By Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for convening this meeting and for your letter dated 20 March.
Perhaps more than in any other of the key five issues, before engaging in negotiations proper on "regional representation", we need to ensure conceptual clarity and be more precise as to the terminology applied. This is so especially because the expression has been used quite loosely.
The following main interpretations seem to have been given to the expression "regional representation": a. "equitable geographical distribution"; b. allocation of one or more seats to a specific regional group which would be occupied in rotation by Member States from that group; c. allocation of one or more seats to regional institutions; and d. allocation of one or more seats to groups which, although interregional, share a religion or belongs to the same civilization.
In considering the suitability of these interpretations in the context of Security Council reform, we must recall a few basic features of the Charter:
1. All Council members, permanent and non-permanent alike, are States and States only;
2. National candidatures as non-permanent members are submitted on a regional basis in accordance with the principle of equitable geographical distribution provided for in Article 23 of the Charter. This does not mean, however, that they are elected by their regions, legally represent them as a whole or any other of its members or are politically accountable exclusively to their regional groups. Rather, non-permanent members are elected in their national capacity by the whole membership and are accountable to all Member States.
3. Obviously, this does not prevent or discourage non-permanent Members to consult with their regional groups and partners and even agree on policies to be pursued in the Council. Brazil, for example, whenever in the Council, has maintained a constant dialogue with GRULAC and strived to bring a Latin American and Caribbean perspective to the deliberations of the Council. We intend to do so in the biennium 2010/2011, if elected. But even then, legally and politically speaking, we will be representing but ourselves.
4. Therefore, under the Charter, there is no such a thing as "regional representation" in the Security Council, if by such term one understands that either a State legally represents its geographical group or its members or if formal representation is to be given to regional institutions.
In Brazil's view, such basic features of the Charter must be fully preserved, under the penalty of introducing further and unnecessary complexity in the process of the Security Council.
If, for example, one believes that a "regional dimension" should be introduced to the Council, difficult questions may arise. I would mention only two. In the case, for example, of a seat given to regional institutions, would any of such institutions as currently organized be prepared to credibly and timely formulate and maintain policies on all issues of the Security Council agenda and fully discharge all responsibilities associated with membership in the Council? In the simpler alternative of a regional seat occupied in rotation by individual States belonging to the regional group, would the incumbent speak and take up responsibilities on its own behalf or on behalf of the States of the region? In the latter case, how would the UN ensure the accountability of the States represented? These questions and many others point to the fact that bringing a "regional dimension" to the Council would likely have far-reaching legal and political consequences for the very nature and operation of the Council. Depending on what one understands as a "regional dimension" in the Security Council, we could be weakening the UN and the Council as an Organization made of sovereign States and even questioning their role and preeminence.
Mr. Chairman,
For the reasons above, we believe that, in order to avoid further confusion, one should not speak of "regional representation" but of "equitable geographical distribution".
This is a well-established principle in the election of non-permanent members of the Council under Article 23 of the Charter and should also guide us in the creation of new permanent members.
It was precisely in light of such principle that the G-4 proposal of 2005 attempted to address the under-representation of the African and Asian groups, as well as that of GRULAC and Eastern Europe in the Council. Back then, we suggested the creation of new permanent members in accordance with the following pattern: two from African States, two from Asian States, one from Latin American and Caribbean States and one from Western European States and Others. Also in consonance with the principle of equitable geographical distribution, we proposed the establishment of additional non-permanent members to be distributed in the following manner: one from Africa, one from Asia, one from Eastern Europe and one from Latin America and the Caribbean.
Thank you.
