General Assembly Session 59 meeting 26

Mr. Denisov (Russia)

The current session of the General Assembly is taking place in the context of a growing understanding of the need to further strengthen the United Nations as the central mechanism for the collective resolution of problems in international relations with a view to ensuring global security and stability. There can be no doubt that that objective can be achieved only if adequate resources are provided to this global Organization and if its structure and mechanisms are enhanced.

In this context, it is high time to reform the United Nations, including adapting the composition of the Security Council to the dramatically changed international realities.

The reform of the Security Council should be aimed at making that authoritative organ more representative and more effective in its decision-making. Such reform is now urgent, as the recent general debate and the current discussion have clearly demonstrated.

At the same time, we cannot close our eyes to the distinct differences in the approaches taken by Member States to the expansion of the membership of the Security Council. We are convinced that the achievement of the broadest possible consensus should remain the key benchmark in the reform process. We have an enormous responsibility to prevent division in the Organization. Our task is to lay the groundwork for the greater authority and potential of the Security Council as the main organ for maintaining international peace and security.

Russia is prepared to continue the painstaking work to bring us closer to the selection of an optimal model for the future composition of the Security Council. We are ready to examine constructive proposals on this issue, on the understanding that an increase in any category of Council membership should involve both developed and developing States, with equal rights and responsibilities being shared between them. We believe that, in the event that additional permanent seats are created, Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and an authoritative representative from Africa would be worthy candidates to claim them.

It is hard to overestimate the importance of ensuring that in its composition the renewed Council remains compact so that it can respond adequately and rapidly to the challenges of the new millennium. We are certain that those delegations that have worked in the Security Council clearly understand that an excessive expansion of the Council could have a negative impact on its ability to function, with repercussions for international security.

We are convinced that ideas involving the infringement of the prerogatives and authority of the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the veto right, would be counter-productive. Unfounded criticism of that vital institution, which contributes to ensuring a necessary balance of interests among Council members, only stirs up unnecessary emotions and makes it harder to reach the consensus sought with regard to the reform parameters.

As to granting the veto right to new permanent members, we believe that there is no point in discussing that issue before agreement has been reached on the expanded membership of the Security Council.

Having actively supported the Secretary-General's establishment of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, the Russian Federation, like all other Member States, is looking forward with genuine interest to receiving its recommendations. We trust that Panel members will live up to their reputation as being truly wise and will develop recommendations to effectively strengthen and improve multilateral mechanisms, including the Security Council. We hope that the Secretary-General's proposals on the outcome of the work of the High-level Panel will take into account the wide range of approaches to the reform of the Security Council.

Finally, Member States will need to implement those proposals, ensuring a comprehensive strengthening of the United Nations. Based on that position, the Russian Federation will continue to constructively contribute to the process, including through contributing to the work of the Open-ended Working Group of the General Assembly towards finding an effective and widely supported model for the reform of the Security Council.

Mr. Zhang Yishan (China)

During the general debate at the current session of the General Assembly, almost every delegation included the issue of the reform of the Security Council in its statement. That once again shows the great importance that all parties attach to this issue. It also indicates the responsibility borne by the Open-ended Working Group of the General Assembly on reform of the Security Council. We believe that this group, under the chairmanship of Assembly President Jean Ping, will engage in constructive discussions to reach consensus on a set of recommendations.

Reform of the Security Council is at the core of United Nations reform. Over the past six decades, the membership of the United Nations has increased nearly fourfold, with developing countries representing a large proportion of that increase. As one of the principal organs of the United Nations, the Security Council plays an important role in international affairs and has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It should therefore keep pace with the times and conduct rational and necessary reforms. We all maintain that reform of the Security Council should be targeted at strengthening its status as the core body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, enhancing its capacity in dealing with threats and challenges and, as a matter of priority, finding an effective solution to the under-representation of developing countries, in accordance with the principle of equitable geographical distribution.

Reform of the Security Council should also include the further improvement of its working methods and its transparency. Some progress has been achieved in this regard over recent years. The increasing number of public meetings, the good communication and cooperation with troop-contributing countries and the regular meetings held among the Presidents of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council have been received very positively by the majority of Member States. China would like to work together with other Council members to continue the efforts in that regard.

It has been more than 10 years since the General Assembly started the debate on reform of the Security Council. Given the current situation, we urgently need to accelerate the reform. Meanwhile, we should not lose sight of the fact that reform of the Council involves a multitude of factors and contradictions and that significant differences exist in the proposed specifics of the reform programme.

