General Assembly Session 55 meeting 65

Mr. Listre (Argentina)

We have already had the opportunity to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly. We would now like to express our satisfaction at seeing you preside over these meetings on an issue that is vital to the future of our Organization: Security Council reform. Your authority and ability will undoubtedly contribute to the success of our deliberations.

In resolution 48/26 the General Assembly decided that the best way to tackle Security Council reform was through an Open-ended Working Group. The full membership of this Organization gave the Group the task of examining every aspect of Council reform. It is worth recalling that this task falls exclusively to the Members of the Organization. It is not easy, nor is it free of controversy. Its implications are so important for the Organization that there is a general understanding that the solution must be acceptable to all. It should therefore be reached by consensus.

We reiterate our belief that the most appropriate forum to continue dealing with this arduous and difficult issue is the Working Group, where decisions cannot be rushed nor can artificial time limits be imposed that could be counterproductive to the goal of reforming the Council.

We must bear in mind that reforming the Council does not only entail increasing its membership. It also includes other aspects, such as improving its working methods and the issue of the veto, if we want a more representative, accountable, democratic and transparent Council. All these aspects must be dealt with jointly and resolved.

Our heads of State and Government, meeting in New York at the Millennium Summit, stated in their final Declaration that we should

"intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects." (resolution 55/2, United Nations Millennium Declaration, para. 30)

The message is clear. I emphasize the words "in all its aspects". That means that there cannot be partial solutions.

The deliberations on working methods, dealt with in Cluster II, deliberations in which our country has actively participated, have been fruitful, and significant progress has been made on a wide series of issues. Consistent with its position, Argentina has strongly supported improving the Council's working methods and increasing its transparency. It has done so both within the Working Group and in the Council itself since becoming an elected member last year. For example, in February this year, during Argentina's Council presidency, the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2000/155 was adopted, formalizing our delegation's proposal that States newly elected to the Council be invited to observe the Council's informal consultations for one month immediately preceding their term of membership.

The deep differences that still exist on reform refer mainly to an increase in the number of permanent members and the question of the veto.

As for the first -- an increase in the number of permanent members -- Argentina considers that there is no legal basis in some States' claim to become permanent members other than the crude rationale of power. Why should we accept that some States cease to be equal to the rest and become part of the category of the privileged five that are already permanent members? The reason is not to be found in the law. The only reason that could be invoked is that today some of these countries are rich and powerful and are in a better position than they were in 1945. Some are even wealthier and more powerful than those that are still permanent members under the 1945 scheme. Owing to their wealth, they contribute more money to maintaining this Organization, in accordance with the principal of the capacity to pay. In some cases, they contribute voluntarily more than they are required to, and for this the Member States are deeply grateful to them. But those circumstances are not the basis for privileges such as permanent membership and the veto.

My country's traditional position has been to oppose privileges and distinctions within international organizations. That was our position in 1920 in the League of Nations, when we opposed discrimination against the countries that lost the First World War, and it has been our position in this Organization since its inception. We reiterated it in the last general debate, when we said:

"The vast majority of the international community -- seeking to ensure respect for the values of democracy and universality -- believes that a new Security Council will have to allow for greater participation by all. This cannot be achieved if new permanent seats -- like those established in 1945 -- are established. Reform of the Council must allow all States a greater opportunity to participate in the Council, which must not be monopolized by only a few countries. For this reason, Argentina supports exclusively an increase in the number of non-permanent members". (A/55/PV.27, p. 27)

The new non-permanent-member seats to be created should continue to be filled on the basis of the criteria established in Article 23, paragraph 1, of the Charter: their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security and equitable geographical distribution. We think that regional groups should decide how those new seats will be distributed among their member States. As a whole, this procedure has been efficient, and therefore it should be maintained. Regional distribution allows the small countries a greater opportunity to accede to positions within the system of the Organization, compared to the situation if the General Assembly decided the distribution without regional considerations that take rotation into account.

As far as the right of veto is concerned, our position is moderate and realistic. We are not suggesting that the five permanent members should immediately abandon their privileges. We know that they will not do it. What we seek is ways to limit this privilege for a period of time until its final elimination is negotiated. We regard as interesting the proposals to limit it during that interim period to cases involving the application of Chapter VII of the Charter.

We believe that the best way to make progress is to abandon absolute positions and seek rational consensus solutions. We must accept that present circumstances do not justify the repetition of past frameworks. Sterile discussions are what have caused and continue to cause deep divisions within the Organization, and they are holding back progress on the reform of the Council.

