GA Open-Ended Working Group
May 28, 1998
1. Amendments to the Charter regarding Security Council reform
The amendments necessary to incorporate an enlarged and reformed Security Council into the Charter will need at least the votes of two-thirds of membership. This goes without saying, since Article 108 of the Charter is unmistakable in this regard. The higher the number of votes, the smoother the way the reform will take place. When the Council was reformed the last time, in 1963-1965, reform came about with 15.4 per cent of no-votes or abstentions, among them four of the five permanent members.
2. Definition of general agreement
I am convinced that there is no firm definition of what "general agreement" as referred to in [General Assembly] resolution 42-26 of 3 December 1993 means. It is certainly not consensus. In my view, a convincing case can be made to assume general agreement in all cases where the majority required in Article 108 for a formal Charter amendment is reached, that is 124 out of the 185 present members of the Organization. It is hardly conceivable that the Charter would allow proposals for amendments being sent to the national parliaments for ratification without previous "general agreement". How do we know that that kind of majority exists? The answer is simple. By a vote, since there is no other way of verifying the existence of the necessary agreement.
3. Resolutions prior to a final package which do not contain Charter amendments
Any resolution on an item as important as Security Council reform should enjoy as broad a support as possible. One could even speak of a desirability of reaching a two-thirds majority in each phase of the deliberations. Ambassador El Araby of Egypt is the author of a wording which seems to reflect this thinking and which has been adopted at the recent meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Cartagena, stating in paragraph 54 of the Final Communiqué the "determination that any resolution with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by two-thirds majority of the UN membership referred to Article 108 of the Charter". (cf. Amb. Elaraby's statement of 22 June 1998 for more on this wording)
Germany takes note of the new wording. We note the contrast to the former version which spoke of the "determination to faithfully comply with the provisions of Article 108 of the Charter with respect to any resolution with Charter amendment implications" (cf. NAM communiqué of 25 September 1997, document A-52-447). It seems to me that the new wording points more towards a political will than to a legal obligation . If that is so, my delegation could even sympathize with it.
We continue to believe, however, that:
I sincerely believe that the debate on this issue, as important as it is, does not deserve all the energy some of us apparently - among them I myself - dedicate to it. We should not fight artificial battles, since we all strive for the broadest possible agreement for the reform. Everything should be done to facilitate reform and not to prevent it from happening. If it appears that a framework or agenda which originally was introduced to help ease the process, meets with too many obstacles or political concerns, we might seriously consider to come back again to a normal one-stage-approach which introduces the necessary Charter amendments from the very beginning.