In-depth discussions and patient consultations are therefore called for, in order to demonstrate political will and the wisdom of compromise and to seek the broadest possible consensus on all relevant aspects. A forceful push towards a vote on a reform package could result in confrontation and division between Member States. That would be detrimental to the reform of the Security Council, contradict its original purpose and inevitably harm the strengthening of the Council's authority and functioning.

China supports the work of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and looks forward to comprehensive, positive and practical recommendations that can be widely supported. China will take an active part in the relevant discussions and will work with other parties to move the reform process forward.

Mr. Loizaga (Paraguay)

The Assembly is jointly considering agenda items 11 and 53, on the report of the Security Council and on the report 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. In our delegation's view, while they are listed separately -- and rightly so -- the two items are closely related. We feel that they have a bearing on the hopes of the international community to see a more representative, democratic and transparent Security Council that can respond effectively and rapidly to the new challenges inherent in the maintenance of international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter.

On this occasion, allow me to thank Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry for introducing the annual report of the Council (A/59/2). I would now like to refer to that report. My delegation feels that the way in which the report was presented is limited to compliance with procedural requirements and that the structure of the report does not allow for an analysis or a substantive assessment. Such an assessment would have enabled the members of the Security Council to draw conclusions from this General Assembly debate through which to move forward on formulating a report that is more analytical, instead of a merely descriptive and chronological account of the items under consideration.

We make this comment because we feel that Member States' consideration of the report should not be a mere formality, but rather a reaffirmation of the Assembly's responsibility in matters of fundamental importance for the entire membership of the Organization. We, the Member States, have the right and the duty properly to understand and analyse the work of the Council, because the Council acts on behalf of all of us, in accordance with the mandate entrusted to it in our Charter, and because its decisions affect the membership. We therefore need a report that enables us to understand the substance of the Council's discussions and of the positions it adopts on the most relevant matters before it.

We therefore support and encourage the position of previous speakers, who have insisted that the report of the Security Council should include a more interactive component for the General Assembly, since the report is the main instrument in the relationship between these two principal organs of the Organization. The maintenance of international peace and security is the responsibility of us all.

Paraguay feels that an important step in improving the presentation of the Security Council report can be found in paragraph 3 and following section A of the annex to General Assembly resolution 58/126, adopted on 19 December 2003, on the revitalization of the General Assembly.

We support and encourage the process of open meetings of the Security Council. Open meetings should be the rule and not the exception, so that Member States can express their point of view on matters affecting Members and the Organization, and -- though it may be optimistic to say so -- so that Council members may take Members' views into account before resolutions are adopted rather than merely presenting them as faits accomplis.

Another area of concern for Paraguay is the Council's involvement in matters traditionally dealt with in the General Assembly or in the Economic and Social Council, overburdening the Security Council with matters requiring decisions but without sufficient time to deal with them properly. In addition, we are concerned at the expansion of the normative nature of the Council's resolutions, whereby the Council assumes a legislative competency that exceeds the mandate granted to it in the Charter of the United Nations.

On the question of equitable representation in the Security Council and an increase in its membership, the Open-ended Working Group established in 1993 has been meeting year after year without arriving at a consensus that would enable Member States to take a decision. Nevertheless, my delegation wishes to express its gratitude to the outgoing President of the General Assembly, Mr. Julian Hunte, for the decisive impetus he brought during his chairmanship of the Open-ended Working Group to encourage debate and produce a report that included positions of Member States and sought to bridge the gap in the differing stances.

Member States agree on the need to reform the Security Council and to increase its membership, but not on the form and procedure for doing so, despite the fact that it is set forth in the Charter, as well as in Assembly resolution 53/30, which stipulates that the General Assembly will not adopt any resolution or decision on the question of equitable representation in the Security Council, an increase in its membership and related matters without a vote in favour by at least two thirds of the Members of the General Assembly. In order to preserve the integrity of our Organization we need to arrive at a consensus on this question, as it concerns one of the fundamental organs that sustains our Organization.

Paraguay eagerly awaits the report to be submitted at the end of the year by the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change established by the Secretary-General to consider present and future threats to international peace and security. The recommendations in that report may well contribute to building a consensus on reform of the body entrusted with collective security.