We invite the minority of countries that are holding on to archaic privileges, and in doing so obstructing the reform of the Council, to abandon their elitist stance and, in a democratic spirit, be open to the claims of the vast majority of countries that aspire to reform of the Security Council in order to make it more representative, democratic, transparent, accountable and effective.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom)

First, let me thank you, Mr. President, for calling a debate on this agenda item. Allow me to pay tribute to the contribution to the reform debate made by your predecessor as General Assembly President, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, and his two Vice-Chairmen, Ambassadors Dahlgren and de Saram. The United Kingdom looks forward to working closely with you and your Vice-Chairmen during the coming year.

The need for Security Council reform is more pressing today than it was seven years ago, when the Open-ended Working Group was established to look at the modalities for change. When the Council was last enlarged, in 1965, the United Nations had fewer than 120 members. Today it has 189, and over 30 of those have joined in the last 10 years. It is essential that the Security Council be made more representative of this membership: the membership on whose behalf it acts and whose full confidence it needs when meeting its primary responsibility for international peace and security. It must also work in as transparent a manner as possible, allowing for extensive consultation with non-members as well as with troop contributors and with individuals or organizations with relevant expertise. It must, at the same time, retain the necessary efficiency to tackle the many and complex conflict situations on its agenda in a timely and effective manner.

We are pleased that significant progress has been made over the past year on improving the Council's working practices. On 30 December 1999, in my capacity as President of the Council that month, I issued a note (S/1999/1291) setting out a number of points to improve procedural practice. The provisions of that note have now been put into effect. Matters concerning the Middle East, the Balkans, African States such as Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and East Timor have been the subject of briefings and debates in public meetings in the Council Chamber, with the wider membership in attendance, rather than in informal consultations of the Council. The balance between public meetings and informal consultations may still not be quite right, and there is further work to be done on matters relating to participation. But the work of the Council has now become significantly more accessible to non-members, without any diminution of its ability to take effective action.

The Council has, during the reporting period, been prepared to contemplate imaginative procedural innovations when the occasion required -- reviving the practice of private Council meetings, for instance. The Council has also shown that it can use new formats to take its work forward. An example is the ambassador-level meeting between Council members and troop contributors that took place in preparation for the Security Council mission to Sierra Leone. In its recent resolution 1327 (2000), on United Nations peace operations, the Council underlined the importance of an improved system of consultation among troop-contributing countries, the Secretary-General and the Security Council. We welcome this undertaking and support its early implementation.

I hope that the Council will continue this welcome trend towards openness, and that it will be prepared to try procedural innovations when necessary in the course of the coming year. In response, it would be good to see the wider membership using the greater opportunities to address the Council to debate points more spontaneously and reactively. The United Kingdom will continue to encourage an evolution in that respect.

However, as many speakers are noting in this debate, far less progress has been made on the equally important issue of Council enlargement. The Open-ended Working Group worked hard on a conference room paper on cluster I issues during the fifty-fourth session. This usefully set out the options and encouraged a more focused debate. As a result, the Vice-Chairmen have set out a number of useful general observations in a further conference room paper annexed to the Working Group's report. In that paper they have identified several areas of general agreement, including on the principle of enlarging both categories of membership. Many States confirmed their support for that principle at the Millennium Summit and in the opening week of this session of the General Assembly, and yet more have done so thus far in this debate. It is also clear that there is broad agreement that expansion must include both developed and developing States. I take this opportunity to reiterate the United Kingdom's full support for these two fundamental principles, which will underpin any final agreement on enlargement.

Of course, the approach that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is a key principle for the Working Group in its work. But if the Working Group is to make progress, it needs to identify the issues where there is already substantial agreement, and focus its energies on addressing those where agreement remains more elusive. This is just one suggestion for making the Working Group more effective. The United Kingdom encourages you, Mr. President, to look creatively at other ways to make the Working Group a more effective forum capable of delivering progress on the essential and urgent task of making the Council more representative of today's United Nations membership.

The United Kingdom is committed to making real progress on Security Council reform during the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly. We stand ready to assist you, Mr. President, and your Vice-Chairmen, with our full support.

Mr. Mangueira (Angola)

In the view of the Angolan delegation, the present issue of Security Council reform constitutes one of the most important questions with regard to strengthening the United Nations. In accordance with Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and acts on behalf of all Member States of the Organization. It is no wonder, then, that the question of Security Council reform is of particular interest, as it covers issues such as increasing its membership, the use of the veto power and the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council itself.

