Statement by Ambassador Tono Eitel (Permanent Representative of Germany to the UN) 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 at the United Nations:
The working methods of the Security Council (SC) are essential to Germany. They are one of two integral parts of the coherent mandate of the Working Group (WG). Germany has addressed this issue repeatedly since the beginning of the WG. The WG has important documents and declarations at its disposition (the Compendium, CRP. 3, 4, 8 and the Czech proposal). Therefore Germany limits itself to the following observations:
1. The reform of the working methods of the SC is of particular importance to Germany. Reform in this context aims at the broadest possible participation of Member States in the work of the SC. Germany is, since its entry in 1973, part of the new realities of the UN. It has never participated in any UN reform. It feels soldidarity with all those countries who have also spent long years out of the SC or have may be even never been in it. In 1995, Germany has undertaken special measures to guarantee transparency during its SC Presidency. If the Member States decide to change the status of Germany in the future, it will double its efforts from inside the Council on a permanent basis.
2. Cluster I (representation, effectiveness, strength) and Cluster II (transparency, openness, coordination) are closely interlinked. Progress in one Cluster will only be possible if progress in the other Cluster is achieved as well. A global decision, not a partial package "í la carte", is needed. A strategic approach leads to the same conclusion. Far-reaching, substantiel improvements in Cluster II require that Member States, including the P5, know the outcome of the discussion in Cluster I. Finally, from a legal point of view, the mandate of the WG does not entitle the WG to advance in one area at the expense of the other area. The name of the WG reads clearly "... and other matters". Therefore, the mandate requires a parallel treatment of both Clusters.
3. Germany considers the following transparency measures especially important:
1. Daily briefings by the SC President,
2. More analytic SC reports,
3. Improved briefings by the chairs of sanction committees,
4. More open formal SC meetings,
5. A wider interpretation of Art. 31 of the Charter (Czech proposal),
6. Improved coordination between SC and troop contributors,
7. Earlier and better information on SC meetings and actions,
8. Abstention or restraint if members of the SC are part to a dispute (general idea contained in Art. 27 (3) of the Charter). Germany is flexible in regard to the institutionalisation of transparency measures. If formalisation is the general will of the membership, Germany has no problem with it. It believes, however, that the decisive factor is the concrete action and the spirit in which an action is carried out but not its formal basis.
4. The Bureau should evaluate the numerous documents and declarations before the WG. In a next step, they could be clustered, for example by including them in CRP. 4. CRP. 4, which is neither a maxima list nor a minimalist document, appears to be the most structured and operative document. All these steps would allow to arrive at an overall package, including Cluster II and I.
