African Representation, Future of Veto Power, Intergovernmental Process Figure Prominently in General Assembly Annual Debate on Security Council Reform
Many speakers emphasized the invaluable nature of intergovernmental negotiations to reform the Security Council, and suggested a range of possible changes to its membership, while discussing the future of the veto power, as the General Assembly today held its annual debate on Council reform and the question of equitable representation in the 15-member body.
Over the past 70 years, the world had undergone profound change with increasingly complex and numerous peace and security threats requiring a Council capable of fulfilling its mandate in line with the United Nations Charter, said President of the General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft, as he opened the debate. Over 60 delegates who spanned the globe in geographic origins, and who represented a comprehensive range of regional and issue groupings, participated.
The representative of Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the African Group, focused on the need for the international community to correct historic injustice done to Africa, in part by expanding the Council to include at least two permanent seats for Africa with all the rights and obligations of current members, including the veto, and two additional non-permanent seats.
It was a position supported by, among others, the representative of Japan, who addressed Member States that argued for enhanced representation of developing countries but supported only the expansion of non-permanent seats or the creation of a new category of membership, and asked “What is their answer to the aspiration of our African friends … [and] the historical injustice done to Africa?”
Japan’s candidacy for permanent membership of the Council was in turn endorsed by sitting permanent members, such as the United Kingdom, which also supported the candidacies of Brazil, India, and Germany, and permanent African representation. But by how many new members the Council should expand was a divisive matter. A compact body of no more than 20 members would be effective, suggested the Russian Federation’s representative.
Other permanent Council members focused on the veto — a right exclusive to the five permanent members — when making their statements. The United States’ representative said that her country was open to modest expansion in principle of both permanent and non-permanent members but did not support changes to the veto. China’s representative spoke in support of “reasonable” reform, increased representation, including of African countries, and the participation of medium and small nations in Council decisions.
France’s representative came at the situation from another angle, speaking of his country’s initiative for voluntary suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, which so far had been supported by 85 countries. The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct, launched on 23 October, had also garnered broad support, he added.
That initiative was a promising sign, noted the representative of Indonesia, not just for its own sake, but because it showed how some aspects of Council reform were being addressed outside the intergovernmental negotiations, and that progress could be made through an incremental manner. The same approach could be applied to pursue progress on other aspects of Council reform such as the issues of membership expansion, categories and size. As the situation stood today, a number of unresolved conflicts and tensions in some parts of the world signified the Council’s shortcomings; Syria and Palestine were two glaring cases where a persistent lack of action by the Council had worsened the conditions of the people and made the conflicts more intractable.
An ineffective Council had meant huge human, economic and environmental costs in terms of wars and conflict, which the international community could not justify, said India’s representative. He requested that a fixed schedule of meetings for the intergovernmental negotiations beginning early next month be announced. Given the urgency of the subject, those meetings should be held weekly.
South Africa’s representative, on the other hand, said that the main obstacle to progress had been a flawed negotiations process, characterized by an “endless repetition” of positions, which was why he expected talks, based on the Chair’s text, to start before year-end. He proposed that the Chair schedule a few days per element to allow for interactive negotiations, as one-day meetings had resulted in general statements repeated “ad nauseam”. Such a process would not undermine the principles of inclusivity and transparency. The new Chair should circulate a schedule of meetings per element, making it clear that interactive negotiations would be employed to steer the process away from a debate format. The Chair also should explore informal bilateral meetings between divergent groups.
The representative of Brazil recalled the Council’s expansion in the 1960s in light of the greater United Nations membership, and pointed out that today the Organization comprised 193 Member States, yet the Council still reflected a “mid-twentieth century diplomatic environment”. Reform of the Council was a challenge that could no longer be avoided.
The Pakistani representative also looked to the Council’s 1960s expansion but drew other conclusions. Pakistan opposed the creation of new permanent seats in the Council as it was contrary to the universally agreed principles of democracy, accountability and transparency. That body needed expansion in the category of elected seats given the increase in the United Nations’ membership since the Council was last expanded five decades ago.
The Uniting for Consensus Group, which Pakistan associated with, had precise ideas about how the Council might look. Italy’s representative, speaking for the Group, said it supported enlarging the Council to up to 26 members, and assigning the majority of added seats to Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and Latin America, but also understood the call of the Eastern European Group, and other groups of States, such as small States, including small island developing States, as well as Arab countries.
The League of Arab States for its part, through the representative of Kuwait, who spoke on behalf of the Arab States, called for permanent Arab representation in the Council and proportional representation in the Council’s non-permanent membership.
But an important issue which should be included when discussing Security Council elections was campaign finances, the representative of Maldives cautioned. The Assembly had seen Council seats reduced to trophies, bought at exorbitant costs by financially privileged interests. A discussion on membership should appropriately address the fact that Member States did not compete on equal footing. To achieve the noble principles of the Charter, it was imperative the Council embody the diversity of the global community and become more accountable, coherent and transparent.
Also speaking at today’s meeting were representatives Guyana (on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Saint Lucia on behalf of the “L.69” Group, Germany (on behalf of the G4 Group), San Marino, Finland (on behalf of the Nordic countries), Liechtenstein, Thailand, Pakistan, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, Panama, Poland, Kenya, Nigeria, Cuba, Guatemala, Hungary, Uganda, Egypt, Malaysia, Zambia, Colombia, Mexico, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Somalia, Croatia, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Venezuela, Iran, Costa Rica, Romania, Libya, Belgium, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Bhutan, Suriname, Peru, Chile, and Luxembourg.
The Assembly will meet again on at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 3 November, to consider implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations and the revitalization of the work of the Assembly.