We also cannot forget that the United Nations Charter was adopted at the San Francisco Conference shortly after the end of the Second World War, when among other things, there was recognition of the prestige of great Powers, with their political, economic and military superiority, which allowed those States to impose their main points of view and perspectives.

Since 1945 the world has changed politically and economically. The number of sovereign States has nearly quadrupled, and all of them play an active role in the changes that have taken place in international relations. We see developing countries playing a role in international affairs and in the solving of problems, and we also witness the appearance of new economically powerful States that have undoubtedly contributed to changing old world realities into new ones.

Having acknowledged the role of the United Nations as guarantor of the peace and well-being of peoples in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter, it is urgent that we begin to carry out actions to adapt its internal structure to new world realities. That would enable the United Nations to deal rapidly and effectively with the main problems facing the world and to keep its Members from resorting to solutions outside the established framework of its principal organs, especially the Security Council.

There have been many proposals concerning Security Council reform, but, along with preceding speakers, we think that our main goal must be to revitalize and strengthen the United Nations system. Taking into account Articles 23 and 24 of the Charter, and in our own view, the Security Council requires greater internal democracy; its composition should truly reflect the current membership of the Organization and should be based on equitable geographical representation.

As an African State, Angola endorses the Organization of African Unity Harare resolution on Security Council reform. That resolution set out three points: that the membership of the Security Council should be increased to 26, including both permanent and non-permanent members; that Africa must have two permanent seats based on the principle of rotation, with the same rights enjoyed by current permanent members, including the right of veto; and that the decision-making process within the Security Council should be reformed.

We believe that, in that way, we would be acting in the spirit of the Charter, whose Article 23 provides for equitable geographical distribution and whose Article 24 provides for representation of all Member States. Thus, we consider it important to limit all permanent members of Security Council in their use of the right of veto: that privilege must be used only on issues referred to in Article 24 of the Charter. This means that the veto must not be allowed in cases, for instance, of the admission of a new Member.

To reach such goals, it is necessary for permanent members of the Security Council display open political will to better understand the concerns and the strong desires of the majority of States Members of the United Nations, whose interests the permanent members represent, and also to be more flexible on various proposals on Security Council reform.

Another question addressed by the Working Group is the relationship among the Security Council, the General Assembly and the general membership of the United Nations. We consider that question too to be important. First of all, the United Nations Charter clearly establishes the powers of each principal organ, and consequently the Security Council must act within its competence and its responsibilities under the Charter. It is necessary to reach an equilibrium of competency among the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretary-General in order to fulfil and respect the provisions of the Charter. That equilibrium must be adapted to new realities and objectives, such as preventive diplomacy.

As other members have affirmed, an important step is to make the Council's work more transparent. Angola supports further measures which would allow non-members of the Council, particularly the States directly concerned with an issue, to participate more actively in the Council's deliberations, with a view to finding more effective solutions to matters of peace and security.

The Working Group on Security Council reform has been at work for several years, and undoubtedly there has been some progress in the discussion of this matter. All States, whether small or great Powers, must become more actively involved in the reform process in order to achieve more rapidly the strengthening of our Organization in all respects.

Mr. Widodo (Indonesia)

I should like, on behalf of the Indonesian delegation, to express our appreciation for the inclusion on the agenda of item 59, "Equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters". Let me take this opportunity, Mr. President, also to thank your predecessor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Namibia, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Chairman 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, as well as Ambassador John de Saram of Sri Lanka and Ambassador Hans Dahlgren of Sweden, Vice-Chairmen of the Group, for their commendable efforts to make progress in the deliberations during the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. We fully recognize the importance of the Working Group as the sole mechanism for implementing the mandate of the General Assembly, and we look forward to its Bureau playing a role in giving the Group new direction when it resumes its work next year.

My delegation is gratified to note that the report of the Working Group (A/54/47) reflects the depth and breadth of the deliberations that took place; these covered both cluster I and cluster II issues in a balanced manner consistent with the objective of finding a comprehensive package of reforms on all aspects, as called for at the Millennium Summit held last September. The report contains numerous observations, including in areas where differences have persisted, especially the question of the expansion of the membership of the Security Council, and it describes the progress that has been made on the Council's working methods and practices. It also lays out some elements that will be useful for reflection and reassessment when the Working Group resumes its work. Taken together with the articulation of positions and the submission of numerous working papers containing ideas and proposals, this will serve as a solid basis for further efforts towards our long-sought goal of a reconstituted Council.

