General Assembly Session 59 meeting 115

The President

I call on the representative of Canada to introduce draft resolution A/59/L.68.

Mr. Rock (Canada)

Canada is honoured to introduce draft resolution A/59/L.68. The objective of the draft resolution is to achieve the fairest and most democratic approach to the complex and controversial question of Security Council enlargement, while seeking the broadest possible consensus on how to proceed.

Let me begin, Sir, by explaining why Canada is introducing the draft resolution.

First, while we recognize the importance of Security Council reform, we want to see it achieved without unduly dividing the membership, particularly at a time when we must come together on the even more important agenda that we will place before leaders in September. It will not serve our larger purpose if we are left divided after choosing among resolutions that favour a few, leaving fissures and factions as we pick winners and losers once and for all.

Draft resolution A/59/L.68 represents an effort in good faith to avoid such an all-or-nothing showdown. It would add no permanent members to the Council, but rather would create new permanent seats in each region, leaving it to the members of each regional group to decide which Member States should sit in those seats and for how long. That approach would permit us to achieve all of the major objectives for Security Council reform while preserving an environment conducive to broad agreement in September and cooperation in the years ahead.

Secondly, Canada sincerely believes that it is not in the best interests of the United Nations and not in the best interests of the great majority of its Members to add new permanent members to the Security Council. Let me emphasize at once that our purpose is not to oppose the aspirants, but rather to support the principle that widening the circle for the few who seek special status, no matter how worthy their candidacies, would make the Security Council less accountable for its conduct, more remote from the membership and less representative of the world's regions.

Mr. Rock (Canada)

Let me now describe the outcome that Canada favours.

Draft resolution A/59/L.68 would enlarge the Council to 25 members, with 20 of those to be elected for two-year terms. It would distribute the elected seats equitably among the regions. It would allow for consecutive re-election, and it would leave to each region the decision about arrangements for both the rotation of the seats and the duration of each member State's term on the Council.

Why do we prefer this approach? There are five reasons.

Mr. Rock (Canada)

First, it is democratic. At a time when so many of us promote democratic principles of governance, is it not essential that we reflect those same principles in our own governance, in the crucial decision about which Member States will serve on the United Nations most powerful body? Is it not fundamental that, where regions are accorded a permanent presence, those that serve on the Council must manifestly hold the continuing confidence of their regional colleagues, tested and expressed at intervals that the regional members consider appropriate? And what is more basic to the very notion of democracy than elections -- not once and forever, in which power shifts permanently to the office holder, but periodically, so that authority remains with the electors and holding the office is seen as a privilege, not a right.

After all, in a democratic system, the electorate -- in this case, the Member States -- must have the authority to choose its representatives. I know of no democracy in which a single election is sufficient to entitle the winner to remain in office in perpetuity.

Secondly, the approach provided for in draft resolution A/59/L.68 makes the Council more accountable to the Member States. Permanence is the polar opposite of accountability. Permanence produces positions that reflect national perspectives. Permanence claims the power of the office as of right, and forevermore.

Draft resolution A/59/L.68 takes a different approach. It accepts that there will be no change in the permanent five, but it does not expand the permanent class beyond those chosen in 1945 and it draws on more contemporary values in proposing an enlarged Council in which membership is earned by winning and keeping the confidence of one's peers. Apart from being sound in principle, the accountability that is inherent in that approach is also more likely to produce a Security Council in which regional and global concerns predominate over simply national interests.

Thirdly, our draft resolution provides for flexible allocation of Council seats. In a changing world, with its dynamic regions, it is surely unwise to lock into place arrangements that may reflect today's circumstances, when tomorrow may confront us with very different needs. The very process of change that has now made Security Council reform desirable argues for a flexible, not a fixed, formula, for the process of change is never-ending. And who can say what changes will come in the decades ahead? And so, for that reason, draft resolution A/59/L.68 allows each regional group to adjust the allocation of seats among its members depending upon the needs of a particular time and upon the capacity of certain of its members to serve in the interests of all.

But there is another aspect of this draft resolution's flexibility that should be stressed. It allows for repeated terms of different aggregate length among the elected seats permanently allocated to each region. Let me illustrate the value of that asymmetrical approach by referring to an example.

Draft resolution A/59/L.68 permanently accords Africa six seats on the Security Council. The African Group has made it clear that it wants to have two representatives on the Council who will be there for the long term. Our draft resolution empowers the African Group to identify two of its members who will represent the region for as long a period as the Group decides. Since the decision about re-election would belong to the members of the African Group, they would have the authority to make those two Member States continuous members of the Security Council. The result would be that the region would have permanent seats, and the members of the regional group could decide that some of those seats would be held continuously by certain of its members. The balance of the seats set aside for Africa could be held for periods of duration to be determined by the region. That asymmetrical arrangement illustrates how the flexibility of the approach proposed in this draft resolution can be made to serve the specific interests of each particular group.

Fourthly, draft resolution A/59/L.68 provides for fairness by creating the possibility that a greater number of Member States could rotate through the seats allocated to each region. None of the seats created by our draft resolution would be set aside for a chosen few. All 20 of the elected seats would be available to Member States. In an Organization of equal sovereign Members, there should be no second-class countries. Our draft resolution would give every State a voice.

Fifth, and finally, draft resolution A/59/L.68 provides for meaningful and effective Security Council reform, but without forcing divisive and potentially damaging votes on the General Assembly as individual States vie among themselves for special status. Each of the other draft resolutions before the Assembly provides for new permanent members of the Council. But if either one of those draft resolutions were to be adopted, that would only be the beginning of a contentious and competitive process. How much time would be needed? How many secret ballots would be cast? What tensions and pressures would be created during the inevitable subsequent steps? The approach that draft resolution L.68 puts forward would entail a single initial vote of the Assembly, with subsequent elections that would simply implement the choices of regional groups.

