General Assembly Session 61 meeting 73

Mr. Palous (Czech Republic)

At the Millennium Summit in September 2005, world leaders rightly pledged to enhance the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and credibility of the United Nations system. Today's United Nations is doing much more than the United Nations of some 20 years ago. The challenge, both for the United Nations and for us, the Member States, is to ensure that the demands of the United Nations are met rapidly and efficiently. That requires reform of the United Nations -- mostly reform of its management structure. However, United Nations reform cannot take place without reform of the Security Council.

It is a well-known fact that expansion of the main United Nations peace and security body has proved to be a highly sensitive and difficult issue. It will not be an easy endeavour in the future, either. However, we all agree that it is more than necessary. That is why, instead of doubting, we should begin to act now, without further delay.

We have stated many times, while knowing that there is no perfect solution in view, why we support the concept of the Group of Four (G4): expanding the Council to 25 members in both categories, permanent and non-permanent, with the inclusion of developing countries in both. Any expansion and restructuring of the Council must include permanent seats for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean so that the concerns of the developing countries can be addressed.

While we continue to support last year's draft resolution submitted by the G4, we are aware that new ideas have emerged and that the call for an interim solution might gain ground. Although we believe that the G4 concept still provides us with the most realistic way to reform the Council, we are open to discussing the new ideas with an open mind.

As we consider expanding the Security Council, we should not overlook reform of its working methods. Among the many options for achieving that is the proposal submitted by the group of five small nations. While that proposal is well intentioned, we continue to doubt its practicality and comprehensiveness, because we believe that reform of the Council's working methods should go hand in hand with structural reform of the Council itself.

I wish to reiterate that my country has no vested interest in reform, other than our desire for better functioning and greater authority of the Council. That is why we call for action to overcome the current deadlock.

Mr. Urbina (Costa Rica)

I would like to begin by thanking the President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative the State of Qatar, Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, for the work that he has been doing in the Council and also for presenting the report on the Council's activities to the General Assembly (A/61/2).

My delegation has awaited this report of the Security Council with particular interest, because it is the first that was to reflect the will expressed by the heads of State and Government of our countries during the 2005 World Summit. In particular, Costa Rica hoped to see how the mandate to improve the accountability of the Security Council to the General Assembly would be fulfilled. We hoped to see substantial progress in this area.

But when we study this report, we are forced to observe that the improvement that we expected has not taken place. The report we are discussing today serves the interests of the Security Council, but does not contain the answers that the General Assembly has been asking for.

With respect to our debate last year on this same item, we hoped as well that we would resume the practice of convening a meeting of the Security Council for an in-depth discussion of its annual work and to approve the report. Regrettably, that has not taken place either. It is crucial that the 2002 experience -- convening a meeting of the Council to discuss its work -- be taken up as a practice that can only enrich all of us and effectively benefit our peoples. I would like to recall that that gratifying experience took place thanks to the insistence of the delegation of Singapore, which was then a member of the Security Council. With the same purpose of increasing the effectiveness, transparency, responsibility and accountability of the Council, Costa Rica today joins with Singapore, Jordan, Liechtenstein and Switzerland in the group of five small nations -- the "Small Five".

Our position with respect to United Nations reform in general and that of the Security Council in particular is well known. However, we take this opportunity to highlight a few points.

I begin by saying that for Costa Rica, the theme of raising the number of members of the Security Council is important only as a mechanism to restore the geographic representation that we lost in the light of the historical evolution of the last 60 years. The fundamental guide in expanding the number of Council members should not be simply the economic contribution of those who contribute the most, or the responsibilities that some States have in peacekeeping. In addition, and above all, increasing the number of members on the Security Council should respond to the necessary representation of the interests of the poorest sectors of mankind, of those who have less access to the benefits to scientific and technological progress, those who suffer the most from hunger and from war, and those who pay most dearly for the deterioration of our planet.

