General Assembly Session 55 meeting 67

Mr. Insanally (Guyana)

Like my colleague the Ambassador of Antigua and Barbuda, who spoke earlier on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), I would like to thank the President of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly, Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Chairman of the Open-ended Working Group, and his two Vice-Chairmen, Ambassadors Dahlgren of Sweden and De Saram of Sri Lanka, for their leadership throughout the past year in our search for general agreement on the reform of the Security Council. As so many others have confessed, it is increasingly difficult after seven years of discussions in the Working Group to bring new perspectives and proposals to the debate on this item. Therefore, apart from endorsing the views of Ambassador Lewis, I will offer only a few additional comments on the process that we have been following and on the progress that we have made thus far.

We can all agree, I believe, following the discussions of the heads of State or Government during the Millennium Summit, that consensus exists at the highest level on the need to reform the Security Council. Many of us would be prepared to go further and say that it would be possible to agree on the basic shape of such reform. In fact, when CARICOM addressed the Open-ended Working Group in 1997 we expressed the view that it would have then been possible to produce a draft resolution capable of eliciting the support of more than two thirds of the Member States of the United Nations. We are led to this view by the recognition that there is now general agreement that the enlargement of the Security Council should cover both categories -- the permanent and the non-permanent -- and that both industrialized and developing countries should be included in an enlarged permanent category. Furthermore, we believe that the question of the total number of an enlarged Council can be resolved without too much difficulty now that some of the proponents of a very limited expansion have indicated their willingness to consider a somewhat higher number, making possible a balanced expansion in the two categories.

There remains, however, a major obstacle to reform, namely, the issue of the veto. The discussions that took place during the Millennium Summit again made clear the almost universal support that exists for limiting the application of the veto. Permanent members cannot remain inflexible on this issue for much longer. In the face of such overwhelming sentiments for its attenuation, they must move on the issue of the veto to demonstrate their good faith in the reform process. For unless and until we can manage to limit, and eventually abolish, the veto we will not have accomplished much by way of acceptable democratic change. A realistic first step could be for the permanent members to voluntarily limit the use of the veto only to Chapter VII issues, and, following a proposal which I recall was made by Germany some time ago, for them to explain the use of the veto. Such a gesture could go a long way to improving the credibility of the permanent members and, by extension, of the entire Council.

While a resolution of the major issues of the veto and expansion of the membership continues to elude us, we can note with some satisfaction that there has been some progress with respect to improving the working methods of the Council. The Working Group's intense scrutiny of the Council's operation has undoubtedly had a salutary effect on the way in which the Council now conducts its business. However, much more can still be done, as can be seen from the impressive number of proposals included in the annexes to the report. The General Assembly and the Working Group must therefore continue to make a conscious and deliberate effort to achieve these desiderata, since enlargement of the Council will not by itself fully address these core issues.

Moreover, to advance the progress of the Working Group in its next round of discussions it is not sufficient merely to take stock of our accomplishments and our failures. We must go further to analyse the reasons for the current impasse and attempt to remove those impediments. Those reasons are obviously many, but perhaps the single most important is the concern on the part of the majority of Member States that any ill-advised reform may compound rather than remedy the deficiencies of the present Security Council; in other words, that the proposed cure may make conditions worse.

In such circumstances, it would be helpful if certain confidence-building measures could be taken to alleviate this concern and thus provide a dynamic for forward movement. For one thing, the five permanent members and their prospective partners could make concrete commitments to provide adequate levels of financing for both peacekeeping and development. This may provide the necessary spark to ignite the interest of the many developing countries that are usually silent and that are yet to be persuaded of the priority of reform in relation to their other pressing needs. As we have said before, a review mechanism that allows the membership to revisit the arrangement after 10 or 15 years to see how it is working can serve to develop confidence among those who are still hesitant.

