General Assembly Session 49 meeting 31

The President

In a letter contained in document A/49/400/Add.3 the Secretary-General informs me that, since the issuance of his communications dated 20 and 26 September and 5 October 1994, Guatemala has made the necessary payment to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter.

May I take it that the General Assembly duly takes note of this information?

Mr. Marker (Pakistan)

Pakistan has actively participated in the constructive consultations held by the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council. I would again wish to express our deep appreciation for the able manner in which Mr. Insanally, the preceding President of the General Assembly, and the two Vice-Chairmen, Mr. Chew Tai Soo of Singapore and Mr. Wilhelm Breitenstein of Finland, guided the work of the Group.

Despite the extensive consultations held on this issue, the gap between the divergent views held by various delegations was not bridged. Thus, the Group's deliberations could not culminate in concrete conclusions and recommendations. As is noted in the Working Group's report and the Secretary-General's annual report on the Work of the Organization, this subject is open for further discussion.

In any review of this issue, the proposed reform and enlargement of the Security Council has to be understood in its proper historical context and perspective. In the aftermath of the tragic devastation caused by the Second World War, the United Nations was created "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". The Security Council was conceived as the principal organ for the maintenance of international peace and security. The presumption was that five permanent members, allies during the war, would continue to act in harmony. This assumption proved incorrect once the world became polarized during the prolonged cold war. During that period, the Council was unable to reach decisions on any issue that invoked the rival interests of the two super-Power blocs. Most conflicts were settled not by the Council but by the major Powers outside the Council.

At the end of the cold war, and after the experience of the Gulf War, hopes were revived that a more confident, effective and strengthened Security Council could emerge as an important deterrent to aggression, and where aggression occurred, as an instrument to reverse it. However, subsequent experience has tempered these hopes and expectations. The failure of the Council to implement its resolutions on Bosnia and Herzegovina, its inadequate response to events in Rwanda, its inability to implement its resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir have all contributed to a sense of insecurity. Instead of a new world order, supervised by the Security Council, we are confronted with a series of disputes and conflicts across Africa and Euro-Asia.

It is in this context, and with a full appreciation of the Security Council's strengths and limitations, that we should seek to promote ways and means to make it more effective in preserving international peace and security. The Security Council has in-built inequities. It is composed of a very small number of Member States. It is divided between permanent and non-permanent members, those with the veto and those without.

The purpose of our present exercise should be to promote greater democracy and transparency in the work of the Council. Our aim should be to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Council in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter. We must avoid any attempt to perpetuate and accentuate the existing inequalities by creating new centres of privilege. Our endeavour must be to strengthen, not erode, the principle of the sovereign equality of States enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

The general membership of the United Nations has increased from 51 in 1945 to 184 in 1994. We therefore share the general desire of Member States to strengthen the role of the Council, as well as to review its composition to reflect adequately the increase in its membership, particularly of the larger number of small and medium-sized States that have joined the United Nations.

The Council's current composition lacks balance in terms of geographic distribution. However, any attempt to provide greater representation to various regions should reflect the circumstances existing within each region. The arguments for equitable regional representation must be viewed in the context of the legitimate concerns of all Member States within the region concerned. The accommodation of regional representation should not fuel tendencies towards hegemony and domination which are manifest in some regions. Again, our approach must uphold the sovereign equality of States, large or small.

We must bear in mind that this item was originally inscribed to consider an increase in the non-permanent membership of the Security Council. We should not allow the present consultations to be taken over to accommodate the objectives of only a few countries. An increase in the permanent membership of the Council, instead of enhancing the Council's effectiveness, would serve only to alienate the small and medium-sized countries that constitute a majority in the General Assembly.

Some concepts for creating new categories, such as regional or semi-permanent members, have been introduced. They need further discussion and intensive consultations. The criteria for non-permanent membership, in addition to those contained in Article 23 of the Charter, require to be more seriously applied. These criteria clearly imply that, in accordance with Articles 24 and 25, Member States represented in the Council must be willing to act on behalf of all United Nations Member States in a prompt and effective manner and, more important, that they will consistently implement the decisions of the Council. Those States that continue to flout the principles of the Charter and to defy the resolutions of the Security Council cannot aspire to serve as the guardians of peace on the Security Council.

Obviously, the size of a reformed Security Council would be central to the reform package. The Council should be kept small enough to guarantee efficiency and effectiveness, but it should be large enough to ensure adequate representation of the small and medium-sized States. However, in addition to the size of the Council there are other aspects that need equal attention in the reform process.