On this occasion I would like to reiterate the well-known position of Paraguay on the question of equitable representation in the Security Council and on an increase in its membership. Paraguay favours an increase in the number of members in the Security Council in order to take into account the political realities of today and the increase in the number of Member States in our Organization. To build a more democratic and representative Security Council, both categories of members -- permanent and non-permanent -- should be increased and should include both developed and developing countries, particularly as developing countries have been underrepresented in that important body. An increase in the Council's membership will make it more representative and will therefore improve the legitimacy and credibility of its actions.

Similarly, as a fundamental aspect of reform, we need to consider the question of the right of veto that is held by permanent members. We must work towards the gradual elimination of the veto until it can be completely done away with. A first step should be to limit it strictly to questions under Chapter VII of the Charter. Similarly, we could leave open the possibility for periodic review of reform in order to assess the functioning of the Security Council in accordance with future needs and realities.

Today we must shoulder our responsibilities and make the political decision to move this process forward and achieve the objective desired by the majority of Member States. In that regard, we trust in the leadership of the President of the General Assembly and we hope that in the coming months he will help us to find a way to move forward in this exercise and arrive at the conclusion we have so long hoped for.

In conclusion, I would reiterate that no reform of the United Nations will have the desired effect if the long-awaited reform of the Security Council is not realized. Until then, we will not be able to speak of an Organization that has kept pace with the times nor will that Organization be able to respond to the interests and aspirations of the international community.

Mr. Le Luong Minh (Viet Nam)

It is my great pleasure to take part on behalf of the delegation of Viet Nam in the debate on the two important agenda items relating to the report of the Security Council and the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other related matters. I would like to thank the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Jones Parry, for introducing the Council's report. Our sincere thanks also go to 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 -- chaired by Mr. Julian Robert Hunte, President of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly -- for its contributions and its report, which serves as a good basis for our discussion today. We look forward to receiving the report of the High-level Panel on Challenges, Threats and Change and will study its recommendations carefully for further deliberation.

The past year has really been a year of hard work for the Security Council, as reflected in the great number of meetings it has held and the wide range of complex and urgent issues it has had to tackle, from escalated conflicts and violence to terrorism and humanitarian crises. Fifty-nine resolutions were adopted and 45 presidential statements were made. We wish to express our great appreciation for the efforts of the members of the Council.

Having closely followed the work of the Council, the delegation of Viet Nam acknowledges that there has been an evolution in some of its working methods and practice.

As mentioned in the report of the Open-ended Working Group (A/58/47), since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 58/126 -- which provides for, inter alia, orientation of the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council -- progress has been made with regard to the regular briefing of the President of the General Assembly by the President of the Security Council on the work of the Council. The practice of providing non-Council members with necessary information about the preparation of draft resolutions and decisions is also positive and should be encouraged.

The Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. The current structure and composition of the Council's membership do not reflect today's realities; indeed, they are limiting its ability to carry out its mandate effectively. In 1963, when the membership of the Council was expanded to 15, the total membership of the United Nations was 112; therefore, the Council's membership represented 13 per cent of the membership of the Organization. Today, the Organization has 191 members, and the Council's membership represents only 7.85 per cent of the membership of the Organization. For that very reason, and because of the manner in which the Council's resolutions and decisions are negotiated, the legitimacy of those resolutions and decisions has constantly been questioned. Reform of the Council is urgent and inevitable, and it must be carried out in a way that will make the Council more representative and more democratic.

Viet Nam shares the view of the majority of Member States that Security Council reform must include expansion of its membership, with due attention to the need to ensure more adequate representation of developing countries and to improve its decision-making process. Viet Nam supports increasing the Council's membership in both categories -- permanent and non-permanent -- and supports measures aimed at ensuring broader participation and greater democracy, accountability and transparency in its work. With regard to expanding the permanent membership of the Council in the light of its present unbalanced structure, we are of the view that, in addition to capable countries such as India, Japan and Germany -- for which Viet Nam has voiced its support -- other capable developing countries from various continents should be able to join the Council as permanent members.

Viet Nam attaches great importance to the work of the Security Council, and we have announced our candidature for a non-permanent seat on the Council in the near term. There is every reason for us to want the Council to be strengthened and its work to be improved. Such strengthening and improvement will depend on how well and how soon we will be able to reform the Council. We look forward to joining our efforts with those of other Member States in that important process.