Finally, although the reform of the Security Council still appears distant, we must not despair of reaching agreement. Those of us who have been around long enough will recall that when we began the negotiations on the law of the sea we did not know if, or when, those negotiations would ever end. Yet today we have an equitable regime that regulates a major area of international cooperation. We must therefore have hope that the exercise in which we are currently engaged will bear fruit eventually. This analogy, I hasten to assure, is not an argument for filibustering and delay, but rather for the patience and persistence that come from the realization that while international negotiations, like the mills of God, may grind slowly, they also grind surely and will, in the end, yield a worthwhile result.

Mr. Olhaye (Djibouti)

For some 21 years, the issue of the expansion of the Security Council in both the permanent and the non-permanent categories has been before us. And for the last seven years, that issue has been extensively and intensively examined by 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. Further, 35 years have elapsed since the last Council expansion, during which time United Nations membership has grown by nearly 70 per cent, making it a matter of urgency that the Council be expanded to mitigate inequities in the balance of economic and political power and in terms of equitable geographical representation. The Council's selective prerogatives need real transformation if it is to remain effective, relevant and legitimate in this new post-cold-war era.

Considerable progress has been made, particularly on so-called cluster II issues, which focus on the working methods of the Council and the transparency of its work. There is, however, a discernible concern among most Members about remaining differences that must be bridged if we are to achieve meaningful progress on cluster I issues relating to the size of an expanded Council, equitable geographical representation, permanent membership including the privileges attached to it, and, of course, the ever-vexing problem of the veto.

While there is undoubtedly general consensus in favour of continuing the Working Group's deliberations, frustration and resignation can be seen in the statements of some delegations. That is perfectly understandable, but it should not be the sole basis for suspending or halting the efforts of the Working Group, which have generated considerable momentum and have clearly demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of Member States desire both expansion and reform of the Council. We need to move forward, consolidating the gains achieved so far with care and creativity.

We firmly believe that additional measures need to be considered and instituted to strengthen the process. To a great extent, that must be so because a properly reconstituted Security Council reflecting the realities of today's interconnected world is essential for global development, peace and security. This is particularly vital for developing countries. At present, half the agenda items demanding the attention of the Council pertain to Africa, yet it appears all too often that such issues and events do not receive the necessary urgency and concern that are accorded to conflicts elsewhere. Clearly, Africa can represent and sustain its own interests better if it has representatives on the Council on a permanent basis.

It is an anomaly that Africa has not had the privilege -- indeed, the right -- to represent itself adequately and permanently in the Council to promote and defend its interests. This is an unacceptable scenario and it is one more reason why reform of the Council must move, and move fast. In many respects, much the same can be said for other developing regions of the world, whose presence in the Council would definitely be warranted. While political and economic power, population and perceived regional status are among the criteria that may serve as the basis for permanent membership, considerable divergence of views has emerged with regard to composition. In our view, this is an essential issue that is susceptible of differing sentimental interpretations and that needs to be approached with pragmatism and care.

Let us be quite clear: reform of the Council will require the cooperation of the current permanent members, whose attitude appears to be one of circling the wagons to hold off the rest of the world. Very little give and take in their positions regarding limitations or reductions in their privileges, however small, is discernible.

We all know that the make-or-break matter in Council reform appears to be the veto. Unless it is addressed fully in all its facets, it will be difficult to expect meaningful reform. Again, the general consensus is that the veto has outlived its usefulness; it is perceived as anachronistic and outmoded, as giving rise to undemocratic governance at the international level and as primarily safeguarding the interests of the few. That was underscored in a statement (S/1999/996) issued on 23 September 1999 by the foreign ministers of the permanent five, stating that any attempt to restrict or curtail their veto rights would not be conducive to the reform process.

One question arises, therefore: what would be the rights and privileges of new member States in any expanded Council? Djibouti supports abolishing the veto privilege, which it sees as distorting the actions and stature of the Council, particularly when its use is so often seen as an instrument for advancing national interests and not those of the world community at large. Expanding the Council without placing all members in either category on a level playing field would hardly resolve the problem of unequal representation, lost stature and diminished effectiveness. Djibouti would therefore support the position that the right of veto accompany all permanent memberships. New permanent members of the Council should have the same rights and privileges as existing members.

