As Committee on United Nations Charter Opens Annual Session, Speakers Denounce Use of Coercive Measures, Say Targeted Sanctions Limit Widespread Suffering
|
|||
| Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York |
Committee on Charter
and United Nations Role
260th Meeting (AM)
As Committee on United Nations Charter Opens Annual Session, Speakers Denounce
Use of Coercive Measures, Say Targeted Sanctions Limit Widespread Suffering
Disagreements Surface over Whether Committee Should Continue
Examining Matters Regarding Assistance to Third Parties Impacted By Sanctions
While largely agreeing that the Security Council should only use sanctions against countries as a last resort, members of the Special Committee on the United Nations Charter and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization presented opposing views today on their body’s role in helping third parties negatively affected by such measures.
Sanctions were a “robust tool” for combating threats to international peace and security and, when properly targeted, could minimize unintended harm on civilians and others, Hungary’s representative, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said as the Special Committee opened its sixty-fifth session.
Yet there was no need for the Special Committee to continue looking at how to help third parties affected by sanctions since no Member State had approached any of the Organization’s sanctions committees about special economic problems caused by them. Moreover, he continued, neither the General Assembly nor the Economic and Social Council had deemed it necessary last year to take related action. Also, no sanctioned State had appealed to the United Nations since 2003 for economic remedies or relief.
El Salvador’s representative, however, was among those stressing the importance of keeping the matter on the Committee’s agenda. The representatives of China and Cuba took that a step further, calling for the Special Committee to set up a system to assess the impact of sanctions on those States and financially compensate them. Cuba’s delegate also criticized States that were trying to shorten or limit the frequency of the Special Committee’s meetings and block new issues from being put on its agenda, saying the goal should be to strengthen the Special Committee’s work.
Nicaragua’s delegate said the Special Committee could contribute positively to United Nations reform to ensure the Organization’s organs did not abuse or go beyond their mandates, which was currently occurring with the Security Council, which was engaged in discussions of themes outside its jurisdiction. Iran’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, echoed that concern, saying the Council was continuing to encroach on the functions and powers of the Assembly, the Organization’s main deliberative and policymaking body, including in the area of norm-setting.
The Russian Federation’s representative said it was necessary to examine the use of force by States without prior Council approval and to further interpret the Charter, which maintained “grey areas” on such matters. An advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the matter should be requested, as proposed by the General Assembly. But the United States’ representative disagreed, saying the use of force was clearly addressed in the United Nations Charter.
Several speakers expressed concern over the backlog of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and delays in updating the Repertoire of Practice of the Security Council. Chile’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, noted the 26-year gap in updating Volume III of the Repertory of Practice and lauded Member States that had contributed to the trust funds to rectify that situation.
During the meeting, the Special Committee elected Maria Rubiales de Chamorro (Nicaragua), from the Latin American and Caribbean States Group, as Chair; and Jane Gasu (Ghana), from the African States Group, and Tofig Musayev (Azerbaijan), from the Eastern European States Group, as Vice Chairs. It also adopted its agenda and programme of work.
The representatives of Iran (in his national capacity), Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ghana, Venezuela, Egypt, and Japan also spoke today.
The representatives of the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also made statements in exercise of the right of reply.
The Special Committee will reconvene in a formal meeting at 10 a.m., on Wednesday, 9 March, to conclude its session.
Background
The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization met today to begin its sixty-fifth session.
Before the Committee was the Secretary-General’s report on implementation of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions (document A/65/217), the Special Committee’s 2010 report (document A/65/33), and the resolution adopted by the General Assembly during its sixty-fifth session, based on the recommendation of its Sixth Committee (Legal), on the Special Committee’s report (document A/RES/65/31).
Statements
RITA SÁRA SILEK (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said sanctions were an important instrument to maintain and restore international peace and security. Measures adopted in recent years by the Security Council showed that when instituted in targeted way, they could minimize possible adverse consequences to civilians and third parties. As noted in the Secretary-General’s recent report on assistance to third parties affected by sanctions, Member States had not approached any sanctions committees about special economic problems due to sanctions, and neither the General Assembly nor the Economic and Social Council had found it necessary last year to take related action. Furthermore, according to the Secretariat, no State had appealed to the United Nations since 2003 for remedy and relief of economic problems.
