May 10, 1996
Statement by Ambassador Dr. Gerhard Henze Acting Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations to the Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council at the United Nations: Composition and Size of the Security Council: Non-permanent Members
Mr. Chairman,
On several occasions, Germany has pronounced itself on the principles governing the possible expansion of non-permanent membership. Let me recall some of these principles today:
First: An increase in the membership of the Security Council has to take place in both cate gories, permanent and non-permanent membership. Both increases are firmly inter-related. If we were to rule out one of both increases, the reform would miss its comprehensiveness and main objectives. We have tried to explain this in depth in our statement of 23 April 1996. Discussions during the last weeks and months have demonstrated that proposals which insist categorically on an increase in only one category, have found interest by many - including my own country -, but not support by more than roughly three percent of the whole membership. I call on these delegations to reconsider their categoric positions and join the broad and comprehensive approach of the majority.
Second: The increase in the non-permanent category is essential, as it reflects particularly the increase in the general membership which has occured since 1965. It will guarantee an improved chance for all countries to be represented better and more often on the Security Council. This implies improved chances for smaller and medium-sized countries, too.
Third: This increase in the non-permanent category must respect the principle of equitable geographical distribution as laid down in Art. 23 I of the Charter. It must be safeguarded that all world regions are equitably represented in the Council.
Fourth: Increase in either one of both categories must not endanger the effectiveness of the work of the Council, but enhance it. The Council works and deliberates in a way that often requires immediate decisions. If we want a modern and strong Council, we must bear this in mind.
The ratio between non-permanent and permanent members should be similar to the ratio existing when the United Nations were created. The ratio, for which no rigid conditions exist, depends on the increase to take place in both categories. As we have shown in our statement of 23 April 1996, the new Council as proposed by us would have a ratio between non- permanent and permanent members of 1.4 : 1 (overall-size 24 members) or 1.5 : 1 (overall-size 25 members). The ratio in 1945 was 1.2 : 1 (overall-size 11 members).
Mr. Chairman,
The criteria for new non-permanent members are laid down in the Charter. The General Assembly elects non-permanent members with special regard in the first instance to the contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution (Art. 23 I). The described criteria which seem to have worked well in the past should be maintained.
The new overall-size of the Council should be in the low mid-twenties. As we have stated on numerous occasions, it is a must that the South gets permanent membership. Germany supports permanent membership for Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, three seats altogether. At the same time, we believe Japan and Germany eligible for permanent membership. The number of new non-permanent seats should be four, one each for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and for Eastern Europe. We feel due consideration should be given to the question of creating an additional (fifth) non-permanent seat. Together with five new permanent seats, it would bring the overall size of the new Council to 24 or 25 members, depending on an additional 5th seat. This number seems to us in line with the principles governing the possible expansion of non-permanent membership. Australia, in its thorough statement of 27 March 1996, to this Working Group, has shown that this would lead to 7 representatives from African and Asian states (+2), 2 from Eastern European countries (+1), 3 from Latin American and Caribbean states (+1) and 3 from Western European or other states (+1) if the 5th seat would go to WEOG. 14 (15) non-permanent members would, as Australia has shown, re-establish the ratio of representation of the general membership in the Council as it existed before the strong increase in the general membership since 1965.
Mr. Chairman, The modalities for the selection of new non-permanent members are contained in the Charter. They are elected by the General Assembly (Art. 23 I). These Charter provisions seem to be up to date and valid. There is no need to change them. Applying them to the new seats guarantees the same - henceforth even improved - access to non-permanent membership for all members.
Mr. Chairman,
Special global rotational arrangements are in our belief no way of reforming the Council. Particularly, if they are linked with a categoric exclusion of an increase in the regular categories of permanent and non-permanent membership. We have tried to demonstrate in extenso the disadvantages of such exclusive models of special seats for a number of 30 or more member states in our statements of 28 and 29 February 1996:
- Special seats for some 30 or more countries simply institutionalize the advantages larger countries had in the past, when they were competing for non-permanent membership.
- The chances of the remaining 160 "normal" member states for an "ordinary" non-permanent seat do only improve insignificantly, if at all; .
- Turning ordinary non-permanent members into holders of third class seats does not improve but deteriorate the balance within the Council; .
- It seems to be impossible to think of just and fair criteria to determine in advance who is allowed access to a special seat and who is not. .
- The many questions which have been asked in this Working Group with regard to the financial contributions of these new special seats to the costs of peacekeeping operations remain unanswered. .
- The same is true with regard to the difficult questions regarding the modalities of the election of those new special seats or semi-permanent members. They have not been answered.
These considerations are only the most obvious problems of exclusive special seats for some 20, 30 or 40 members. There are more problems. We have followed the debate during the last months carefully in this respect. To our understanding, there has been a lot of interest, a lot of critical questions - especially from smaller member states which allegedly were to benefit from these models -, but only little and certainly not a growing support for them among member states. This model is apparently not an alternative to an increase in both the existing categories of membership, non-permanent and permanent.
Mr. Chairman,
Art. 23 II of the Charter foresees a term of office of two years for new non-permanent members. This term seems to us appropriate. Art. 23 II also states that a retiring non-permanent member should not be eligible for immediate re-election. In this regard, Germany had in an earlier statement in 1994 considered the possibility to remove the ban to re-elect new non-permanent members in order to give a fuller range of options to the regions. But we have noted the reservations of many member states with regard to the removal of the ban of re-election. With regard to this question, we therefore are ready to follow the view of the majority.