Should the effort to abolish the veto remain protracted, however, we believe the veto should be gradually restricted until it applies, as originally intended and conceived, only to actions and matters related to Chapter VII of the Charter. It would no longer apply to procedural decisions taken on issues set out in the annex to resolution 267 (III), adopted by the Assembly on 14 April 1949.

The Secretary-General, in his report "We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century" (A/54/2000), on the subject of renewing the United Nations to make it a more effective instrument in the hands of the world's peoples, urged heads of State to reform the Security Council in a way that both enables it to carry out its responsibilities more effectively and gives it greater legitimacy in the eyes of the world's peoples.

The deliberations of the Working Group on reform of the Security Council are part of the overall effort to reform the United Nations. In that effort, wherever possible, the various bodies of the United Nations should seek to assist the process. The General Assembly is clearly capable of expanding its role on Council reform, particularly on the question of the veto, and it should seek to do so. In fact, some of the ways open to it have already been suggested by a number of delegations. One procedure worth considering is that of a General Assembly review of any veto exercised in the Council. Where a majority of Member States voted to oppose such a veto, it would clearly indicate that its use did not represent the will of the majority. The General Assembly must also consider creating additional procedures, beyond a review of the Council's annual report, which would allow it to regularly assess the Council's work. The Assembly, after all, has the right and duty to be fully informed of Council activities, and, as has been noted by others, to make whatever recommendations it deems necessary.

Those measures, and others, would demonstrate the political will of the General Assembly with respect to Council reform, and would send a strong message regarding the Assembly's commitment to a strengthened United Nations system. Djibouti supports the decision to continue the deliberations of the Working Group into the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly. The United Nations is under considerable pressure from many quarters, and it must be strengthened. Council reform will no doubt be an integral part of that reform process.

Mr. Staczyk (Poland)

Comprehensive reform of the Security Council is one of the most urgent and important tasks facing the United Nations. That truth, recognized several years ago, led to the start of work on the reform process within the Assembly's 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, and is now more apparent than ever. The United Nations cannot enter the new millennium with the confidence necessary to perform its increasingly complex and demanding tasks without a more efficient and representative Security Council.

The maintenance of international peace and security remains the core function of this Organization and is a necessary prerequisite to its success in other areas in which it is involved, such as improving the conditions of millions who still suffer from a lack of resources and opportunities for development.

The message that came out of the recent Millennium Summit is encouraging. It shows that there is support at the highest levels for moving the reform process forward. It also reinforces the mandate for pursuing a true and comprehensive reform that would enable the Organization to better respond to the ever increasing number of challenges that it is facing at the dawn of the new millennium. While the leaders of the world have spoken in favour of reform, it is our task to find practical ways of expressing the prevailing will.

Past discussions within the Working Group prove that this is no easy task. Although the key issues of expansion and decision-making still raise significant controversies, one should acknowledge that some progress has been maintained by the Working Group and that last year saw some advancement in the ongoing work. This has been largely due to the flexibility shown by key participants of the process, as well as to the excellent leadership of the Chairman of the Working Group, His Excellency Theo-Ben Gurirab of Namibia and both Vice-Chairmen, Ambassador Hans Dahlgren of Sweden and Ambassador John de Saram of Sri Lanka.

After several years of intensive debate, it is hardly possible not to be repetitive in addressing the issue of Security Council reform. I would like, however, to avail myself of this occasion to reiterate the position of my country on some key elements of the reform.

In order to function effectively, the Security Council must be perceived as a body representing the whole membership of the Organization and as a body acting on behalf of all Member States, as provided for in the United Nations Charter. The significant changes that have taken place on the world political scene since the previous reform of the Council warrant, in our view, an increase both in the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. We support the concept of expanding the permanent category by five members, two from the industrialized States and three from the regions that are currently under-represented -- that is, Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean.

