General Assembly Session 59 meeting 112

Mr. Rock (Canada)

Canada welcomes this opportunity to express its views about proposed changes in the membership and working methods of the Security Council. These issues arise as we are discussing a wide range of proposals that leaders will take up when they meet here in September. Let me say at the outset that, while Canada regards Security Council enlargement as a worthy objective, we urge Member States not to allow this single issue to distract us unduly from the many other crucial subjects with which we want leaders to deal decisively in September. Those subjects include concrete measures to achieve the Millennium Development Goals; practical steps to protect the safety and security of our citizens, wherever they may live; renewed efforts to achieve recognition and enforcement of human rights; and proposals to render the management of the United Nations more effective, more transparent and more accountable.

I speak frankly in saying that that bundle of bold and broad proposals is more urgent than changes in the composition of the Security Council. We therefore urge colleagues, as we debate and decide the pending draft resolution, not to lose sight of the world's true priorities, which are found on that pressing agenda that our citizens are counting on us to address and to deliver on in September.

Mr. Rock (Canada)

Having said that, let me turn to the matter under discussion today. Canada agrees that the Security Council should be expanded. We agree that various regions of the world should be more fairly represented on the Council; that there should be more frequent and enhanced participation by medium-sized and small States; and that the duration of mandates should be examined and the possibility of consecutive re-election should be considered. We also agree that the Council's working methods should be modernized to make them more transparent, more inclusive and more responsive.

Mr. Rock (Canada)

But there is one feature of the draft resolution before us with which Canada cannot agree: we are steadfastly opposed to the addition of new permanent members to the Security Council. My comments must not be taken to mean that I am questioning the worthiness of the nations that seek those permanent seats or the sincerity and good faith of their efforts and those of the other sponsors of draft resolution A/59/L.64. Each of the aspirants has demonstrated a real and profound commitment to this institution, and each has served with great distinction in the Assembly and, indeed, as an elected member of the Security Council. And Canada is proud to call each of them a friend. However, I speak in support of principles that Canada believes in strongly -- principles that we believe must govern the way in which we renew and improve the Security Council and its method of working.

The permanent members of the Council took their seats in a distant and very different age. The forces that shaped the post-war creation of the United Nations were unique to that time. Circumstances have changed. Regional balances have shifted. The world's needs and challenges have evolved. Whatever the merits of the formula devised in 1945 may have been at that time, the vast differences in today's reality must be reflected in the approach we take to Security Council reform today.

I am speaking not only about shifts in population and relative power. I am referring also to the emergence of values that are now fostered and cherished here and throughout the world: values such as democracy, accountability, flexibility and fairness -- values that do not favour a widened notion of two-tiered privileges in the world's only institution of global reach and universal membership. In that context, the Council of 1945 must be seen as an anomaly to be accommodated, not as a model to be emulated.

Canada believes, as a matter of principle, that the accession of additional permanent members to the Security Council would not be in the best interests of this institution or in the long-term best interests of the overwhelming majority of its Member States. It would betray the values that Member States have developed over time. It would deny a fair and flexible allocation of seats. It would diminish the accountability of the Council at a time when that virtue is most needed. It would deprive the world's regions of a democratic and orderly way to determine for themselves their representation in this institution's most significant body.

Speaking of democracy, supporters of the draft resolution have suggested in the debate that the process that they propose is democratic. I know of no democracy in which a single election is sufficient to entitle the winner to remain in office in perpetuity. Indeed, had that option been available in Canada, I would not be here today.

The situation is scarcely improved by including a provision that foresees an illusionary and meaningless review in the very distant future. Additionally, the formula proposed in the pending draft resolution would eliminate the possibility that a Member State could truly represent the interests of its region on the Council. The addition of permanent members would also have significant and adverse indirect consequences through what is known as the cascade effect.

