General Assembly Session 55 meeting 66

Mr. Donigi (Papua New Guinea)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the following Pacific Islands Forum countries represented here at the United Nations: Australia, Fiji, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Zealand, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu and my own country, Papua New Guinea.

The fact that this is one of the most important items on the agenda of the General Assembly is well attested to by the very large number of speakers in the debate. The high degree of participation is also in keeping with the decision of our leaders at the Millennium Summit to intensify efforts to achieve comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.

As we all know, progress on reforming the Security Council has been slow. It is a very complex issue. We believe, however, that the deliberations 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, especially with respect to the working methods of the Council, have made a positive contribution. We now, for example, have much improved access to briefings and debates in the Security Council, especially since the adoption of the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/1999/1291 of 30 December last year. With that alone, the Working Group has proved its worth.

The key features of the Open-ended Working Group are its transparency and its open-endedness. That is so because, whatever the eventual outcome in terms of a reform package, it must have the widest possible support among the membership. Resolution 48/26, which was adopted by consensus, speaks of the importance of reaching general agreement. Consensus on an issue as complex as this will probably not be possible, but it is in the interest of all Member States to contribute constructively and flexibly to the work of the Open-ended Working Group as it strives to build general agreement on a comprehensive package of reforms.

Where indeed do we go from here? Even our own Pacific Islands Forum group does not have a common view on some major aspects of reform, such as enlargement. We all certainly believe that the Council needs to be enlarged to make it more representative. But the devil lies in the details. We believe, however, that the group of 10 countries -- Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal and Slovenia -- got it right almost three years ago in a paper they submitted to the Working Group. Among other things, they said that

"General agreement on a comprehensive reform package is unlikely to be achieved without an understanding on the future scope and application of the veto". (A/52/47, annex XVI, para. 1)

We recall that at the Millennium Summit the Chairperson of the third round table was greeted with particular acclamation when he reported on the strong view in his round table that there was a need to curtail the veto. In the Open-ended Working Group, few dispute that general agreement has been reached on that important part of any comprehensive reform package. We suggest therefore, that in order to move things forward this point needs to be further distilled as a matter of priority.

On a separate but related matter, I should note that at the meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum held at Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati, from 27 to 30 October 2000, Forum leaders agreed to explore the creation of a separate regional group of Pacific States within the United Nations. We are conscious that the present regional group system, which has long outlived its usefulness, was a creature of Security Council reform in the 1960s. Perhaps reconfiguration of the regional groups, possibly making them smaller with a more effective policy coordination role, would be another signpost to the future and a means of cutting the Gordian knot we currently face.

I wish now to address the Assembly as the representative of Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea supports the following views. First, we support the view that there must be an enlargement of both the permanent and the non-permanent membership of the Security Council.

Secondly, we believe that small States should be considered as equal partners in the development of initiatives to secure international peace and security for all humankind, regardless of wealth, size and sophistication of military, on-ground involvement in peacekeeping, or financial contribution to the work of the United Nations. In this regard, we believe that small States can contribute objectively on international peace and security issues without being hung up about subjective elements. Thus, small States should not end up being marginalized in any Security Council reform.

Thirdly, Papua New Guinea believes that we can make substantive progress by developing a procedure for reaching agreement on the nature of each issue, on an issue-by-issue basis, bearing in mind that delegations have the right to hold reservations regarding the question of the veto. We urge members to consider this as a more constructive approach than the holistic one. This view is even consistent with the efforts of some delegations to promote results-based budgeting for the United Nations. In that regard, Papua New Guinea joined the other Pacific Islands Forum members in making a regional statement supporting results-based budgeting in the Fifth Committee last month. It would seem to us that a results-based budgeting approach cannot be promoted if we continue to seek wider agreement on all fronts during the debate on Security Council reform. It can be achieved, in our view, only if we set certain benchmarks for ourselves. I put it to the Assembly that those benchmarks must be established on the basis of a step-by-step approach rather than a holistic approach.