The expansion in the second category of membership should take into account the more than two-fold increase in the number of States in the East European Group that has taken place over the last decade, as well as their important role in the maintenance of international peace and security, by assigning to this group of States an additional non-permanent seat. A comprehensive expansion of the Security Council, taking into account the aspirations of the various regions, would enhance the legitimacy of the Security Council and thus its ability to effectively implement its own decisions.

The Security Council acts by way of decisions. Decision-making is therefore another issue, the solution of which is crucial to the success of the reform. As we decide on this aspect of the reform, we should bear in mind that one of its main purposes is to increase the efficiency of the Security Council, which includes, inter alia, its capability to take timely decisions, especially when it is dealing with situations under Chapter VII of the Charter and in cases of humanitarian disaster. At the same time, we should avoid a solution that would discriminate in this respect between new and old permanent members, as this would result in a de facto multiplication of categories of membership. Notwithstanding the difficulties, a solution will have to be found. Flexibility and creativity are key words in this respect.

The review process is also essential to successful reform. It will ensure better accountability of the members and at the same time constitute a guarantee of the ability of the Council to adapt to future needs. Agreement on this point should facilitate solutions in other aspects of the reform.

Deliberations on the working methods of the Security Council should likewise be continued, as this is also an essential element of the reform. We are encouraged to note that further progress has been made in this field, and we are looking forward to a growing convergence of opinions in the forthcoming year.

Mr. President, we are fully confident that under your leadership the Working Group will continue to make progress in its work on Security Council reform. We would therefore like to encourage you to seek innovative ways of narrowing the existing divisions, inter alia, by utilizing the mechanism of informal consultations so successfully employed by other bodies in this Organization. My country is ready to fully cooperate with you in this important and challenging task.

Mr. Naidu (Fiji)

Fiji wishes to align itself with the statement delivered by His Excellency Mr. Peter Donigi of Papua New Guinea on behalf of the Pacific Islands Forum members represented in New York.

For eight years, the reform of the Security Council has been under discussion. General consensus is emerging for the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent membership, for improved geographical or other agreed category of representation and for greater transparency in the working methods of the Security Council. Today, we also sense urgency in seeing some tangible result of this prolonged debate.

My delegation appreciates that change is a complex phenomenon, and particularly so for an institution that has, for over half a century, enjoyed the privileges that we, collectively as Members of the United Nations, have bestowed on it and its Members in order to maintain international peace and security. It is harder still where such an institution may be perceived to have outlived some of its strengths or weaknesses largely due to the shifting landscape of international peace and security.

Previous speakers have noted that global peace and security is now the norm, as opposed to the "international" character of the original mandate. Global peace and security operate within the same matrix in which global trade, economy and development must necessarily evolve. Therefore, the mechanisms for responding to the interactive mix of these influences must, also and of necessity, evolve accordingly.

Fifty-five years ago, the Trusteeship Council emerged as a key organ of the United Nations system. By and large, it has delivered on most of its mandated tasks. Today, its only remnants are the Trusteeship Council Chamber and the fiftieth-year celebration of the dynamics and motions of decolonization and self-determination for the remaining colonies or territories.

The Security Council was equally borne with the concept of peaceful and harmonious coexistence between nations, as Member States both big and small, and to affirm their equality pursuant to the Charter. The Security Council was also borne at a time when peace was desperately longed for and lasted for a short time. Therefore, it was mandated to react to brewing conflict and much less to be a proactive organ with the mandate and appropriately structured to anticipate and pre-empt conflict. That is the ideal vision that Fiji holds out for a renewed and a restructured Security Council.

No longer are the super-Powers the main instigators, actors or victims of conflict. No longer are the former super-Powers the mediators of peace and post-conflict resolution. The United Nations system has set up appropriate mechanisms that have increasingly taken over the bulk of these tasks.

In this regard, my delegation is already noting significant and innovative shifts in the Security Council and its agenda. I note in particular the open debate on women, peace and security held last month as an event that marked the changing vision of the Council, as was positively acclaimed by the statements made by its membership and by non-members that participated in that debate. Likewise, the Council's deliberations and resulting pronouncements on HIV/AIDS are similarly welcome events in the Security Council's 50-plus years of work.