Increasing the number of permanent members is a complex topic and could have consequences that we do not want. In June 2005, the delegation of Costa Rica circulated a study that proves without any doubt that those who are permanent members of the Security Council not only hold the most powerful positions within the Organization but also convert themselves into permanent members of the most important bodies and subsidiary organs of the system. We are deeply concerned that, in expanding the category of permanent members of the Council, we could restrict in that way the number of seats available for other States in the organs and subsidiary bodies of the system.

Thus we believe that before we discuss the possible increase in the number of permanent members, we should discuss seriously the measures and guarantees that would prevent that dangerous snowball effect, which has been evident so far. Further restricting access to the principal organs of the system and its subsidiary bodies could only result in weakening the sense of belonging on the part of many of those excluded, to the detriment of the international legitimacy of the United Nations.

We would like to reiterate that for us it is crucial to make major efforts to substantially improve the working methods of the Security Council. It is in improving these methods that we find the answers to the most important questions that weigh on the Council and that bear on the effectiveness of the work of the Organization itself. In order to have a Security Council that has greater legitimacy and that better meets the concerns of Member States and of international public opinion, our efforts should focus primarily on improving the Council's working methods.

In this respect, we believe that the work done by the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation is a very valuable step in the right direction. We would like to acknowledge the work of Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, Permanent Representative of Japan, whose leadership was decisive in this task. We would also like to see the effective implementation of the recommendations of this Working Group, recommendations that for us represent a starting point, not a destination.

We believe that there is still much left to be done to restore the prestige of the Organization and to improve the legitimacy of its decisions. Although many say that they do not understand what we are referring to when we talk about transparency and accountability, we will not relent in insisting on the need to have more and more information on the Council's activities, nor we will not relent in our determination to make sure that all, without exception, explain their conduct to the Assembly.

We are living in a time of transparency and accountability. This phenomenon is taking place everywhere, and the best-kept secrets come to light. Governments, sooner or later, will answer for their actions, first of all to their own peoples, and also to the international community.

Today, more than ever before, we have to restore the balance of power between the General Assembly and the Security Council. We have to revive the intention of the founders of the Organization that is so clearly expressed in the Charter of the United Nations. In accordance with the Charter, the Council acts in representing all of the Member States and its primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security. Logically, from this, the Council should inform the Assembly in a timely manner on its actions or its lack of action so that the Assembly can exercise the proper control and, if necessary, take the corrective measures that the situation requires.

However, the Security Council's reports cannot simply be an accounting of the facts, which is what we have before us today. The General Assembly has the right to see documents that are more analytical, including assessments of the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the Council and the positions of its members in adopting them. In that regard, we have often called upon the Council to provide the Assembly with special reports -- in accordance with Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Charter -- whenever the Council decides to establish a new peacekeeping operation or substantially alter the mandate of such operations or sets up new sanctions regimes.

We also believe that the Security Council must provide the General Assembly with a report whenever a draft resolution is vetoed. That is especially important in the world in which we live in today. Our action or lack of action can be perceived immediately in all corners of the Earth. In this age of information, we cannot fail to have the necessary political will to achieve fluid, effective and thorough communication among all protagonists in the United Nations system.

We have many concerns. Before I conclude, I should like to draw the Assembly's attention to the power of the veto, which we believe has lost much of the original purpose for which it was conceived. This instrument, which was justifiable at its inception, requires that it be used responsibly in the global village in which we live today. The veto cannot be the last resort of special interests to the detriment of overall interests. Nor can it be a mechanism that leads to inaction. Above and beyond a thorough debate on this issue, we would like to emphasize today the need for urgent reform that eliminates, or at least effectively limits, the use of the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and gross violations of human rights.

We are pleased to note the growing awareness of the reform of the Organization which is taking place today. We believe that reform will not be complete unless we once and for all take on the overall reform of the Security Council. We have made some progress, but much remains to be done.

Costa Rica would like to reiterate its commitment to the Organization and to the vision we have for it in the twenty-first century, in order that we can together clearly respond to the peoples of the United Nations so that they will never again be subject to our inaction in the light of the horrors that many people of the planet experience today.