Since permanent members of the Council expect, as a right, to enjoy dedicated seats on a wide variety of subsidiary and related bodies, adding new permanent members would reduce opportunities for the rest of the Member States to serve on those bodies. Perhaps most important, from the point of view of the interests of this institution, the designation of some of our Member States as additional permanent members would lock into place forevermore a rigid regime unsuited to a dynamic world. Who can say what our circumstances will require in 20 years, or in 40, or in 60 more? We have seen, and we have lived with, the limitations inherent in a freeze-frame format that favours a fixed over a fluid formula. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Canada favours an approach to Council enlargement that would reflect the values that we all seek to promote. On Friday last, Italy circulated a draft resolution on behalf of a group of Member States, including Canada, that have united in support of a broadly based consensus. That proposal, instead of increasing the number of permanent members, would add seats that would be permanently allocated to regions, while leaving the Member States in those regions to decide, from time to time, which of their number was best suited to serve, and for how long. The Uniting for Consensus proposal is flexible in leaving it to the regions to determine the duration of each regional mandate. Its approach is democratic and accountable in providing for periodic elections and re-elections at intervals to be determined by each region. In that way, there would always be an opportunity to adjust to changing circumstances and to evolving needs.

It would also spare us the damaging and divisive decision, which the pending draft resolution would force on us now, of choosing among candidates -- each one worthy in its own right -- that seek special status in a permanent seat that they will hold into the future, no matter what the future may hold.

Canada will therefore vote against the pending draft resolution, for all the reasons we have given. In the interests of this institution and for the sake of its capacity to confront the future with flexibility and fairness, we urge other Member States to do the same.

Ms. Banks (New Zealand)

New Zealand has said many times in the General Assembly Hall that the current structure of the Security Council is unrepresentative and anachronistic.

In considering the nature of the expansion of the Security Council, our overriding concern is to ensure that the Security Council is more effective and representative for the twenty-first century. Any satisfactory expansion of the Council would need to include Japan.

With respect to today's debate, we acknowledge the efforts of the sponsors of the draft resolution to take the debate forward, both in terms of the composition of the Security Council and of its working methods.

In discussing the draft resolution before us, New Zealand would like to highlight two core principles. First, we have since 1945 opposed any extension of the veto right. The current draft is not yet unequivocally clear on this point. We do not see any scope for ambiguity in a draft resolution of this nature.

Secondly, we believe firmly in the principle of accountability. With respect to the addition of new permanent members, our strong preference would be for a mechanism which provides for permanent membership to be "reviewable". Such a review should be periodic, as Sweden has suggested, and not a once-only process.

Successful Security Council reform is deeply important to New Zealand. We do not want to see this process fail. We remain open to looking at all options and hope that a satisfactory outcome which reflects our core principles is possible.

The draft resolution as currently worded does not reflect those core principles.

Ms. Rivera (Uruguay)

My delegation would like to take this opportunity to express our thanks for the intensive rethinking process in which we are involved. The report of the High-level Panel, the report of the Secretary-General and, lastly, the draft final document that you, Mr. President, submitted to us following earlier consultations have given a significant boost to the process of negotiations which we began so many years ago.

My country, as a founding Member of the United Nations, fully supports the ultimate objective of the reform -- that is, strengthening the multilateral system on the basis of the principles of international law and in particular those pertaining to the legal equality of States. That is why we believe that the reform of the organ now under consideration, with the historic impact that such reform will undoubtedly have, can be carried out only if we can rely on the greatest possible political support from all States Members of the Organization.

For that reason, we deem it extremely important to take the time necessary carefully to analyse all the options and the possible consequences of Council reform and not to rush into a taking a decision that would bring about significant divisiveness among Member States.

Uruguay cannot support any reform of the Security Council that would envisage increasing the number of Member States having the right of veto. As we have stated repeatedly, we firmly oppose the right of veto, which undermines one of the basic pillars of public international law: the principle of the sovereign equality of States.

We believe that the right of veto may perhaps have been necessary in historical circumstances very different from the current ones and that it definitely does not promote democracy in the Organization -- one of the cherished goals towards which we have been working tirelessly together with other Members.