Opening Remarks
MORGENS LYKKETFOFT, President of the General Assembly, opening the meeting, said that over the past 70 years the world had undergone profound change with increasingly complex and numerous peace and security threats requiring a Security Council capable of fulfilling its mandate in line with the United Nations Charter. On 14 September the Assembly had decided to continue during its seventieth session intergovernmental negotiations on Council reform. In that regard, the Assembly President had appointed Sylvie Lucas, Permanent Representative of Luxembourg to the United Nations, as the new Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform.
He was confident that forthcoming negotiations would build on momentum and progress made during the previous Assembly session and encouraged Member States to continue with the reform process pursuant to Assembly decision 69/560. It was critical that negotiations were not a mere repetition of the previously-stated positions, he said, encouraging States to work with Ms. Lucas. The current debate should serve as a useful foundation for future reform, and could galvanize effective negotiations over the coming months.
Statements
VANDI C. MINAH (Sierra Leone), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that Africa’s position on the veto was clear: “abolish the veto”. But the Group maintained that as long as the veto continued to exist, it should be extended to new permanent Council members. Africa’s position for at least two permanent seats with all the rights and obligations of current members, including the veto and two additional non-permanent seats, was a matter of common justice, as was the right to have an equal say in decision-making on issues of international peace and security, in particular those that concerned the African continent. The non-permanent seats would continue to be rotational, but the permanent seats would be in accord with the present Charter arrangement.
The question of who the candidates would be was a matter for Africa to decide, he said. The African Group continued to urge delegations and interest groups that would make their pronouncements in support of the African position to harmonize them by effecting necessary amendments in the Framework Document for the intergovernmental negotiation process. The status quo undermined the principles of equity, legitimacy, accountability and transparency. It also undermined the effectiveness of the Council in its pursuit of international peace and security. Correcting the injustice done to Africa should be viewed along Africa’s demand as contained in the Ezulwini and Sirte Declarations.
GEORGE TALBOT (Guyana), on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said the Assembly’s seventieth session provided Member States with a fresh opportunity to advance deliberations on reform of the Council. With the consensus adoption of decision 69/560, the Assembly now had a mandate to move the process forward by building on the informal meetings held during its sixty-ninth session, and positions and proposals made by Member States that had been reflected in the text and annex circulated by the previous Assembly President in a 31 July letter. CARICOM expected the text would be the working basis for the next round of intergovernmental negotiations and provide for real give-and-take talks.
CARICOM remained steadfast in its support of the Council’s reform and throughout the negotiations, he said. It maintained a principled advocacy for expansion in the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. The role and security of small States was a key factor for CARICOM and it had proposed the inclusion of a special seat for small island developing States in a reformed Council. The region’s support for the inclusion of Africa in the permanent category of membership was unwavering. Regarding the veto, CARICOM again called for the elimination of that anachronistic privilege. In the event it was retained, all permanent members of a reformed Council needed to have the same rights and privileges.
MENISSA RAMBALLY (Saint Lucia), speaking for the L.69 Group, said that expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories of Council membership was imperative and noted the progress achieved in the previous round of intergovernmental negotiations. She called the unanimous endorsement of decision 69/560, which called for building upon the 31 July text and its annex, a “significant step forward”. Therefore it was important to commence the next round from “where we left off”, she said, and critical to move ahead with a “results-based time line”. While she expressed commitment to engage in a process that would yield results, she emphasized that should the process not move forward with the negotiation text referenced in decision 69/560, the Group was prepared to look at other options that would yield the results desired by the “vast majority” of the United Nations membership. The seventieth anniversary was an important opportunity to “show decisive progress and finally deliver a decision mandated by our Heads of State and Governments at the 2015 World Summit, to achieve lasting reforms of the United Nations Security Council,” she concluded.
SEBASTIANO CARDI (Italy), speaking on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group, called for predictability through a clear agenda rather than arbitrary guidance. Member States must be facilitated in their work, through timely information and extensive consultation. The past had demonstrated that divisive approaches and initiatives complicated the process even further, he said, urging clarity on how the Council reform would be conceived. For one, it was important to prevent the Council’s inaction to make it more effective in the face of heinous international crimes. While he supported enlarging the Council to up to 26 members, and assigning the majority of added seats to Africa, the Asia-Pacific region and Latin America, he also understood the call of the Eastern European Group, and other groups of States, such as small States, including small island developing States, as well as Arab countries.
He clarified that his Group’s proposal of longer-term seats in the Council did not mean that those seats would be reserved to a select group of countries. All Member States willing to make a bigger contribution to the work of the Council would have the right to run for a longer-term seat. “Our proposal is democratic in nature,” he emphasized, underscoring that international affairs had changed at an “incessantly faster” pace than ever before and must be reflected in governing bodies. The emergence of new regional actors and global challenges imposed a modern vision for the Council. A modern Council must be grounded on a profoundly democratic vision that carried within it inclusiveness and adaptability. An enhanced and closer relationship between the Council and the Assembly, and improved working methods of the Council, including on the question of the veto, were areas requiring attention as well.
MANSOUR A.S. AL-OTAIBI (Kuwait), speaking on behalf of the Arab States, said the international community should step up efforts for Council reform to make that body more effective, representative and transparent. Intergovernmental negotiations were the only forum for that process based on Assembly decision 62/557. The process had to be owned by the Member States and be clear in order to bolster confidence and avoid division. During the current session there should be agreement on the principles and rules of reform. On procedure, all proposals and positions of Member States should be taken into account. The five main elements of Council reform should be achieved by majority agreement. The Assembly had many roles to perform on many levels and there should be a complementary relationship between it and Council to ensure balance between the two bodies. The League of Arab States called for permanent Arab representation in the Council and proportional representation in the Council’s non-permanent membership.
