General Assembly Session 51 meeting 49

Mr. Kamal (Pakistan)

Much attention was devoted, throughout the fiftieth session of the General Assembly, to the question of the restructuring and reform of the Security Council. Much of that exercise was initiated and conducted partly because it was the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, and many thought that something needed to be done as it turned 50, and partly because of the serious financial situation in which the Organization found itself, leading to the search for some sort of a package deal that would quickly fix these financial problems and make them disappear at the snap of a finger.

Little thought was given, however, to the far deeper need to re-examine the very fundamentals on which our assumptions of 1945 were built and to attempt to identify a fresh set of objectives that could lead our Organization into its next half century. It is this inability to come to terms with the new realities of a world 50 years down the line that has led to the impasse we are at today.

Throughout the fiftieth anniversary year, the negotiations in the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council remained largely deadlocked. The report of the Open-ended Working Group, contained in document A/50/47 of 13 September 1996, confirms this, as it shows that no headway was made on any of the core issues during 1996. It is unfortunate that despite three years of negotiations we are not even close to reaching agreement on the fundamental issues of the expansion and reform of the Security Council. The fact is that this is due to the very wide divergence of views on the fundamental principles on the basis of which the Council should be expanded.

There are those who want the reform of the Council to merely take into account the appearance of some new political and economic actors on the global scene. The vast majority, however, argues that the reform should take into account the emergence of a large number of countries as a result of the decolonization process that took place after the Second World War. There are also those who rightly argue that if we really want to reform the Security Council, then we should re-examine the fundamental assumptions on which this institution was established in 1945 and see if these are still valid after 50 years, and whether they will continue to be valid for the next 50 years. The situation in 1945 was after all a totally extraordinary but static one. The victors of the Second World War simply allocated to themselves permanent seats on the Security Council. In the process, they created a non-democratic centre of privilege and invented the anachronistic veto. We should not, therefore, repeat the mistake of 1945.

Over the past three years, our debate in the Working Group has been mostly repetitive. We have moved from an issue approach to a cluster approach, and back to an issue approach again in an effort to make forward movement. If we have not been able to succeed, it is because the problem before us is essentially political and not procedural in nature, with vast differences in opinions.

The fact is that there is no consensus today, nor is one likely in the foreseeable future, on a quick expansion in the permanent membership of the Security Council. The reality is that the existing permanent members are not willing to accept restrictions on their power of the veto, let alone to renounce it. The fact is that many important members of the Security Council and the General Assembly are not even willing to allow forward movement on the working methods of the Security Council, as they want to hold any reform of the working methods hostage to a quick decision on expansion. The reality is that, but for a few countries, most of the members of the General Assembly would be quite happy to see an expansion of the non-permanent category alone in the Security Council.

Over a dozen proposals have so far been formally submitted on the question of an increase in the membership of the Council. However, none of these proposals appears to have been able to attract the necessary two-thirds majority in support. We know that six countries have announced their candidatures for the permanent membership of the Council. Two of them are economic Powers today. Others are being perceived as no more than floor-crossers from the original Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) position on centres of privilege that they themselves had traditionally espoused.

Pakistan continues to be strongly opposed to any increase in the permanent membership of the Council. The Prime Minister of Pakistan at the fiftieth anniversary session of the General Assembly said that:

"The Security Council needs enlargement, but not in its permanent membership." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session, 39th meeting, p. 24)

That statement echoes the opinion of the vast majority of the Members of the United Nations.

We believe that any increase in the permanent membership would serve the interests of only a few countries and would be to the detriment of small and medium-sized countries, which constitute the overwhelming majority of the membership of the United Nations. Pakistan, like most of the others, remains strongly opposed to centres of privilege within the United Nations system. These are anachronistic, anti-democratic, and contrary to the spirit of sovereign equality as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

An important fallout of permanent membership is the "cascade effect", which has been described in document A/AC.247/5 of 14 September 1995. It would be fair to say that by increasing permanent membership, we would not only strengthen the club of the aristocratic elite, but would also proportionately reduce the chances of election of non-members to United Nations organs.

Pakistan and many other countries advocate an increase in the category of non-permanent membership in order to proportionately reflect the increase that has taken place in the general membership of the United Nations. In this regard, the non-aligned position is that if there is no consensus on an increase in other categories of membership -- and as we know there is none -- then expansion should take place only in the non-permanent category for the time being. Only a very few delegations have categorically stated that if there was no increase in the permanent membership, there would be no expansion of the Security Council at all.

It is high time, then, for us to try as quickly as we can, to establish that which is achievable, and that which is not. To do so, we need to determine first of all, once and for all, whether there is or is not any chance of a consensus emerging on the issue of the expansion of permanent membership. If there is not, which clearly appears to be the case, then let us identify, without wasting any more time, what really is doable in the way of Security Council restructuring and reform.

Since major divergences exist, could we not as a first step consider the expansion of non-permanent membership alone, and some reform of the working methods of the Security Council? This would respond to the wishes of the vast majority of Member States. In this context, I would again recall the non-aligned position, namely that if there is no agreement on other categories of membership, then expansion should take place in the non-permanent category for the time being.

At least two papers presented in the Open-ended Working Group already have the support of nearly two thirds of the membership of the United Nations, namely the non-aligned position paper of February 1995, and the non-aligned veto paper of March this year. In addition, the Mexican proposal on the veto, and the Czech proposal on Article 31 appear to enjoy very wide support. There is also the interesting Italian proposal, which has received very wide support, and which in essence refers to an increase in the non-permanent membership. These papers could form the basis of our future discussions in the Working Group.