Let not our deliberations in this Assembly on a culture of peace be in vain or cast aside as an exercise in rhetoric. My delegation is engaged in this range of discussions, including in this very one on the question of equitable representation on and expansion of the Security Council, in the sincere hope that our collective wisdom and efforts will begin to bear fruit. Whatever political or national interests may obstruct our vision today, my delegation feels that the time is right to restructure and reposition the Security Council. Expansion of and equitable representation in both its membership categories are now imperative.

In this age of dialogue, negotiation and peaceful compromise, the veto stands out clearly as an archaic tool that at best belongs to the nineteenth century. Mindful of the differing elements in the debate, Fiji envisions a modernized concept of the veto that is more humane and effectively responsive to the needs on the ground for global security and peace. In order to defuse any tendency for national or political interests' overtaking a critical global agenda, such a power should not be exercisable by a single member.

In terms of the process and delivery of the Security Council reforms, the Fiji delegation considers that the whole reform package must first be agreed upon. We can work on the nuts and bolts once the package agreement is secured. This means that the new members in both categories can be determined later and should not be misused or misconstrued at this stage to block the critical flow of our deliberations on the substance of the reforms itself.

Finally, my delegation renews its unwavering contribution to world peace through various peacekeeping missions. These peacekeeping efforts continue to strengthen our faith in and our resolve to forge ahead for global peace, even if they sometimes come at huge expense to my Government, both in financial terms and in human lives.

Today, the picture of world peace and security seems unnervingly irreversible. The picture could be brighter in the future if peacekeeping and the Security Council were both to be more proactive, preventative of conflicts and vigilant for durable peace. We may yet witness the redeployment of sizeable financial, human, skilled and other resources -- presently committed to peacekeeping in the battlefields to prevent the demise or displacement of millions of people -- to other global urgent needs and goals for a sustainable world.

Mr. Effah-Apenteng (Ghana)

The General Assembly's decision to establish an Open-ended Working Group to consider all aspects of the issue of reform of the Security Council was informed by the recognition that, given the tremendous changes and challenges in international relations, a Council whose membership was truly representative of the overall membership of the United Nations would enjoy the full support of Member States, a sine qua non of the efficient discharge of its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, as stipulated in Article 24 of the Charter.

Since its inception, the Working Group has held numerous sessions to consider the issue. What is clear from the deliberations so far is that, while there is unanimity on the need for reform of the Council, there is none on the substantive issues.

It is of cardinal importance to emphasize that underlying the calls for reform is the recognition that the maintenance of peace and security is a collective responsibility which lies at the foundation of the United Nations. Thus, all Members of the Organization are called upon to share in the discharge of this burden through, inter alia, assessed contributions to the peacekeeping budget and the provision of troops for United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Such cooperation, however, should not be taken for granted by the Security Council. Indeed, given the new and growing challenges that the United Nations is likely to face in this century -- issues of peace and security, development, poverty alleviation, good governance and the role of the private sector and civil society in international cooperation -- it is becoming crystal clear that the United Nations, if it is to be effective, will increasingly require the support and cooperation of all Member States, irrespective of size.

In such an environment, the Security Council cannot discharge its responsibilities or play an effective, efficient and meaningful role in this century if its composition is not truly reflective and representative of the general membership of the United Nations, which currently stands at 189.

Cognizant of these realities, the Secretary-General, in his millennium report entitled "We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the twenty-first century", emphasized that no effort should be spared to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing the priorities of fighting poverty, ignorance, disease and insecurity. Rightly, the Secretary-General urged the reform of the Security Council in a way that would enable it to carry out its responsibilities more effectively and also give it greater legitimacy in global affairs.

Motivated by a desire to assist the United Nations to fully discharge its responsibilities, at the historic Millennium Summit our political leaders not only endorsed the Secretary-General's call, but also resolved to intensify their efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects. The issue we face now is how to translate the commitment and political will expressed by our leaders into reality.