Few questions considered by the United Nations have been the focus of so much attention and debate as that of Security Council reform, because of its far-reaching legal and political ramifications that involve the vital interests of all Member States. It is therefore not surprising that, although seven years have elapsed since deliberations began in the Working Group, a general agreement on substantive issues has continued to elude us, owing to divergent national and regional viewpoints.

It is now universally recognized that the membership and structure inherited from 1945 are outdated and obsolete and do not reflect the political, economic and demographic realities of our time. Notwithstanding that fundamental global shift, the Council's permanent membership has remained the same, while developing nations continue to be disenfranchised. That is an anomaly that cannot be perpetuated.

As the Charter-mandated role of the Security Council is the maintenance of international peace and security, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the interests of all nations are adequately reflected in its composition: preserving the status quo would have a profoundly negative impact on the Council's functioning in the new millennium. It is pertinent to note that two thirds of the world's population, in the developing countries, is without representation among the permanent members. Hence, that aspect of expansion should be dealt with in order to address the core issue of gross under-representation. Indonesia believes that there exists near-unanimity favouring an increase in that category to include developing countries, which can no longer be marginalized and whose views will have a substantive impact on the functioning of the Security Council.

Likewise, a consensus exists for an increase in the non-permanent membership, which has not taken place since 1965, despite an increase in the total membership of the Organization from 113 to 189. Adequate expansion in this category would ensure more balanced geographic representation, lend greater legitimacy to the Council's decisions, secure broader support for its decisions and facilitate the sharing of responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by an increasing number of Member States. Such a quantitative increase would also broaden the participation of all countries in decision-making and thereby promote genuine democracy.

In sum, my delegation believes that a sizeable majority supports an increase in both categories of the Council's membership. While the size of the enlarged Council would depend upon the outcome of further deliberations, Indonesia continues to support the position taken by the non-aligned countries in favour of an additional increase of at least 11 members. In this context, we note the flexibility shown by the United States and its willingness to reconsider this question.

As far as the question of the veto is concerned, its exercise in the past to promote national interests, rather than the interests of the international community as called for under Article 24 of the Charter, is still fresh in the memory of all of us. Such practices jeopardize the credibility of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. In consequence, it has often been denounced as undemocratic, which remains the core issue in the reform process. While we welcome the relative decline in the use of the veto and urge its further reduction, there is no assurance that it will never be used. On the contrary, the insistence on this right, or even the threat of its use, as witnessed recently, has led to the marginalization of the Council's role in the maintenance of international peace and security. Hence, there is a near-unanimous desire to progressively curtail and restrict the use of veto to situations falling under Chapter VII of the Charter, pending its abolition. In the interim, and to encourage the more responsible exercise of the veto, the proposal by Germany to explain the reasoning behind the use of the veto merits our support.

It is widely acknowledged that substantive progress has been achieved on the working methods of the Security Council, and provisional agreement has been reached on a number of other issues. There is, for instance, greater receptivity to requests by Members for information and participation in informal consultations. There have been improvements with regard to the practice of holding meetings with troop-contributing countries and with regard to the convening of more formal meetings. However, we recognize the need for greater openness and transparency in the Council. Open meetings of the Council should therefore become the rule and informal consultations the exception, as questions relating to international peace and security are, indeed, the collective responsibility of all Member States.

One of the fundamental issues still pending is the institutionalization of the changes that have already been implemented and their incorporation into the provisional rules of procedure, which as noted by many Member States, have continued to be provisional for more than five decades.

As far as periodic review is concerned, there is a cardinal principle whereby international organizations such as the United Nations cannot remain static against a backdrop of rapid change and transition in the global arena and the growing aspirations of the international community. Consequently, periodic reassessment has become a common denominator for various agencies and bodies. This is particularly essential for political organs such as the Security Council because their credibility and authoritativeness depend, to a large degree, on their adaptability.

Finally, my delegation believes that our approach should be to intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects, as stipulated by the Millennium Declaration. The dawn of a new millennium should provide the impetus and opportunity to reach agreement on a final package of reforms. Accordingly, we look forward to the convergence of views among United Nations Member States on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. It is our hope that comprehensive reform of the Security Council will make it truly democratic, transparent, representative and effective in the maintenance of international peace and security in the twenty-first century.

