Global Policy Forum

Brazil: Statement by Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti on Security Council Reform

 

By Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti

September 2, 2009

 

Mr. Chairman,

I wish to thank you for providing delegations yet this opportunity to discuss the expansion of the Security Council in its both categories of members.

As clearly shown in the two previous rounds of exchange, the vast majority of Member States supports such expansion. The main reason is that this is the only option able to deliver meaningful change to the Council.

As we have said in the past and as recently as yesterday, the very justification for the reform is that its composition does not reflect today's world, which diminishes its representativeness, legitimacy and effectiveness. A reform that does not expand the Council in both categories actually means preserving the "status quo" because it does not alter the balance of power that, to a large extent, determines the political dynamics in the organ. Not adding new permanent members would be tantamount to condoning a semblance of reform which would only prolong a situation that has clearly outlived its time. This is not the kind of action the Council needs; this is not the kind of action that Brazil and the vast majority of Member States want.

As this is the last chance in this Session to fully discuss the nature of the reform we need, we should examine more closely the main arguments presented by the few critics of the expansion of the Council in both categories.

Some of them claim that such proposal is unrealistic and divisive. The fact of the matter is that the expansion in both categories has garnered the support of a wide majority of Member States. The assessment that adding permanent members to the Council is politically unviable in no way reflects the positions expressed by delegations. On the contrary. In the first round of exchanges, around 2/3 of the delegations that took the floor supported such proposal.

As to the argument of divisiveness, we believe it to be in the interest of all to make a serious effort to come to a solution that garners the widest possible political acceptance. Brazil, for its part, has been and is open to negotiation and reasonable compromise. At the same time, we know very well that unanimity is and will remain elusive in this matter. A decision will have to be made on the basis of what is best for the future of the Organization and the Security Council through the democratic exercise of the vote. When that time comes, each of us will have to face its responsibilities with the long-term legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council.

Another argument used by the opponents of the expansion of the Council in both categories is that it would only enlarge what has been referred to as an "oligarchy" of power and do nothing to open up the Council. When closely examined, such argument is deeply conservative. If we all agree that the abolition of permanent members is not a possibility under the current system, the real options for reform are only two: either expand the core membership to make it more diverse and therefore more representative or leave it intact and preserve the status. A small group of countries prefers the latter option; the vast majority of delegations supports the first one.

The response of opponents of the expansion of the Council in both categories is that the addition of non-permanent members only will achieve the enhanced inclusiveness we all pursue. We, in contrast, believe that adding non-permanent members is certainly necessary but falls short of what is required and possible. As I said before, the creation of new non-permanent members only has already been tried and did not bring about the desired shift in the balance of power within the Security Council. This assessment has been depicted by some as an alleged measure of disregard for the achievements of non-permanent members and of doubt about their capacity to influence the Council. This is obviously not the case. We all recognize and applaud the meaningful work done by many non-permanent members of the Council and I could mention several concrete examples. However, having served there nine times, Brazil is also aware of the limitations facing non-permanent members.

Opponents also claim that adding permanent members would be undemocratic and not allow for enhanced accountability. How could this be? New permanent members would not be imposed, but freely elected by the affirmative vote of nothing less than 2/3 of the members of the General Assembly and subject to the ratification of an equally stringent majority. In addition, under the G-4 proposal, the situation created by the reform would be subject to a review. Thirdly, more diversity within the category of permanent members would necessarily lead to a more representative Council and, therefore, one more sensitive to the interests of the wider membership. Fourthly, the improvements of the working methods proposed by the G-4 and others - which, in our view, must integrate a reform package - would enhance access to the organ and make it more accountable. Last but not least, we should not forget that no reform is eternal, although it must be sustainable in the long-term. Nothing prevents a further reform of the Council, should the General Assembly consider it necessary. In light of the foregoing, it is obvious that what is truly undemocratic and inconsistent with the requirements of accountability is leaving the core membership unaltered and pretend meaningful reform can come through the addition of non-permanent members only.

Having mentioned the concept of representativeness a few times, at this point I should clarify some misconceptions found in the interventions made in the past by some opponents of the expansion in both categories. Brazil and other countries have been accused of suggesting they would represent others in the Council. This makes no sense. Obviously, Brazil could not represent but itself in an expanded Security Council. However, we do believe that our needs and interests are similar to those of many other countries, especially in the developing world, who are not currently permanent members and therefore cannot pursue such interests in the same way as permanent members do. The same claim can be made by other States, particularly in Africa, all with needs and interests that although their own are nevertheless similar to those of many others. The presence of different interests and needs in a new core membership of the Council would certainly make it collectively more representative.

Some delegations also wonder about the criteria for the selection of new permanent members. The question they pose explicitly or implicitly is why country "x" and not country "z" should be made permanent member of the Security Council. In our view, only the Charter and the General Assembly can answer such question. Those States considered by its peers to be able to uphold the Charter as permanent members and willing to promote the kind of change the Council needs will receive the necessary votes in an absolutely free and democratic election. There should be no concerns: only those chosen by the required majority of Member States will become permanent members and no one not perceived to be up to the challenge will seat permanently in the Council.

Mr. Chairman,

There is no perfect model for reform of the Security Council. What we can and should demand from ourselves is to devise a solution that combines the highest possible degrees of realism, ambition and commitment to the long-term effectiveness and legitimacy of the Council. Such solution is no other than the expansion of both categories of members.

I thank you.


 

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.