The Czech proposal that non-members of the Security Council should be allowed to participate in informal consultations of the Council under Article 31 of the Charter, hits the nail on the head on the question of the absence of transparency in the so-called informal working processes of the Security Council. This absence of transparency was less important some years ago, when the Security Council met infrequently and adopted only the very few resolutions that it did. Now that it meets every day, mostly in informals, and is taking daily decisions, surely some method can be found to enable those who are interested to observe and follow its work and deliberations in a more elegant manner than through corridor gossip and hearsay.

Other issues that merit consideration include enhanced cooperation between the Security Council and the General Assembly; consultation between the Security Council members and a country which may be affected by a decision of the Council; the institutionalization of consultations between the President of the Security Council with the respective Chairmen of regional groups on important issues, regular and transparent briefings on informal consultations; the institutionalization of a system of consultations during the decision-making process on the establishment, the conduct and the termination of peacekeeping operations; the availability to all Members of the records of the sanctions committees; the greater use of political mediation arrangements by the Security Council for the settlement of disputes; the use by the Council of the International Court of Justice; a greater involvement of the general membership in the decision-making process of the Council; the institutionalization of the briefings of the President of the Council to the general membership; provisions for the prompt convening of formal meetings of the Security Council at the request of a State Member of the United Nations; and a review of the veto power of the permanent members.

In conclusion, we are not here to repeat or compound the errors of 1945, but to reverse them. Our objective should be to expand the Security Council and to review its working methods, and other matters related to its functioning, in a way that further strengthens its capacity and effectiveness, enhances its representative character, and improves its working efficiency. It is not an easy objective, but let us make an honest attempt to achieve it.

Mr. Butler (Australia)

Mr. President, as this is the first occasion on which I am addressing the fifty-first session of the General Assembly, may I begin by repeating the remarks made to you on 30 September by my Foreign Minister, Mr. Alexander Downer, when he expressed to you the immense pleasure Australia feels at seeing you, the representative of a close, neighbouring country, presiding over this Assembly. I know personally that your skill and determination will guide us well in the year ahead.

It is impressive that so many Member States have chosen to take part in this plenary debate on the question of the Security Council of the future. As it has been a long debate, I will come fairly directly to the point.

No one should doubt the deep importance of this subject. Of all the things known about the United Nations amongst interested groups of people around the world, the first is that the current configuration of the Security Council is no longer right. The same is true of the world's media. Sadly, the media all too often fail to report other aspects of the work of the United Nations, but unfailingly report the work of the Security Council; and the media, like ordinary citizens, know that the Security Council needs to be modernized.

These facts have a clear meaning. If we delay any further in coming towards closure of our work on the modernization of the Security Council, we will risk serious criticism and ultimately great harm to the United Nations in ways that go beyond the work of the Council itself. It is with this conviction that Australia offers the following remarks.

The debate of the past few days has shown, once again, that there is general acceptance that the Security Council must be expanded and modernized. The question of how expansion and modernization should be achieved has been the subject of intense, often difficult but, ultimately, very valuable discussion in the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council. Australia is deeply grateful to the co-Vice-Chairmen for their work and, perhaps especially, for their patience.

What can be said of last year's work? First, the Open-ended Working Group made substantive progress during the fiftieth session of the General Assembly in laying the groundwork for a solution with respect to the size and composition of an expanded and modernized Council; the decision-making processes of such a Council, including the veto; and improvements in its working methods. Secondly, but paradoxically, despite the richness of the debate and our exhaustive discussion of proposals and approaches, the Working Group was obliged to conclude its deliberations of the fiftieth session no closer to an agreed solution than when it began, three years ago.

The meaning of these two equal but apparently contradictory facts is that we must find a way to move forward during the fifty-first session of the Assembly. Put simply, the kind of shadow-play we have been witnessing should come to an end.

The Working Group must not continue simply to debate the issues for a further year. The issues have been thoroughly discussed. We are all familiar with them. To repeat the debates yet again would lead nowhere, other than possibly to public disappointment.

What we must do now is begin serious negotiations on a whole package of amendments to the Charter, because, let no one forget, in the end that is what is at issue here -- amendments to the Charter.

Australia will work actively for a consensus outcome. Negotiations to that end should be concluded within a reasonable time-frame and presented to the General Assembly for consideration, in accordance with Article 108 of the Charter. If consensus does not prove possible, then a package that appeared to command the support of a very substantial majority of Member States might have to be acted upon by the Assembly.

Australia shares the widely accepted view that the membership of the Security Council needs to better reflect current political and economic circumstances. We think that the following elements would be essential parts of any such whole reform package.

First, Japan and Germany must become permanent members. This is the very least the United Nations can do to acknowledge their status and the financial contribution they are making to the Organization.

There must also be permanent seats for under-represented regions. How this should be achieved needs further discussion. Not what but how this should be achieved needs further discussion, primarily by the regions concerned. For Australia's part, we are flexible. Such seats could conceivably be filled by a single Member State or by rotating membership amongst leading Member States, but agreed to by the regional groupings.

Next, the number of non-permanent members of the Council should be increased in such a way as to ensure more balanced and equitable representation. In this context, a number of interesting proposals have been put forward in the Working Group, and again Australia remains willing to discuss these flexibly.

So what would this mean for the total? The total number for an expanded Council should be about 25. Such a number would allow for the kinds of increases I have just mentioned without causing a reduction in the efficiency of the work of the Council.

In addition, it is essential that the terms of Article 23 of the Charter, with respect to the characteristics of States seeking election to the Council, be followed faithfully. The Council is not a universal body but a representative one. It must be made up of States that meet the primary criteria outlined in Article 23. The democracy of the United Nations is deeply rooted in the General Assembly, but the Council reports to the Assembly.

We must insist, then, that its report be material, not merely procedural, and that consideration of it by the Assembly is a significant political event and be recognized as such. It is in this context -- the context of the democracy of the General Assembly -- that every Member State has and must retain its equal voice with all others. But those who preach a notion of rotation as a first principle in the context of elections to the Security Council are in fact seeking to revise the important terms of Article 23 of the Charter.