Mr. Akram (Pakistan)

I would like to thank Ambassador Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser of Qatar, the current President of the Security Council, for presenting the report of the Security Council (A/61/2). Qatar's role in the Council is another example of the invaluable contribution that an elected member, and a small country, can make to its work.

Pakistan fully endorses the comprehensive statement made at the previous meeting by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The concerns expressed by the Non-Aligned Movement include double standards in the work of the Council, prolonged inaction and silence in some cases, quick resort to the threat or authorization of sanctions and enforcement action on others, lack of coordination with other principal organs and encroachment on their mandates, and non-transparent and non-inclusive decision-making, which is aggravated by the abuse of the veto. We earnestly hope that the proposals advanced by the Non-Aligned Movement will be considered seriously.

In recent years the Council has had relative success in dealing with internal crises and complex emergencies, in particular in Africa. United Nations peacekeeping has significantly enlarged and evolved over the past decades into a vital tool in halting and ameliorating several conflicts -- in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Burundi. We hope such successes will be extended elsewhere. Pakistan takes pride in its role and contribution to those efforts as the largest troop contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Notwithstanding those successes, the Council has failed to deal effectively with peacebuilding and development. Without that several success stories could regress to failure, as happened with Haiti. There are also several ongoing conflicts, especially in Asia and Africa, that continue to fester, and where the Council is not always regarded as an honest broker due to one-sided decisions. In vast sections of public opinion, especially in the Islamic world, the Security Council is viewed as ineffective and partisan. It is widely believed that the Council is controlled by, and acts on behalf of, some permanent members and other major Powers. It does not reflect the concerns and aspirations of the majority of the small and developing countries of the United Nations.

The Council is not dealing directly with some of the major conflicts and threats to international peace and security. The implementation of some resolutions is actively pursued while others are ignored. There is inaction even in the face of the most obvious acts of aggression, as we witnessed in Lebanon. On the other hand, there is proaction, even interference, in the internal affairs of sovereign States, even where clearly there is no threat to international peace and security.

The provisions for the pacific settlement of disputes remain grossly under-utilized by the Council. In contrast, there is a dangerous tendency to have recourse, too often and too soon, to measures under Chapter VII of the Charter, including sanctions and enforcement action. We hope the United Nations will not to be placed in a position to participate in the errors of intervention by the invocation of the responsibility to protect. The limits of the use of force have now been fully revealed.

Meanwhile the Council's encroachment on the mandates and jurisdiction of other principal organs, especially the General Assembly, continues unabated. That upsets the delicate balance envisaged under the Charter and jeopardizes the overall effectiveness of the United Nations system.

Despite recent efforts to improve transparency, much of the Council's real work and decision-making takes place behind closed doors, often in exclusive conclaves that exclude even the elected members of the Security Council. Often, the media are more informed than those members. Most inequitably, the Member States directly concerned with a dispute or conflict are not allowed to participate in the Council's deliberations; nor are they even properly consulted. The Council's annual report does not shed any light on the rationale for and process of decision-making. Hence, non-members hunt for and gather information.

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the United Nations Secretariat seems to be responsive only to the major Powers. Indeed, the leadership of the principal departments of the Secretariat is considered as the heritage and right of some permanent members.

It is therefore quite evident that comprehensive reform of the Security Council is essential to provide it greater legitimacy and credibility. The reform of the working methods of the Council is part and parcel of such a comprehensive reform. Pakistan supports the so-called S-5 initiative. However, in our view, it does not go far enough to address some of the real issues I have mentioned.

Pakistan agrees that a comprehensive reform of the Council must cover the vital issue of the veto. It is now clear that the veto will not be surrendered or shared by the five permanent members. However, there may be ways to address this issue. The power of the veto is the power to block decisions. To equalize power, we could consider raising the proportional majority required for the adoption of resolutions in an enlarged Council -- for example, by increasing it to two thirds from the present ratio of three fifths.

