March 25, 1996
Statement by Ambassador Tono Eitel Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations to the Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council at the United Nations:
Permanent and Non-Permanent Seats
Mr. Chairman,
when we discuss the question of an increase in the categories of permanent and non-permanent seats, we do not begin from scratch. Ever since our Working Group was established by GA-Resolution 48/26 in December 1994, this question has been an important part of our deliberations. The German position is well-known. It is simple. It builds on the existing categories of permanent and non-permanent membership. Both categories should be increased. This position is not an isolated one. It is rather a popular one. It is not a single flower donned in a button hole, but the substance of a whole bouquet of flowers which we already hold in our hands. Any time Member States have had the opportunity in the past to express their opinion, they have made this bouquet:
- in the submissions contained in the annex of the compendium of September 1995
- during the General debate of the 50th GA in September/October 1995
- during the discussion of the 50th GA on item 47 in November 1995
Each time Member States have addressed the question of Security Council enlargement, some more elaborately, some less. Because my statistics last time have found some interest, I will try to summarize these discussions by quoting figures, and I should be happy about anyone helping me in making these figures even more precise.
1. The compendium of the Working Group (Doc. A/49/965 of 18 September 1995)
The annex of the compendium consists of a bouquet of twelve submissions by states or groups of states. Three submissions from individual states exclude an increase in the category of permanent seats. Five submissions (three countries and 2 groups of countries) speak of increasing the number of permanent, "indefinite" and non-permanent seats. One group of countries mentions briefly a possible agreement on other categories of membership beside the non-permanent category. One submission is related to the overall presence in the United Nations system of the permanent members of the Security Council, without further commenting on different categories. One submission suggests criteria for selecting new permanent members. Finally, one submission contains possible models for enlarging the Security Council, including one with additional permanent seats.
As we can see, the bouquet is colourful. According to the present season, it could be a springtime bouquet. What can not be ignored is the fact that only three submissions in the annex of the compendium - more precisely: three Member States - dismiss categorically the idea of new permanent seats. All other submissions - fairly more than two thirds of them - seem to work on the assumption that there could be new permanent seats.
2. The General debate of the 50th General Assembly in September/October 1995
The General debate of the 50th GA has provided us with a new bouquet with more flowers. Looking at them closely, we see the same basic colours.
172 Member States have participated in the last General debate. Given the general nature of the opening statements, 42 Member States apparently do not mention the reform of the Security Council at all. In contrast, 130 Member States mention the need to reform the Security Council, 72 of them rather in general terms without elaborating clearly on the question of permanent or non-permanent categories. I therefore have to leave them aside in this headcount. 58 Member States make comments on the question of an increase of seats in different categories. Of those countries, 56 Member States (fifty-six) were in favour of an increase in permanent seats, but only 2 Member States (two) have rejected an increase in this category.
3. The discussion in the 50th GA on item 47 in November 1995
Last time, on February 28, 1996, I have analized the contributions in that discussion with regard to systems of special rotating or semi-permanent seats. Ambassador Kovanda of the Czech Republic has just showed some revealing facts on what he called the "never members". His careful study has much impressed me. Today I should like to look at the contributions with regard to the traditional categories of permanent and non-permanent seats.
In the discussion of the GA on item 47 in November 1995, 74 Member States participated, some of them speaking for other countries of a regional group. In this November bouquet, 6 Member States took a position against new permanent seats. 27 countries held a rather flexible and open position. By far the largest number of Member States - 41 - made explicit comments in favour of an increase in the category of permanent seats. Three of these 41 Member States spoke for a group of Member States, adding 22 more States to this group which thus totals 63 Member States altogether.
Again, the bouquet shows the well-known patterns in favour of new permanent seats.
Mr. Chairman,
we will never have bouquets of a uniform colour. This is not to be regretted. It is something to be proud of, because it shows the diversity and richness of ideas of the Membership. However, we can tell from the bouquets we have in hands after all our discussions, that the no-new-permanent-seats-positions are a tiny minority.
In no case this tiny minority of states has reached a percentage higher than roughly 3% of the whole Membership. The overwhelming majority of states however has not been hostile to new permanent seats. On the contrary, a large number of countries has repeatedly stated, that the solution should include an increase in both the non-permanent and the permanent categories. This beautiful bouquet should not be locked up in a deep freezer for ten or fifteen years. It should be a source of inspiration for us.