It is beyond doubt that there is deep concern to arrive at a new understanding and clarification of the veto power, its inner nature and the legitimate conditions under which it can and should be used. Unwelcome though this issue may be for some, it must be pursued.

As a final point, I would emphasize that without agreement on the size and composition of the Security Council, other pressing aspects of both Security Council and wider United Nations reform are very unlikely to be realized. The most pressing example of this is provided by the current debates on contributions to be paid by Member States. These issues are not likely to be resolved until Member States have decided on an increase in the permanent membership of the Council, given the implications that such an expansion would have for the scale of assessments and the payment of contributions.

I hope that, during your term as President and under your guidance, this Assembly will see substantial progress towards solutions to the reform of both the Security Council and the United Nations more widely, in keeping with the agreement reached in the fiftieth anniversary Declaration that we

"will give to the twenty-first century a United Nations equipped, financed and structured to serve effectively the peoples in whose name it was established". (Resolution 50/6, fifth preambular paragraph)

My delegation will support you in whatever steps you take towards ensuring the beginning of substantive negotiations on a package of amendments to the Charter through which the Security Council can be modernized.

Mr. Van-Dunem "Mbinda" (Angola)

I would like to thank you, Sir, for calling on me to express, in the name of my Government, our point of view on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

At a time when profound changes are taking place in the international arena and the United Nations is being increasingly called upon to face new challenges that are not always conciliatory and require the concerted efforts of all Member States, regardless of size, geographical situation or economic and military might, it is vital that a broad programme of comprehensive reform of the multilateral institutions be adopted to further measures, in a decisive manner, for the democratization of international relations based on the rule of law and the mutual benefit of States.

My delegation took note of the report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council, which reflects the agreement reached on the need to expand the Security Council, review its working methods and other questions related to its operation, in such a way as to reinforce its capacity and effectiveness.

Allow me to express our support for you, Sir, in your assignment of steering these proceedings and, at the same time, to acknowledge all those who have made a dedicated effort to accomplish this work, in particular the outgoing President and the two Vice-Chairmen of the Working Group. We hope the outcome of those efforts will help improve international relations in the days ahead.

We would like also to support the statement made by the Ambassador of Colombia on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

As an important component of United Nations reform, the reform of the Security Council presents itself today, as we approach a new century, more than ever before as a crucial need to which no one can remain indifferent.

The reform of the Security Council must focus on redressing the imbalance in regional representation, a particularly serious inadequacy in the representation of developing countries. A more democratic and transparent Security Council, as far as decision-making and implementation are concerned, can only become a reality when it has equitable, and hence non-discriminatory, representation and when the number of its permanent and non-permanent members is addressed in the light of the new realities arising from 50 years of the work of the United Nations.

We believe that such an important body of the United Nations should have the necessary prerogatives to respond to the challenges of today's changing world. An organ such as the Security Council has to be strong and responsible enough to tackle international matters whenever and wherever it is required to do so. It is nevertheless important to state that efforts to ensure the transparent character of this body must continue.

For the Republic of Angola, whose position of principle on this matter is the same as that stated by the Organization of African Unity, the claim to a minimum of two permanent seats in the Security Council is the claim to a right to which the African continent is entitled and one that we will not abdicate.

We also support the right of other world regions to be equitably represented in the Security Council through permanent member status. In our opinion, it is not enough, however, to increase the number of permanent and non-permanent members in the Council; it is also crucial that the new members elected to this relevant United Nations organ be recognized as having all the appropriate rights and responsibilities, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, including the veto right, on an equal footing. We have noticed with great apprehension that, in some circles, a new category of permanent member is being discussed that would deprive the respective countries of some of the prerogatives that the current five permanent members have today. My country vigorously opposes that solution and appeals to its sponsors to give up this idea.

The use of the veto by the current permanent members of the Security Council is a question that concerns us all and that, in our opinion, warrants the careful attention of the Open-ended Working Group in charge of the reform of the Security Council, although we believe that the discussion of such a matter should not be linked to the decision that will be made on the expansion of the Council.

In the opinion of my country, Angola, the use of the veto is inconsistent with present-day realities, and therefore we are in favour of its abolition or, if that is not possible, of its amendment and the consequent granting of that prerogative to new members that are elected. My delegation considers that major elements for comprehensive reform are now on the table and that at its next round of substantive discussions the Working Group should move to a more concrete phase.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate our willingness to continue to work within the Open-ended Working Group, because we believe that, with the concurrence of all Members of the United Nations, it will be possible to transform the Security Council into a more democratic United Nations body, with operating methods that do not discriminate against any country or region in the world and that will help to make our planet a world of peace and development.

Mr. Dlamini (Swaziland)

I welcome once again the opportunity to participate, on behalf of the delegation of the Kingdom of Swaziland, in deliberations on this very important core issue of United Nations reform: the question of equitable representation on and expansion of the Security Council.

The Security Council is the only organ of the United Nations charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. Its successes or failures, weaknesses or strengths affect all Member States as well as the other organs of the United Nations. It is therefore important for the Council to underscore its legitimacy through equitable representation that is proportional to the increase in the membership of the United Nations. Without such expanded representation, the legitimacy of its authority remains questionable.

When the Organization was formed 50 years ago, many countries in existence today, especially in the regions of Africa and Asia, were still fighting for their independence from colonial occupation and domination. The world had just experienced the gigantic scourge of the Second World War. The painful lesson of the war prompted the victors, meeting in San Francisco, to arrogate to themselves enormous powers and privileges in an effort to ensure that the mistakes that had led to the war would not recur.