Any meaningful review of the functioning of the Council should encompass the broader and vital issues of democratization and transparency in the decision-making process. During the consultations held by the Working Group, many proposals have been put forward which can facilitate the involvement of the general membership in the Council's decision-making process.

Democratization can be achieved by redefining the Council's relationship with the General Assembly and with other United Nations bodies. A fresh look should be given to Articles 11, 12 and 24 of the Charter, with a view to evolving a joint working relationship between the Council and the General Assembly in the maintenance of international peace and security. An effective mechanism can be established to convey to the Council the General Assembly's views and recommendations on peace and security as a means of enhancing the participation of the general membership of our Organization in the Council's decision-making process. Instead of the present practice of a pro-forma discussion of the Council's annual report, the General Assembly should discuss it more substantively and critically, in accordance with Articles 11, 14 and 35 of the Charter. A working group of the Assembly could be created to analyse the Council's report before its consideration in the plenary Assembly.

The Open-ended Working Group could also examine the possibility of creating a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly under Article 22 which could consider and discuss questions related to international peace and security that might be brought before it by a Member of the United Nations or of the Security Council, as provided in the Charter. In addition, the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly should meet regularly to coordinate the work of the two bodies.

The linkage between economic and social problems and political upheavals in various parts of the world is all too obvious. There is an urgent need to strengthen the relationship between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, so that economic and social factors are accorded their due weight in decisions relating to international peace and security. There is legitimate reason to fear that the economic crises of today -- debt, desertification, decline in commodity prices -- could lead to the political conflicts of tomorrow within and among States. The Economic and Social Council could serve, in many cases, to provide the Security Council an early warning of impending upheavals and conflicts.

The onus for promoting greater transparency is on the Security Council. We are happy to note that during the last year the Council has taken many positive steps to enhance its relationship with the General Assembly. However, more concrete steps are required for closer consultation with United Nations Members, particularly the troop-contributing countries, in pursuance of Article 44. The President of the Security Council should provide regular and substantive briefings to the general membership on the major issues before the Council. A subsidiary organ of the Council could be established, under Article 29, to monitor the peace-keeping operations and to institutionalize a system of direct consultations with troop-contributing countries during the process of making decisions regarding such operations.

We fully support the position taken on this issue by the Non-Aligned Movement at its summit in Jakarta in 1992, and at the ministerial meeting in Cairo last June.

It is of fundamental importance that the outcome of our efforts be in strict conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It must be based on consensus and agreement among Member States. A decision on this question that lacks the support of the general United Nations membership will be counterproductive. It could erode general support for the future role of the Security Council and cast doubt on the sanctity of its decisions.

In conclusion, I should like to offer a few comments on the pace of work of the Open-ended Working Group. The last reform of the Council took years to mature, although it addressed only one question: an increase in the non-permanent membership. It takes time to muster broad support for Charter amendments. Today, we are embarking on a comprehensive reform of the Council, including its enlargement.

Pakistan will work patiently and diligently with other United Nations Members to evolve a decision on the reform of the Security Council that advances the cause of peace, security and the aims and objectives of the Charter. We have to be patient in this important exercise without being tardy.

Mr. Gomersall (United Kingdom)

Mr. President, may I first add my congratulations to you on the assumption of your high office.

The general debate of the General Assembly has reaffirmed, if reaffirmation were needed, the importance that Member States of this Organization accord to the enlargement of the Security Council. A representative and effective Security Council is clearly in the interests of all.

My delegation believes that there has been genuine progress over the last year in increasing common understanding of the issues, and that we have now reached the stage where we should be able to move beyond the delivery of prepared statements and begin to look at ways of resolving the important outstanding questions in a substantive way. My Government's position on most aspects of the enlargement question has already been set out in detail in the Open-ended Working Group. But it is probably worth recalling our view that any enlargement of the Council should be relatively limited, to around 19 or 20 members, so that the Council's effectiveness is not jeopardized; and that if consensus can be reached certain countries, by virtue of their global interests and their contribution to international security and to United Nations operations, should be invited to accept the responsibilities of permanent membership. In that context, we would support the permanent membership of Japan and Germany.