HARALD BRAUN (Germany) spoke on behalf of the G4 Group, which consisted of Brazil, India, Japan and his own country. There was growing support among the United Nations Member States for a structural reform of the Council, he said. At the same time, on the occasion of the United Nations’ seventieth anniversary, there was growing criticism directed at the Council for being unable to make decisions concerning some of the most pressing questions on international security. A more representative, legitimate and effective Council could only be achieved by reflecting the reality of the world in the twenty-first century. Nearly 120 delegations had contributed actively to the Framework Document, which would serve as the vantage point for negotiations during the upcoming round of inter-governmental negotiations. The momentum in support of Council reform gained over the last few months could not be lost. The Group would welcome more continuity in the Chairperson’s office to ensure the smooth continuation of the intergovernmental negotiations process and to avoid the kind of undue disruption which had been witnessed recently.
KAI SAUER (Finland), speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, which comprised Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Finland, said that those countries believed it was possible to move forward in reforming the Council, which was long overdue. The international community had a responsibility to fulfil promises made by its leaders. The Nordic countries fully supported the upcoming negotiations, and were fully committed to Council reform to address urgent challenges of today and tomorrow.
ALEXIS LAMEK (France) said that discussions on Council reform had gone on for two decades, and had not yet reached their conclusion. A text needed to start being negotiated as soon as possible. France’s position was that the Council should take into consideration new powers which had the ability to shoulder a permanent presence in the body, and therefore his country supported the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan as well as a reinforced presence of African countries as permanent and non-permanent members. France’s initiative for voluntary suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities had been supported by 85 countries. The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct, launched on 23 October, had also garnered broad support.
CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein) expressed concern about the resistance to Council reform by a small number of members and about the pressure that had been imposed on the Chair of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform. The current session should focus on substance. Liechtenstein had proposed a new category of long-term seats, for 10 years, which could be immediately renewable. The members could serve permanently, if the wider United Nations membership supported it, but would not have veto rights. They would be subject to review after a period of time. Working methods should be improved and were an indispensable part of reform. The majority required for adoption of resolutions and allowing every State to serve as Council President at least once during its term were obvious examples of that. The working methods in the Council’s current composition should also change. The Accountability Coherence and Transparency Group had launched a code of conduct for meaningful action on atrocity crimes in that regard.
LIU JIEYI (China) welcomed the appointment of Sylvie Lucas (Luxembourg) as Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations and hoped she would be able to build bridges, allowing Member States to narrow differences and make compromises on Council reform, which was in the common interest of all Member States. China supported “reasonable” reform, increased representation, including of African countries, and the participation of medium and small nations in Council decisions. The implementation of Assembly decision 62/557 should be led by Member States. Member States should be constructive, seek a package solution, the broadest possible consensus and no time limits should be imposed.
CHAYAPAN BAMRUNGPHONG (Thailand) said expansion of the Council must take into account a greater and more equitable regional representation. The Council’s working methods must be improved to ensure its transparency and effectiveness. The principle of accountability should guide the work of all its members. Underscoring the need for a decisive, responsible and timely response to stop genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, he said the Council, especially its permanent members, must demonstrate greater leadership and political will to take action against vast scale humanitarian catastrophes resulting from conflicts. His country supported the initiative to suspend the veto in case of mass atrocities as well as the newly launched code of conduct regarding Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said that the time had come for Council reform. The whole Organization would benefit from a strengthened Council. It should be more representative but that should not affect the Council’s ability to respond to conflicts. A compact body of no more than 20 members would be effective. An expanded Council should not just rubber stamp decisions put forward by Member States. Any reform measures undermining the veto power should not be passed. Veto rights not only protected the country of origin but the rights of countries in the region as they would avoid having undue pressure exerted on them from other States. The final outcome of Council reform should be supported by all Member States. Reform would be achieved in a transparent, calm environment. It should not complicate the real work of Organization, and it depended on the political resolve of Member States.
ASOKE KUMAR MUKERJI (India) aligned himself with the L.69 Group and the G4 Group, and expressed the commitment to work in good faith during negotiations to reach a concrete outcome during the seventieth session of the Assembly. An ineffective Council had meant huge human, economic and environmental costs in terms of wars and conflict, which the international community could not justify. “The figures speak for themselves, especially the more than 60 million people affected by the malfunctioning of the Security Council,” he said. Council reform could not be seen in isolation or detached from the Sustainable Development Goals. “The longer we delay in reforming the Security Council, the more pressure we put on the successful implementation of Agenda 2030,” he said. He requested that a fixed schedule of meetings for the intergovernmental negotiations beginning early next month be announced. Given the urgency of the subject, those meetings should be held weekly. He looked forward to the Chairperson’s circulation of the negotiations’ agenda for the current session based on the text and structure of the document of 31 July 2015.
PETER WILSOM (United Kingdom) said that his country’s position was in support of the candidacies of Brazil, India, Germany, and Japan, and permanent African representation. But the size of the expanded Council must not reduce its ability to act decisively. The United Kingdom would continue to advocate for reform from within the Council so it remained fit for purpose in the twenty-first century. Referring to the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct, he said that a clear message had been sent that the United Kingdom would never vote against a credible draft Council resolution which sought to respond to some crimes against humanity, which he listed.
MICHELE SISON (United States) said that the United States was open to modest expansion in principle of both permanent and non-permanent members but did not support changes to the veto. Intergovernmental negotiations were the best forum for advancing Council reform, she said, adding that any approach to that issue should enhance the effectiveness of the Council in light of its responsibilities. Any expansion of permanent members had to take into account candidates’ ability and willingness to contribute to international peace and security. The United States was neutral on all manner of engagement within the framework, as long as it reached a comprehensive international agreement.
DANIELE BODINI (San Marino) said that small States like his relied heavily on the United Nations and its values. One of his country’s greatest privileges was the right to vote, and in particular, to vote for elected members of the Council. The Council was at the core of the United Nations system, and needed to become more democratic, accountable and efficient. At the end of the current round of negotiations, there was the hope that the international community would reach a compromise solution that was acceptable to all, from the five permanent Council members to small countries like San Marino. A solution with a large majority and consensus must be found.