Enormous changes have taken place since the formation of the Security Council, and since the end of the cold war -- most notably, the increase in the membership of the United Nations. Obviously, the status quo in the Security Council does not reflect all contemporary realities. This legacy should not continue in perpetuity. The fact that circumstances in the international system have changed so fundamentally is a compelling reason for change in the composition of the Council. The present composition of the Security Council is generally unrepresentative, iniquitous and anachronistic. Such a situation is inconsistent with the universal principles of democracy and the equality of States. These principles not only hold sway, but also form the cornerstone of international discourse among nations.

The issue of the size and composition of the Security Council, particularly with regard to the permanent membership, which is the bone of contention, is also of major concern to my delegation. The Kingdom of Swaziland is convinced that the position of Africa in its quest for a minimum of two permanent seats is necessary and justifiable. We therefore stand by this view, and we are ready to engage in further discussion with Member States to find a lasting solution to this matter. However, a fruitful debate can be carried out only if the permanent members exercise flexibility to accommodate change.

Several proposals have been advanced for an increase in the non-permanent membership of the Security Council. We believe that 25 should be a minimum figure and that the principle of equitable geographical representation must be strictly observed in both categories of Security Council membership. In our view this would enhance the legitimacy of the Council's authority; it is the only way to address the imbalance that afflicts the Council, in which four out of five permanent members represent the same civilization.

Turning to the process of decision-making in the Security Council, including the issue of the veto, my delegation fully associates itself with the declaration of the Non-Aligned Movement that was adopted at the Eleventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries in Cartagena, Colombia, in October 1995, in which they reaffirmed their commitment to promote a better relationship between the Council and the General Assembly and also to encourage the curtailment of the use of the veto.

Finally, measures should be taken by the Council to enhance its working methods and procedures and to improve its working relationship with the other United Nations organs and the general membership. Such measures should also be formalized and institutionalized so as to ensure their effective systematic implementation. While we recognize the fact that measures have been taken by the Council to improve its working methods, these measures remain partial and unpredictable, and are implemented only at the whim and will of the Council.

I should like to make some remarks addressed directly to you, Mr. President, in your capacity as my colleague and friend. Your country has assumed the presidency of the General Assembly, and it is faced with a number of crucial issues that beset the global world today. I have this question to ask you, Mr. President: Have you ever considered the possibility of holding a session in which Member States could devote time to invite God to participate with us? In such a session we could pray, in all the languages that we speak here, asking God to intervene to guide the United Nations, especially the Security Council, as it faces and disentangles the issues that are a bone of contention, and deals with the pain that affects us from head to toe and to our deepest marrow.

Any success that we can achieve can be possible only if God the Almighty can be invited persistently and be given a chance. I know very well, Mr. President, that you say you pray in your own household. I wish to reaffirm the belief of the Kingdom of Swaziland, which believes in God, that, where there is a problem, God is ready to intervene. There is a problem in the Security Council, but how often have we invited God to soften the hearts of those countries that are misusing the power of veto to the great detriment of the small nations? You will pardon me, Mr. President; the spirit of God has inspired me. But I would conclude by inviting you to consider this seriously. Through God, we shall be successful. Through God, the United Nations can change.

Mr. Ayewah (Nigeria)

In contributing to the debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters, my delegation would like to express its appreciation to the co-Vice-Chairmen of the Open-ended Working Group who, during the fiftieth session of the General Assembly, worked tirelessly and with a great deal of purpose and patience in an effort to reach meaningful conclusions. The deliberations thus far have revealed the complexity of the subject matter and the challenges facing the Working Group. It has certainly not been an easy task, and the position of the co-Vice-Chairmen has not been a particularly enviable one. We thank them for the efforts they have made in producing the report of the Working Group, which is now before us as document A/50/47 of 13 September 1996.

As one of the sponsors of the initial resolution that led to the inclusion of this item in the agenda of the thirty-fourth session of the General Assembly, the Nigerian delegation is disappointed that after such a long period of time we are no nearer to an agreement on the most appropriate composition of the Council, nor are we closer to a solution of the key questions of the expansion and size of the Council in both categories of membership. In fact, we seem to be going around in circles. Year in and year out, the Working Group starts out with a lot of ideas and hopeful proposals, but it seems to end up at a dead end. Against the background of the wide-ranging ideas that have been expressed and the rich discussions we have had, the paucity of this year's report attests to this unsatisfactory state of affairs.

In our judgement, we cannot really reinvent the wheel. The issues are fairly clear. Agreement or progress will be possible only if there is political will to make the hard decisions and undertake the necessary political compromises in order to have a reformed Security Council that is democratic, equitably representative and that truly acts on behalf of all Member States.

The foregoing is not to suggest that there were no positive developments in our deliberations during the past year. For example, the notion of a so-called "quick fix" under any guise has been put to rest. It is inequitable and politically unacceptable, and I am certain that even the potential beneficiaries of such an arrangement would be uncomfortable with such an outcome. Similarly, the concept of rotational permanent seats, even on a regional basis for developing countries, has not found favour with all Member States. There is therefore the need to revisit the concept.

There was also the notion of a concert of medium Powers that would rotate more frequently as non-permanent members of the Security Council. The difficulty with that option relates to the modalities of determining membership of such a group. In any event, it would be tantamount to establishing a third category of membership that is not recognized by the United Nations Charter. My delegation believes that that option should not really be pursued.

With regard to the working methods of the Council, there has been a great convergence of views on the need for continued improvement, particularly in terms of improved transparency and greater democratization of the Council's decision-making procedures.

On the question of the veto, the Non-Aligned Movement, in a paper that has received overwhelming support, has offered a view. The conclusions reached in that paper deserve the serious consideration of the current permanent members of the Security Council. In our view, permanent membership confers a privileged status that in turn implies responsibilities and obligations. It is our hope, therefore, that the permanent members will see their way clear as to the necessity of the needed reform of the Security Council and extend their willing cooperation to the process in the interest of their own credibility, equity and justice. Until the veto is ultimately abolished, we believe that its use should be rational and selective and confined only to issues under Chapter VII of the Charter. Clearly, we fail to understand why, in today's world and in terms of realpolitik, the decision on the appointment of a Secretary-General -- and for that matter, the next Secretary-General of the Organization -- should be subject to the preferred options or predilections of one or two powerful Member States. It is a question that should be considered in a fully democratic and transparent manner by the General Assembly so as to ensure that whoever emerges enjoys the support of all Member States. The same principle should apply when we consider the admission of new Members.