Concerning "Other related matters", the Security Council, through the work of its informal Working Group concerning the Council's documentation and other procedural questions, has taken a number of steps over the last year to increase the transparency of Council activities. Priority has also been given to efforts to enhance arrangements for consultation of troop contributors. My Government supports the proposal that the Secretariat should, as a matter of course, convene meetings with troop contributors and members of the Council for the exchange of information and views in good time in advance of decisions by the Council on the extension or termination of, or significant change in, the mandate of peace-keeping operations. These issues will no doubt be further discussed during the debate on the report of the Council to the Assembly on 26 October. But I would like to reaffirm my delegation's commitment to continuing to support the Council's efforts to enhance transparency, while doing nothing that would damage its efficiency and effectiveness.

Although the task before the Open-ended Working Group remains a difficult and sensitive one, we were glad to note that there was some convergence of views in the course of its work this year on the nature of the enlargement that might be achieved. We must maintain the momentum of this work in the weeks and months ahead, supplemented, where possible, by informal consultations to seek out areas of possible agreement. Next year's fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations will be a significant milestone in our debate. My delegation will work with others to achieve, if possible, a positive outcome on this most important question.

Mr. Noterdaeme (Belgium)

On 14 September last, the General Assembly took note of the report (A/48/47) of the Open-ended Working Group, which was instructed, in pursuance of resolution 48/26, to consider all aspects of the question of increase of the membership of the Security Council, and other matters related to the Security Council. This report illustrates the divergences that persist regarding various aspects of reform of the Security Council, whose complexity and sensitive nature are clear to all.

The General Assembly decided that the Working Group should continue its consultations during the forty-ninth session and submit a further report before the end of the session. As in the past, Belgium will participate in those consultations actively and in a spirit of consensus.

I want to take this opportunity to recall the main lines of Belgium's thinking on reform of the Security Council. Belgium considers that Security Council reform should not betray the spirit of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations that specify the composition and mandate of this principal organ of the United Nations. The maintenance of international peace and security is one of the main purposes of the Charter to which Belgium attaches paramount importance.

The current system of collective security controlled by the Security Council is imperfect to be sure. But it has the merit of being the only universal tool for conflict management. In view of the continuing threat of crisis facing the international community, the Security Council's effectiveness and capacity for action must be preserved. For Belgium, therefore, the present debate on reform of the Security Council should always be directed at strengthening the Council's action for the maintenance of international peace and security. While the faults and shortcomings of the system should be eliminated to the extent possible, we should not forget that the main purpose of this exercise is the maintenance of international peace and security.

Past, present and, no doubt, future imperfections in the collective-security system oblige us to lower our sights somewhat. Belgium is convinced that the best basis for reforming the Security Council is pragmatism, not prejudgements and highly detailed theorizing. Like the United Nations itself, the Council is but a reflection of the relations among States Members of the Organization. Recent developments in those relations make it imperative that the Council be adapted to the new challenges before it. But we would certainly risk failure if we tried to use this need for legitimate change to launch a real revolution, which would be unrealistic given the difficulty of attaining its objectives.

That is the conceptual approach that Belgium thinks should guide future work on the reform of the Security Council; on the basis of that approach let me outline some of the practical outcomes of such reform.

First of all, if it is the view that the recent growth in the membership of the United Nations must be reflected in increased membership of the Security Council, Belgium continues to favour a limited increase. We consider that an increase of from two to five additional members would seem most appropriate to respond both to the Council's need for effectiveness and to the need for better representativity.

Secondly, as my Minister for Foreign Affairs said recently in this Hall, the international community would do well to grant permanent membership to two economic Powers whose positive role in world affairs has long been recognized. As the Secretary-General observed in his most recent report on the work of the Organization, economic and social development contribute to strengthening the maintenance of international peace and security. Hence, surely it is reasonable to give a special place on the Council to those who are in a position to support such economic and social development, on the same conditions as those applying to the five present permanent members. Moreover, an additional non-permanent seat should be granted to the regions that consider themselves under-represented.

Thirdly, the distinction between permanent and non-permanent members should remain unchanged. It is an established state of affairs that is accepted by all. To try to modify it by creating a new category of membership would spark an unpredictable debate on determining the new criteria.

Fourthly, the Working Group's experience shows the difficulty of achieving concurrent consensus on all aspects of Security Council reform. While we recognize that all the aspects of this reform are equally valuable, perhaps we could gradually identify those on which consensus is in sight while also continuing our efforts to narrow the remaining differences on other aspects.