Mr. Menon (Singapore)

A year ago, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his statement to this body, announced that the United Nations had reached a fork in the road. He decided to establish a High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to assess the current situation and to make recommendations on the way forward. In his statement to the General Assembly at its 3rd meeting two weeks ago, the Secretary-General highlighted the lack of the rule of law, or of respect for it, to be a root cause of the key problems that the world faces today.

Indeed, those are related issues. Today, the world is confronted with radically new threats, not the least of which are global terrorist networks that respect neither national boundaries nor traditional international law. Clearly, the United Nations needs to fashion new practical rules to deal with those new threats. Yet, at the same time, we must continue to ensure that there are adequate safeguards against traditional threats. Finding the right balance between those equally urgent imperatives will not be easy. But it will not be impossible if we can find the discipline to debate the issues openly and realistically, with a clear appreciation of both the limitations and the potential of the United Nations.

Singapore is looking forward to the report of the High-level Panel. We understand that the Panel has conducted a broad overview of the current international situation and has looked at how the international community could better address the threats, challenges and change that it faces. Unfortunately, news reports about the Panel's work have focused almost exclusively on the issue of Security Council reform, as if that were the only issue that the High-level Panel had been tasked to deal with. The Panel's discussions have also precipitated a race by a number of countries -- no fewer than nine at last count -- to put themselves forward as aspiring new permanent members of an expanded Security Council. Four of those aspirants have even met to forge a joint strategy.

Singapore is concerned that such a focus on Security Council reform may result in the general findings and other important recommendations of the High-level Panel not receiving the attention that they merit. Worse still, there is a risk that, if the report of the High-level Panel fails to meet the expectations of the aspiring States, they might reject the report out of hand. We sincerely hope and trust that that will not be the case.

We are also concerned that the vying for new permanent membership foreshadows a fierce fight -- something that small States like Singapore do not relish. As the saying goes, "Among these elephants, whether they fight or make love, it is the poor grass that gets trampled". Indeed, if this tussle heats up, smaller States can expect direct pressure -- on the one hand, from these aspirants to support them, and on the other, from their detractors not to do so.

Against that backdrop, I would like to examine some of the arguments that have been put forward for expanding the Security Council. Many of those arguments are well known. The key argument has been that the world has changed tremendously since 1945 but that the United Nations Charter and the composition of the Security Council -- especially its permanent membership -- have remained essentially unchanged. Let us not forget that the Charter, which contains ideals that we must never relinquish, has been continuously interpreted and reinterpreted to meet changing geopolitical circumstances and new challenges, many of which were unforeseen by the founders of the United Nations.

As regards the institutional structure of the Organization -- especially that of the Security Council -- the configuration in 1945 reflected the reality of the distribution of power in the world at that time. If we were to try to capture the current reality, we would be setting ourselves up for a major disappointment. The fact is that, at present, one country wields power that far exceeds that of all the other permanent members and all the aspirants combined. If we were to try to make the Council reflect that current reality, the only way we could do so would be to have just one permanent member. The fact is that the United Nations can operate only on the basis of a hard-headed appreciation of the realities of power. If we try to deny that fact and force the issue, we stand to do the United Nations a great disservice.

A second frequent argument is that if the Security Council is to be credible, it must be representative. Some have pointed to the trend of the Council's increasing legislative role in order to argue that urgent expansion of the Council is needed, including in its permanent ranks. But what real guarantee can Member States -- especially small States like Singapore -- have that an expanded Council will become more, not less, open to consultation and that it will take the views of non-Council members more into account? The reason for my concern is that, whereas the current five permanent members represent about 25 per cent of the world's total population, the addition of, say, another five permanent members from among the leading aspirants would bring that percentage up to 50 per cent or more of the world's population. Since together they would represent a majority of the world's population, would that not increase the tendency of the permanent members to feel that they can legitimately make decisions on everyone's behalf?

Moreover, a number of countries have been saying that their citizens have been clamouring for their countries to become permanent members in return for the significant financial contributions of those countries. By the same logic, should Council decisions also be influenced if the citizens of the permanent members press directly for particular approaches, on the grounds that "he who pays the piper calls the tune"? That is a real possibility, given that the combined contributions to the United Nations budget of the current permanent members and five of the leading aspirants would rise from 37.25 per cent to 67.45 per cent. Thus, the legislative role of the Security Council may increase significantly, which would risk going beyond what the general membership can accept.