Concerning the composition and size of the Council, my delegation continues to assert that the current anomaly of non-African representation in the permanent membership category deserves urgent correction, for the continent has not only the largest number of United Nations Member States, but those States, collectively, constitute almost one third of the United Nations general membership. In this context, the collective decision of Africa to have a two-seat representation in the permanent membership category deserves the full support of all Member States. We would, however, wish to clarify that the modalities of that representation should be left to Africa.

Mr. Ayewah (Nigeria)

The Charter recognizes two categories of membership. We believe that the proposed increases should therefore be in these two categories, permanent and non-permanent membership, without discrimination between the powers of the old permanent members and the new ones. All permanent members should enjoy the same rights and powers and assume the responsibilities incumbent on membership. Besides, the Charter provisions should not be amended solely to serve a short-term purpose.

In conclusion, let me say that the fiftieth session of the General Assembly provided an enabling momentum for our work by further clarifying issues and concepts. Our Working Group's deliberations should not be interminable. We believe that the status quo in the Council is unrepresentative and out of tune with current international realities. It demands urgent collective action for its restructuring and reform.

We therefore charge the Open-ended Working Group with redoubling its efforts during this fifty-first session of the General Assembly, under Mr. Razali's distinguished chairmanship, in order to come up with concrete proposals that would address in a holistic manner, and not piecemeal, all the issues regarding an increase in permanent and non-permanent membership, working methods of the Security Council and the question of equitable geographical distribution of seats in the Council. It is appropriate to state that with the necessary political will it is possible to reform and restructure the Security Council to meet our collective wishes and aspirations.

Mr. Reyn (Belgium)

For three years now our Working Group has been considering all aspects of the reform of the Security Council. Thanks to the active participation of Member States, under the wise guidance of our two Vice-Chairmen, many proposals have been made and lengthy discussions have been held.

Allow me to remind those who might have forgotten that a group of Member States, including Belgium, submitted a document for discussion only which was reproduced in the report of the forty-ninth session. We believe that, broadly speaking, the principles contained in that document have lost none of their validity and are still relevant. And we are prepared to discuss them with those who share similar concerns.

What are these principles? I would single out three. First, reform will be useful only if it leads to increased efficiency in the Security Council. Secondly, the current representation of the Council no longer reflects today's realities and needs to be strengthened. Finally, there is a need to restore legitimacy to the limited body that is the Security Council.

Implementation of these principles should in the longer run allow us to agree on the following points. First, expansion of the Security Council should take place in the two categories of permanent members and non-permanent members; in our view, this is primarily a question of balance within the Council. Secondly, the increase in permanent and non-permanent members should be based on the current distinction between the two categories. Thirdly, the expanded Council should not consist of more than 25 members. Fourthly, a limit on the usage of the veto should be discussed. Fifthly, it should be possible to review the membership of the Council.

We believe that it is time to move beyond the phase of discussions and exchanges of views, which, it must be admitted, have in recent months become rather repetitive. Let us be quite clear: there is no panacea for reforming the Security Council. However, several aspects of the proposals submitted and of the ideas introduced deserve more in-depth discussion so they can be judged on their own merits. In our view -- and this is just an example -- the idea of regional representation for the category of permanent members, assuming that there is to be an increase in the two categories of members, requires further analysis, based objectively on its advantages and disadvantages. Similarly, a debate on the use of the veto or on the review of the Council's composition -- to take two other examples -- remains necessary, if only to clarify our thinking.

Finally, with regard to improving the working methods of the Council, we believe, as many others do, that real progress has been made. However, we believe that current measures need to be taken farther. In particular, we need to see to it that certain principles and certain rules of transparency are applied. We think that such vigilance would be more useful than requiring that the measures be formalized and institutionalized. But we see no problem in such formalization where it is conceivable and possible.

We really believe that, after three years of discussion, it is time to identify the various points that need to be considered calmly and in greater depth and to act accordingly. We now need to move forward. The credibility of the Organization as a whole is at stake.

Mr. Escovar-Salom (Venezuela)

The Declaration adopted on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, says that

"The Security Council should, inter alia, be expanded and its working methods continue to be reviewed in a way that will further strengthen its capacity and effectiveness, enhance its representative character and improve its working efficiency and transparency; as important differences on key issues continue to exist, further in-depth consideration of these issues is required." (Resolution 50/6, Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, para. 14)

The international community must abide by this commitment. In this context, we express our support for the endeavours of the Open-ended Working Group on the subject now before us. We hope that soon, when we take up this work again, we will arrive at a consensus.

From the start of the debates on the reform of the Security Council, Venezuela has reiterated its position that a comprehensive approach should be taken to its restructuring, account being taken of all dimensions of the issue, particularly in the areas of composition, decision-making and working methods.

As to its composition, we have advocated a modification that would reflect the increase in the membership of the United Nations and improve the arrangements of 1945 in order to move towards more democratic formulas. Venezuela expressed this position even when the Organization was created. In this way, regional groups could be guaranteed greater representation, and a more proportional and representative relationship between the Council and the General Assembly would be established, which would greatly enhance the legitimacy of the Organization.

We consider that this increase in the membership of the Council should apply to the category of permanent members as well as to that of non-permanent members. If we do not succeed in obtaining a consensus on a straightforward increase in the permanent membership of the Council, we might consider a rotation among those countries that, although not permanent members, could also contribute actively to the taking and implementation of Security Council decisions. Furthermore, all the other non-permanent members should have their annual chance of assuming a seat on the Council increased.