In respect to the Forum leaders' agreement to explore a separate regional grouping, Papua New Guinea believes that the current Charter of the United Nations reflects the bipolar politics that existed in the 1950s.

If indeed the future of the world will be based on the absence of a bipolar power syndrome, then the whole regional grouping within the United Nations system must of necessity be reviewed as well. It is in that respect that the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea, when addressing this Assembly in September 1999, stated that there is a need to reconfigure the geographical landscape of the United Nations.

In such a reconfiguration, Papua New Guinea would anticipate that each subregion will be represented on the Security Council. What should therefore be considered is some discussion on the composition of the subregions. This would form the basis of an objective discussion of the size of the expansion of the Security Council. The implications for world peace and security would therefore be a primary function of the countries of the subregion in the first instance. It would also mean that the Security Council would become engaged when all avenues for reaching a peaceful outcome at the subregional level have been exhausted. We believe that this is the only way that small States can conceivably play an important role in international peace and security issues.

Mr. Jayanama (Thailand)

At the outset, Mr. President, let me join others who have spoken before me in expressing our appreciation for the work done by your predecessor, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab of Namibia, as Chairman, and by Ambassadors Hans Dahlgren of Sweden and John de Saram of Sri Lanka, as co-Vice-Chairmen 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 during the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. I am confident that, under your keen interest and active leadership, we will make progress.

During the United Nations Millennium Summit, our leaders reiterated the urgent need to reform the Security Council. It is therefore clear that, as we enter the new century, the Security Council, as the primary body entrusted with the indispensable responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, must enhance its legitimacy, transparency, effectiveness and efficiency to deal with the increased and complex new challenges. To achieve this new status, a comprehensive reform package needs to be addressed and agreed upon. The package basically involves three well-known elements: the Council's size and composition; its decision-making process; and its working methods. My delegation would like to discuss these three elements one by one and then raise some points which may assist us in moving ahead.

First of all, on the question of the size and composition of the Security Council, which is known as cluster I, the crux of the issue is: Should expansion take place in both permanent and non-permanent categories, and if so how many new seats should there be and from where? There is already general agreement that the Council should be expanded. The Secretary-General himself drew attention to this when he mentioned in his millennium report that:

"Based on the distribution of power and alignments in 1945, the composition of the Council today does not fully represent either the character or the needs of our globalized world." (A/54/2000, para. 44)

Thailand fully associates itself with that remark and believes that expansion should involve both permanent and non-permanent categories, with the proviso that new permanent members should include developing countries. While attaching importance to the principle of equitable geographical representation, we are also of the view that new permanent members should have the ability and desire to share and make substantive contributions, financially and politically, to the United Nations. By this criteria, we see that Japan is a worthy candidate to be a new permanent member. Nevertheless, before we move ahead on this issue, we need to ask the following question: Do current proposals offer equitable and practical solutions on the new composition?

Secondly, on the decision-making process of the Council, to the overwhelming membership of the United Nations the heart of the problem is in what form the veto should be modified and whether new permanent members should be accorded veto power. With the sole exception of the permanent five, Member States find the veto and its present practice outdated and unacceptable, as it runs counter to the democratic character of the United Nations. On this issue, we should ask why the permanent five need to retain their veto power in the present form.

Thirdly, on the question of the working methods of the Security Council, also known as cluster II, there has been good progress, unlike on the other two elements. We, for one, certainly welcome the fact that some of the proposals have already been taken up by the Council. Cluster II issues have moved ahead because they pose less of a threat to the permanent five's power structure and do not involve amending the Charter. Nevertheless, because the working methods are more transparent and open, they are very important to all non-members of the Security Council, which represent more that 90 per cent of the membership of the United Nations.

This is already the eighth year of our deliberations. Even now, it is regrettable to note that the Working Group at its last session was unable to agree on any substantive recommendation for the General Assembly to consider. The question that many people are asking is: How long shall this exercise go on without progress? This question was asked when I was a Vice-Chairman of the Working Group two years ago and is still being asked today.

