General Assembly Session 56 meeting 34

Mr. Abulhasan (Kuwait)

The General Assembly is today discussing one of the most important items on its agenda: the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. Last session's report (A/55/47) was the result of long discussions in the Open-ended Working Group on this item. In that connection, we express great respect and admiration for the great effort exerted by the then Chairman, the President of the General Assembly at its fifty-fifth session, Mr. Harri Holkeri, and his two Vice-Chairmen, who so ably guided the work of the Open-ended Working Group.

The Group's discussions during the fifty-fifth session highlighted the urgency of restructuring the Security Council, a principal organ of the United Nations, with a view to enhancing the transparency of its working methods. All the working documents submitted in the course of the Group's meetings by delegations, organizations and regional groups, taken together, indicated how essential it is that we reform the Security Council in order to strengthen its role in the maintenance of international peace and security and to make it better suited to facing the challenges of the twenty-first century.

But owing to lack of agreement among Member States on the basic principles of reform and because of changes made after eight years of discussion -- in spite of agreement that had earlier been achieved -- it has proved impossible to agree on the nature of the changes required with respect to the number of new Council members and to the Council's working methods. Yet we cannot ignore the fact that real progress was made during the discussions, particularly on the question of the Council's procedures and working methods. There was almost universal agreement on a number of the procedures and other proposals under discussion and on some of the changes that ought to made in the Council's working methods. In fact, the Council has indeed adopted some new procedures and working methods.

Kuwait has often stated its position on the question of an increase in the membership of the Security Council and improvements in its working methods, either on its own or collectively through the organizations of which Kuwait is a member. Today's debate provides yet another opportunity for us to reaffirm our position, which is based on the following principles.

First, Kuwait supports an increase in the membership of the Security Council, although the number of members should not be too large to maintain the Council's efficiency and effectiveness as it plays its role in decision-making and in confronting conflicts that threaten international peace and security.

Secondly, however the membership of the Council is increased, it must be consistent with the principles of State sovereignty and equitable geographical distribution. The new makeup of the Security Council should reflect the universal character of the United Nations.

Thirdly, with respect to an increase in the number of permanent members of the Security Council, we agree that such an increase should be limited. We consider that the criteria we should use to decide whether a State shall be a permanent member include proof, through its relations with the United Nations, of its ability to shoulder responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to implement the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter in the political, economic, social and cultural spheres. It is the General Assembly that, in accordance with criteria and procedures to be agreed upon, should decide which States are to become permanent members.

Fourthly, in connection with reform of the Council's working methods and procedures and improvement of links between the Security Council and other United Nations organs, specifically the General Assembly, we entirely agree with all proposals aimed at increasing transparency and clarity in the Council's work. We would support any proposal that made for a more flexible flow of information between Council members and other Members of the United Nations. Here, we stress the importance of codifying the Security Council's working procedures and any procedures that may be agreed upon in the Working Group. That should take place without waiting for complete agreement on other issues such as the size and composition of the Council, the decision-making process, et cetera.

Fifthly, Kuwait would support retaining the mechanism by which we elect non-permanent members of the Security Council, which is in accordance with Article 23, paragraph 2, of the Charter. After all, that mechanism enables smaller States such as Kuwait more readily to become members of the Security Council and to contribute to its work.

Finally, we are very well aware that the issue of the right of veto is a thorny and sensitive one. We have seen nearly complete agreement emerge in the Working Group on the need to regulate the way in which the right of veto is used. Many significant proposals have been made; these certainly are worthy of fuller discussion. We hope it will be possible to agree on wording that would be satisfactory to all parties and that would enable the Security Council to carry out its functions without hindrance.

In conclusion, we hope that discussions in the Working Group will lead to the kind of consensus that will guarantee an enhanced and strengthened role for the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and in facing the challenges of the twenty-first century. To that end, the delegation of Kuwait will play an active role in future discussions in the Working Group. We hope that the Group's work will be crowned with success.

Mr. Vento (Italy)

Only two short weeks ago, the General Assembly examined the annual report of the Security Council, issuing an almost unanimous appeal -- I would even say there was true general agreement -- for greater transparency and participation in the workings of that body. Our debate today can thus be seen as a logical extension of our deliberations on 15 and 16 October, and it forces us to ask why so many countries continue to appeal for Security Council reform.

The immediate answer is that deep changes, both in international relations and in the role and function of the United Nations, make a pressing, inevitable case for the Security Council -- the body assigned with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security -- to undergo comprehensive reform in all its aspects.

When the exercise on Security Council reform began more than eight years ago, shortly after the end of the cold war, there were those who thought that it should amount to little more than an alteration in the composition of the Council through the creation of new permanent members. To their mind, issues like transparency, accountability, participation, effectiveness and the assessment of Security Council's work seemed marginal. According to this approach, the hereditary prerogatives of permanency -- some call them "special responsibilities" -- created during the unique, unrepeatable conditions of the years after the Second World War could be updated with a quick fix by anointing a select few to enter the club.