DESRA PERCAYA (Indonesia) said that some aspects of Council reform were being addressed outside the intergovernmental negotiations, namely the proposal for a code of conduct aimed at limiting the use of the veto to make the Council more effective in the face of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. That showed that progress could be made through an incremental manner, and the same approach could be applied to pursue progress on other aspects of Council reform such as the issues of membership expansion, categories and size. A number of unresolved conflicts and tensions in some parts of the world signified the Council’s shortcomings; Syria and Palestine were two glaring cases where a persistent lack of action by the Council had worsened the conditions of the people and made the conflicts more intractable.
MALEEHA LODHI (Pakistan), associating with the Uniting for Consensus Group, said her country opposed the creation of new permanent seats in the Council as it was contrary to the universally agreed principles of democracy, accountability and transparency. That body needed expansion in the category of elected seats given the increase in the United Nations’ membership since the Council was last expanded five decades ago. Democratization of the Council required the aggregation and promotion of the interests and aspirations of all Member States, no matter their size. There was no evidence to support the argument that more permanent seats could enhance the Council’s legitimacy, she said, calling on Member States to “soberly” think whether permanence was a solution to “so-called present day political realities” that were themselves transient. “Had there been flexibility on the part of delegations that had unjustifiably insisted on securing permanent seats, many Member States would have already played a positive role in the Security Council.”
ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA (Brazil), associating himself with the G4 Group and the L.69 Group, said that perpetuating the “geopolitical status quo” through an expansion restricted to the non-permanent category was not an option. The only way to ensure a more efficient and democratic Council was through an expansion that included new permanent members. There were entire regions of the world that had been absent from the permanent member category, such as Africa, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean. Recalling the Council’s expansion in the 1960’s in light of the greater United Nations membership, he pointed out that today the Organization was composed of 193 Member States, yet the Council still reflected a “mid-twentieth century diplomatic environment”. Reform of the Council was a challenge that could no longer be avoided. The United Nations should rise to new challenges and must be adapted to today’s world.
IGNACIO DIAZ DE LA GUARDIA (Spain), aligning himself with the Uniting for Consensus Group, said that the Organization’s strength lay in its unity. A more representative and effective Council was the goal of the reform process. That process should be conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner without undue haste. The Council’s composition should reflect changes in the modern world. Small States and African countries should be represented. All Members States of the Organization should be able to sit on the Council on a periodic basis as that would make the body more accountable. That goal could be achieved by increasing the number of elected seats. Spain was against the creation of more permanent seats as that would make the organ more exclusive.
YOSHIFUMI OKAMURA (Japan), associating himself with the G4 Group, said he could not think of a more membership-driven method than that of the intergovernmental negotiations. His delegation had accepted the text, although it was not as concise and operational as it had called for, because it was “a product of everyone”. However, increasing only the Council’s non-permanent members would not bring an appropriate balance to reflect the geopolitical realities in that body. Addressing Member States who argued for enhanced representation of developing countries but supported only the expansion of non-permanent seats or the creation of a new category of membership, he asked “What is their answer to the aspiration of our African friends … [and] the historical injustice done to Africa?” On the issue of the veto, he expressed support for the initiatives put forward by France and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group.
JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) said that as the United Nations celebrated its seventieth anniversary, the question of Council reform remained highly relevant. Switzerland welcomed the decision by which the Assembly had reaffirmed its central role on the question and decided to continue intergovernmental negotiations on Council reform in informal plenary meetings of the Assembly during its seventieth session. Since the beginning, the intergovernmental negotiations had demonstrated their complexity. The new Chair of the negotiations was encouraged to build on the momentum created in that process.
GILLIAN BIRD (Australia) said that at the San Francisco Conference in 1945 on the United Nations founding, and again in 1946, as one of the first elected members of the Council, her country had voted against the veto, which it had seen as hampering the Council’s effectiveness and legitimacy. Those same reasons underscored her present support for a Council reform that would ensure its ability to respond to modern realities and uphold its Charter responsibilities transparently, credibly and effectively. She supported the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct on Council action in situations of mass atrocities and the complementary joint French and Mexican political declaration on veto restraint. Noting strong support for those proposals, she said, “The onus now is on the Security Council to respond.” She urged Council members to integrate openness and transparency into its day-to-day workings and said that expansion of members was needed in both permanent and non-permanent categories. The time had come for text-based negotiations on the basis of Assembly decision 69/560 and the framework text. “We have an unmistakable responsibility to reshape and adapt the Security Council so it is able to address the complex peace and security challenges over the next 70 years,” she said.
LAURA FLORES HERRERA (Panama) said she was optimistic about the Assembly President’s commitment to the Council reform process and the appointment of Sylvie Lucas, Permanent Representative of Luxembourg, as Chair of the inter-governmental negotiations panel. It was commendable that Ms. Lucas was a woman as that lent a gender equality aspect to the appointment that would empower women. She would bring sensitivity and knowledge to the process. The humanitarian and refugee crises facing the world were huge challenges that affected men, women and children. The international community must pursue Council reform as it was the sole body with binding resolutions and it was vital for the revitalization of the United Nations. Reform was critical to peacekeeping and international security and bound up with sustainable development. The Council should be accountable. The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct was an initial step in that regard. The distinction between permanent and non-permanent Members should be eliminated.
BOGUSŁAW WINID (Poland) said Poland was anticipating the immediate resumption of the intergovernmental negotiations. The United Nations was formed by regional groups of different sizes and all advocated for their equitable representation on a reformed Council. The ambitions of the African Group and the Asian and Latin American countries were equally justified. As a member of the Eastern European Group, which remained the smallest regional group despite its growth over the last decade, Poland asked again for an additional non-permanent seat for the Eastern European Group. It supported efforts to make the Council’s actions more transparent and effective. Regarding the question of veto power, he welcomed the increasing support for the French-Mexican proposal on the veto’s restrained use. He also endorsed the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct that aimed for timely and decisive Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war.
