, delegations also expressed concern about its growing trend of organizing thematic debates in areas that appeared to be outside the Council’s competency.  Speakers had also expressed concern that the Council often rendered decisions or adopted resolutions on countries without representatives of those countries being present.  Several speakers called for strengthening the relationship between the Council and regional organizations and for the holding of more public debates.

On Council reform, he underscored that a broad consensus had emerged on a number of issues, including that the 15-nation body must be revitalized ahead of the Organization’s sixtieth anniversary.  There was also consensus that both the Council’s composition and its methods should be reformed.  The same was true of the Council’s relationship with other United Nations bodies.  Speakers felt that the Council must be expanded to make it more representative of modern geo-political realities and to make its decisions more legitimate.  Some speakers had also pointed out that a future expanded Council should have 24 or 25 members.  He added that Germany, India, Brazil and Japan, along with an African country, had often been mentioned as candidates for permanent seats on an expanded Council.

Delegations believed that Council expansion should make it possible for developing countries to be better represented.  Some felt that only non-permanent seats should be increased, but a majority called for an expansion of both categories.  Speakers commented on the status of new members with regard to the use of the veto.  Some thought that future, permanent Council members should be given that right to veto, while others believed it was anachronistic and would make matters more complicated.  Others felt it should be eliminated altogether or restricted to Chapter VII.

Some believed that seats should not be allocated to States, but to regional groups, and it should be left up to those groups to allocate seats to specific countries.  Expansion should take into consideration equitable geographic distribution, and it was felt by many that African, Asian, Eastern European and ArabStates deserved consideration.  Finally, he said that many delegations felt that Council reform must be a part of broader United Nations reform.

* *** *