In conclusion, my delegation extends its best wishes to you, Mr. President, in successfully discharging your weighty responsibilities as Chairman of the Working Group. We remain confident that under your wise guidance, our deliberations will lead to substantive results. We pledge our full cooperation to efforts to achieve this objective.

Mr. Pamir (Turkey)

We are discussing a matter that has particular significance for our individual and collective roles and our standing as United Nations Members. Under the Charter of the United Nations, its Members -- sovereign equals -- confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council, in carrying out its duties, acts on their behalf. It is therefore totally legitimate for us to make our voices heard more effectively through the Security Council. The expansion and changing nature of the role of the United Nations in making and maintaining peace has only increased our interest in the comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects, as affirmed in the Millennium Declaration.

For the past seven years -- that is, since the establishment of the Open-ended Working Group -- Turkey has ardently stood up for Security Council reform during the deliberations of the Working Group as well as in discussions in the General Assembly. Turkey's motives as a proponent of reform are simple and clear: all Members of the United Nations have the inherent right to ascertain that the Security Council is, indeed, their common asset. This means transparency and accountability in its functioning; decision-making that is not guided by privileges; and more frequent opportunity for all to serve on the Council. Are these not also the aspirations of the overwhelming majority?

For the seventh year running, the Working Group has been dragged into a sterile discussion because of the attempts to make even the partial realization of these legitimate goals conditional on bestowing on a few countries new permanent-member status.

Similarly, progress on improving the working methods of the Council is excruciatingly slow, as the permanent members of the Council, together with a few other, are unwilling to move far enough to make the Council truly transparent and accountable. This is because such a reform is likely to result in the significant curtailment of their rights as members of an exclusive club.

To be fair, though, we also acknowledge the modest steps taken by the Council itself in the course of the past few years to make its work and meetings more accessible to non-members. Yet again, these are no alternative to a comprehensive revision of the Council's functioning.

Likewise, the veto is a central and cross-cutting element in our entire discussions of comprehensive Security Council reform. It is the major power that the permanent members can wield and is the invisible contour within which the Council shapes its actions. Yet whenever the Working Group turns to the issue of the curtailment of the use of veto, it is met with a deafening silence on the part of the permanent members.

Yes, our Working Group has not so glorious a past. But who is stalling progress, and why? Evidently there is no broad agreement on adding new permanent seats to the Council for individual States. But there is a general expectation of having a more democratic and representative Security Council. This will be within our grasp once we all discover that no decision-blocking strings can be attached to the increase in the non-permanent membership. It is important that this fact is also supported by the Non-Aligned Movement position. And we agree that the developing countries should be given wider representation in the Council. This is a legitimate requirement which should be treated on its own merits and not as a prospective outcome to be extracted from a bargain that will include giving trophies to some in the northern hemisphere. As has been our common understanding all along, that hemisphere's requirement for additional seats will be duly taken into account in the context of the respective regional groups. These groups will subsequently play their role, independent from one another, in the allocation arrangements for these seats.

We wish the Open-ended Working Group success in its proceedings during the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly.

Mr. Kpotsra (Togo)

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to 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. I would also like to thank especially Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Chairman of the Working Group, and the two Vice-Chairmen, the Permanent Representatives of Sweden and Sri Lanka, for their efforts throughout the year, leading to the adoption of the report currently under discussion.

Although seven years have already passed since the beginning of the Working Group's discussions on the question of the reform of the Security Council, we are far from achieving consensus on the various aspects of the issue. Indeed, this past year the Working Group's discussions seemed to have stagnated, since -- unlike in years past -- the Working Group was not able to reach agreement on any of the general observations that it considered.

Nonetheless, the process must continue and the Member States must commit themselves to seek -- patiently, but with determination -- the elements that can lead to general understanding and agreement on all the issues relating to the reform of the Security Council, which remains at the core of the efforts to modernize the United Nations.

In this connection, we can be pleased with the noteworthy progress made on the issues under cluster II. The observations formulated by the Working Group on cluster II issues have had a positive impact on the working methods of the Security Council. Thus, it can be observed that for the past two years -- following the provisional agreement that the Working Group was able to reach, in which it proposed that as a general rule the Security Council should hold open meetings in which all Member States could participate -- the number of open meetings held by the Security Council has continued to grow.

We can also welcome the concrete information on the Council's discussions that is provided daily. We should also welcome the positive contribution of the monthly assessment of the work of the Council that the Council presidency prepares for delegations.

