Global Policy Forum

Report of 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 - Annex VII

Print

Report of 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


Annex VII

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE VICE-CHAIRMEN OF THE WORKING GROUP*


1. The present conference room paper, issued by the Bureau of the Open-ended Working Group, at the request of the Working Group, contains the statements made by Mr. Jayanama of Thailand on behalf of himself and Mr. Breitenstein of Finland, Co-Vice-Chairmen of the Open-ended Working Group. These statements, made on 10 and 14 March 1997, outlined major findings of the consultations held by the Co-Vice-Chairmen from 28 January to 5 March 1997.

 

Statement made on 10 March 1997

2. Our Working Group has been functioning for the past three years and this is the beginning of the fourth year. It is approximately six months since our last formal meetings. We have had much in-depth discussion, particularly in the last five weeks, on both clusters of issues. However, those who have actively spoken in the Open-ended Working Group constitute only about 30 per cent of the full membership of the United Nations. The Bureau felt that it had to reach out to those who had hardly spoken, both in the Open-ended Working Group and at the General Assembly, in order to hear their views. This overwhelming but silent majority easily constituted over 100 Member States.

3. In addition to reaching out to the majority, we also felt that it was also a good idea to further exchange views with the rest of the membership. While their views might be well-known already, nevertheless we considered they could do with further clarification and exposition.

4. With this rationale in mind, we decided to invite representatives of all United Nations Member States to informal private consultations between 28 January to 5 March 1997. We met with them at the United Nations, either individually or in small groups, to discuss the subject of Security Council reform. For those who found our proposed schedules inconvenient, we offered second and even third opportunities to meet with us. In the end, a total of 165 delegations participated in these discussions. Participants were very appreciative of our efforts, especially those from smaller countries and we hope that this exercise was as rewarding for them as it was for us.

5. Before we give you the findings of our consultations, we want to inject a note of caution; namely, the objective of these consultations was to obtain more extensive views from the membership on some issues concerning Security Council reform. The Bureau hoped to get a general feeling of where the Open-ended Working Group stands, overall as well as on some specific issues. We believe that this limited objective was achieved.

6. The major findings from the consultations are:

 

  • An increase in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership in the Security Council was supported by a very large majority of those interviewed, including those who indicated that they would go along with this option if the majority of the membership preferred it.

     

  • A few interviewees expressed categorical opposition to an increase in permanent membership, only advocating increase in non-permanent membership.

     

  • Recognizing the problems involved, a number of delegations which supported an increase in both categories also expressed readiness to support an increase in the non-permanent category as a first step provided that the Open-ended Working Group would continue to address the increase in permanent membership.

     

  • The majority of those who addressed the size of the Security Council supported an overall expansion of the membership to 26, while some others preferred an expansion to the low 20s. Safeguarding the efficiency of the Council was a common concern of many delegations.

     

  • The majority of supporters of an increase in both categories of membership supported an increase of five non-permanent members and five permanent members. Most of these supporters wanted the five new permanent members to come from both developing and industrialized countries and many stressed that there should be no discrimination between present and new permanent members.

     

  • The veto was considered anachronistic and undemocratic by a vast majority of interviewees, although it was acknowledged that it was not realistic to expect the veto to be abolished.

     

  • Many interviewees stressed the importance of adhering to the principles - already recognized in earlier reports of the Open-ended Working Group - of equitable geographical distribution and sovereign equality of all Member States with regard to the size and composition of an expanded Security Council.

     

  • A large majority supported moving ahead with improvements in the working methods of the Security Council and enhancement of the transparency of its work without having to wait for solutions on the expansion issues.

     

  • While preference for reaching consensus was expressed, there was a recognition that in the end consensus would not be a realistic objective; many therefore suggested that the aim should be to gain as wide, representative and qualitative support as possible for the reform of the Security Council, while others thought that a simple vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly would be enough (Article 108 of the Charter of the United Nations).

     

A number of other issues were discussed during the consultations. As these issues were not addressed in a sufficiently structured manner, findings on them are not reflected in the present note.

7. According to the findings above, it seems that a clear majority of those interviewed supported the Open-ended Working Group in moving into more comprehensive, focused and solution-oriented work with the objective of fulfilling its mandate within an expeditious and realistic time-frame. Therefore, the Co-Chairmen propose that we address the various substantive issues in order to provide a comprehensive picture of all issues falling under the mandate of the Open-ended Working Group. The Co-Chairmen have been informed of certain initiatives relating to the working methods, transparency, and efficiency of the Security Council. We therefore propose to start our work by looking into those issues this week.