This unilateral approach, which runs counter to the principle of equality between United Nations Members and to the movement towards growing legitimacy in international relations, was ultimately defeated. There will be no new countries that are "more equal" than others, because the vast majority of United Nations Members are calling for a different type of reform. They want to close the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots", whether individual States or large regions of the world. This vast majority of United Nations Members therefore rejects any new elevation of States -- however unlikely that may be -- that would penalize 180 other countries in order to realize the ambitions of the newly anointed. Whatever margins for disagreement might exist, I am sure we could all agree that such a manoeuvre would hardly make the Council's actions more timely and effective. The time has come to see who is really holding the reform process hostage by pursuing maximalist claims that reject any and all compromise solutions.

Eight years of debate have proved that effective Security Council reform must primarily address the working methods and decision-making processes of that body, rather than seek to increase the number of privileged members. The Security Council represents a social contract of sorts: on the inside, this confers international legitimacy on its members; on the outside, many others stand ready to lend effectiveness to the actions of the Council in exchange for participation in the decision-making process. A proper balance between legitimacy, participation and effectiveness is the core of the reform. If this contract is broken, the Council will cease to function properly.

New global threats to peace, such as international terrorism, have ushered in a new era, and require a different type of global governance based on a strong and resolute culture of consensus: collective decision-making and global responsibility in place of the unilateral promotion of narrow national interests. The business of the Security Council needs true leadership, based on objectivity, collegiality and unity of intent. Increasing the number of countries endowed with veto power is hardly the way to restore credibility and accountability. Enlargement cannot happen at the expense of effectiveness. On the other hand, increasing the number of permanent members without veto power would be merely cosmetic and frivolous.

The habit of expanded informal consultations is just one demonstration of how the work of the Security Council depends on the paramount influence of permanent members -- transparency and structural composition are closely related. This is why reform has to move forward, not selectively but as a common package. Elected members are hardly the ones to benefit from such opaque working methods. That trend favours instead those members who can threaten to use, or abuse, their veto. Therefore, adding new permanent members would increase the existing frustration of elected members, which feel marginalized from real decision-making when called on to ratify measures already prepared in restricted forums.

From the start of the exercise, Italy thought that the best solution would be to increase the number of non-permanent members only. The addition of a limited number of elected seats would make the Security Council more representative of the large regions of the world currently underrepresented, and allow a fair rotation for those countries who shoulder greater responsibilities in terms of financial resources, troops for peace operations led or authorized by the United Nations and political support for stabilization processes and peace agreements. After 10 years of heavy commitment to bringing peace to the Balkans, Italy's experience as a front-line country has taught us that the Security Council should more closely involve countries whose interests are especially affected, as described in Article 31 of the Charter. The key to making progress in the Security Council reform process lies in the greater involvement of non-members, as well as increased interaction with other United Nations and international bodies.

The recent progress in the Security Council's practices and operations leads us to suggest that we should all consider the regional dimension of the reform process. What is the meaning of equitable regional representation in the twenty-first century? The Security Council, for example, is working increasingly in close contact with representatives of the European Union on issues of conflict prevention and peace-building. With the development of European crisis-management capabilities, including a military rapid reaction force, relations between the European Union and the United Nations are set to grow significantly in the area of peacekeeping and conflict resolution, with modalities of interaction between the European Union and the Security Council also increasing in the definition of mandates. This has begun to happen in several regional crises, not only in Europe -- in areas such as the Balkans, as attested to by the recent resolution 1371 (2001) on The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia -- but also in Africa and the Middle East, as recognized in the Security Council's press statement issued last Friday. In all these cases the Security Council welcomes and supports the efforts of the European Union to promote peace and stability.

Italy is a strong supporter of European Union efforts to better coordinate its common foreign and security policy, including in the Security Council. The repeated calls for strengthening the voice of Europe in international forums significantly narrow the margins for national policy differences. Even in some influential non-European quarters, the call has been issued for Europeans to work out a more reasonable system of representation among themselves. This is consistent with the position Italy has staunchly maintained on the issue of Security Council expansion. We will continue to work constructively in the only appropriate forum, the Open-ended Working Group, towards the reform inspired by the above criteria, and we appreciate that a growing number of countries share this approach.

Mr. Hughes (New Zealand)

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'\xf3' in position 736: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg004-bk01-pa01">We are pleased to see ... risk doing grave harm to the United Nations.</p>', 736, 737, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 737
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg004-bk01-pa01">We are pleased to see ... risk doing grave harm to the United Nations.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 736