As we see it, the question of the reform of the Security Council has two main aspects: expansion of its membership and efficiency and improvement in its working methods and procedures. In this connection, we also share the view that any reform of the Security Council must take account of the principles of democracy, sovereign equality of States and equitable geographical representation.

We are convinced that the capacity of the Security Council to discharge its obligations under the Charter would be greatly enhanced through democratization of the Council. Equitable geographical representation in the Council, based on the principles enshrined in Article 23 of the Charter, will ensure that the voices of all the Members of and regions represented in the Organization are heard and acted upon in a fair and democratic manner and will bring it in line both with the purposes for which the Organization was established and with contemporary global political and economic realities.

My delegation wholly subscribes to the Non-Aligned Movement's position on all aspects of the question of an increase in the membership of the Security Council. The Movement has also called for an increase in the Council's membership by no less than 11, a number which, in our considered view, is fair and reasonable and would accommodate the legitimate claims of all regions of the world to be represented in an organ entrusted with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories of the Council, as recommended by the Non-Aligned Movement, will also meet our objectives and address the needs of the vast majority of Member States.

The Non-Aligned Movement's position is complemented by the African position, as expressed by the Harare Declaration of June 1997. Subsequently, the Algiers Declaration of the 1999 Organization of African Unity summit also called for the recognition of Africa's legitimate claim in the democratization of the Council. Africa's claim to at least two permanent seats should be understood and adequately addressed since the African countries are the largest group in the Organization. These seats will be allotted to countries by a decision of the African States, based on a system of rotation established by the Organization of African Unity.

Apart from this, my delegation wishes to endorse the Non-Aligned Movement's position that a periodic review of the structure and functioning of the Security Council, including curtailment of the scope and application of the veto, is necessary in order to enable it to respond better and more effectively to the new challenges of international relations.

In this regard, we are also of the view that, pending agreement on the expansion of the membership, the Security Council should be encouraged to improve upon its working methods and procedures and its relations with States that are not members of the Council in order to make the Council more transparent and accountable.

The Security Council is master of its own procedures and, therefore, does not need any revision of the Charter to put in place a more clearly defined consultative mechanism. As has been echoed over and over again in this Hall, the Security Council should not merely listen to Member States, but more importantly, factor their views into the taking of informed decisions.

Needless to say, it is only through a restructuring of the Council on these lines that perceptions of selectivity in dealing with issues of international peace and sustainable development can be avoided and the causes of conflicts, whenever and wherever they occur, can be dealt with in an effective and impartial manner. Proper consultations would not only confer more legitimacy on the Council but also facilitate the implementation of and compliance with its decisions.

To this end, we are in hearty concurrence with the timely observation, made by the Secretary-General in his speech to the General Assembly at the beginning of this session, that although consensus is desirable, it need not mean waiting for absolute unanimity on every issue among Member States.

This certainly applies to the deliberations on the reforms of the Security Council. After seven years of discussions, we need to expedite action on the reforms. We must not allow a few Member States to frustrate the will of the majority of the membership of the United Nations. Is it not ironic that the United Nations, the very Organization that is championing democracy worldwide, is itself unable to practise it? Unless the present outmoded status of the Council is reformed, the legitimate and moral authority of the United Nations in pursuing democracy in Member States will be greatly eroded.

The Ghana delegation therefore looks forward to the resumption of the work of the Open-ended Working Group in the hope that the international community will master the necessary political will to take concrete decisions to implement the much-needed reforms of the Security Council.

Mr. Kouliev (Azerbaijan)

The United Nations bears great responsibility for the fate of world, and we all place our hopes in it. Serious and rational reforms should increase the effectiveness of the Organization and, first and foremost, of the Security Council.

The majority of Member States, including my country, associate with the Security Council the fulfilment of their legitimate rights to live in peace and security, the safeguarding of their sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the ability to live in a world free of wars, conflicts, aggression, occupation and mass exoduses of refugees and displaced persons.