Statement made on 14 March 1997

8. Earlier this week some delegations raised questions or sought clarification on certain points made in our earlier statement (see above). We would like to address some of these questions before we move on to more specific discussions on cluster II issues. Before doing so, we would like to express our gratitude to our colleagues for the many expressions of interest, understanding and support, both inside and outside this hall, for our efforts.

9. First, the Bureau would emphasize that the whole purpose of the consultations was to provide it with a more detailed but comprehensive picture of the views held by the membership on substantive and procedural issues falling within the mandate of the Working Group. Therefore, this consultation was an internal exercise, at least at the beginning. Because the Bureau received many inquiries, it felt that it should share the main findings from these consultations with the membership of the Open-ended Working Group. It was never the intention of the Co-Chairmen to attempt to replace the multilateral discussions and negotiations taking place in the Open-ended Working Group with these consultations. Everyone knows that this usurpation cannot be effected. And at the end of the day, decisions on this very important subject will be made at our capitals.

10. Second, questions concerning issues strictly falling within the mandate of 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 were put to delegations, with some differences in order and emphasis, depending on the perception of the Bureau on positions of individual countries. These questions were:

SIZE AND COMPOSITION

 

  1. Overall size of the reformed Security Council;

     

  2. Increase in both categories, permanent and non-permanent, of the membership of the Security Council; increase only in the non-permanent category;

     

  3. Number of new non-permanent and new permanent members;

     

  4. Election/selection/nomination/appointment of new permanent members; the role of regions in this process;

    QUESTION OF THE VETO

     

  5. Extension of the veto to possible new permanent members;

    WORKING METHODS AND TRANSPARENCY

     

  6. More rapid progress on the working methods of the Security Council and transparency of its work; a package solution including both expansion and working methods and transparency; de-linking the clusters from each other;

    TIME-FRAME AND/OR URGENCY OF THE REFORM OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL

     

  7. Urgency of the reform of the Security Council; time-frame for conclusion of the reform;

    PROCEEDINGS OF THE OPEN-ENDED WORKING GROUP DURING THE FIFTY-FIRST SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

     

  8. Proceedings of the work of the Open-ended Working Group in March.
As already mentioned, these questions were more or less posed to all delegations. No leading follow-up questions were made and if any delegations made reference to a well-known position it had taken earlier no detailed follow-up questions were deemed necessary. Some delegations did not answer all questions.

11. Third, in addition to answers to the above-mentioned questions, several delegations volunteered additional information, e.g. regional rotation, candidates they supported for permanent membership, limitations or elimination of the veto, support for or comments on specific proposals. However, since these questions were neither addressed in a structured manner nor by all delegations, findings on these issues were not included in our earlier statement (see above) on the results of the consultations.

12. Fourth, during our debate, it was suggested that it would be helpful if the Bureau could provide details concerning support for different findings in numerical terms. However, the Bureau is not in a position to do this. Participants were assured by the Co-Chairmen that the consultations were confidential and that results in specific terms would not be revealed.

13. Fifth, the Bureau would like, however, to provide a specific answer to the delegation which wondered whether a different kind of a majority could be built around an increase in non-permanent membership on the basis of the second finding on categorical opposition to an increase in permanent membership and the third finding on readiness to support an increase only in the non-permanent membership as a first step. Clearly, the answer is that no such majority could be found.

14. Sixth, some delegations also pointed out that the findings from the consultations were not in conformity with the Open-ended Working Group's report to the General Assembly which was adopted by consensus. Nor did it conform with discussions under agenda item 47 of the General Assembly and other relevant agenda items. It is very clear to the Bureau that the report of the Open-ended Working Group to the General Assembly was a negotiated document, adopted by consensus, and in a way representing the lowest common denominator. Our private consultations, however, were not negotiations but exchanges of views in which participants expressed their opinions in a more open manner. Furthermore, statements under different agenda items have not gone into as much detail as the consultations and, of course, all delegations did not address the same issues in their statements.

15. Seventh, with regard to the comment that these consultations were not transparent and that the Co-Chairmen had no mandate to conduct these consultations, the Co-Chairmen feel that it is fully within their mandates to utilize any means of consultation within the traditional practices of the United Nations to exercise their duties and responsibilities as elected Co-Vice-Chairmen of the Working Group. Indeed, by sharing with the Working Group the results of what began essentially as an internal exercise, we should have dispelled any fear that our efforts were not transparent.


*Previously issued as A/AC.247/1997/CRP.6 of 16 May 1997.

 

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.