Certainly, the current stalemate is not due to a lack of ideas and proposals, for since our work began we have seen many innovative proposals. But now that the options are already on the table, we should try to seek answers to the questions that I posed earlier. Otherwise, we will continue to go over the same ground as in previous years without moving any closer to our reform's objectives.

The way to move forward on the issue of the size and composition of the Security Council is to find a formula that ensures greater equity in the expansion of the Security Council. We need to have a more equitable sharing of the cake. We need to reach a general agreement on a formula for dividing the cake more equally among all players, including a group of important large and medium-sized countries that feel they will not be getting enough of the new cake relative to their substantive contribution to the United Nations. For this equity to come about, a reorientation of thinking regarding the formula of dividing the new cake is necessary.

As to the issue of the veto, it is a question of recognizing and modernizing one's moral and political responsibility. Responsibility here means that those who have the veto should demonstrate their willingness to limit their use of it. Indeed, this responsibility is implicit in the Charter when it speaks of the Security Council as an organ which acts on behalf of all of us. In fact, most of us are realistic enough to accept that the abolition of the veto may not be feasible at this stage, but many of us entertain the hope that the permanent five would at least pledge publicly to use the veto only in regard to actions under Chapter VII of the Charter. This could be a major breakthrough in moving the overall process forward. This magnanimous decision will not only collectively enhance the permanent five's moral and political standing, but also lay down the basis for denying the veto to new permanent members should we agree to have them.

The last and maybe most important factor is leadership -- more specifically leadership of the permanent five. Given their privileged position, it is incumbent upon them to exercise the leadership that is expected of them if they really wish the Security Council reform to move forward. In the final analysis, everybody knows that in the Security Council unanimity of the permanent five can move the world. Agreement within the permanent five would pave the way for all other players to play their part in a more realistic way in reaching a truly comprehensive and balanced compromised package.

All the above elements are indeed necessary for a possible comprehensive package, but perhaps not sufficient. In the last seven years decision making in our Working Group has been based on consensus. We need to ensure that its deliberations are not hindered by its working methods. Many delegations, including the Bureau of the Working Group at its last session, have already suggested that our working methods need to be reviewed. Given that the Working Group is the focus of efforts to achieve a comprehensive package on Security Council reform, improving the working methods of the Working Group itself may well turn out, with the necessary political will, to be the decisive issue in facilitating progress.

Finally, the fifty-third session of the General Assembly already passed resolution 53/30 by consensus, thus translating the "general agreement" mentioned in General Assembly resolution 48/26, into numbers -- in other words, any resolution or decision on Security Council reform needs at least a two-thirds majority of the Member States. Since by that decision, two-thirds majority voting is foreseen by the General Assembly on this important issue, should we not then proceed on this basis in the Working Group as well?

Mr. Paolillo (Uruguay)

The process that we have undertaken to reform the Security Council has been characterized by the somewhat paradoxical fact that although there is a unity of purpose that we all share virtually unanimously, we have nevertheless been incapable after such lengthy and difficult negotiations of reaching an agreement on how to achieve our objectives.

Certainly we have acquired in-depth knowledge about the problem, and we have made some progress, such as the elaboration of rules on the practices and working methods of the Council and the adoption during the fifty-third session of the General Assembly of resolution 53/30, establishing the necessary majorities for decision-making on this matter. Nevertheless, we believe that on the fundamental questions, we are still far from reaching agreement -- this despite the generous and intelligent efforts of the President of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab and Ambassadors John de Saram of Sri Lanka and Hans Dahlgren of Sweden, to whom we would like to express our deepest gratitude.

This failure should not, however, discourage us. The unity of purpose remains. We all want to reform the Security Council to adapt it to today's realities and needs. These circumstances, in our opinion, justify the pursuit of our efforts to achieve our objectives and to continue, within the framework of the Working Group, the search for a formula for reform that can rely on the widespread support of the international community.