In this discussion, our delegation would like to mention some aspects of our country's position regarding the matter under consideration. It goes without saying that the reform of the Security Council should be carried out in conformity with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter.

We attach great importance to the equitable geographical distribution of non-permanent seats in the Security Council. In this connection, the question of the representation of States of the Eastern European Group in the Council is of utmost importance for us. As the Assembly is well aware, the membership of the Group has doubled recently. Should the Group continue to be allocated only one non-permanent seat, as is now the case, each country of the Group could be elected a non-permanent member of the Security Council only once every 38 years. Such a situation contradicts the legitimate rights of the States of the Eastern European Group and deprives them of broad participation in the work of the Security Council.

Equally, we maintain that the representation of the States of Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean in the Security Council should be in conformity with modern political realities and adequately reflective of the increased significance of those regions.

As for the idea of expanding the permanent membership of the Security Council, while understanding the complexity of the matter, we believe that careful consideration should be given to the aspirations of States that express their ability and readiness to bear increased responsibility, including financial responsibility, in the maintenance of international peace and security. We consider that Germany and Japan are able to serve as permanent members of the Security Council.

Regarding the right of veto, which seems to be the core issue, we believe that a voluntary and partial limitation of the use of this right could be a solution.

As for the composition of the Council, apparently there will be no permanent solution. Therefore, my delegation favours a periodic review of the matter.

Our efforts and expectations related to Security Council reform are aimed at preserving its authority and strengthening and enhancing its effectiveness and efficiency. All this -- its authority, effectiveness and efficiency -- also means that the Security Council's decisions must be respected, implemented and complied with by all. In this connection, we are extremely concerned that four Security Council resolutions -- resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993), 874 (1993) and 884 (1993) -- dealing with the conflict in and around the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Republic of Azerbaijan have remained a dead letter.

We look forward to the resumption of deliberations in the Open-ended Working Group, with a view to advancing discussion on Security Council reform. We must pursue the goal advanced by our leaders at the Millennium Summit. Despite all the differences, we are destined to move forward, because there is no turning back.

Mr. Sigrah (Micronesia)

Once again, we meet to consider equitable representation on the Security Council and an increase in its membership. The Council's mandate to preserve international peace and security makes it one of the most pivotal organs of the United Nations. While we are mindful that there must be no haste in the reform, in order to accommodate everybody's concerns, we feel that it is now timely to advance the process. The plain fact is that the openness of the most powerful nations to accept rational and realistic changes in the Security Council is a key indicator of the future of global multilateral relations in general and of this Organization in particular.

My delegation is well aware that the consideration of Security Council reform has to be carried out in depth if we want to make the Council more representative, transparent and democratic. The current outline of the Council has served us well over the years, but the world has changed and the Security Council should reflect it. Reform needs to bear in mind today's realities, and so an increase in both the permanent and non-permanent membership must be favourably considered, while the Council must remain in working order.

We realize that the reform is not easy to achieve, but we ask all delegations to work in a cooperative manner to succeed. In this respect, my delegation is open to whether new permanent members of the Council should be able to exercise the so-called veto power, while we think it most practical to maintain the status of the present permanent five, including their right of veto, to facilitate their agreement.

It would be unrealistic to ignore the inevitability of larger, more powerful nations most often taking the lead in the United Nations. In fact, they should do so as a matter of responsibility; they possess the resources and the capacity. However, leadership should not become domination, and it should not leave the developing world marginalized. Only if these factors are taken into account in Council reform will it lead to renewed confidence in the Charter.

Finally, my delegation is pleased to be a party to the statement made by Ambassador Peter Donigi of Papua New Guinea, on behalf of some of the Pacific Island Forum countries of the United Nations.

Mr. Wehbe (Syria)

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'\xe0' in position 1199: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg009-bk02-pa01">I am pleased to extend...bring about international peace and security.</p>', 1199, 1200, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 1200
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg009-bk02-pa01">I am pleased to extend...bring about international peace and security.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 1199