GA Open-Ended Working Group
June 22, 1998
Mr. Chairman,
On the issue of the majority required for decision-making on the reform of the Security Council, item 5 of our programme of work, I have the pleasure of informing the group as I have previously done so during the last session of the working group that the Non Aligned Movement has agreed at the ministerial level at its last meeting in Cartagena, to reaffirm its "determination that any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by two thirds majority of the United Nations membership referred to in Article 108 of the Charter."
This position did not emanate from a void. It is based on a strong belief that the issue of the majority required for decisions on Security Council reform is of crucial importance to our work here in the High Level working group. This working group is faced, and for the first time, with the possibility of addressing the expansion of the Security Council in more than one category of its membership. The issued of expanding the Security Council in its permanent category has never been addressed before. It is pertinent to recall the relevant historical facts. In 1945, there was no election of the permanent members of the Security Council. In point of fact, no form of democratic selection process where a possibility may exist for freedom of choice was offered. The permanent members themselves convened the conference and at the end of the day imposed their will. Thus, the permanent status of the five was accepted unanimously by the participants at the San Francisco Conference in 1945. At the conference in the committees and sub-committees, several objections were raised, issues were put to a vote. However, those objections were raised on issues such as the question of the veto, on the scope of application of the veto etc… but there was no alternative to the selection of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the USSR to becoming permanent members of the Security Council.
Therefore, the 1945 conference is the only precedent we have for the election of permanent members to the Security Council. There was never again an instance where there was a voting for electing permanent members of the Security Council.
In 1963, the Security Council was expanded only in its non-permanent category. The provisions of Article 108 were strictly applied to the 1963 expansion. In resolution 1991A (XVIII), the first operative paragraph states: "The General Assembly decides to adopt in accordance with Article 108 of the Charter, the following amendments and to submit them to the ratification by the states members of the United Nations". The addition of non-permanent seats was done in one phase and in one phase only. Indeed, the Security Council was expanded in full conformity with the Provisions of the Charter. The Charter only recognizes one phase – i.e. in Article 108. The notion of the phased approach, and or the incremental approach, was only introduced last year in this working group, and for the reasons we all know and on which I shall not attempt to dwell upon. The point which I would like to emphasize is that the Charter envisaged a single phase approach for the adoption of amendments. And again in 1963, expansion of the permanent category of membership was not addressed.
Today, we are faced with the prospect of expansion of the Security Council in more than one category (e.g. the African request for two permanent rotating seats, see International Documents Review 9(23), p. 2). Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the ceiling ought to be raised so as to insure the need to reach general agreement. The provisions of article 108 must be applied at every stage of consideration of this reform short of the ratification of the member states, which would apply to the last stage of decision-making on the reform of the Security Council. General agreement was never defined properly. I wish to recall here that more than one attempt was made at defining general agreement during the consultations that took place at the Permanent Mission of Singapore in 1993. The Non Aligned Movement attempted without success at defining the term in New Delhi.
Thus, in 1993, participants in the negotiations leading to the drafting of the enabling resolution of the working group ended up by coining the term "general agreement" to mean the largest possible majority. Indeed, we all agreed to such a coinage because of the importance of the issue at stake, and the need to reach the largest possible majority to make the reform of the Security Council as credible and legitimate as possible. Therefore, it is not enough to say that we need two-thirds of the membership of the General Assembly at every stage of decision making on the reform of the Security Council, but we need an even higher majority so as to equal the "largest possible majority", as the only precedent we have is the 1945 San Francisco Conference where the five Permanent members were elected unanimously.
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to make a few comments on the CRP.14. The paper prepared by the bureau does not follow the Charter approach. The first section of the paper purports to the "final decision" on the reform of the Security Council which will be subject to the provisions of Article 108, such a reference opens up the possibility of more than one approach while the Charter does not mention any phased approach. Therefore it would be recommendable to stick to the provisions of the Charter. In this regard, it might be more appropriate to redraft the paper along more objective lines.
Thank you.