Mr. Chairman, to become operative:
my delegation suggests to increase the Security Council in both, permanent and non-permanent categories. An increase in both categories, permanent and non-permanent seats, would reflect the increase in the General Membership which has occured since 1965. It would guarantee an improved chance for all countries to be represented better and more often on the Security Council. My delegation believes that in order to achieve this, we need if not consensus than broad agreement among Member States as a support. By the same token, the so-called "quick- fix" solution, insinuating Japan and Germany were looking for permanent seats only to themselves, will never work. And quite rightly so. It would definitely lack the necessary support of the Membership. The legend of the "quick-fix" does not reflect reality.
New non-permanent seats should include a new seat each for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and for Eastern Europe.
In the view of Germany, an increase in the category of permanent seats
- should make the Security Council more representative by including countries selected by the three regions of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean;
- should make the Security Council more effective by including countries with the capacity and willingness to contribute on a global scale to the maintenance of peace and security. Here I think of Japan and Germany;
- should allow these countries to better discharge their responsibility for international peace and security which they bear already. They could contribute to the Council's work on a continued basis without losing the expertise which goes along with permanent membership;
- should be the beginning of a modern Security Council which Member States would no longer regard as a "closed shop";
- should include for the first time states without nuclear capacity in the group of permanent members;
- should - together with the increase in non-permanent seats - accommodate some 70 countries that have not participated in the last reform in 1965 and that are part of the new realities of the Organisation, among them Germany;
- should show, that the General Membership acknowledges a sound record of respect for human rights, support for regional integration and multilateral cooperation, and contributions to international economic development and UN activities.
Mr. Chairman,
by saying what I have said in the last paragraph, I feel a bit like someone who has broken the copyright of other authors. In fact, the arguments for an increase of the category of permanent seats are nothing my delegation had to be creative about. It is simply what we have been told by many Member States who would wish to see a new and strengthened Security Council.
Let me add a word on the right to veto and recall what Germany has stated on other occasions, particularly in the light of what has been said by Ambassador Elaraby on behalf of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries: The right to veto is per se not an objective for us. But the bottom line is clear: If Germany shall become permanent member of the Security Council this has to be on an equal footing with the other permanent members, without discrimination, i.e. with the same rights and the same obligations. Since this question is a separate and important point, I shall limit myself to these preliminary observations and come back to the question at a later stage of our session.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
More Information on Security Council Reform in 95/96
Permanent and Non-Permanent Seats
Mr. Chairman,
when we discuss the question of an increase in the categories of permanent and non-permanent seats, we do not begin from scratch. Ever since our Working Group was established by GA-Resolution 48/26 in December 1994, this question has been an important part of our deliberations. The German position is well-known. It is simple. It builds on the existing categories of permanent and non-permanent membership. Both categories should be increased. This position is not an isolated one. It is rather a popular one. It is not a single flower donned in a button hole, but the substance of a whole bouquet of flowers which we already hold in our hands. Any time Member States have had the opportunity in the past to express their opinion, they have made this bouquet:
- in the submissions contained in the annex of the compendium of September 1995
- during the General debate of the 50th GA in September/October 1995
- during the discussion of the 50th GA on item 47 in November 1995
Each time Member States have addressed the question of Security Council enlargement, some more elaborately, some less. Because my statistics last time have found some interest, I will try to summarize these discussions by quoting figures, and I should be happy about anyone helping me in making these figures even more precise.
1. The compendium of the Working Group (Doc. A/49/965 of 18 September 1995)
The annex of the compendium consists of a bouquet of twelve submissions by states or groups of states. Three submissions from individual states exclude an increase in the category of permanent seats. Five submissions (three countries and 2 groups of countries) speak of increasing the number of permanent, "indefinite" and non-permanent seats. One group of countries mentions briefly a possible agreement on other categories of membership beside the non-permanent category. One submission is related to the overall presence in the United Nations system of the permanent members of the Security Council, without further commenting on different categories. One submission suggests criteria for selecting new permanent members. Finally, one submission contains possible models for enlarging the Security Council, including one with additional permanent seats.
As we can see, the bouquet is colourful. According to the present season, it could be a springtime bouquet. What can not be ignored is the fact that only three submissions in the annex of the compendium - more precisely: three Member States - dismiss categorically the idea of new permanent seats. All other submissions - fairly more than two thirds of them - seem to work on the assumption that there could be new permanent seats.
2. The General debate of the 50th General Assembly in September/October 1995
The General debate of the 50th GA has provided us with a new bouquet with more flowers. Looking at them closely, we see the same basic colours.
