General Assembly Adopts Oral Decision Enabling Security Council Reform Negotiations to Continue during Seventy-Third Session
Acting by consensus, the General Assembly today adopted an oral decision on Security Council reform, which allowed for continuing discussion on that subject during its forthcoming seventy‑third session.
By the terms of that text, the Assembly reaffirmed its central role in the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, as well as in other issues related to that organ. To that end, it also decided to convene an open‑ended working group on those matters during the next session and to immediately continue intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in informal plenary during its seventy‑third session.
Those negotiations would build on the informal meetings held during the seventy‑second session, as well as on the “Revised Elements of Commonality and Issues for Further Consideration” paper that had been circulated on 14 June 2018, among other documents. The Assembly also welcomed the active engagement and efforts of the President of the General Assembly and the Co‑Chairs of the negotiations.
Miroslav Lajčák, President of the General Assembly, who introduced the oral decision, said that he believed the discussions carried out by Member States had been an inclusive process. An outcome had been reached, and he expressed his hope that the work done could be built upon. He commended the importance of the process and underscored that Member States would decide where the work would go from here.
Outside the room, the entire world was watching, he said. As General Assembly President, he had faced many questions about the reform of the Security Council, and those were not questions for him to answer but rather questions for the Member States themselves. The United Nations was judged by the performance of the Security Council, and if people lost faith in the United Nations then, regardless of the results on the ground, that could undermine the entire system. The future of the Organization was in the hands of Member States. The matter at hand was one of the most sensitive international processes taking place today, and every word mattered. Only a strong process could have a strong outcome, he said.
After adopting the oral decision, Member States made statements in explanation of vote.
Adikalie Foday Sumah (Sierra Leone), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that despite the Co‑Chair’s efforts to integrate the Common African Position into the paper’s final revision, the document did not adequately and accurately reflect that position. The African Group hoped that the documents rolled over to the General Assembly’s seventy‑third session would be built upon in a transparent manner through a membership‑driven process that would ensure the Group’s position was accurately reflected in all of the five clusters related to Security Council reform – categories of membership, the veto question, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the relationship between the Assembly and the Council.
The African Group also called for the harmonization of all the documents rolled over from the sixty‑ninth, seventieth, and seventy‑first sessions, which proved to be difficult for the Co‑Chairs to achieve, he said. The African Group was committed to a comprehensive reform of the Security Council based on all the five clusters outlined in decision 62/557 and was committed to the intergovernmental negotiation process in good faith and with mutual trust, he said. It hoped that all those Member States, especially those countries friendly to Africa, would join in support of redressing the historical injustice done to the African continent and its people.
Inga Rhonda King (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), speaking on behalf of the L.69 Group of Developing Countries, said that she appreciated the swift decision that had been made on the rollover of work. The document that was being adopted was an important contribution based on the active participation of Member States over several meetings. However, she was ending the session with mixed feelings. The round of deliberations had begun with the positive development of attempting to harmonize and build on the work of the previous three years and the quest to establish a credible process. What they set out to do had not quite been achieved. Despite support for attribution and the reflection of the Common African Position in the commonalities section of the paper, she had not seen the inclusion of those requests in the final revised “Elements of Commonalities and Issues for Further Consideration” paper. She had also asked for an extension of the timeline, but the session was ending two and a half months before the end of the General Assembly’s seventy‑second session.
Mauro Vieira (Brazil), speaking also on behalf of the Group of 4 (Germany, India, Japan and Brazil), said the outcome of the negotiations during this session fell short of the Assembly’s expectations, despite all the efforts completed in the harmonization exercise. The Group sincerely expected the final version of the document to include more of the proposals made by different groups, including the Group. Some of those suggestions clearly received overwhelming support from Member States, yet were not taken into account. Among other points, the document should have included the identification of the countries supporting the different options contained in the text — or the “attribution of names”, as it was called.