That said, please do not get me wrong, as I am not against the expansion of the Security Council. What I am saying is that we need to be clear and to agree on the objectives of such an exercise and how best to go about expanding the Council. Unfortunately, I do not see that as the case after 11 years of discussions in the Open-ended Working Group. In Singapore's view, if our aim is to render the Council more credible and more effective, we need a comprehensive reform of the Council in all its aspects, including its working methods. The credibility of an organization or institution rests not on any nebulous notion of representativeness, but on its performance, which determines the degree to which its decisions are accepted by its stakeholders. Going by the work of the Council over the past year and by its report -- which, unfortunately, was made available only very late last week -- if Member States are to give an honest assessment of the Council's performance in the discharge of its functions, I am not sure how well the Council would be rated.

What matters to small countries is the Security Council's effectiveness and transparency and the involvement of non-members when issues of direct interest to them are considered. Any organizational management consultant will tell us that there is no better way to induce good performance than a measure of transparency and accountability. Regrettably, even as most governance processes in the world have moved towards greater transparency over the last few decades, the Security Council until very lately moved in the opposite direction. Some of us might be astonished to learn that the first Security Council meetings and discussions -- today, often held in closed sessions -- were in fact held in the open and on record, with reports of the frank exchanges available for all to read. I have circulated, together with my statement, a copy of the verbatim records of the first Security Council meeting on 17 January 1946, which shows clearly the quality of Council discussions back then. In fact, there was so much transparency at the first meeting of the Security Council that the United Kingdom delegate, without realizing that his microphone was switched on, was heard saying: "That bloody Chairman has double-crossed me again". That, by the way, does not appear in the copy of the records that I have circulated.

Paradoxically, I submit that, if the Council were to become more transparent in its normal work, it would gain confidentiality where confidentiality matters, as everyone will accept that the Council's work necessarily involves a number of sensitive discussions. Conversely, the current practice of holding all its real discussions behind closed doors has not enabled the Council to keep anything secret. On the contrary, the difficulty posed to non-Council members in following the proceedings seems to challenge them to uncover everything that is said behind closed doors, sometimes resulting in delegates' feeding off rumours and misleading information.

Along with a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, in considering how to expand the Council's membership it may also be useful to consider the kind of criteria that would help us to reach common agreement on the optimal new configuration of the Council. Having said that, Singapore is intuitively of the view that if the General Assembly can agree on the expansion of the permanent membership, Japan and Germany are two obvious candidates. I should add, however, that any expansion of permanent membership should include both developed and developing countries and be accompanied by an appropriate increase in non-permanent seats to maintain the current ratio of permanent to non-permanent seats.

Given the time constraint, I shall not delve further into the issue of criteria for now, except to note that practically all the aspirants are big States. But that leads me to wonder whether size is really that essential. Can big States empathize with and understand the problems and concerns of small States, which comprise the majority of Member States?

Finally, as the powers of new permanent members are intrinsic to the definition of permanent membership, the question of the veto has to be dealt with head on. We all know that however undemocratic the veto may be, it is here to stay with us for the foreseeable future. And it is not without a certain utility insofar as it helps prevent conflicts among the major Powers, which could undermine the United Nations. In fact, the San Francisco decision of 1945 concerning the veto was deliberately contrived to prevent the new Organization -- the United Nations -- from being plagued by what was regarded as the critical defect of the League: the non-membership of some of the great Powers.

It has been argued that the veto acts as a failsafe mechanism, or, as Inis Claude puts it,

"the fuse in the electrical circuit... the proposition that it is better to have the lights go out than have the building burst into flames".

If that justification for the retention of the veto by the original five permanent members has any validity, then the question that arises is whether any new permanent member that is not given the veto is really deserving of that status. In short, the issue of the veto is not a question that can be postponed or discussed separately from the identity of new permanent members. And, for that matter, there is no way we can expect the general membership of the United Nations to accept being relegated from the current second-class status to a new third-class status by the creation of a new class of Security Council membership: permanent members without veto rights.

Here, I foresee a difficult problem to overcome, as none of the existing permanent members has expressed a commitment to extending the veto privilege to eventual new permanent members. Unless we approach that and other issues relating to Security Council reform in a pragmatic and realistic manner, we may only end up raising our hopes, but without any tangible results to show for it at the end of the day.