Statement by Ambassador Robert R. Fowler Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations speaking to the 54th session of the United Nations General Assembly
Item 38: The question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters
Mr. President,
While this is the fifth time that I address the General Assembly on the Question of Equitable Representation On and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council, it is the first time that I do so with the benefit of almost a year's experience on the Security Council. I hope to apply some of that experience to our discussion today, and to the deliberations of the Open-ended Working Group in the coming year.
Mr. President,
If the purpose of this debate is to take stock of where we are, and to give some general guidance for the Open-ended Working Group in its coming session, then my starting point has to be the noticeable difference between the progress that has been made over the years in each of the two clusters into which we have divided our work. Progress in the consideration of cluster II was clearly recorded in last year's report of the Working Group. There is also tangible evidence that our work on the transparency and working methods of the Security Council is having a positive impact on the way that members already conduct the Council's business.
When Canada assumed its seat last January, the norm was one open meeting of the Council - that was not simply a formal meeting to adopt a Council decision - each month.
In contrast, this morning's open briefing on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was the third opportunity in the past two weeks for non-members of the Security Council to attend the deliberations of Council members. We understand that the UK Presidency plans on having some, if not all, of the discussions next week on East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as open briefings. This progress towards transparency and openness does enormous benefit to the credibility of the Council, and I extend my congratulations to the delegation of the United Kingdom for these steps forward.
I could cite several other examples of increasing transparency in the Council, the roots of which are found in the work of the Open-ended Working Group: regular briefings for delegations immediately after informal consultations; the distribution and posting on internet sites of the Council's programme of work and statements to the press; and regular consultations with troop-contributing countries prior to mandate renewals by the Council. Thanks mainly to the initiative and efforts of Argentina, next year's incoming members of the Security Council have been observing our work since the beginning of December. I can only imagine how useful such exposure would be to enable a newly elected member to become a fully effective Council player in the shortest period of time.
I hope that in the next few weeks the Council will adopt a Note by the President which will include other transparency measures, such as the circulation to all Member States of the weekly situation report prepared by the Secretariat on peace-keeping operations, and making available draft resolutions to the entire UN membership once they have been tabled in the Council. Perhaps most significantly, I hope that this Note will enshrine and formalize the currently emerging practice of holding the Council's deliberations in public, from thematic and orientation debates, to specific subject matter briefings and discussions.
Mr. President,
The above facts stand in sharp contrast to the current situation on cluster I where again, according to last year's report of the Open-ended Working Group, substantial differences of view still remain.
Furthermore, I regret to say that I am not aware that new ideas or practical suggestions are invigorating the discussion of these issues, in the way that the Council's working methods are being updated to meet current results. We are, in fact, not much farther along on these questions than when we initiated our discussions six years ago. And, it strikes me that if those solutions which have been most vigorously pursued over these years had been on the right track, some progress should have been possible by now. Are we, perhaps, trying to fit a square peg into a round hole?
It seems to my delegation that, instead of trying to satisfy a need with a solution, we have been trying to solve it with another need. In plain words, we have been attempting to rectify the need to have the Security Council become truly representative of the UN membership, with the need of some influential Member States to have that relative influence and yes, in some cases, significant financial contribution to the Organization, recognized in a tangible way.
Mr. President,
Perceived from this angle, the problem of Cluster I takes on a whole new appearance. For just as there has never been any doubt about the legitimacy of the need to make the Security Council more representative of the UN of the 21st Century, it does not seem unreasonable for Member States which make exceptionally large contributions to the Organization to participate more proportionally in its decision-making on fiscal issues. Yet, just because a Member State is a major financial contributor to the Organization, or happens to be influential in other ways, does not mean that the tangible recognition for that contribution, or of that influence, ought to be a permanent seat on the Security Council - the organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.
I do not exclude the possibility that, in other areas of the Organization, it may be appropriate for disproportionately large contributions to warrant some right of more significant participation in the appropriate financial bodies. For example, the largest financial contributors to the United Nations may need to play a larger role in overseeing the way the Organization spends its money. What I do exclude, however, is that seats on the one organ whose decisions are binding on all UN member states - the one organ which is responsible for the most vital and therefore most volatile of our interactions - should be allotted on the basis of a member`s financial contribution to the organization. In my delegation's view, membership on the Security Council can only be determined through an election by one's peers, chosen in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 23 (3) of the Charter.
Mr. President,
Methods of work and size and composition are not the only two issues before the Working Group where there is a stark difference on the progress made. The two aspects of the veto we have been examining - the scope of existing permanent members' veto rights and the question of whether any possible new permanent members would also have the veto - have achieved far different results in our deliberations.
I am confident that there exists general agreement today that the scope of the veto, should be limited to Chapter VII actions. There is no such agreement - even among those States that favour expansion in both categories of Council membership - to extend any veto power to any new permanent member.
Mr. President,
I am firmly convinced that there is a great deal for us to discuss before we resume our detailed discussions of the two "clusters", but I would suggest we begin with an explanation of the reasons why progress has been achieved on some aspects of our mandate and why such progress has evaded us on others. We should use this opportunity to cast our work in this new perspective, and see if solutions that fit the need cannot emerge. I look forward to a full examination of this question in the General Debate at the outset of the Open-ended Working Group's meetings, and I can assure you of Canada's full and active participation in all of the Working Group's deliberations in the coming year.
Thank you, Mr. President