The Group still believed that restructuring the document, using the five main clusters of the intergovernmental negotiations as its basic axis, would produce more clarity, he said. The rollover decision just adopted placed the Assembly on the way forward, he said, noting that the Assembly had agreed to build on the revised paper and on the framework document prepared during the sixty‑ninth session by Jamaica. After 25 years of discussion of Council reform and 10 years of the intergovernmental negotiations itself, the Assembly could not afford to see the same stagnation it has seen for years. “The credibility of the intergovernmental negotiations process and the United Nations as a whole is at stake,” he said.
Mansour Ayyad Sh. A. Alotaibi (Kuwait), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, said the paper reflected the progress made by Member States in the current session. It clarified the presence of agreements and divergences, the latter of which required a continuation of dialogue in order to find common ground. He stressed that any step in the intergovernmental negotiations should receive the largest level of political acceptance. That would allow Member States to continue making progress towards Security Council reform. The intergovernmental negotiations must remain credible and no step should be adopted that was not consensual. He looked forward to continuing deliberations to build on what had been agreed in the previous sessions, and to working with all delegations to find common ground in order to meet the aspiration of Member States.
Inigo Lambertini (Italy), speaking on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group, said he welcomed the evolution of what was now called the Revised Elements paper as a further step towards a consensual reform. The paper represented a new building block of the reform process. Reform must build on solid bases, elements that were truly shared by all Member States. There could be no room for ambiguous language. There were neither linguistic nor procedural shortcuts to Security Council reform, and experience showed that any attempt in that direction only had the consequence of pulling the process further away from the goal.
Rudolph Michael Ten-Pow (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said the rule of law was very important and he commended the Assembly President for his leadership on the issue of Council reform. Going forward, the negotiations would build on the series of meetings held during the session and the revised issues of commonality and various proposals. On the issue of commonality, he hoped that Member States would see the value of attribution on their positions to lay the groundwork for real negotiations to begin. CARICOM again expressed its appreciation to the President and Co-Chairs in achieving progress on that issue.
Mr. Polyanskiy (Russian Federation) expressed gratitude for the rollover of the item to the Assembly’s seventy‑third session. The issue of Council reform was one of the most important issues facing the Organization. The Council was responsible for maintaining peace and security. Yet there were many disagreements. A consensus should be arrived at in a transparent manner. Progress towards Council reform could not be achieved without initiatives which had support. There was a danger in attempts at reform that did not take into account all the positions, he said, stressing that all five clusters had to be considered. Countries from Africa, Asia and Latin America could contribute and decisions had to be balanced in nature.
Ma Zhaoxu (China) noted that the intergovernmental negotiations had held five informal meetings and the Co‑Chairs had performed their duties. Member States had had candid, in‑depth and patient discussions, as well as an increased mutual understanding on the issues and their interlinkages, with the goal of reaching the broadest possible consensus. The revised paper was the personal working document of the Co‑Chairs, and had no official status with the Member States. The intergovernmental negotiations were an important mechanism to discuss Security Council reform and those negotiations must be driven by the Member States in order to achieve development.
Lana Zaki Nusseibeh (United Arab Emirates), speaking on behalf of the Co‑Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, said that throughout the five meetings held this year, the Co‑Chairs had strived for inclusivity and transparency by regularly consulting with Member States as well as groups. The Co‑Chairs had approached the process with no set agendas or “pre‑cooked solutions” for the way forward. The document produced during the current session built on the paper, “Elements of Commonality and Issues for Further Consideration”, from the seventy‑first session. It also considered relevant positions and proposals made by Member States and reflected in documents circulated during the Assembly’s seventieth and sixty‑ninth sessions. The document made a first attempt to harmonize that work in one place.
Today, Member States expressed different views on how the paper could be improved, she noted, adding that the Co‑Chairs agreed the work was not done. “The road ahead needs to be pursued with energy and unity of purpose,” she said. The Co‑Chairs believed the document was a step in the right direction and it identified pathways for narrowing differences and controversial elements. Concluding, she said it would help the work of the Co‑Chairs appointed for the seventy‑third session.