October 31, 2001
Mr. President,
Only two short weeks ago the General Assembly examined the annual report of the Security Council, issuing an almost unanimous appeal – I would say a true general agreement - for greater transparency and participation in the workings of this body. Our debate today can thus be seen as a logical extension of our deliberations on October 15 and 16, and it forces the question: Why do so many countries continue to appeal for Security Council reform?
The immediate answer is that deep changes both in international relations and in the role and function of the United Nations make a pressing, inevitable case for the Security Council—the body assigned with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security—to undergo a comprehensive reform in all its aspects.
When the exercise on Security Council reform began more than eight years ago, shortly after the close of the Cold War, there were those who thought that it should amount to little more than an alteration in the composition of the Council through the creation of new permanent members. To their mind, issues like transparency, accountability, participation, effectiveness and assessment of Security Council work appeared to look marginal. According to this approach, the hereditary prerogatives of permanency - some call them "special responsibilities" - created during the unique, exceptional conditions of the post-war years could be updated with a quick fix by anointing a select few to enter the "Club."
This unilateral approach—running counter to the principle of equality between UN members and to the movement toward growing legitimacy in international relations—was ultimately defeated. There will be no new countries "more equal" than others. There will not be because the vast majority of UN members are calling for a different type of reform: they want to close the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots", both individual States and large world's regions. Therefore this vast majority of U.N. members rejects a new and unlikely elevation of States who would penalize 180 countries in order to realize their own ambitions. Whatever margins for disagreement might exist, I am sure we can all agree that such a maneuver would hardly make the Council's actions more prompt and effective. The time has come to see who is really holding the reform process hostage, by pursuing maximalist claims that reject any and all compromise solutions.
Eight years of debate have proven that effective Security Council reform must primarily address the working methods and decision-making processes of this body rather than seek to increase the number of privileged members. The Security Council represents a social contract of sorts: on the inside, this confers international legitimacy on its members; on the outside, there stand many others ready to lend effectiveness to the actions of the Council in exchange for participation in the decision-making process. A proper balance between legitimacy and participation/effectiveness is the core of the reform. If this contract is broken, the Council ceases to function properly.
Mr. President,
New global threats to peace like international terrorism have ushered in a new era and require a different type of global governance based on a strong and resolved culture of consensus: collective decision-making and global responsibility in the place of unilateral promotion of the narrow national interests. The Security Council business needs true leadership based upon objectivity, collegiality and unity of intent. Increasing the number of countries endowed with veto power is hardly the way to restore its credibility and accountability. Enlargement cannot happen at the expense of effectiveness. On the other hand, increasing the number of permanent members without veto power would be cosmetic and frivolous.
The expanded habit of informal consultations is just one demonstration of how the work of the Security Council depends on the paramount influence of permanent members: transparency and structural composition are closely related. This is why reform has to move forward not selectively but as a common package. Elected members are hardly the ones to benefit from such opaque working methods. That trend favours instead those members who can threaten to use, or abuse, their veto. Therefore adding new permanent members would increase the existing frustration of elective members, who are feeling marginalized from real decision-making when called on to ratify measures already prepared in restricted fora.
From the start of the exercise on expansion, Italy thought that the only practicable solution would be to add a few non-permanent members. The addition of a limited number of elective seats would make the Security Council more representative of the large regions of the world currently underrepresented and allow a fair rotation for those countries who shoulder greater responsibilities in terms of financial resources, troops for UN-led or authorized peace operations, and political support for stabilization processes and peace agreements. After ten years of heavy commitment to bringing peace in the Balkans, Italy's experience as a front-line country has taught us that the Security Council should better involve countries whose interests are especially affected, as described in article 31 of the Charter. The key to making progress in the Security Council reform process lies in greater involvement of non-members as well as increased interaction with other UN and international bodies.
The recent progress in the Security Council's practice and operations lead us to suggest that we all consider the regional dimension of the reform process. What is the meaning of equitable regional representation in the XXIst century? As an example, more and more the Security Council works in close contact with representatives of the European Union on issues of conflict prevention and peace building. With the development of European crisis management capabilities, including a military rapid reaction force, relations between the EU and the UN are set to grow significantly in the area of peace-keeping and conflict resolution: i.e. increased modalities of interaction between the EU and the Security Council also in the definition of mandates. This begins to happen in several regional crises not only in Europe such as in the Balkans (as attested to by the recent Resolution 1371 on FYROM), but also in Africa and the Middle East (as recognized in the Security Council's press statement last Friday): in all these cases the Security Council welcomes and supports the efforts of the European Union to promote peace and stability.
Italy is a strong supporter of the European Union efforts to better coordinate its common foreign and security policy, also in the Security Council. The repeated calls for strengthening the voice of Europe in international fora significantly narrow the margins for national policy differences. Even in some influential non European quarters the call has been issued for "Europeans [to] work out a more reasonable system of representation among themselves": this is consistent with the position Italy has staunchly maintained on the issue of Security Council expansion. We will continue to work constructively in the only appropriate forum - the Open-ended Working Group - toward a reform inspired by the above criteria and we appreciate that a growing number of countries share this approach.
Thank you, Mr. President.
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 íŸ 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.
