December 1998
The beginning of the reform process
Six years ago, in December 1992, the General Assembly asked the Secretary-General to submit a questionnaire to all Member States on how they envisaged the reform of the Council. One year later, the General Assembly established the "Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Council." The Group's mandate called for it to reach "general agreement" on how to reform the Council.
The Open-Ended Working Group on Security Council reform met for the first time on January 19, 1994. From the very beginning, the most divisive question has been how to enlarge the Council and whether or not to increase the number of permanent members.
In 1994, Italy presented a proposal to establish 8-10 new non permanent seats. These seats would be assigned to 24-30 countries, from every region, on a rotational basis. Each of these countries would thus be on the Council for one two-year term every six years. To select which countries would be eligible for this type of rotation, the General Assembly would identify who has contributed most most to UN activities in terms of the UN budget, peace-keeping operations, etc.
Italy has strong credentials. We are the fifth largest contributor to the UN regular budget, paying more than three of the current permanent members (the United Kingdom, Russia and China). We are also one of the top contributors of troops to UN peace-keeping activities: we ranked second in 1997 and fourth in 1998 (as of 30 June 1998).
The Italian proposal is still on the table. It has been fine-tuned over the years, and more than 80 countries have expressed support for or interest in it.
Last year, during the 52nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, there was some progress but no breakthrough on Security Council reform. The various delegations in the Working Group moved closer to a general agreement on the questions of making the Council's working methods and procedures more open and transparent, and on the veto. But at the same time they continued to deadlock over the issue of the enlargement.
Italy feels that the goal of Security Council reform should be to make the Council less elitist and more democratic, participatory and representative. The goal should be not to reward a handful of countries with new privileges, but to identify solutions that give all Member States greater access to the Council.
This is why Italy is opposed to the creation of new permanent seats. The purpose of the reform should be to strengthen the Council's legitimacy, credibility and authority, allowing it to meet the challenges of the next century.Two basic reform proposals meet these criteria:
1. To create rotating seats for each of the regional groups: various countries within a region could share a single seat via a rotation mechanism. The Organization for African Unity (OAU) has proposed that Africa obtain two permanent rotating seats with veto power. For this to work, the same arrangement would have to be extended to all regional groups, without discriminating between North and South, industrialized and developing nations. Otherwise the discriminations that already exist will get worse rather than better.
2. To create only new non-permanent seats. This solution would benefit all countries, since it would make more elective seats available to every regional group and facilitate access of all Member States to the Security Council. A proposal along these lines has been made by the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement in their "fall back position", calling for an increase - for the time being - of non-permanent seat only, in case no agreement is reached on other categories of seats. There is substantial support for this position: among the 113 NAM States at the UN and among many other countries, including Italy.
Italy is ready to agree to reform proposals besides its own, provided that they do not prejudice a possible future common European seat on the Council, distance Italy - the fifth-largest producer of wealth in the world - from the other main industrial countries, or increase the number of countries "more equal" than others.
Some argue that there is always a third solution - to enact no reform at all and maintain the status quo. But this would be the worst possible solution; it would amount to seeking refuge in the past rather than preparing for the future.
In 1998 the Working Group discussed how large a majority is needed to adopt a reform of the Security Council. This discussion was sparked by an attempt to push through a "framework resolution" that would have allowed the General Assembly to approve the creation of new permanent seats by a two-thirds majority of those "present and voting."
Why did we object so strongly to this proposal? Whenever sensitive issues are voted on at the UN, a number of countries "wash their hands" of the matter. They abstain or happen not to be present at the crucial time. For example, at the moment of the vote on controversial resolutions in the past two year, sometimes as many as 40 or 50 delegations were not present! In addition, a dozen or so Member States are not allowed to vote in the GA because they are subject to sanctions or have not paid their dues. Approving a "framework resolution" by two-thirds of those present and voting would mean that it would take only 80-90 votes to approve Security Council reform: less than half the membership of the United Nations!
Italy strongly believes that, whatever enlargement formula is ultimately approved, Security Council reform must be supported by a broad consensus of UN members. When the General Assembly established the Open-Ended Working Group on Security Council reform, it stressed the need to reach a "general agreement." Many identify this concept as a majority close to consensus. However we define it, it cannot be less than the two-thirds majority of all Member States needed for the amendments to the UN Charter!
Attempts to by-pass the provisions of the Charter or to force a "framework resolution" through the General Assembly, for approval by a reduced majority, would be extremely dangerous. Reform to the benefit of the few at the expense of the many would compromise the legitimacy, credibility and authority of the future Council.
This is why in October 1998, Italy 34 other Member States introduced a provisional resolution. Recalling the pertinent decisions adopted on this issue at the Non-Aligned Movement's Summit of Heads of State and Government, held in Durban on 2-3 September 1998, the draft resolution stated that "any decision on Security Council reform with Charter amendment implications must be adopted by a two-thirds majority of all Member States, as provided for by Article 108 of the Charter" (i.e., at least 124 votes).
After negotiations held under the auspices of the President of the General Assembly, Foreign Minister Didier Opertti of Uruguay, a resolution was adopted, by consensus, in the General Assembly on 23 November 1998. The resolution states the GA's determination "not to adopt any resolution or decision on Security Council reform without the affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the members of the General Assembly". The position on reform upheld by Italy and many other countries has thus prevailed.