The first delegations of this country to the Organization perhaps expressed it more eloquently. The representative of Uruguay, Mr. Charlone, stated before the General Assembly in October 1952 that:

"Today... there may be a hope that in the near future the veto will become a thing of the past, with the spinning-wheel and the bronze hatchet, and will be no more to the peoples than the sign and symbol of a vanished world based on inequality among States, the privileges of power and the denial of the rule of law and morality." (Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventh Session, Plenary Meetings, 384th meeting, para. 87)

We share the concern expressed by many of the representatives who spoke earlier as to the concentration of efforts on the question of Council reform. While it is an important aspect of the reform of the Organization, this is not the end of the story. We need to continue to work to address other fundamental issues, such as the promotion of development; the revitalization and strengthening of the General Assembly; reform of the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights; and the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission.

Mr. Verbeke (Belgium)

For the past 10 years, Belgium has been actively involved in discussions on Security Council reform. Our thinking on this matter has been coordinated within a group of 10 countries; our objective was realistic, pragmatic, balanced reform that will serve to reconcile the Council's efficiency and its representativeness. For us, neither direct national interests nor ambitions of our own were involved; our motivation was born of our conviction that preserving the Council's legitimacy and authority is in the interest of the Organization and, thus, in the interest of us all. We were convinced also that to do that it was indispensable that the composition of the Security Council be adapted to the realities of today's world. It was thus that we formulated a number of ideas and proposals in the hope that we could make a positive contribution to the debate.

Those ideas are now reflected in draft resolution A/59/L.64, spearheaded by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. In that connection, let me recall its four key provisions: expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories; an expansion balanced among geographical groups and between North and South; a review clause, which would enable the Council to remain in step with world developments; and a stress on working methods, with a view to guaranteeing greater transparency and openness in the work of the Council. We decided to join in sponsoring the draft resolution, because we agree with the proposal put forward by the group of four.

The first element -- expansion in the two categories of membership -- is clearly the one most characteristic of the proposal. Here, one may wonder why a country such as Belgium would support the creation of new permanent seats. Quite simply, we believe that the presence of permanent members makes the Council effective in managing issues affecting international peace and security. Effectiveness is involved here, but also authority. By bringing together around one table the major actors on the international diplomatic stage -- those which make the greatest diplomatic, military and financial contribution to the Organization -- the Council can speak with a voice that no one can ignore. Moreover, permanent status obliges members to assume their burdens fully and with a sense of responsibility: a permanent seat obliges a country to take a loftier view and to give structural development priority over ephemeral matters. Would the Security Council possess the same authority with only non-permanent members? Would its resolutions have the same force? We must acknowledge that the world has changed and that there is no further reason to limit this status to the five post-War permanent members. Council reform will make sense only if its purpose is to better reflect today's geopolitical realities.

Obviously, that does not mean that it is not equally important for other States to have an opportunity to become members of the Security Council. Non-permanent members too must be able to contribute actively to the work of the Council. The non-permanent nature of their mandates and the constant renewal of the Council enables the Council to draw on innovative approaches, perspectives and viewpoints that can enrich the debate and prevent it from taking place in a closed "club". Here again, we should take account of the changes that have taken place and ensure better representation for developing countries.

Let me also note that this proposal would enable countries of the South to become permanent members. Specifically, in line with the model-A proposal of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, it would provide the African continent with two permanent seats. In our view, that important action is legitimate in terms of representativeness. I would also recall that in recent years the focus of the Security Council has been largely on Africa. We consider that the presence on the Council of African regional Powers ready to shoulder their responsibility to prevent and mediate crises, aided by their knowledge of the region and of the situation in Africa, would be a clear added value for the Council.

Today, not to take a decision -- not to take action -- is not an option. We all know that the failure to take a decision would be to perpetuate the present situation or to confirm the status quo in a world that is constantly developing. Failure to adapt amounts to regression. I do not think that is the message we want to send with the September summit in view.