172 Member States have participated in the last General debate. Given the general nature of the opening statements, 42 Member States apparently do not mention the reform of the Security Council at all. In contrast, 130 Member States mention the need to reform the Security Council, 72 of them rather in general terms without elaborating clearly on the question of permanent or non-permanent categories. I therefore have to leave them aside in this headcount. 58 Member States make comments on the question of an increase of seats in different categories. Of those countries, 56 Member States (fifty-six) were in favour of an increase in permanent seats, but only 2 Member States (two) have rejected an increase in this category.
3. The discussion in the 50th GA on item 47 in November 1995
Last time, on February 28, 1996, I have analized the contributions in that discussion with regard to systems of special rotating or semi-permanent seats. Ambassador Kovanda of the Czech Republic has just showed some revealing facts on what he called the "never members". His careful study has much impressed me. Today I should like to look at the contributions with regard to the traditional categories of permanent and non-permanent seats.
In the discussion of the GA on item 47 in November 1995, 74 Member States participated, some of them speaking for other countries of a regional group. In this November bouquet, 6 Member States took a position against new permanent seats. 27 countries held a rather flexible and open position. By far the largest number of Member States - 41 - made explicit comments in favour of an increase in the category of permanent seats. Three of these 41 Member States spoke for a group of Member States, adding 22 more States to this group which thus totals 63 Member States altogether.
Again, the bouquet shows the well-known patterns in favour of new permanent seats.
Mr. Chairman,
we will never have bouquets of a uniform colour. This is not to be regretted. It is something to be proud of, because it shows the diversity and richness of ideas of the Membership. However, we can tell from the bouquets we have in hands after all our discussions, that the no-new-permanent-seats-positions are a tiny minority.
In no case this tiny minority of states has reached a percentage higher than roughly 3% of the whole Membership. The overwhelming majority of states however has not been hostile to new permanent seats. On the contrary, a large number of countries has repeatedly stated, that the solution should include an increase in both the non-permanent and the permanent categories. This beautiful bouquet should not be locked up in a deep freezer for ten or fifteen years. It should be a source of inspiration for us.
Mr. Chairman, to become operative:
my delegation suggests to increase the Security Council in both, permanent and non-permanent categories. An increase in both categories, permanent and non-permanent seats, would reflect the increase in the General Membership which has occured since 1965. It would guarantee an improved chance for all countries to be represented better and more often on the Security Council. My delegation believes that in order to achieve this, we need if not consensus than broad agreement among Member States as a support. By the same token, the so-called "quick- fix" solution, insinuating Japan and Germany were looking for permanent seats only to themselves, will never work. And quite rightly so. It would definitely lack the necessary support of the Membership. The legend of the "quick-fix" does not reflect reality.
New non-permanent seats should include a new seat each for Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and for Eastern Europe.
In the view of Germany, an increase in the category of permanent seats
- should make the Security Council more representative by including countries selected by the three regions of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean;
- should make the Security Council more effective by including countries with the capacity and willingness to contribute on a global scale to the maintenance of peace and security. Here I think of Japan and Germany;
- should allow these countries to better discharge their responsibility for international peace and security which they bear already. They could contribute to the Council's work on a continued basis without losing the expertise which goes along with permanent membership;
- should be the beginning of a modern Security Council which Member States would no longer regard as a "closed shop";
- should include for the first time states without nuclear capacity in the group of permanent members;
- should - together with the increase in non-permanent seats - accommodate some 70 countries that have not participated in the last reform in 1965 and that are part of the new realities of the Organisation, among them Germany;
- should show, that the General Membership acknowledges a sound record of respect for human rights, support for regional integration and multilateral cooperation, and contributions to international economic development and UN activities.
Mr. Chairman,
by saying what I have said in the last paragraph, I feel a bit like someone who has broken the copyright of other authors. In fact, the arguments for an increase of the category of permanent seats are nothing my delegation had to be creative about. It is simply what we have been told by many Member States who would wish to see a new and strengthened Security Council.
Let me add a word on the right to veto and recall what Germany has stated on other occasions, particularly in the light of what has been said by Ambassador Elaraby on behalf of the Movement of the Non-Aligned Countries: The right to veto is per se not an objective for us. But the bottom line is clear: If Germany shall become permanent member of the Security Council this has to be on an equal footing with the other permanent members, without discrimination, i.e. with the same rights and the same obligations. Since this question is a separate and important point, I shall limit myself to these preliminary observations and come back to the question at a later stage of our session.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