On the other hand, however, we have had seven years of continuous debate and negotiations, which without a doubt have been intellectually enriching but sterile when it comes to producing results. These seven years, in the view of Uruguay, illustrate eloquently the fact that if we wish to achieve progress, we must broaden our basis of negotiation and begin to consider other alternatives.

We believe that some of the proposals that have been discussed over the last seven years have already exhausted their potential to serve as a basis for agreement and that it would be pointless to insist on these proposals. I am referring in particular to the proposals to increase the number of permanent members, that is the privileged members having permanent seats and veto rights. Regardless of the intrinsic value that these proposals may have as institutional solutions, experience is teaching us that it will not be possible to obtain on these proposals the general agreement that must underpin the reforms. We must acknowledge quite simply that these proposals serve no further purpose and that the time has come to set them aside and to attempt to continue the debate on a new basis.

We agree with those who have said prior to us that the time has come to put to the test our creativity and imagination and to begin to explore new avenues. We are convinced that it is possible to devise new institutional formulas that can satisfy the interests of all, including the interests of those who wish to participate more extensively in the functioning of the Council.

Any formula that is put to us for consideration will nevertheless, have to respect certain basic principles. I would like to refer to some of these principles:

The first one is the principle of sovereign equality of States. One of the most important manifestations of this principle, enshrined in Article 2, paragraph one of the United Nations Charter, is equal representation and equal rights in and before international organizations. The only acceptable formulas for reform will be those that avoid generating new inequalities amongst the members of the Organization.

The existence of institutional inequalities in an intergovernmental organization is a divisive factor that hinder the smooth functioning of the institution. It also undermines the cohesion of the organization. I believe that it is worthwhile recalling the example of the Organization of American States, a regional organization amongst those referred to in Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. We should recall that in the Organization of American States, which takes up problems of peace and security in its region, there are no institutional differences, and all of its members - from the most powerful State in the world to the smallest island States of the Caribbean - have the same rights and the same obligations. There is no doubt that this has fostered integration in the region and the practice of effective continental solidarity.

Moreover, respect for the principle of sovereign equality of States naturally excludes any position that would lead to the broadening or consolidation of the use of the veto. The veto right in the Security Council was negotiated and incorporated into the United Nations system as an instrument of power. Fifty-five years of experience confirms this perception because during this period the veto has never been used to defend collective interests but rather to satisfy the national interests of the permanent members. Consequently, we must pursue our aim of eliminating or at least regulating its use.

The second principle to which Uruguay attaches great importance is the representative nature taken on by those members of the United Nations when they become members of the Security Council. According to Article 24 of the Charter of San Francisco, the Security Council, in carrying out its functions, acts on behalf of all members of the Organization, who conferred upon this organ the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The Security Council must increasingly become less a forum in which its members present the positions of their respective Governments. Instead, its members should increasingly act as the executive body that carries out the will of the entire international community, the collective will of all Members of the Organization.

Thirdly, reforms should not adversely affect the efficiency of the Council. The Security Council is not a deliberative body; it is essentially an executive body. It should adopt decisions quickly when circumstances warrant. There can be no doubt that there is a logical and practically singular response to the need to make the Council more representative: to increase the number of its members. However, that increase must be carefully determined in order that the Council can be convened quickly, that its discussions can take place quickly, and that its decisions can be adopted and carried out quickly.

To sum up, we understand that we must begin a new stage in this process of reform. That phase should be a continuation of our previous negotiations, but this time without redundancies and unproductive positions. In embarking upon that new phase, we believe that there are reasons to be moderately optimistic. We share a common objective. In the course of the last seven years we have acquired in-depth knowledge of the problem and its implications. Above all, we now have a clear vision of the limits within which we must operate; that is to say, we have a clear view of the things to which we must not aspire. I trust we have all learned the lessons of those seven years, and that we are all aware that in this new phase we must adopt a more realistic and flexible attitude if we truly want to achieve our common purpose.