We do not believe that only economic, political or military potential should be taken into consideration in this matter. In any case, what is set out in Article 23, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter is still valid because of its flexibility with regard to the election of countries for the two existing categories, as well as with regard to the possibility of a new formula.

With regard to working methods, even though there has been no agreement on basic aspects, progress has been made in the search for greater transparency. We insist on the need for the Security Council to continue to improve its procedures, and we consider that only the comprehensive reform of the Council will lead to a real increase in its legitimacy and efficiency.

Regarding the decision-making process, my country has, ever since it became a Member of the United Nations in 1945, been in favour of eliminating a power that was created in response to circumstances that no longer exist today. We believe that this exceptional faculty should be limited to cases that endanger international peace and security, on the basis of Chapter VII of the Charter.

We appreciate the complexity of this process, but we also must stress that if we remain bogged down in the exchange of views, the process could become an interminable and fruitless debate that would hinder the achievement of specific agreements and risk losing the impetus gained on this issue in recent years.

Venezuela is still convinced of the need to review and modify the structure of that organ in the light of the demands of a changing world. It is therefore essential to continue the endeavours to achieve a Security Council that represents all regions fairly. We should demonstrate to world public opinion our creativity in designing new formulas, as well as our political will to reach consensus in a matter of such great importance. An agreement in this matter will no doubt establish the bases for an international order of greater solidarity, ensuring the reign of law and justice.

Mr. Cassar (Malta)

The rich diversity that has characterized the debate on Security Council reform is encouraging. In its report, the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council identifies issues and problem areas. However, the dynamics within the Group have not as yet led to common ground. Our collective endeavours during the forty-eighth, forty-ninth and fiftieth session have not born fruit.

This fact in itself demands reflection. It indicates the importance Member States attach to the Security Council's role and to changes which have occurred and will continue to occur in the international community. Awareness of the need to expand the Security Council to enhance its representative character is equalled by that of retaining and improving upon its efficiency. Neither of these two basic objectives is divisive. It is in the method by which these objectives are to be pursued that differences exist.

Debate has stimulated creativity. The benefit of the diversity of possible options, however, is counterbalanced by the distance which still persists between national positions. The negotiating process requires of us a marked effort to bring to fruition three years of debate and discussion. Indeed, our shared belief in the need to expand and enhance the efficiency of the Security Council imposes a degree of urgency in the identification of solutions. The way forward requires flexibility and compromise as tools. It also demands a reciprocal effort in understanding and comprehending the aspirations and the concerns of different delegations.

The report correctly states that during discussions on the size and composition of the Security Council,

"It became clear ... that a number of Member States were not ready to take final positions because of interlinkages between the size and composition and other matters in the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group." (A/50/47, para. 23)

On the question of an increase in permanent membership, many States have retained an open mind, asking legitimate questions regarding the criteria on which to base such a decision, now and in the future, for any course of action adopted will, in fact, establish a precedent. Can the historical realities which influenced the Council's composition 50 years ago be paralleled or matched in any way by present contingencies? Can earlier or existing proportionality justify extrapolation today? How can factors which are non-permanent and change over time determine permanence?

Malta has listened attentively to the answers given to such questions and has taken note of the disposition of States that have expressed a willingness to serve. Regardless of the evaluation of these answers by individual Member States, the fact remains that at present a common position on this delicate issue appears remote. Should this impasse block altogether the prospect of an equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council? Compromise solutions could be inspired by contemporary trends, realities and practices.

We have a number of proposals and formulas on the table which seek to direct us to the path of compromise, whether for arrangements for a more frequent rotation by certain Member States, or for the expansion of the non-permanent category to reflect the number of States in each region, or for following the precedent set in the first expansion, when there was an equal increase in the number of non-permanent seats per regional group. The current distance in positions could also point towards first-step solutions, if only for now. This would help us avoid being hostage to those fundamental questions that still need to be resolved. The Non-Aligned Movement's suggestion to overcome the lack of agreement on the increase in other categories of membership by expanding, for the time being, the non-permanent category is an option to be borne in mind.

Realpolitik can take us a step further. Expansion could take stock of the de facto patterns of service on the Council, which reflect the increased role and contribution of some Member States in the maintenance of international peace and security. We all are conscious of the desire and will to serve of those able to do so more regularly. Their past role and their future potential holds promise for an effective contribution to the work of the Security Council. Italy's proposal in this regard seeks to take into account these realities without creating new categories of membership. Malta continues to view this proposal with positive interest, as it recognizes both the special contribution of a number of States and the right of all States to serve on the Council regardless of their size, wealth or military might.

Apart from restating the need for equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, the report also reiterates the call for improved transparency and efficiency in the Council's work. Improvement of the working methods of the Security Council cannot be underestimated. A number of measures have already been taken to better the flow of information between the Council and the general membership. Such efforts enhance the relationship between the two. This is an absolute necessity, for regardless of the extent of the expansion that may ultimately be agreed upon, at any point in time the vast majority of Member States will not be on the Council. Lack of information could impede that active symbiotic relationship between the Council and the General Assembly to which we all aspire.

An enhanced, structured process of consultation between these two principal organs and their members would contribute to the transparency of the work of the Council and facilitate the Assembly's effective input, particularly in those areas or on those issues of which the Council has been seized for prolonged periods of time or on which it has encountered difficulty in taking immediate and effective action.

The world community can only benefit from an actively enhanced engagement of the General Assembly and its members in the search for solutions to issues of concern, which cause suffering and distress to whole populations of innocent victims.

