Ambassador Park Soo Gil, Permamanent Representative, at the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to share some of my preliminary thoughts on the question of Permanent Membership, although the final position of my government on the composition and size of the Security Council is still in the formative stages.
My intention today is not to discuss the pros and cons of the various proposals currently on the table. Nor do I wish to discuss the criteria by which countries should be entitled to Permanent Membership. What I do want to focus on is the very concept of permanency in the Security Council.
I believe it is high time to consider the issue of Permanent Membership in a more conceptual perspective as several other delegations have done.
Does the term "permanent" mean eternity? I wonder whether, in the process of drafting the Charter, the founding fathers intended "permanent" to mean "forever." I rather doubt it. Obviously, they could not have foreseen what is unfolding in today's world in the wake of the collapse of the Cold War. In this context, it is interesting to note the English playwright Congreve's claim that "eternity was in that moment."
Besides, if "permanent" is indeed "forever," this clearly goes against the prevailing ideology of our time, that is democracy. No civilized and democratic society in today's world allows permanent leadership. That would be un-democratic and in-permissible.
In 1945, the founding fathers of the United Nations had some justification to incorporate the concept of Permanent Membership into the Charter. In a sense, it was the reflection of the real politics at the time.
Today, global realities have changed exponentially. Yet despite the tremendous changes that have taken place, it is almost as though the Security Council has been caught up in a time warp; trapped in 1945.
Mr. Chairman,
Just as global realities have changed up until now, so will they continue to change from now on. Countries both evolve and digress. In the words of Paul Kennedy: "Great powers rise and fall." Leaderships come and go. Any organ or organization should have the ability to adapt rapidly to changing circumstances to maintain their vitality. Seen from this perspective, the notion of permanency with respect to Security Council membership is not consistent with the inexorable march of history.
Against this background, we attach utmost importance to democratic elections in the General Assembly in choosing Council members. We fully agree with some other delegations who rightly pointed out that the decisive criterion, among others, is whether the candidate enjoys the support of a 2/3 majority.
In this regard, we believe that any countries chosen as Council members through democratic elections should be subject to a mechanism which ensures some degree of accountability in the future. Qualifications should not go permanently unchecked. Democratic review in the form of elections is a must in our view.
We note with interest that even those who support the expansion of Permanent Membership also endorse the notion of periodic review. In this regard, it is interesting to note that a new concept of "standing" members was introduced by the Commission on Global Governance.
Mr. Chairman,
The exemption from democratic elections for a certain group of countries, whether it is 5, 7 or 10, is tantamount to denying the progress of history and, moreover, to depriving future generations of their legitimate right to verify the qualifications of Security Council members. Do we have the right to impose our will upon them? Obviously not.
Let me quote a passage from a speech the Secretary-General recently delivered in Seoul: "History will pity those who do not understand the trend of time."
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