Mr. Lewis (Antigua and Barbuda)

I stand to speak on behalf of the States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and to make clear that our position has not changed from the statement delivered by Ambassador Samuel R. Insanally of Guyana on 24 June 1999.

By and large, CARICOM supports the position of the Non-Aligned Movement with regard to a balance that will include both developed and developing countries. CARICOM remains open to negotiations in an effort to find an eventual solution, while emphasizing that the underlying motivation should be based on the principle of equitable representation. The principle of equity is one which, for many reasons, CARICOM wishes to stress.

With regard to the contentious issue of the veto, CARICOM has insisted that it is linked directly to the matter of increasing the number of permanent members. In the belief that there should be no discrimination whatsoever between permanent members, we have posited that this privilege should be extended to any new entrants in this category. Of course, our fundamental view is that the veto is now anachronistic and anti-democratic, and should therefore be abolished. Given, however, the political reality, we are prepared to consider, for the time being, a restriction on the use of the veto to issues falling under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

With regard to having periodic reviews pertaining to both the composition and functions of the Security Council, we consider this idea to have great merit, and some of our States have proposed that this should happen every 15 years.

In concluding, CARICOM wishes to make it abundantly clear that while engaging in this exercise for a more democratic and effective Council, we must likewise explore to its fullest extent the role of the General Assembly under the United Nations Charter in strengthening international peace and security.

Ms. Jarbussynova (Kazakhstan)

The historic Millennium Summit played a significant role in raising the awareness of the international community about the future role of the United Nations in bringing about a better tomorrow for all mankind. The eminent gathering of heads of State or Government made a great contribution to the promotion of peace, security, social development and human rights. The world leaders unanimously adopted the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which is aimed at revitalizing the United Nations and its capability to respond effectively to the challenges of the new century and to provide the framework for joint efforts to maintain international peace and security. That document notes, inter alia, the necessity to intensify the efforts of the international community to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.

In this respect, my delegation believes strongly that the debate on this issue has been going on for too long. For nearly seven years, we have not been able to take a responsible collective decision. The expression "lost time is never found" is most appropriate in our circumstances. As the whole Assembly is well aware, the Open-ended Working Group established to consider all aspects of the question of an increase in the membership of the Security Council began its deliberations in January 1994. At that time we were all confident that it would be a very productive process that could make a significant contribution towards achieving the main objectives. To our regret and great disappointment, the Working Group has failed to elaborate a unanimous approach on a package of reforms, including the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council.

Time requires all of us to act in unity to assume the responsibility for the future of the United Nations and for the future of the Council in particular, as that body is mandated under the Charter of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security. My delegation believes that we have to intensify the negotiation process in the framework of the Working Group in order to fulfil our commitment to make the Security Council a relevant and effective factor in the present-day world.

Kazakhstan has not changed its position with regard to the question of Security Council reform, which has been voiced at the highest level more than once during the last seven years. The Council should be more representative. Its work should be more accountable and more transparent. We stand for the expansion of the Security Council in both categories of its membership, on the basis of equitable geographical representation and respect for the sovereign equality of all United Nations Member States. Kazakhstan also supports the inclusion of Germany and Japan as permanent members of the Council, taking into consideration the substantial contributions of those States to the United Nations budget and the significant roles they play in the multifaceted activities of the United Nations.

We also support permanent membership of the Council for major developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, and an increase in the number of non-permanent members. On the issue of the veto, the use of the veto, like that of any other powerful instrument, should be restricted. Its application to decisions under the provisions of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter should be linked to the principle of accountability.

Peacekeeping operations are a vital tool for the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The effectiveness of peacekeeping has been a focus of the Security Council in recent years. Recently the Security Council adopted a resolution on peacekeeping operations which clearly indicated the necessity of strengthening the activities of the Security Council in that field; that in turn implies a pressing need to reform the Council as soon as possible.