ANTHONY ANDANJE (Kenya), aligning himself with the African Group, said that African countries occasionally came under undue pressure in issues of transparency and accountability at the national level. However, in governance of international organizations, that was not the case. The current composition of the Council did not reflect the modern world’s geopolitical situation. Its small size and exclusive nature, as well as its relations with the Assembly, were out of step with current demands. It was “antiquated and ill-adapted” to fulfil its tasks. A considerable portion of the United Nations global constituency was unheard and unrepresented in the administration of global affairs. Africa, which accounted for a very large share of the Organization’s security agenda, had no voice on the Council. That was “discriminatory and unjust”. It was imperative that the United Nations membership collectively ensure that Council reform moved forward in accordance with Assembly decision 62/557.
USMAN SARKI (Nigeria) aligned his country with the statements by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group, and by St. Lucia on behalf of the L.69 Group. He said the Assembly should build on the achievements made during its last session, when it had agreed on a text upon which to now base negotiations. Nigeria had always supported the advancement of intergovernmental negotiations in an open, inclusive and transparent manger. He reaffirmed the common African Union position on the entire subject of Council reform. It was important to correct the historical injustice done to the continent and its marginalization over the years. He stressed the need to ensure that Africa’s interests were safeguarded. African States had offered a coherent, practical and persuasive blueprint for the Council’s reform.
OSCAR LEÓN GONZÁLEZ (Cuba) said it was difficult to sustain the status quo within the United Nations without bearing in mind the huge political, social and economic evolution that had taken place since the Organization’s founding. There should be equitable representation within the Council and its membership should be expanded. Most Member States favoured an expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories, elimination of the veto, and the reform of its working methods. Cuba favoured an increase in membership to 25 or 26 States in both categories with greater representation for developing countries. New members should have the same duties and prerogatives as current members. The veto was anti-democratic and an anachronism. The Council should be transparent with closed-door consultations being an exception rather than the norm. It should take into account opinions of Member States before adopting decisions. Cuba did not favour an immediate agreement. The reform process was complex and would take time and should be flexible. Council reform in the twenty-first century would be a triumph of multilateralism.
GABRIEL ORELLANA ZABALZA (Guatemala) said the world’s political and economic reality in 1945 was not comparable to the current state of affairs. A dynamic, representative, and transparent Council should be able to respond to any threats. Paralysis had led to inertia. The use of the veto had obstructed and diverted interests causing divisions. Guatemala supported the initiative of France and Mexico to restrict the use of the veto, and the code of conduct by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group. Change was difficult and the inter-governmental negotiations had to advance gradually. The international community’s collective focus should be real agreement through an inclusive process. Council reform must occur alongside revitalization of the Assembly, as the two bodies were connected.
ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) said the new Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations should be able to build on the progress achieved during the Assembly’s sixty-ninth session. Only through meaningful negotiations could the much-needed reform of the Council be agreed. “Without that we fail the UN’s most important mandate [and] most importantly, we fail people most in need, whose only beacon of hope is the UN and its Security Council,” he stressed. Highlighting the need for a text on which to negotiate and the need to hold meetings at regular intervals, he emphasized that “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but to get there we have to start agreeing on something.” As work on comprehensive reform continued, the Council and Member States should work on gradually improving Council working methods and activities. The two processes could create “virtuous cycles” as demonstrated by the Assembly’s resolution on its revitalization, the joint proposal by France and Mexico on the use of the veto and the code of conduct promulgated by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, which already had the support of 106 countries. Underscoring that Member States recognized peace and security as a prerequisite for sustainable development, he said that that understanding would have to be translated into new types of improved interaction between the Council and other United Nations organs.
RICHARD NDUHUURA (Uganda), aligning himself with the African Union Member States, said the momentum galvanized by the recent adoption of the substantive Assembly decision termed the “Kutesa Consensus” set an irreversible stage for negotiations. The United Nations, and the Council in particular, must become more democratic, inclusive and representative of the world. “It should address historical injustice by giving a voice to Africa,” he said, and went on to stress that changing geopolitical realities coupled with an increase in the United Nations membership had put into question the Council’s effectiveness and legitimacy, as shown by its inability to address recent conflicts and humanitarian crises. The road towards Council reform had so far been a long and tedious journey. It was presumptuous for the five permanent Council members to claim that they were responsible for global security, as they represented only 1.9 billion people out of a global population of some 7 billion. Indeed, the non-implementation of the ideals of democracy “puts to the test those who preach them”, he said. In particular, there must be an increase in the permanent membership for the benefit of the African continent, as called for by the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration.
AMR ABOULATTA (Egypt), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, the African Group and the Arab Group, said any “piecemeal” approach driven by the ambition of a few for expansion would not lead to a more representative, credible or effective Council. Only a comprehensive reform and not a cosmetic adjustment to its membership or working methods could address the current structural imbalance. Noting the “historical injustice suffered by Africa”, he pointed out that the Council’s agenda remained substantially focused on issues related to peace and security in that continent. The intergovernmental negotiations were the only vehicle through which that injustice could be addressed.
DATO RAMLAN IBRAHIM (Malaysia) said that despite efforts over the past seven years there was no official document that could form a sound basis for Council reform. Malaysia welcomed Assembly decision 69/560 and shared the assessment that it was a “historic milestone” and “game changer”. Council membership must be expanded in the permanent and non-permanent categories for developing countries based on equitable representation. The veto should be abolished in conformity with the principle of sovereign equality envisaged by the Charter. There should be more structured interaction and regular consultations between the Council and Peacebuilding Commission. A working draft document on Council reform encompassing different proposals would enable the international community to clearly identify areas where differences could be bridged. Negotiations should be conducted in an inclusive and transparent manner. For meaningful progress on Council reform, Member States must demonstrate political will and flexibility, approach the upcoming negotiations with an open mind and move away from entrenched national and group positions.