It was my purpose today to reiterate Belgium's interest in the question of reform of the Security Council. With further Working Group consultations in view, I wanted to recall our conceptual approach and some of its practical results. For Belgium, realism continues to be the most reasonable approach if we want to achieve reform of the Security Council, and particularly if we want to retain some influence on the ongoing process. For some, the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations could be the setting for Security Council reform. Certainly, Belgium would favour reform of the Security Council coinciding, if possible, with the marking of the Organization's half century.

Mr. Wang Xuexian (China)

The Chinese delegation welcomes the continued

consideration at the current session of the General Assembly of the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. Here, we would also like to welcome the first report submitted by the Open-ended Working Group set up in accordance with General Assembly resolution 48/26. We appreciate the large amount of work the Working Group has managed to accomplish under the guidance of His Excellency Mr. Samuel R. Insanally, President of the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session, and of the two Vice-Chairmen of the Working Group, the Permanent Representatives of Finland and Singapore.

China is in favour of Security Council reform. In our view, necessary reform of the Security Council must be carried out because of the need to adapt the Council to the changed world situation and to meet the grave challenges before us. The Chinese delegation is of the view that appropriate expansion of the Security Council and needed improvement of its working methods should aim, first of all, at improving the Council's representation so that it will better reflect the collective will and common aspiration of the States Members of the United Nations, and secondly, at enhancing the Council's effectiveness and efficiency so as to maintain and strengthen its positive role in world affairs in the new situation and to enable it to perform more effectively the various tasks mandated by the United Nations Charter. All reform measures should be conducive to the realization of those objectives.

Reform of the Security Council involves the interest of all States Members of the United Nations and is an issue of concern and importance to all countries. Any reform measures should reflect the interest of every Member State. In this regard, we are of the view that in any expansion of the Council, the principle of equitable geographical distribution should be observed and full consideration should be given to the aspirations and interests of developing countries, which account for the majority of the United Nations membership, so as to enable those countries to play a more active role in United Nations affairs. Practices which might lead to the creation of any new imbalances should be avoided. At the same time, we also believe that all aspects of the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council are interrelated and should be dealt with as a whole package in a balanced manner.

Ever since the establishment of the Open-ended Working Group, the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council has remained an issue to which all countries attach great importance. Many countries participated actively in the deliberations and put forward a series of specific proposals. At the same time, broad discussions were also conducted regarding an increase in transparency of the Council's work, the improvement of its working methods as well as the strengthening of the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly in the performance of their respective functions. In our view, these discussions are very useful for increasing mutual understanding and reaching consensus among nations. Naturally, different opinions by various countries also arise in these discussions on specific aspects of the reform and, in certain areas, the differences are fairly wide. This shows that the task facing us remains arduous and a serious, practical and patient approach is required to continue the extensive exchange of views and to seek common ground step by step.

The Chinese delegation hopes that the Open-ended Working Group will continue its effective work during the current session of the General Assembly and, based on the previous discussions, conduct a serious and detailed study on the reasonable and useful suggestions raised by Member States so as to formulate, at an early date, a reform programme acceptable to all States Members of the United Nations.

Mr. Khandogy (Ukraine)

The delegation of Ukraine would like first of all to express sincere gratitude to Ambassador Insanally, President of the General Assembly, at its forty-eighth session, who guided the deliberations of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council. His skilful and experienced guidance enabled the Working Group to do a considerable amount of work. We would also like to thank the Vice-Chairmen, Ambassador Breitenstein and Ambassador Chew Tai Soo for their important contribution.

The Open-ended Working Group was, in our opinion, one of the most important forums at the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly. This can be explained, first of all, by the importance of the problems discussed and by the attention Member States paid to its work. During the discussion, a great number of proposals on various aspects of this question were made. However, special emphasis was placed on the problem of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council.

We feel that the outcome of the discussions is accurately reflected in the report of the Working Group, which states that:

"While there was a convergence of views that the membership of the Security Council should be enlarged, there was also agreement that the scope and nature of such enlargement require further discussion." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, A/48/47, para. 8)

The delegation of Ukraine agrees with such a conclusion. We believed and continue to believe that the current composition of the Security Council, its functioning and methods of work ought to be adjusted in order to make the Security Council a more representative body taking into account new regional realities and new participants in international relations.

The enlargement of the membership of the Council, which is a principal organ of the United Nations, acting in accordance with Charter provisions on behalf of all Member States, would considerably enhance the credibility and legitimacy of its decisions. It is essential, however, to preserve the effectiveness of the Council's work, its capacity to respond without delay to any threat to peace and security, to consider promptly such situations and to take necessary decisions based on the Charter.