In light of those findings, it was no longer relevant for the Special Committee to study the question of helping third parties and it should not be a priority. She urged the Special Committee to implement the 2006 decision on reforming its working methods, as reflected in paragraph 3 (e) of General Assembly resolution 65/472, as well as urged Member States, in line with the Japanese paper on reforming the working methods, adopted by the Special Committee in 2006, to work together to find ways to better utilize the Special Committee’s resources and meetings.
ALEJANDRA QUEZADA (Chile), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said discussion on the issue of assisting third States affected by sanctions were “preventative”. Even though no State to date had required such assistance, the subject should not disappear from the Special Committee’s attention. The Special Committee must also keep on its agenda the question of peaceful settlements of disputes between States, as called for by the Assembly. As noted in the Secretary-General’s recent report on assistance to third parties affected by sanctions, Member States had not approached any sanctions committees about special economic problems. In most cases, the Security Council decided to adopt exceptions by which States could request authorization to access frozen funds for various basic and exceptional expenses.
She recognized the contribution to the international justice system of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of Practice of the Security Council. She underscored the Secretariat’s work in updating those documents, lamented the 26-year gap in updating Volume III of the Repertory of Practice and called for it to be updated as soon as possible. She thanked Member States that had contributed to the trust fund for updating the Repertoire and the trust fund for eliminating the backlog of the Repertory. The lack of concrete results during the Special Committee’s most recent session to become more efficient illustrated the need for better approaches towards that end.
MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said the United Nations was the central and indispensable forum for addressing issues relating to international cooperation, economic development and social progress, peace and security, human rights, and the rule of law, based on dialogue, cooperation and consensus-building among States. In the context, the Non-Aligned Movement attached high importance to strengthening the role of the United Nations. Elements in its reform process should therefore include the democratization of its principal organs and respect for the General Assembly.
In that regard, the Non-Aligned Movement reiterated its concern over the “continuing encroachment” by the Security Council on the functions and powers of the Assembly — which was the Organization’s chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ — and of the Economic and Social Council through addressing issues which fell within the competence of those organs. His delegation was also concerned by the Security Council’s attempts to enter areas of “norm-setting” and establishing definitions which fell within the purview of the General Assembly.
The Non-Aligned Movement reaffirmed that the reform of the Organization should be carried out in accordance with the principles and procedures established by the Charter of the United Nations and preserve the legal framework of that instrument. In that regard, the Movement noted that it was important for the Special Committee to continue to study the legal nature of the implementation of Chapter IV of the Charter, particularly its Articles 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 dealing with the powers and functions of the General Assembly.
Security Council-imposed sanctions remained an issue of serious concern, and his delegation believed such measures should be used only as a last resort. Sanctions were never applicable as a preventative measure; those “blunt instruments” raised fundamental ethical questions of whether suffering inflicted on vulnerable groups in the target country were legitimate means of exerting political pressure. In that regard, the objectives of sanctions regimes should be clearly defined, based on tenable legal grounds, and their imposition should be limited to a specified timeframe. They should be lifted as soon as the objectives were achieved. In that respect, the Non-Aligned Movement looked forward to the use of the Security Council of General Assembly resolution A/Res/64/115 on the implementation of sanctions as a reference guide for its future work.
CLAUDIA MARÍA VALENZUELA DÍAZ (El Salvador) said that her delegation wished to recall the extremely important role of the Committee, whose main charge was to study proposals and suggestions made regarding the United Nations Charter in an effort to strengthen that central document. One of the most important recent accomplishments of the Committee was its consideration of the General Assembly’s recent document on the introduction and implementation of sanctions. In that respect, it was highly relevant to retain on the Committee’s agenda the maintenance of international peace and security; the assistance to third party states affected by sanctions; and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Regarding working methods, she said it was necessary to think in the current session about the regularization of the Committee’s sessions. In that regard, El Salvador proposed a basic review of the Committee’s working capacity.
MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE (Iran), speaking in his national capacity, said that the Committee had made important strides in maintaining peace and security, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining friendly relations between States. States had an obligation to refrain from imposing on the sovereignty of other States, and that adherence to that basic principle was central to the work of the United Nations under the Charter. In that respect, it was a concern that the unlawful use of force by some States continued to threaten the principles of the Organization, and Iran supported the consideration of all serious proposals regarding the maintenance of peace and security of the United Nations.
In that vein, the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations also posed a concern. Sanctions may be imposed only after a breech of international law had been fully established and after all non-force measures had been exhausted, said the delegate. In accordance with General Assembly resolution 64/115 of 2009, sanctions should be in support of “legitimate” objectives. Like other bodies, the Security Council was subject to an obligation to comply with legal obligations defined under the United Nations Charter, and while it was entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, the Council’s discretion was “not totally unfettered”. Instead it had to be executed within the limits of legal regulations under the Charter.
In that vein, he said Member States were obligated to comply with the decisions of the Security Council only if those decisions were in line with the United Nations Charter. States targeted by sanctions wrongly imposed by Members who took “undue advantage” of their influence in the Council were therefore entitled to damages resulting from those arbitrarily imposed sanctions. That matter remained one of serious concern, as arbitrarily imposed sanctions hindered basic human rights, including the right to development. Finally, the General Assembly should be able to exercise its mandate in maintaining peace and security without encroachment by other organs.
YUN YONG IL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said the use of force and threat of its use, as well as pressure and coercive measures such as sanctions, were “rampant” in international relations. Double standards, impartiality and selectivity were increasingly practiced. Some States were using issues of international peace and security to pursue their own interests, and were using the United Nations as a tool for their own “sinister political purposes.” Moreover, he said illegal armed invasions of sovereign States and massacres of their civilians by the world’s super Powers were not meant to originate in the United Nations. On the other hand, the peace-loving measures of developing countries, which were devoted to safeguarding sovereignty and achieving development, were condemned as threats to international peace and security and became the target of sanctions.
The illegal “United Nations Command” in the Republic of Korea, which had nothing to do with the United Nations in terms of politics, administration and finance, had existed for 60 years, in defiance of Assembly resolution 3390, because it was “cooked up” by the United States, he said. The Security Council’s encroachment on the functions and powers of the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council undermined the Assembly’s authority as the Organization’s chief deliberative policy-making body, which put all Member States on equal footing.
It was impossible to build a just, equitable global order without immediately addressing such acts. Today’s reality highlighted the urgency of strict adherence by all Member States to the principles of respect for sovereign equality and non-interference in other’s internal affairs, as stipulated by the Charter. He lamented the slow progress in debating the numerous valuable, important proposals before the Special Committee that required urgent action on matters of international peace and security, peaceful settlement of disputes and strengthening of the organization.
CLAUDIA LOZA OBREGON (Nicaragua) said the Special Committee must make recommendations to strengthen the role of the Organization and it could contribute positively to the reform process to ensure United Nations organs did not abuse or go beyond their mandates, which was currently occurring with the Security Council. The Assembly was the Organization’s most democratic and universal body. The Council had engaged in discussions of themes outside its jurisdiction. That was worrisome. Sanctions must only be imposed as a last resort, and never as a preventive measure. They should only be imposed when there was a threat to peace and security or an act of aggression. Over the years, some sanctions imposed had not achieved the intended goals and they had an unjustifiable impact on civilian populations.
She rejected implementation of unilateral sanctions, saying they ran counter to the Charter’s principles and to international law. Nicaragua was only in favour of peaceful resolutions to international disputes. She stressed the particular importance of the International Court of Justice in contributing to global security, including the peaceful settlement of disputes. She regretted the unjustified backlog of Volumes III for supplements 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs.
JANE GASU (Ghana) said her delegation had participated actively in the Committee’s work over the years. Under the consideration of new issues for the Committee’s agenda, Ghana had proposed adding the topic entitled “Principles and practical measures for strengthening and ensuring more effective cooperation between United Nations and regional organizations on matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in areas of conflict prevention, resolution and post-conflict peacebuilding and peacekeeping, consistent with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations”.
