Global Policy Forum

Please title this page. (Page 4) The Question of Equitable Representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and Related Matters

Mr President,

The large number of speakers in this debate is, like last year, a testament to the importance of the issue of Security Council reform. Because of it I will be brief.

Australia's position is well known. Reforrn of the Security Council is overdue. Further delay and obstruction of the reform process carries a cost that can be measured in the currency of the Council's credibility and relevance, and that of the United Nations as a whole.

We support the expansion of the Council: by giving permanent seats to under-represented developing regions; by giving permanent seats to Japan and Germany, commensurate with their role in international peace and security; and by increasing the number of non-permanent seats.

We support a review of any new arrangements after ten years. We support a new understanding on the scope and application of the veto. And we support greater openness and transparency in the Council's working methods.

When I delivered the Australian statement on this agenda item one year ago, I said this: that the time for debate was over, and that we needed now to move into serious negotiations on concrete outcomes. It is a matter of real regret to Australia that - one year later - we are still waiting for those negotiations to begin.

That we have not made more progress in the Open-Ended Working Group is no reflection on its management. I would like to express our appreciation to the former President of the General Assembly, Ambassador Hennadly Udovenko of Ukraine, for his Chairmanship. I would also like to pay particular tribute to Ambassador Asda Jayanama of Thailand and Ambassador Wilhelm Breitenstein of Finland for their tireless efforts and unceasing fairness as Co-Vice-Chairs of the Working Group. We regret that circumstances have arisen that prevent them continuing in these roles.

The incoming Co-Vice-Chairman will have Australia's support. It is our hope that their authority - and yours, Mr President - will help us overcome the hurdles that remain in the way of agreement on Security Council reform.

We have before us today a draft resolution - L. 16 - dealing with the question of the majority required for decision. This is one of a number of questions addressed in the Working Group which, clearly, is not yet ripe for decision.

We have a number of difficulties with L. 16, not least its references to Article 108 of the Charter which we believe are legally flawed. I will not dwell on this point except to underline its importance because, at all costs, we must protect the Charter. Unravelling the Charter to serve a tactical convenience would be at great cost to all of us.

If, however, L. 16 ultimately is aimed at finding a way of ensuring that decisions on the reform of the Security Council are taken by the highest possible majority of the UN membership, that is an objective we share. If that is the objective then we can work with its co-sponsors to that end.

That is why Australia is joining with others in proposing some amendments. These are designed not to oppose L. 16, but to provide a basis for compromise and for consensus. We hope that there will be an opportunity to pursue it.

Australia's view is that this resolution is not yet ready for decision. Agreement may not be far away, but further consultations are needed to get us there.

We hope action on L. 16 can be deferred while we look for compromise. Pressing for action while the prospect of consensus exists would reflect badly on all of us, and on this organisation. It would create division where it is our responsibility - and I assume our wish - to find agreement. And it would be destructive to our shared goal of reform of the Security Council. My delegation, for one, is ready to work energetically to avoid this.

Thank you, Mr President.