Furthermore, it is clear that the marked trend towards enhancing the transparency of the Council's work has encouraged the participation of more Member States in discussions of important issues before the Council. This trend certainly played a decisive role in the historic United Nations efforts in East Timor and contributed to helping the Organization better grasp the problems of the African continent.

The injection of increasing doses of transparency into the working methods of the Security Council -- largely inspired by the Working Group's discussions -- should not lead to self-satisfaction. Coordination between the Member States and the Security Council has clearly been improved, and visible progress has been made in several areas, in particular as concerns the holding of open meetings. Nonetheless, we must continue to improve the working methods and the decision-making process of the Council so that they are more open and more effective.

The evolution of international relations over recent years, along with the legitimate aspiration of many States or groups of States to take part in the management of world affairs, calls for us to try to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, if that body is to play fully the role assigned to it under the Charter of the United Nations: to take primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, although this view is shared by the majority of Member States, there remain differences of opinion on most of the issues under cluster I, and the progress on these issues has been very slow.

Indeed, significant differences of opinion continue to persist as regards in particular the type or types of members that might be admitted to an enlarged Security Council, the number of members on such a Council and the areas in which the veto might be exercised. As regards the increase in the number of members of the Security Council, Member States face the reality that some of the permanent members of the Council categorically reject the concept of expanding the Council beyond 20 or 21 members. These permanent members argue that a greater expansion than that would affect the efficacy of the Council. Thus, there exists quite a substantial obstacle to the normal conduct of discussions on the issue of enlarging the Security Council.

Given the deadlock that work on this issue has reached, it is worth emphasizing that commitment to the process of reforming the Council implies that all Member States -- and the largest States in particular -- accept that this process should be considered from the perspective that the composition of the Council does not reflect the realities of the contemporary world, and that, in the end, the reform must lead to the establishment of a more representative and more democratic Security Council. It is absolutely necessary, as a number of heads of State and Government observed during the Millennium Summit in the Millennium Declaration,

"To intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects." (resolution 55/2, United Nations Millennium Declaration, para. 30)

However, this undertaking can succeed only if those wishing for tailor-made reform are ready to accept that the changes which have taken place since 1945 confer on other States and other regions the legitimate right to be represented in the Council and to participate effectively in the management of world affairs, particularly in decision-making relating to the maintenance of international peace and security.

This was aptly recalled by President Eyadema, current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), when he said that the African continent -- although it has 53 of the 189 Member States of the United Nations and although roughly two thirds of the deliberations in the Security Council affect it -- is, like other regions of the developing world, under-represented in this vital organ of the United Nations. It would be fair to allocate it at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats in an expanded Council, in accordance with the decisions of the heads of State and Government of the pan-African Organization at its Thirty-third Summit in Harare in 1997.

Another important area of divergence is the question of the right of veto, which is at the core of Security Council reform. The right of veto, as has been frequently emphasized, directly compromises the function of the Security Council. The need to limit this anachronistic provision is more evident than ever today, as we can see from certain recent crises, such as the renewed violence on the West Bank and in Gaza, thus deadlocking the Middle East peace process. Although proposals have been made on how to limit the exercise and scope of the right of veto, the permanent members of the Council still persist in their opposition to any limitation of this right. This is what comes out of a text of a letter (S/1999/996), dated 23 September 1999 in which the five permanent members state that any attempt to restrict or curtail their veto rights would not be conducive to the reform process.

The rules were defined even before the substantive debate was begun, and even before an attempt to reach consensus on the issue. The argument that since the end of the cold war recourse to the right of veto has been rare, and that therefore it is no longer a threat to the Council's harmonious functioning, cannot justify keeping it, since those who possess it are prepared to use it on occasion to protect their own interests.

These fundamental aspects regarding Security Council reform hardly seem to lead to optimism regarding the current exercise. However, we need to keep in mind that, due to its highly sensitive nature, Security Council reform is certainly a lengthy endeavour. It is important, above all, to seek the most appropriate measures to make significant progress, taking into account the views of the majority of Member States. We hope that the commitments made by the heads of State and Government during the Millennium Summit will inspire the Working Group's next debate.

Mr. Arias (Spain)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe1' in position 5181: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg009-bk01-pa01">The recent Millennium ...form lies exclusively with the Member States.</p>', 5181, 5182, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 5182
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg009-bk01-pa01">The recent Millennium ...form lies exclusively with the Member States.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 5181