Discussions held in the Working Group illustrated that to achieve this balance, which would be acceptable to all regional groups and all Member States, was not an easy task. There were various proposals concerning the enlargement of the Council such as to increase the membership by only a few States or to bring it up to 30 members, and even more. We think that a mutually acceptable solution should be somewhere in the middle of the proposed range. We have already stated in the Working Group, and we would like to repeat that, in our view, the Security Council should consist of 25 States. Such an enlargement would make it possible, first, to preserve the important principle of equitable geographical representation in the Council laid down in Article 24 of the Charter and would meet the interests of all -- and I emphasize -- all regional groups; and, secondly, it would not hamper prompt, effective and resolute actions by the Council, which are required by Article 24 of the Charter.

In so far as our delegation represents a State that is part of the Eastern European regional group, I would like to draw the Assembly's attention to the following.

In 1963, when the first and only reform of the Council was undertaken, the Eastern European Group consisted of 10 States and was represented in the Council by one permanent and one non-permanent member. Today, the membership of this group has doubled, but for 20 States we have the same number of seats: one permanent and one non-permanent -- which means that 19 States are competing for one rotating seat. Thus, each State of the Group has a chance to be elected to the Council on an average once in 38 years. Obviously, such a prospect is not to be envied. Therefore, we would like to stress, once again, that any decision on the question of enlargement of the Security Council should take into account the interests of all regional groups on the basis of the principle of equitable geographical distribution. Disregarding this principle would make achievement of a consensus acceptable to all very difficult.

The delegation of Ukraine would also like to stress that the enlargement of the Council by 10 seats which we, as well as a number of other delegations propose, would make it possible to accommodate some other formulas put forward in the Working Group and in the Assembly, in particular, the formula "2+3".

At the meetings of the Working Group and, indeed, in the Assembly, the delegation of Italy and a number of other delegations, including Ukraine, proposed consideration of a structure of the Council that would enable some States that make considerable contributions to United Nations activities to be represented on the Council more often. What was meant was a so-called third category of members of the Security Council. Some delegations supported this proposal. However, some other countries either expressed doubts about the advisability of the existence of the "third category" or strongly objected to this idea. In this context we would like to emphasize that we continue to find it useful and worthy of further consideration.

We are convinced that all United Nations Member States would benefit from the establishment of a third category. States which make a greater contribution to the maintenance of international peace and the achievement of other goals of the United Nations, and which carry heavy financial obligations, would have a better possibility of participating in the Council's work, and, thus, paragraph l of Article 23 of the United Nations Charter would be implemented more fully. At the same time, having been placed in the third category, these States would not aspire to the seats subject to the usual rotation in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 23. That would allow small States to be represented in the Council more often and consequently to participate more actively in the work of one of the principal organs of the United Nations.

The question of the composition of the Council is organically linked with the voting procedure. In this context a number of delegations have expressed their views on the advisability of a modification of the right to the veto. This concept was brought to the United Nations Charter from the League of Nations but acquired a somewhat different shade of meaning in the Organization: from being a tool to maintain a balance between the super-Powers in the period before the Second World War, it became a mechanism for ideological confrontation between two systems in the post-war period. Through the replacement of confrontation by cooperation since the end of the cold war and the strengthening of the partnership between permanent members of the Security Council, an opportunity is provided to reconsider this mechanism.

In this connection, and in the light of other realities of the modern world, it seems appropriate to change the procedure that now allows one State to block the solution of a question that is of concern to the entire international community. For instance, consideration might be given to the idea of weighted voting. Another possibility is to entrust the General Assembly with the right to overrule the veto if it was imposed by only one permanent member. There are also other proposals on this matter. Changing the existing procedure would constitute an important element in the democratization of the Security Council in particular and the United Nations in general.

The delegation of Ukraine also shares the view, repeatedly expressed in the Working Group, that greater transparency must be ensured in the work of the Security Council, particularly in the decision-making process. We think that this would allow all Members of the Organization to participate more actively in the Council's work and would ensure stronger support for its decisions by all Member States.

The Working Group has done extremely important work. It has showed how States Members of the United Nations perceive the Security Council. The range of relevant views is very broad but much is still to be done to coordinate positions so that future membership of the Council, the efficiency of its work, and its composition meet the interests of all regional groups, all States in general, and each State in particular. Ukraine is ready to cooperate with other States for precisely such a reform of the Security Council.