Our discussions on decision-making in the Council have also led to interesting exchanges. The veto and its use and extension have been debated extensively. Malta has already stated that the question of veto can best be resolved by letting the veto fall into disuse without prejudicing future discussion on the desirability of its abolition. Other equally important aspects of decision-making deserve earnest consideration. The further involvement of affected States in the decision-making process, albeit not in the decision-making of the Council itself, would enhance the Council's effectiveness. Such important exchanges as have occurred very recently have enabled interested Member States to address items of concern to them and the Council itself to better reflect the will of the international community it represents.

The maintenance of international peace and security and the central role of the Security Council are as crucial to the substance of this debate as they are to the Organization. Most of the reforms proposed retain the role of the Security Council as guarantor of peace, while recognizing the need for an evolution in its membership and in its relationship with the General Assembly. The final outcome of this exercise must safeguard the institutional balance that the Charter provides.

The item before us remains delicate. The road ahead is neither simple nor easy. Through sustained effort, future discussions can benefit from the lessons of the present. This requires of all Member States the political will to seek common ground and build on compromise to give to the international community an expanded and enhanced Security Council.

Mr. Mtango (Tanzania)

The agenda item before us has, understandably, attracted divergent views, positions and proposals from the entire membership of the United Nations and the world community at large. The intense and varied exchange of views that has been going on for the last three years is clear testimony to the importance the world attaches to this organ and its role in determining the destiny of our Organization.

The end of the cold war and the tremendous increase in the Organization's membership have made the need for reform not only compelling but possible. With a membership of 51 at the time of its inception five decades ago, the United Nations had a total of six non-permanent members on the Security Council, representing about 12 per cent of the total membership of the Organization. With the current almost fourfold increase, the percentage has further dwindled, as the present 10 non-permanent members of the Council now represent less than 6 per cent of the membership of the United Nations. While we all agree on the need for reform, we have so far not reached agreement on the nature and scope of the reforms to be effected. This is the crux of the matter.

My delegation has underlined that the reforms of the Council must be both comprehensive and continuous. This means that for us, the overriding objective of the reforms is to bring about the Council's greater democratization by restoring the balance of representation between the developed North and the developing South in both categories of membership. We see this as a process that will bring justice and greater empowerment to the Council. For, ultimately, if we reach agreement on a balanced expansion of membership in both categories by reforming its working methods and its decision-making procedures, we shall have erected a firm foundation for a dynamic, efficient and more relevant Council whose jurisdiction and decisions will enjoy universal acceptance.

The Council today faces new and complex problems of security that were not apparent 50 years ago, or were subsumed within the international political processes at play within the larger context of the cold war. Today the problems of internal conflicts, of various potential areas of instability and of terrorism have direct implications for international peace and security.

All these matters require new and creative approaches, including those of peacemaking, peace-building and even peacekeeping. The Council therefore needs to undergo the kinds of reforms which will make it responsive to and capable of dealing with traditional problems as well as these new ones. What therefore is needed in the reforms we seek is to strengthen the capability of the Council in handling matters of international peace and security. Failure to do so, or insistence on non-reforms such as partial measures, will not only serve to reinforce the status quo, but will also do harm to the integrity and efficiency of the Council and undermine our collective efforts.

Africa, being the most under-represented, should be given the highest priority since it has three non-permanent members, compared to, say, the Western region which has a total of seven seats -- four permanent members, and three non-permanent members. Africa deserves at least two permanent members in the Council and also, in all fairness, an increase in the non-permanent seats.

Needless to say, the Council will have to undertake periodic reviews of its mission, membership and working methods, as well as continuously adjust to changing circumstances and address itself to new needs. This is why we must not see the present exercise as a one-off issue, but rather as a necessary and continuing process of consultations. Of course, the issues are difficult, especially because they involve questioning entrenched political privileges of some of our countries, and the possibility of limited devolution of some prerogatives. This notwithstanding, we must persevere and not succumb to the easy but temporary options of abandoning the reform process or to the temptation of partial measures. Ultimately, humanity in its entirety has a legitimate right to ask for involvement in decisions that affect its well-being and its future.

Linked to the expansion of membership is the question of the Council's methods of work, including its decision-making procedures. Increasingly, decisions are being taken by a few permanent members of the Council, thus steadily moving us away from the lofty ideals enshrined in Article 24 of the Charter. We have repeatedly pointed out the imperative of bringing about greater democratization of the methods of decision-making and allowing for greater transparency. We take note of the efforts made to pull the Council from the shroud of secrecy, but those efforts have only scratched the surface. Decision-making remains the prerogative of a few, often without giving the general membership the chance to contribute to the making of those decisions. Equally, the working procedures and their resultant decisions remain subservient to the political prerogative of the permanent members and without the rigour of justice or consistency.

The wind of change which has swept across the world has reinvigorated the democratization process. Democracy, transparency, good governance and accountability have become the pillars upon which the Governments of most Member States are anchored. Given the expansion and deepening of democracy at the national level, we should expect to see a corresponding embrace of the ideals of the system at the international level, and certainly within the United Nations. This is why it is a contradiction in terms to see rigidity and arguments for preserving the status quo in the United Nations system for decision-making mechanisms on critical issues, including the question of the veto. The veto power, flawed in principle as it was and remains, may have had a useful purpose during the cold war era, but with the improved international environment and, indeed, the increase of diplomatic avenues to resolve differences, the continued existence of the veto is as undemocratic as it is irrelevant. We must now have a clear resolve to liberate the United Nations from this obsolete and undemocratic legacy of the cold war.

Reforms must not only be real, but must also be just and equitable. Because the Security Council acts on behalf of the general membership of the United Nations, full consideration should be given to the aspirations and interests of developing countries, which account for the majority of the United Nations membership. In this respect, the Assembly, being the most representative of all United Nations bodies, ought to be vested with the most authority and responsibility. After all, is this not the essence of democracy? Greater accountability of the Council to the Assembly should move from the realm of theory to a partnership in facing the new challenges of international peace and security.