The twentieth century was marked by two world wars, the cold war and the arms race. The international community continues to experience great suffering caused by conflicts, violence and discrimination. Since the beginning of our discussion of Security Council reform, the world social and economic situation has worsened. That sends a clear message that there is an urgent need for the United Nations and its Member States to make a continuous effort to strengthen the role of the Security Council in the twenty-first century, seizing the opportunity offered by the political momentum seen at the Millennium Summit.

Mr. Bakoniarivo (Madagascar)

My delegation joins previous speakers in conveying its appreciation and gratitude to the members of the Bureau 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 for the commitment they have demonstrated over the past year.

My delegation attaches particular importance to the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council because of the Council's great importance for the maintenance of international peace and security. Although we should welcome progress with respect to the Council's working methods -- such as the increased number of public meetings, post-meeting briefings and summaries provided by outgoing Presidents -- the persistence of seemingly unresolvable differences on substantive matters such as the size and composition of the Council and the right of veto justifies the concern and frustration that have been expressed by the majority of delegations, and which my delegation shares.

The restructuring of the Security Council is an inevitable part of any reform exercise the Organization may undertake. Enhancement of the Council's credibility through far-reaching reform should be based on the principles of democracy, the sovereign equality of States and equitable geographical representation. Like a majority of other Member States, Madagascar believes that maintaining the status quo can only harm the functioning of the Council and could cause a crisis of confidence in the ability of the United Nations to safeguard the collective security system established by the Charter.

In view of the changes that have taken place since the establishment of the United Nations, my delegation unreservedly supports the expansion of the permanent and the non-permanent membership of the Security Council in order better to reflect the new configuration of international relations.

In that context, Africa -- which represents not only the majority of Member States but also the majority of the issues debated in the Council -- should be better represented in both categories of Council membership. The anomalous situation in which Africa is not among the permanent members of the Security Council must be put right in the interest of equity, justice and the Organization's credibility. In the new millennium, Africa should not merely be the object of Security Council resolutions; it should be a responsible participant in the maintenance of international peace and security. My delegation takes this opportunity to reaffirm that peace is the business of us all -- large and small, rich and poor -- and that lasting peace can be attained only by pooling the efforts of all members of the international community.

Moreover, my delegation is convinced that more involvement and greater responsibility for African countries in the maintenance of international peace and security, through membership of the Security Council, would promote the spread of a culture of peace throughout the continent.

In the light of those considerations, my delegation endorsed the June 1967 Harare Declaration of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) on reform of the Security Council. That Declaration calls for democratization and equitable geographical distribution in an enlarged Security Council, and expansion of the Council to a total of 26 members in both categories of membership, of which Africa would be allocated at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats. We also remain committed to the position of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement as stated at their 1998 Durban summit.

The right of veto is among the most complex and controversial questions in the exercise of restructuring the Security Council. Many oppose retaining a tool which is viewed as anachronistic, undemocratic and contrary to the principle of the sovereign equality of States, on which the Organization is based. As the United Nations is guarantor and trustee of universal values, its organs, especially the Security Council, must provide a reliable benchmark for democratic principles. My delegation is by no means unaware of the political considerations inherent in the right of veto, but we believe that it is essential and urgent to rethink the way it is used, in the light of its negative impact on the Council's ability to play its Charter role. The use of the veto should be limited to action under Chapter VII of the Charter, pending its complete abolition. In the view of my delegation, the proposal by which a State would be obliged to explain to the General Assembly why it had vetoed a draft resolution deserves careful consideration by the Working Group.

The delegation of Madagascar is aware that Security Council reform is a lengthy and difficult exercise. But we hope that we will be able at this session of the General Assembly to make decisive progress on pending issues thanks to our determination to address this sensitive matter with constructive, realistic ideas and with fresh political will in keeping with the spirit of the new millennium.