November 13, 1995
Statement by Amb. Francesco Paolo Fulci, Permanent Representative of Italy, to the General Assembly on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council
Mr. President,
We held the very first meeting of the open-ended working group for the reform of the Security Council on January 19, 1994. We have been discussing this question, at times very intensely, for almost two years.
We have, by and large, reached a consensus on some essentials--namely that the Council must operate with transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, and better coordination with the general assembly and other UN bodies. But no progress whatsoever has been made on the issue of enlargement. Positions on this point have not grown any closer; if anything, they're further apart and more entrenched than ever. Consequently, we missed the initial target: to agree on a reform in time for the 50th anniversary. The only thing that we would seem to have agreed on is that we are in profound disagreement on how to enlarge the Council.
The reasons behind this disagreement are clear to us. We are confronted by two opposing visions of the future of our Organization. One is an approach that I do not hesitate to call elitist. The other is a democratic one.
Some Members States maintain that we should increase the number of permanent seats by two: a solution that has been dubbed the "quick fix." Even though this formula has apparently been abandoned by some of its original proponents, others still seem to favor it.
A reform of this type would not be an evolution, but rather an involution of the present system. The five current permanent members are all from the Northern hemisphere, and almost all of them are industrialized, prosperous nations. Adding two more with the same profile, rather than correcting this imbalance, would clearly aggravate it.
A variation of this formula is the so-called "2 + 3" proposal: 2 permanent seats for highly developed nations, and 3 for the developing world, that is to say, 1 to Asia, 1 to Africa, and 1 to Latin America.
Objections have been raised to this approach for many reasons.
First, it would benefit only 2 or 5 members of the U.N., to the detriment of the remaining 175. The end result would be a small directorate of big countries, making critical decisions on questions that affect all of us, but on which we would have no say. This formula would introduce the concept of elitism, of continental, hegemonic power where it has so far been absent: in the world of non-aligned countries.
Second, this formula would double the number of Council members fully absolved of the need to stand for democratic elections. And one thing is clear: if 10 members do not have to pass the test of an election, the General Assembly's attempts to dialogue and interact with such a Council would become almost nil.
Third, there are countries who contribute more to the U.N. Budget than some permanent members; others have larger populations or make more substantial contributions to U.N. activities. If they are shut out of permanent membership, they would inevitably compete for non-permanent seats on the Security Council much more frequently than they do now. This in turn would greatly diminish the election chances of other mid- to small-sized countries in their respective geographic groups. Disharmony, resentment, even acrimony would prevail if the "2 + 3" formula were to be adopted.
Fourth, since permanent members cannot be removed except by their own agreement--a most unlikely occurrence--the new permanent members would in principle sit on the Council for eternity, impervious to changes in the world or in their own fortunes.
Fifth, permanent members are assured a continuous presence in other important bodies of the United Nations system, namely ECOSOC, the International Court of Justice, the Credentials Committee and the General Committee of the General Assembly. If other permanent members were to be created, they would undoubtedly aspire to these same benefits, considering them an implicit and undeniable prerogative of their new status. This would risk creating a virtual monopoly of permanent members--old and new--over various bodies in the U.N. system.
Last but not least, increasing the number of permanent members would double the number of vetoes on the Council, and threaten to paralyze its activity. The veto is an institution whose time has come--during the cold war years-- and gone. We should be focussing on how to limit its use, not on how to proliferate it.
The opposite vision of the future of our Organization, instead, is that of democracy, equitable geographic representation, and equitable rotation. Rotation is the key word of a truly democratic reform. Italy's project moves in this direction. Our proposal has undergone many changes since it was first presented. We have listened to criticism and taken it into account.
What we are proposing is to leave the permanent members at 5, and increase the Council by adding 8 or 10 new non- permanent seats. According to this formula, the General Assembly would choose 24-30 countries to rotate on the additional non-permanent seats over a 6-year period, with each country on the Council for 2 years and off for four. Needless to say, these countries would be excluded from competing for the current non-permanent seats.
The General Assembly would select these 24-30 countries on the basis of their contribution to the general aims of the Organization, particularly peace-keeping operations (troops, material, financing, humanitarian aid, etc.). Other criteria could eventually be identified. Every 10-12 years there would be a review of this list, and those countries who appear not to have honored their greater responsibilities and commitments would be replaced by other members capable and willing to meet them.
The geographic distribution of the additional non- permanent seats should privilege the continents that are currently under-represented. For example, if 10 new seats were added, 5 should go to Africa and Asia, two to the Latin American and Caribbean States, two to the Western European and Others Group, and one to Eastern Europe. In this way 70 % of the additional non-permanent seats would be reserved for developing countries.
Critics of this formula have implied that it ultimately creates a third category of members. We do not believe this is so. What we have in mind is not a third category but a system of rotation:
1. Like all non-permanent members, the 24-30 Countries would be subject to election by secret ballot, and required to obtain a two-thirds majority.
2. This would not be a closed rotation agreement, but an open one, which should be reviewed every 12-15 years. Nothing would prevent other interested countries from forming additional rotation agreements, some of which already exist, such as in Africa, but are not always complied with.
3. It should be underlined that while more frequently rotating Countries, if elected, would sit on the Council every 6 years, all others could, in theory, stand for election even every 4 years, in accordance with the present rules.
4. Finally and most important of all, mid-sized and small States would have a concrete hope of being elected to the Council, since they would no longer have to compete for seats with their larger neighbors, who systematically elbow them out at every election.
In fact, those who would benefit the most would be the smaller and mid-sized States, 79 of which have been kept out of the Council so far, while 43 have served only once. In short, we should work for a reform that brings about the inclusion of all, and the exclusion of none.
Mr. President,
One of the reasons most frequently cited for creating 2 new permanent members is that Germany and Japan represent the new reality of the past 30 years in the international community. With all due respect, I cannot share this view. These global powers, along with others, have existed at least since the beginning of the century. The true new reality of the past 30 years is that 100 or so former colonies have become full-fledged sovereign countries. If they stand united, they are one of the main players at the United Nations.
"Economic and social progress in the world only makes sense if it is also accompanied by efforts at democratizing international life. To my eyes, democratization is an imperative not only within States, but between them and in all the places of power in international society."
These are not my words, but those of Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, from his address to the conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cartagena last October. It is our sincere hope that this spirit, the spirit of democracy among nations, may also prevail in these halls, for the sake of the future of our organization and of the international community as a whole.