Collective security requires the Council to be a genuine representative in terms of equitable geographical participation and for it to cease being an instrument for enforcing policies of an exclusive club. Its members should try to seek the widest support possible in the process of reaching decisions.

Our ultimate objective in pursuing these reforms is to bring about a democratic, representative, dynamic and revitalized Security Council which will be more relevant to the common problems we all face. The new Council will then be able to seek the partnership of all Member States, especially through the General Assembly, in taking decisions by majority consent. That is the ideal we should aim for.

My delegation understands, however, that it will not be easy to reach that objective of democracy, the abolition of the veto and expanded representation as soon as we wish. This is why we are of the strong view that the larger part of the membership of the United Nations ought to be represented in an expanded manner, especially in the permanent category of membership so that, from within, the developing countries can contribute to the process of reform of the Council.

We have every reason to believe that Member States will have the political courage to go the extra mile in favour of a credible and equitably representative new Council. Reforms that do not meet the aspirations of the majority will only perpetuate mistrust and frustration among Member States, thus working against the tide of democracy.

Mr. Sychou (Belarus)

One of the most topical and important issues now being considered by the United Nations is the question of the reform of the Security Council, the increase in its membership, the strengthening of the proportional representation of regions and the improvement of the working methods and procedures of the organ primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

The current membership of the Council reflects the outcome of the last reform of this body 33 years ago, in 1963. Clearly, much has changed since then and, as a number of statements have pointed out, the current system already seems less ideal than it did in the 1960s. In fact, it has resulted in a situation in which almost 80 countries have never participated in the work of the Security Council and about 40, including a number of founding Members of the Organization, have participated only once.

There are many other aspects of the work of the Security Council that the majority of Member countries of the Organization find unsatisfactory. They include an imbalance in the representation of regional groups in the Council; insufficient transparency in its working methods; the influence of the national interests of a number of leading members of the Council on questions that affect the interests of all the other Member States of the United Nations; the high price of the right of veto; the negative side effects the sanctions regimes imposed by the Council have on the civilian populations of countries indirectly affected and on the economies of third countries; the failure of a number of peacekeeping operations; and several others. The reform aims to eliminate these deficiencies.

The reform is not designed merely to inform Member States of decisions adopted by the Security Council, but really to ensure the broad participation of all countries in this process. Given the serious differences of position between groups of countries and individual Member States on a whole range of the most important aspects of the reform of the Security Council, the process of reforming this organ should commence with those elements of reform that are supported by most States.

During the recent round of negotiations and consultations in the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council, which is entrusted with consideration of this question and the drafting of corresponding recommendations on it, a number of proposals were made on possible ways to reform the Security Council. As the Assembly knows, positions focus on three basic approaches to the problem. First, reform should lead to an expansion of the category of permanent member of the Security Council. Secondly, reform should be limited to expansion of the category of non-permanent member of the Council, without any expansion of the category of permanent membership. Thirdly, the expansion of the Council should cover both permanent and non-permanent membership while the working methods of the Council, including the use and scope of the right of veto, are improved. At the same time, it is quite clear that, unless agreement is reached on expanding the membership of the Council, it will be impossible or extremely difficult to resolve any other question relating to the work of the Council.

In September this year, on the eve of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly, the Open-ended Working Group adopted a report which, in our opinion, for the first time over the last three years covers virtually all aspects of the problem spelled out in its full title. We cannot fail to recognize that this was largely brought about by the important fact that the Security Council has recently adopted a number of steps to improve both its interaction with States that are not members of the Council and its working methods. We support a further strengthening of the relationship between the Security Council and the Members of the Organization as a whole. It is hard to imagine any reference to the Security Council as an organ that acts on behalf of all States Members of the United Nations without this kind of close relationship.

It is characteristic that, at this stage, most United Nations Member States, including Belarus, place particular emphasis on the problem of the equitable and balanced distribution of seats in the Security Council and States' increased participation in its work. The positive side of a number of proposals made during the thorough discussion on an increase of the membership of the Security Council this year is the desire to find a balance among the interests of all groups of countries.

It is appropriate to recall that the membership of the Eastern European Group has almost tripled in recent years. It is no coincidence that, in the summary of discussions contained in the report that the Working Group submitted to the General Assembly, it is reported that:

"The view was expressed that expansion of the Security Council should also take into account the increase in the membership of the United Nations by countries belonging to Eastern Europe in the context of an overall equitable geographical distribution." (A/50/47, para. 24)

Thus, more and more Member States are recognizing that, as things stand today, any increase in the membership of the Security Council would be counter-productive if it did not take account of the interests of the Eastern European Group. While we support this report as a whole, we express the hope that this factor, which has been finally recognized by a majority of Member States will be developed further and logically in all the future activities of the Working Group. From the very outset, we have stressed and are prepared to stress again and again that Security Council reform is possible only if the legitimate interests of all groups of countries are taken into account, since it would be difficult to go along with any decision that would exacerbate the present disproportionate membership in this body.

In their turn, regional groups should establish mechanisms for rotation, in accordance with the universal principle of equitable geographical distribution of seats in the Council, not only among but also within regional groups. When reaching regional agreements on proposing candidacies for non-permanent membership in the Security Council, such important factors as the ability of applicant countries to contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security should be taken into account. In the light of current priorities, particular attention should be given to countries that make a significant, generally recognized contribution to the strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and effective efforts to strengthen regional and global security by carrying out their obligations under the major disarmament agreements and treaties in this area.

Nevertheless, there is still not enough awareness of the problem of equitable geographical distribution in reforming the Security Council and attempts are being made to solve the problems of one group of countries at the expense of or by circumventing others. The report of the Working Group on the results of its work for this year and the atmosphere in which it was adopted at the final stage of its work speak volumes about how far we still need to go before we reach consensus, without which the reform of the Security Council will just not work.