In an enlarged Council, a higher ratio for approval of resolutions could provide its elected members, including developing countries, a greater possibility to influence the decision-making. It is not through a permanent or long-term presence that the balance of power in the Council can be changed or challenged. It can happen by increasing the number and role of the elected members in the enlarged Council.

We agree that the composition of an enlarged Council should better reflect current realities, but current realities are complex. The changes of the past decades have not only created some large and emerging Powers; there are also a number of middle-sized States that play an equally important role in international and regional peace and security. Furthermore, there is also a large number of small States, mostly developing countries, that can contribute significantly to the Council's work. The examples of Singapore and Qatar come readily to mind.

The most tangible contribution to peace and security is not wealth, military power or population. It is determined by the degree of the commitment of a Member State to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, its adherence to United Nations resolutions, its participation in United Nations peacekeeping and its willingness to have recourse to the pacific settlement of disputes. The best way to determine a State's qualifications for membership on the Security Council, whether more or less frequent, is through the democratic method of periodic elections by its peers, that is, by the General Assembly, on whose behalf the Security Council is supposed to act.

Pakistan's position is well known. It was reflected in the 2005 Uniting for Consensus draft resolution (A/59/L.68). That was a most feasible and equitable proposal. Pakistan continues to believe that permanent membership for a few individual States will deny the opportunity for equitable representation to all other States. The smaller the expansion of the Council, therefore, the greater the need to find ways to ensure equitable representation for all States.

An acceptable formula for rotation could provide the means for such equitable representation. Such rotation, combined with regional representation, may also offer possibilities for the fuller representation of countries members of various groups of States. We are not restricted to options A and B of the High-level Panel on threats, challenges and change. The acceptability of enlargement, and its nature, will depend considerably upon, first, the size of expansion and, secondly, the methodology adopted to ensure the equitable representation of all groups of countries, including large, medium and small States.

The concept of long-term membership should not become a guise for a permanent presence. However, Pakistan remains open to the idea of immediate re-election, whose modalities would need to be determined according to the size and structure of any model while ensuring overall balanced representation of geographical groups and other subregional and political constituencies.

The Security Council, as is evident from its wide-ranging agenda, is increasingly assuming a larger role in the management of international relations. It is evident that all Member States have a direct and vital interest in the work of the Council and its decision-making. All Member States therefore have an equally crucial stake in the reform of the Council. That is why it is essential that reform should be decided by consensus or the widest possible agreement. The key lesson of last year is that no proposal designed to serve the interest of a few individual States can expect to win the support of the required majority of Member States. Without consensus or the widest possible agreement, the prospects for ratification of any Charter amendment for the reform of the Council will remain dismal.

If we are to achieve consensus or widest possible agreement, all proponents will need to review their positions and explore fresh ideas with flexibility and creativity. The dinner meeting hosted by President Musharraf of Pakistan and Prime Minister Prodi of Italy, along with other like-minded countries on 20 September in New York, was designed to initiate the process of such fresh thinking and dialogue on Security Council reform. We were most encouraged by the positive and constructive response of all the participants at that meeting.

We can conduct further informal contacts and consultations in any appropriate forum where ideas and options can be freely explored and discussed. Seminars or retreats can be organized for such brainstorming and exploratory sessions. In such informal processes, we should seek to elaborate possible approaches to an equitable compromise solution. Various alternative models could be developed for consideration. That should be an open and inclusive process. We should avoid labels and groups. Restricted initiatives with partisan agendas will only divide us. Our efforts should be aimed at bridging, not creating, divides within the membership of the United Nations. We would be grateful to the President of the General Assembly if she could lead such a process. Pakistan is committed to participate constructively and to work together with all Member States in a collective endeavour to achieve consensus.

Mr. Bodini (San Marino)

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 1478: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg006-bk01-pa01">We are once again conv...ve forward in this delicate but vital reform.</p>', 1478, 1479, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 1479
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg006-bk01-pa01">We are once again conv...ve forward in this delicate but vital reform.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 1478