The Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council,
Mr. President,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country Finland.
Mr. President,
The Security Council is the principal organ of the United Nations to which the members of the United Nations have conferred primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is important to recognize that many factors determine the effectiveness of the Security Council and the authority it carries in the international community. Most important of course is the very quality of the decisions it arrives at. The unity of purpose of its members is essential. So is the political and practical ability of the United Nations to carry out the decisions of the Council. A key factor is of course the composition and the working methods of the Council.
The views of the Nordic countries on the enlargement and reform of the Security Council have been stated on several earlier occasions. Let me therefore today only recall the common Nordic approach to some of the basic issues.
We are in favour of enlargement and reform of the Security Council in order to make it better equipped and strengthened in its capacity to discharge its responsibilities under the Charter in the maintenance of international peace and security in the face of the challenges of the new millennium.
The ultimate objective of the reform is to make the Security Council more representative and strengthen its authority, while making it more open and transparent. At the same time enlargement of the Council must take into account the need for efficiency and effectiveness of its work.
The Nordic countries - like the wide majority of the Member States - support an enlargement in both categories of membership, non-permanent and permanent. Non - permanent members are a crucial part of the Security Council membership. They ensure representativity and accountability. They can be expected, as a matter of self interest, to give priority to openness and broad consultations with non-Council members. Elected members should also in the future constitute a majority in the Council . The Nordic countries are also in favour of an increase in the number of permanent members of the Council. We would welcome Germany and Japan as new permanent members together with developing countries from Africa and Asia as well as Latin America and the Caribbean.
As to the process of selecting new permanent members, the Nordic countries are ready to study carefully all proposals. We have noted with interest the rotation formula for Africa agreed at Ouagadougou last June by the Organization of African Unity . The General Assembly should take due account of any proposal by the regions concerned when taking its final decision on the matter.
The Nordic countries would want to see concerted action to reduce the role of the veto. Widespread concern has been expressed that any increase in the number of countries endowed with the veto - as presently constituted - might harm the efficient decision making of the Security Council. The Nordic countries believe that restrictions in the scope of use and application of the veto could be thoroughly considered also within the so-called periodic review as one way of finding a solution to this issue.
Mr. President,
Progress has indeed been made in the efforts to make the Security Council more transparent and to improve its working methods - not only in the open-ended Working Group but also by the Security Council itself. We warmly welcome this development. We believe that the measures taken by the Security Council were to a large extent inspired by the very thorough work done in the Working Group. Yet more can and should be done. We believe that there is a need for a review of the working methods and transparency of the Council on a permanent and continuous basis. The rapid increase in the tasks facing the Council and the changing nature of the problems which it has to deal with as well as the extent to which non-members of the Council have become involved justify such an approach. An important task to be included in such a continuing review mandate would also be to consider how the relationship and interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly could be improved and enhanced.
Mr. President,
In our view it is now time for all Member States to engage in real negotiations to bring the reform process forward. The Nordic countries took careful note of the many calls for a more result-oriented approach to Security Council reform that were expressed in the general debate of the Assembly in September. We also noted that many speakers expressed their disappointment at the slow progress and the lack of agreed proposals from the Open Ended Working Group, the report of which nevertheless constitutes a useful compilation of the numerous ideas on the table.
Let me make it clear, Mr. President, that by calling for a negotiating process the Nordic countries are not advocating any artificial time frames or deadlines. No one can impose anything on the General Assembly. What we are urging is simply that the Open Ended Working Group live up to the calls for concrete and specific proposals for the consideration by the General Assembly.
This will not be easy. There are many problems - they are complex and interlinked. But they have all been identified - we know them. Positions of Member States and groups have been clearly enunciated, explained and defended. Since the inception of the Open Ended Working Group a wealth of proposals have been put on the table - some comprehensive, others addressing specific elements of the reform.
The membership of the Organization has for long declared its determination to make the Security Council more representative and strengthen its authority. We must find a solution which strengthens the Council, a solution which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the Member States. To facilitate our common search for such a solution we would do well to avoid divisive procedural debates or precipitated voting situations.
Thank you, Mr. President.