To succeed in placing that item of preventive diplomacy on top of the Committee’s agenda, it was also necessary to be open to new and evolving concepts, such as the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing and their incitement, which was recognized and adopted by world leaders in the outcome of the General Assembly’s 2005 World Summit, and which was also a treaty principle of the African Union Constitutive Act. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had employed that as an underlying principle for its interventions in both Sierra Leone and Liberia, and would do so in Côte d’Ivoire, if it became necessary. Ghana looked forward to continuing deliberations on preventive diplomacy with other delegations, and to the creation of a working paper suggesting concrete inputs on how best to utilize those measures.
LESTER DELGADO SÁNCHEZ (Cuba) urged that efforts pick up speed to eliminate the backlog of the Repertory of the United Nations. The Special Committee was the appropriate framework to negotiate any change or amendment the Charter. It was necessary to curb the Council’s practice of putting on its agenda matters that did not fall within its mandate. In the past, there was a lack of political will by some States to support the Special Committee’s work and there were efforts to disrupt it. Those States had made proposals to change the intergovernmental nature of the Organization and had failed to recognize the Special Committee’s mandate.
Sanctions should only be imposed when all aspects of Chapter VI of the Charter had been exhausted and after a detailed analysis of the situation in question, he said. They should only be imposed in the case of a threat to international security or an act of aggression. They should not be used as a preventive measure. He called for creation of a system for compensating States subjected to illegal sanctions or third parties affected by the sanctions. The Special Committee’s work was needed now more than ever. It was unacceptable that a few States were trying to limit its work and its meetings to twice a year based on the belief that the Special Committee lacked results. Those were the same delegations that wanted to block new issues on the Special Committee’s agenda. On the contrary, the goal must be to strengthen that body’s work.
ADELA LEAL PERDOMO ( Venezuela) demanded that the Special Committee be considered valid and that its work continue, in particular with regard to the issue of reform and reorganization of the United Nations. Venezuela considered that those goals were in fact the most important subject to be assessed by the Committee. Her delegation had proposed the need to review the United Nations as an “inevitable step toward democratization” of the Organization. That included, in particular, reforming the Security Council by extending its membership and correcting the “anti-democratic nature” of the veto power currently held by the Council’s permanent members, which was outdated and was no longer appropriate in today’s world. In addition, the General Assembly, as the supreme representative organ of the United Nations, should recover power in the areas “usurped” by the Security Council. It was from the Assembly that the most important decisions of the Organization should emerge.
Regarding the use of sanctions by the United Nations, she said that sanctions should only be imposed in extreme cases and where all other measures had been exhausted. Humanitarian concerns should also be considered in their imposition and they should be lifted a soon as possible. Venezuela would emphasize the principle of the free choice of countries in the resolution of disputes, and said that the United Nations should strengthen its work on the peaceful dispute of conflicts. Her delegation was pleased to present a revised proposal on the matter before it, which would be distributed to Member States.
GUO XIAOMEI (China) said in recent years the Special Committee had made progress in finishing the work of some of the items on its agenda. She supported the body’s efforts to bolster its work in regards to assistance to third States, which had a positive impact on those States. But it was necessary to set up mechanisms to assess the impact of sanctions on those States and how to help them financially. She welcomed Member States’ recent proposals of new and relevant items to the Special Committee, and asked them to be considered during the current session. Pending a clear mandate from the Assembly, no new proposals should examine the question of revising the Charter. It was necessary to continuously explore new ways to improve the Special Committee’s working methods in order for it to duly contribute to the Organization’s work.
MOHAMED IBRAHIM EL SHINAWY (Egypt) said that strengthening the preventive work of the United Nations — including through preventive diplomacy, early warning systems and other areas — was an essential goal. The Security Council in particular should focus on its main role of maintaining peace and security, and should stop encroaching on the work of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. On the question of equitable representation in the membership of the Security Council, that 15-nation body should be expanded and the historical injustices toward Africa, in particular, should be addressed.