MWABA P. KASESE-BOTA (Zambia) aligned with the African Group and said that through the united efforts of that Group, Zambia had been advancing the just cause of inclusiveness, equitable representation, transparency and full accountability of the Council through the process of reforms. The geopolitical landscape of 70 years ago had transformed in such a manner as to necessitate profound adjustments to the international community’s approach to decision-making on issues of peace and international security.
MARIA EMMA MEJÍA VÉLEZ (Colombia) said that Council reform should proceed in accordance with Assembly decision 62/557 as any other process would prevent reform. The dynamic of inter-governmental negotiations should change. Negotiations should not be static and “should not start from zero” as that would waste time. Colombia rejected veto privileges. The Council faced difficulties in the areas of democracy, transparency and inclusion. The recent reviews of the peacekeeping and peacebuilding architecture would require a Council that was up to the task in meeting security challenges. Council reform should take into account the interests of all Member States in an open, inclusive and transparent manner. The international community should build a Council fit for a new world reality.
RICARDO ALDAY GONZÁLEZ (Mexico) said the sixty-ninth Assembly session’s record on Council reform was one of contrast. The debate had showed deep divisions among countries in form and substance. The Uniting for Consensus Group had proposed a reform formula which included expanding membership of the Council to 26, adding five two-year seats, and six under equitable geographic representation to be occupied with broader mandates. The Council’s decision-making process would be more democratic and efficient and able to adjust to new regional realities. As Latin Americans, Mexicans understood the aspirations of the African Group for equitable representation. Council reform could only be guided by all members of the Assembly and not limited to a few. If privileges were granted to some States “forever”, the reform objectives would not be achieved. The lack of transparency during the previous Assembly session had created secrecy and mistrust. He called on the new facilitator of inter-governmental negotiations to discuss documents and proposals with all regional groups ahead of time in a transparent manner.
KAIRAT ABDRAKHMANOV (Kazakhstan) supported a comprehensive approach to Council reform, which would address all key issues, including expanding membership, improving working methods, addressing the question of the veto and the Council’s relationship with the Assembly. Improved relations between the Council and the Assembly was essential and could be achieved through regular consultations among their Presidents, and also with the President of the Economic and Social Council, and with more frequent qualitative reports and evaluation of the Security Council’s work in the Assembly on an ongoing basis. He cautioned against setting arbitrary deadlines for Organizational reform, noting however that unnecessary delays could be just as harmful and called for a spirit of compromise and inclusiveness to gain the widest possible common ground. Additionally, a mutually acceptable solution on the veto must be found soon. Improving working methods should not require an amendment to the Charter, nor a two-thirds majority to be adopted, nor would it limit the Council’s power or subordinate it to the Assembly. Rather the Council would be strengthened and become more efficient. He also held that the Assembly should have a greater say in the selection of the Secretary-General.
HALIT ÇEVIK (Turkey), aligning with the Uniting for Consensus Group, said: “Every day we lose on this matter, we bear the responsibility of the suffering of millions stemming from the structural shortcomings of the current system”. Reform was a forward-looking concept which aimed to make changes for improvement. That was not a static concept. For change to be called “reform”, it must address shortcomings rather than consolidating existing problems. Turkey stood for a meaningful and principled reform that would bring about a more democratic, representative, effective, transparent and accountable Council. That could be achieved by increasing the number of only the elected members of the Council. For those aspiring for a longer service, there could be a longer-term seat with the possibility of re-election. Ideally, the veto should be abolished. In that respect, Turkey welcomed initiatives to limit the use of a negative vote in cases of mass atrocities. A more equitable representation of the regional group, including enhanced opportunities for more vulnerable groups was a must. Attention should also be paid to the Council’s working methods and its relationship with the Assembly.
JA SONG NAM (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said that the attitude of the Council was still in the shadow of the Cold War era, and a typical example was its misconduct in dealing with Korean peninsula issues. United States joint military exercises were serious provocations which threatened to ignite a second Korean War, he said, because their purpose was to occupy Pyongyang. It was an international issue which threatened peace and security in Northeast Asia and beyond. The Council should be reformed, and under its new structure, a strict mechanism should be introduced to make resolutions and decisions related to sanctions or use of force — which might seriously affect international peace and security — become effective only under the final authorization of the Assembly, which represented the full membership.
FERNANDO LUQUE MÁRQUEZ (Ecuador) said that as was the case now, the Council reflected geopolitical realities of 70 years ago. For Ecuador, the reform process must continue to be guided by five major themes, which were categories of membership, the veto, regional representation, the size of the Council and working methods, and relations between the Council and the Assembly. On the last point, he noted that Ecuador rejected attempts by the Council to take on items which the Charter mandated to the Assembly or to the Economic and Social Council. Reform had to be comprehensive.
AWALE ALI KULLANE (Somalia), associating himself with the African Group, noted that the Council had been of great assistance in his country’s steady progress towards peace. Its close work with the Government had contributed to its trajectory from State failure towards State-building. Still, there was always room to improve the working methods of any organization. Therefore the Council needed to reform its working methods and collaborate with other organs to better react to contemporary realities. He welcomed the adoption of Assembly decision 69/560 as well as improved cooperation between the United Nations and regional and sub-regional organizations, which should be an ongoing process. He encouraged closer cooperation between the United Nations Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council. Noting that 8 of 18 peacekeeping missions were in Africa, he said that continent should not be the only one with 54 Member States that had neither a permanent representative nor veto power on the Council. Use of the veto in situations involving crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide was unacceptable. Therefore he supported comprehensive reform to reflect current geographical realities.
VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia) said his country supported the Council’s enlargement in the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. The Eastern European regional group should receive an additional seat in the non-permanent category of a reformed Council since the Group’s membership had increased more than twofold, from 10 to 23 countries, over the last 50 years. Croatia also backed greater African representation in an enlarged Council. The working methods of an expanded Council should make the Council more efficient, effective and accountable. On the veto question, Croatia welcomed the initiative to restrain use of the veto in situations of war crimes, mass atrocities and genocide. Croatia also would like to see regular consultations taking place between the Presidents of the Assembly and Council.
OH JOON (Republic of Korea) said reform could not be accomplished with the outdated concepts of permanency and veto. “To put it simply, in this fast-changing world, nothing should be written in stone,” he said. The Republic of Korea had recently joined other delegations in supporting the French-Mexican statement on the suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, and the code of conduct regarding Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. “What we need is a modern, democratic and flexible mechanism, which can reflect dynamic international realities in a timely manner,” he added. Increasing non-permanent seats through periodic elections was the only logical solution and expanding the number of elected members would bring a better balance in the Council and improve its work. A one-time election which would let a handful of countries remain indefinitely on the Council ran counter to the principal of democracy and accountability. Any reform formula had to receive widespread support from Member States.
GABRIELA MARTINIC (Argentina) said her country, as a member of the Uniting for Consensus Group, valued a spirit of flexibility, agreement, and multilateralism in achieving Council reform. With concrete aims and leadership, a democratic, inclusive Council, able to comply with the responsibility conferred on it by the Charter, could be achieved. Only through intergovernmental negotiations in good faith and with mutual respect could a solution be found that was broadly politically acceptable. Argentina favoured an increase in non-permanent membership of the Council as all democratic, legitimate systems were based on elections. The Council should work transparently and be accountable to all Member States.
RAFAEL RAMÍREZ CARREÑO(Venezuela) said that after two decades of deliberation on Council reform, the credibility of the United Nations had been affected. The time had come for substantive negotiations leading to tangible results. Venezuela was in favour of Council expansion. Africa, Latin America and Asia should be better represented. A multipolar world was being built and developing countries had the right to prolonged membership in the Council. On the Council’s working methods, it was regrettable that there were no final rules of procedure. That situation was favourable to a small group of permanent members who did as they pleased. Permanent members frequently held closed-door negotiations excluding non-permanent members. The aim of sanctions committees was to effect political change, yet some permanent members designed sanctions regimes as an end in themselves, expanding them to new areas without listening to the countries affected. There should be open meetings more frequently. Venezuela could not tolerate meetings where there were no minutes or recordings, or where the countries affected were excluded. The use of the veto merited meticulous discussion.
GHOLAMHOSSEIN DEHGHANI (Iran) said that many “abortive” initiatives to change the Council’s composition, improve its working methods or decision-making processes lay at the root of the diminishing trust placed in that important organ. Any attempt to reform it should be based on a general agreement among all Member States on the substance and process. Despite the lack of progress on the main issues, Council reform should not be subject to any predetermined or superficial timetable. Any careless decision would run the risk of harming that very delicate process, which would have far-reaching effects on the international community. All efforts should be made to reach the broadest possible agreement among Member States. While text-based negotiation was one efficient way forward, agreement on such texts was needed. Reiterating that intergovernmental negotiations were the only appropriate and irreplaceable forum, he said that the process must continue to be driven by Member States and function in a fully comprehensive and transparent manner.
MARITZA CHAN (Costa Rica) said that in all the rounds of intergovernmental negotiations, her country had opposed extension of the veto and any other privileges in the Council. It should be ensured that the Council complied with its responsibilities in maintaining international peace and security and improved its work in conflict prevention. A profound improvement in working methods was needed. Her country had also supported the initiative of France and Mexico to restrict the veto in cases of mass atrocity. The international community could not allow the opinion of a member to carry more weight than the need to save lives.
ION JINGA (Romania), noting that his country was among those who had called for real text-based negotiations, said it was now up to Member States to make full use of the very structured document provided by Courtenay Rattray, the Permanent Representative of Jamaica. His country supported the initiative of France and Mexico regarding the non-use of veto, as well as the initiative on a Council code of conduct submitted by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group. Turning to working methods of the Council, he commended Spain for its excellent organization of work during its presidency, especially with respect to innovative solutions, such as the delivery of common statements or presentation of briefings jointly by several countries. He said his country stood firmly for an increased representation of the Eastern European Group, underscoring that at least one additional non-permanent seat should be allocated to that Group in the Council’s future composition.
IBRAHIM O.A. DABBASHI (Libya), associating with the African Group and the Arab Group, said the historical injustice towards the African continent, which had no permanent Council seat, should be rectified. That was an inalienable right as two thirds of the security conflicts reviewed by the Council were on the African continent. The continent should be given two permanent seats with the right to veto. It should also be given two non-permanent seats as per the unified African position. Expanded Council membership should also include Arab countries. There was a need for an increase in public Council sessions and only a limited number of closed meetings. The interaction between the Council and other United Nations bodies must be reviewed so that their mandates did not overlap. Libya favoured ongoing consultations between key United Nations bodies with increased briefings and transparent periodic reports based on sound analysis.
MATHIAS BOGAERT (Belgium) welcomed the appointment of Sylvie Lucas, Permanent Representative of Luxembourg, as the new Chair of the intergovernmental negotiation process. Belgium’s position on Council reform was articulated in the Assembly President’s letter dated 31 July 2015. The current challenge was to debate the elements of the text in an open and constructive manner. Belgium was ready to participate in consultations in different formats. The deliberations should focus on substance rather than procedure.