It is precisely because structural change in this institution is so difficult that it has been so rarely attempted. There has been but a handful of occasions in the 60-year history of the United Nations when Member States have been called upon to make defining decisions about its format and its future. And yet, there is a sense among many of us that this is such a moment: a rare opportunity to make significant change to the Organization's most significant body. When such historic decisions are made -- choices that will have profound effects for generations to come -- it is necessary that they be made wisely, that they be made based on principle, that they reflect our shared values and that they advance our common purpose.

In this case, and measured against that standard, Canada believes that the wiser course -- the principled course -- is clear. It is to choose the option that is consistent with our shared values of democracy, accountability, flexibility and fairness. We believe that draft resolution A/59/L.68 meets that test. Canada will support it, and we respectfully urge other Member States to do the same.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Italy, who will also introduce draft resolution A/59/L.68.

Mr. Spatafora (Italy)

The statement made by Ambassador Rock, the Permanent Representative of Canada, on behalf of the group of States known as Uniting for Consensus provides a forceful and meaningful illustration of the principles and values on which our draft resolution is based. Therefore, in introducing the draft resolution proposed by Uniting for Consensus, I will first of all recall the statement that I delivered on 1 July, which I am again circulating today. I should once again like to draw the attention of the members of the General Assembly to the principles, values and numbers highlighted in that statement. They are not only the milestones on which our draft resolution is anchored; they also serve to confirm that the model set out by the group of four countries is structured in such a way as to benefit just six happy few, to the detriment of all the other 180 Member States, resulting in tremendous divisive impact on the membership.

But I am sure that Member States will not accept being taken for a ride. Arrogance never pays. We are here because we believe in dialogue with an open mind; because we believe in the principles of the Charter; because we believe in the principle of the sovereign equality of all Members of the United Nations; because we believe that no reform will be able to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the Organization if it is not rooted in the principle of fair and equal opportunity for all Members; and because only then will we be able to strengthen and enhance our sense of ownership of this house and our sense of belonging to an Organization of which we can be proud. It is in that sense, and along those lines, that the draft resolution proposed by Uniting for Consensus intends to offer a constructive and non-divisive platform for discussion and decision -- a platform that, as Ambassador Rock has stated, is extremely flexible and centred on strong regional empowerment.

Allow me now to take up a very delicate issue, even if reluctantly. Let us call it the ethical issue that, if not addressed properly, risks bringing shame upon this house and destabilizing the entire process of reform. In mentioning the ethical issue with regard to Security Council reform, I am referring to the resort by the group of four States to financial leverage and pressure in order to induce a Government to align or not align itself with a certain position or to co-sponsor or vote in favour of a certain draft resolution. All of us in the Hall know what has been going on in some capitals, including, for example, threats to cut off financial assistance or stop the implementation of a certain project. It is now time for those who care about the Organization to stand up and say, Enough is enough.

Not later than yesterday morning -- but, believe me, this is only the latest example of many such instances -- a donor country member of the group of four informed a Government that had co-sponsored the draft resolution put forth by Uniting for Consensus that, because that country was not siding with the group of four and was instead siding with Uniting for Consensus, the donor would put an end to a development project already in place in that country. That project, with a value of $460,000, concerns children, by the way. The donor also informed the country in question that it would never start another important infrastructure project that had already been decided upon.

Is not that kind of improper and unethical behaviour a shame? It is a shame that, for the sake of preserving the dignity of all Member States, we can tolerate no longer. I will say it again, Enough is enough. After the oil-for-food scandal, the Organization -- which is to say, all of us, Member States as well as those who have institutional responsibilities in the Organization -- cannot afford the luxury of another scandal that is much more serious and destabilizing than the oil-for-food scandal. For this is not a question of pocketing money; it is a question of ethics and moral values. It is a question of blackmailing some sectors of the membership and taking undue advantage of their vital needs. Enough is enough.

We should promote a public culture in the United Nations in which responsible political advocacy, without distortions or abuse, becomes the operative norm, a culture in which legitimate political advocacy or lobbying do not cross an undoubtedly thin borderline and become blackmail and corruptive practices. Donor countries should remember that development aid cannot become a pretext for uncalled-for influence.

If we want to avoid betraying those Members that believe in the Organization and in its ethical foundations, we have a moral obligation not to allow the reform of the Security Council to be decided in this unhealthy and poisoned environment. I am sure that you, Mr. President, and the Secretary-General will not turn your heads and that you will not want to be responsible before the international community for deciding to sweep the dust under the carpet and foregoing an in-depth assessment of the situation through an independent committee of inquiry, or any other initiative that you would deem appropriate.

What is at stake is the credibility of the Organization and its reform process. As the Secretary-General has said, we are striving for freedom from fear; yes, that is indeed true. We are fighting to free a Member State from the fear of losing financial assistance and foreign development aid just for refusing to comply with requests for political allegiance from someone more powerful. Reforms cannot be dictated by power or money. They have to be dictated by principles. It is our duty to strengthen the hand of those Member States who rely upon the Organization, who must know that they will be able to say no to improper and unethical requests without fear and without suffering financial consequences that would be unbearable for them.

It is time we all say, Enough is enough! The Organization cannot accept, cannot tolerate and definitely cannot afford a stained reform that is perceived as the result of corruptive practices. We trust, Mr. President, in your leadership, wisdom and resolve.

The President

I now give the floor to the representative of Colombia, who will also introduce draft resolution A/59/L.68.