Regarding the imposition of sanctions, Egypt reiterated that the Security Council should refrain from imposing sanctions except in cases where “compelling evidence” of the refusal of a state to comply with international law existed. Sanctions should never be used to support a change of regime or other political objectives. They should be imposed only on a specific period of time, and should be lifted on the date agreed upon beforehand. The Council should also pay greater attention to the humanitarian effects of sanctions, which should not have any impact on neighbouring States or on third party states. The Council should remain neutral, and its sources of information should be credible and reliable. Finally, Egypt supported the proposal to obtain a legal opinion from the International Court of Justice on the use of force, and reiterated the importance of the Special Committee’s work in strengthening the General Assembly as the main representative body of the United Nations.
GENNADY KUZMIN (Russian Federation) said the Special Committee’s broad mandate included consideration of various proposals that would enable it to ensure serious development of legal issues related to the Charter. It was necessary to look at the use of force by States without prior approval by the Council. Today’s political situation illustrated the need for further interpretation of the Charter, which maintained “grey areas” on matters regarding use of force. It would make sense to obtain an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on that matter. He noted the need for the Secretariat to continue its work regarding the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs. The Secretariat must accurately comply with the established rules and standards.
JOHN ARBOGAST (United States) said that, regarding sanctions-related matters, positive developments within the United Nations had been designed to ensure that targeted sanctions remained a “robust tool” for combating threats to international peace and security. Targeted sanctions had substantially minimized unintended economic consequences for States. In that vein, the Secretary-General’s report (document A/65/217) had informed Member States of the fact that, in the period under review, none of the sanctions committees had been approached by Member States to express concern about special economic problems resulting from the imposition of sanctions. The United States believed that was the result of the concerted efforts of the Security Council to impose targeted measures, and it applauded the Council’s efforts in that regard.
Additionally, concerns expressed in the past about the need for fair and clear procedures for the Security Council to de-list persons subject to its sanctions had been addressed through the adoption of Council resolution 1730 (2006). In the context of the Al-Qaida/Taliban sanctions regime, he said the adoption of Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) had directed the Committee to conduct regular reviews of listing and to make accessible narrative summaries of reasons for listing each entry on its sanctions list. The United States did not support the General Assembly’s proposal to request from the International Court of Justice an advisory opinion on the use of force, which was clearly addressed in the United Nations Charter.
With regard to the new proposal on the relationship among the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council, he said the United States believed that the responsibilities of the principal United Nations organs were clearly defined in the Charter, and that it was unnecessary to further study those working relationships. The delegation supported proposals aimed at improving the working methods of the Special Committee, and thought that proposals, including those to have the Committee meet biennially, or to shorten the duration of its sessions, should be seriously considered.
YUKIHIRO WADA ( Japan) said the Special Committee had adopted in 2006 ways to improve its working methods. Such proposals must be implemented. It was necessary to consider proposals on new subjects carefully. The Special Committee must not set unnecessary meeting dates. It should suspend discussion of issues that had not produced substantial results for a long time. He noted the importance of updating the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs.
Right of Reply
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the Republic of Korea, responding to the statement by the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, said that statement was “irrelevant” to the Special Committee’s work as it discussed the “United Nations Command” in the Republic of Korea. The “United Nations Command” had been established in line with relevant Security Council resolutions and legal procedures. On 18 November 1975, the Assembly adopted two separated resolution on the Korean question, including resolutions 3390(a) and 3390(b). It was misleading to take one of the two resolutions out of context. The Special Committee was not the appropriate forum to discuss the status of the “United Nations Command”.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea responded that the so-called “United Nations Command” had no legal basis. The representative of the Republic of Korea was claiming that it was set up in compliance with Council resolutions adopted in the 1950s, but it was established without the formal recognition and approval of the then Soviet Union. That violated the Charter, which stated that the setting up of such an operation required the consent of several Member States, including permanent Council Members. Only the United States had given consent. The Special Committee was mandated to examine the legal aspects of violations of the Charter. Therefore it was within the Special Committee’s mandate to examine the situation on the Korean peninsula.
Responding again, the representative of the Republic of Korea said that in its resolutions 84 and 88, both from 1950, the Council officially recognized the “United Nations Command” as an entity to maintain peace on the Korean peninsula. It was inappropriate to debate the issue in the Special Committee.
Taking the floor again, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea asked if the “United Nations Command” had legal grounds, as the representative of the Republic of Korea claimed, why was it not formally part of the United Nations today?
* *** *
For information media • not an official record