WOUTER ZAAYMAN (South Africa), associating himself with the African Group and the L.69 Group, recalled that since 2013 his country’s President had called for the United Nations not to celebrate its anniversary without a reformed Council. The main obstacle to progress had been a flawed negotiations process, characterized by an “endless repetition” of positions, which was why he expected talks, based on the Chair’s text, to start before year-end. He proposed that the Chair schedule a few days per element to allow for interactive negotiations, as one-day meetings had resulted in general statements repeated “ad nauseam”. Such a process would not undermine the principles of inclusivity and transparency. The new Chair should circulate a schedule of meetings per element, making it clear that interactive negotiations would be employed to steer the process away from a debate format. Those negotiations would focus on a roadmap with timeframes to guide the process beyond the seventieth session. The Chair also should explore informal bilateral meetings between divergent groups.
JAIME HERMIDA CASTILLO (Nicaragua) joined with the statement made by the delegation of Saint Lucia on behalf of the L.69 Group. The Council required comprehensive reform so it could act. The United Nations had to respond to the challenges of the present with measures which reflected the interests of the world’s people. A timetable had to be set to adopt a text. Nicaragua was committed to all the initiatives that allowed the international community to reshape the United Nations, which could then serve the interests of justice and peace in the world. Nicaragua supported efforts to reform the Council, and was always prepared to discuss constructively anything that would improve the work of the Organization
MARIYAM MIDHFA NAEEM (Maldives) said the small island developing States provided a disproportionate number of peacekeepers, with respect to their population, to peacekeeping missions around the world. Yet their voice on the Council was vastly underrepresented. Over the past 25 years, only six small island developing States had served on the Council, out of the 125 elected members during that period. A seat should be designated for one of those States. On the issue of Council election campaign finances, the Assembly had seen Council seats reduced to trophies, bought at exorbitant costs by financially privileged interests. A discussion on membership should appropriately address the fact that Member States did not compete on equal footing. To achieve the noble principles of the Charter, it was imperative the Council embody the diversity of the global community and become more accountable, coherent and transparent. The functioning and working methods of the Council had to become more efficient and genuinely represent the will and interest of the larger United Nations membership.
NGUYEN PHUONG NGA (Viet Nam) said his country had consistently supported efforts to reform the Council, including expansion of both categories of its membership, with an equitable regional representation, and adequate representation of developing countries. There was a need to improve its working methods to ensure its increased democracy, transparency and effectiveness. He looked forward to the Council’s continued practice of holding open debates and public briefings, as well as strengthening the coordination and collaboration between that body and the Assembly. Further negotiations on Council reform should be based on Assembly decision 69/560, he said, stressing the importance of continued engagement of each Member State to ensure that the intergovernmental negotiations should be kept open, inclusive and transparent.
PEMA L. DORJI (Bhutan), associating with the L.69 Group, said the need to make the Council more representative, transparent and accountable had been recognized since 1993. Expansion of the 15-nation body in both the permanent and non-permanent membership categories and improvement in its working methods were necessary to further strengthen and enhance its legitimacy and functioning. However, the lack of a negotiation text had inhibited meaningful progress for more than 20 years. This year, the United Nations seventieth anniversary, presented an opportune occasion to show concrete progress. It was important to build on the progress made during the Assembly’s sixty-ninth session and make the intergovernmental negotiations result-oriented by commencing text-based negotiations. Assembly decision 69/560, which called for continuing the intergovernmental negotiations in informal plenary meetings, provided a sound basis to advance its work.
HENRY MACDONALD (Suriname), expressing commitment to the reform process, said that process must be inclusive, balanced and consensus-based, and take into account the interests of developing and developed Member States. While a base document had been adopted in Assembly decision 69/560, that document could not and should not be the exclusive guide to the negotiating process, which should remain open to additional perspectives and must not be forced into unrealistic timelines for completion. Thus, he welcomed the ongoing open debates organized by the Council on the subject, as well as its engagement in informative discussions where all parties could be heard and contribute. To achieve a more accountable, representative and transparent Council, contemporary regional and international realities must be reflected in any new structure that might be established.
GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA (Peru) expressed support for a reformed, broader and more effective Council with transparent working methods. It was important to have a document where all positions on Council reform were articulated, as that would lead to the greatest possible political support from the wider United Nations membership. In accordance with Assembly decision 62/557, there should be the expansion of permanent and non-permanent members for more just and equitable representation. His country favoured the elimination of the veto and its limitation in instances of genocide and crimes against humanity. Peru supported the initiative by France and Mexico and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct.
JUAN PABLO ESPINOZA (Chile) said the adoption by consensus of Assembly decision 69/560 should be the basis for the Council reform process. A Council that could respond to the new geopolitical realities in the world, with expanded membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, including G4 countries, was the path favoured by Chile. It also supported African aspiration for greater representation and favoured the French and Mexican initiative for limited use of the veto power as well as the Accountability Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct. There should be a constructive and flexible approach to reform.
HASAN S.J. ABULHASAN (Kuwait) commended efforts deployed over the years on Council reform. Kuwait welcomed the French initiative to restrict the veto in cases of crimes against humanity. All proposals to reform the Council meant that the body should be empowered to become more representative. Reform should be holistic, he said, adding that reform should make all United Nations bodies more complementary. The international community should focus on developing the relations of the Council with other United Nations bodies. The Security Council should not encroach on the mandates of other bodies, such as the Economic and Social Council and the Assembly.
SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg) said that the framework for her mandate as Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations was clear, as it was described in the Assembly’s decision 69/650 wherein the Assembly had mandated intergovernmental negotiations. She encouraged all Member States to maintain the momentum that had been created during the last session and to advance the reform process. For the first time, a text referenced in a decision by the Assembly enabled Member States to engage in substantive discussions on reform. Mindful of the fact that reform of the Council was one of the toughest areas of United Nations reform, she said that the difficulty of the task should not make delegates shrink from it.