1. On 4 May 1997, my Permanent Representative demonstrated to this Working Group that, based on a careful analysis of their written statements, there was good reason to believe that the Permanent Members really did not want any reform of the Security Council. Several Permanent Members were provoked into responding in the course of this week. We would like to take this opportunity to share with colleagues our assessment of their responses.
2. In our statement of 5 May 1997, we had expressed the hope that our analysis of the positions of the five Permanent Members would soon be overtaken by events. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
3. Let me remind colleagues that our analysis had led to two conclusions:
· First, that at least four out of the five Permanent Members were at odds with the majority of the UN members in what they considered to be an appropriate overall size of a reformed Security Council.
· Second, four of the five Permanent Members were also at odds with the majority of the UN members over whether developing countries should be given new permanent seats in a reformed Security Council.
Unfortunately, only one Permanent Member has substantively clarified its position with regard to these two points. The others have either prevaricated, repeated old positions, or remained silent.
4. Speaking on 5 May 1997, the representative of France recalled that in its address to the General Assembly in October 1995 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the UN, Mr. Jacques Chirac, President of France, had clearly stated that France was in favor of permanent seats for developing countries. We have checked the records. It is true that Mr. Chirac had clearly stated on that occasion that the Security Council should be made more representative by, and I quote, "enlarging the circle of its Permanent Members to include Germany, Japan and some large states from the South". End of quotation.
5. We would like to thank France for this clear and unambiguous statement of support for the aspirations of developing countries. Unfortunately, as we will demonstrate, such clarity in support for permanent seats for developing countries is the exception rather than the rule among the Permanent Members. France is the only Permanent Member that has made such a clear statement of support for developing countries. And even France has not said to our knowledge whether developing country Permanent Members should be given the veto.
6. The representative of France was somewhat less clear about his country's position on the overall size of a reformed Security Council. In response to a question by one of the Vice-Chairmen, we seemed to have heard the representative of France express support for the ‘German proposal'. We understand this to mean support for a Security Council of 24. We hope that we have not misunderstood his oral presentation. We hope that France will confirm this position so that all of us could have a clear and common understanding of where it stands.
7. Speaking on the same day as the representative of France, Ambassador Stephen Gomersall of the UK somewhat lamely described my delegation's statement as being a "diversion". It is entirely understandable that the delegation of the UK should have done so. After all, there was nothing else it could have said in reply to our analysis, and one of the time tested diversionary tactics is to accuse others of being diversionary without, at the same time, taking a substantive position.
8. Neither Ambassador Gomersall nor, subsequently on 6 May 1997, Mr Simon Manley, First Secretary, has clearly and unequivocally stated that the UK supports permanent seats for developing countries. The UK has only repeated its well known position, echoing that of the US, that there should be a Security Council of 20 to 21 members, that Japan and Germany should be new Permanent Members, and that enlargement of only the non-permanent category is unacceptable.
9. To be sure, Mr. Manley had stated in writing, that the UK, and I quote, "unequivocally support Japan and Germany's permanent membership". End of quotation. We welcome this unusually unequivocal statement from the UK.
10. But Mr Manley did not say, with equal lack of equivocation, that the UK supported the developing countries being given permanent seats. He only said that the UK believed that a "new and enlarged Council must also include enhanced representation for developing countries". What does this mean? At this point Mr Manley's new found devotion to clarity suddenly deserted him. He fell back on his delegation's usual habit of circumlocution.
11. He said that this Working Group needed to explore further the most effective way of ensuring this. He said that he looked forward to hearing the views of others. He mentioned President Razali's proposal. He speculated on the preferences of other regions. The one thing he clearly did not say, was that the UK believed that developing countries should be given permanent seats in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the UN membership.
12. And he claimed all the while to be speaking with "equal clarity" as when supporting Germany and Japan. Since Mr Manley, unlike his colleague Ambassador Gomersall, was incautious enough to commit himself in writing, members of this Working Group can judge for themselves from this text whether the UK's position was one of ‘flexibility' as Mr Manley claimed, or whether it was merely slippery.
13. Let me also mention in passing that my country also believes that flexibility and pragmatism are virtues. However, we do not believe that flexibility and pragmatism require the sacrifice of principle or precision.
14. In the absence of an equally unequivocal statement of support for permanent membership for developing countries, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in advocating a Security Council of 20 to 21 members with Germany and Japan as new Permanent Members, the UK is in fact advocating nothing more than the "quick fix" in one guise or another. If this is not so, let the UK say unequivocally, preferably in writing, that it believes that developing countries should be given permanent seats in a reformed Security Council, and if so with what powers.
15. On 6 May 1997, the representative of the US also merely repeated the familiar US position that there should be a Security Council of 20 to 21 members, permanent membership for Japan and Germany and no dilution of the powers of the current Permanent Members. The US also failed to make a clear and unequivocal statement of support for permanent membership for developing countries.
16. The next day, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Russia believed that a Security Council of 24 to 26 was "rather a lot". But the Russian delegation failed to say what was acceptable. In the absence of a clarification, we assume that its earlier position of a Security Council of "around 20" stands.
17. The Russian representative also again repeated its support for a "balanced" Security council which, he said should be decided bearing in mind the interests of all regional groups. However, we did not hear the Russian delegation express clear and unequivocal support for permanent seats for developing countries.
18. To our knowledge, the Chinese delegation has not spoken during this past week.
19. Where then does this leave us? We submit that the analysis that we presented on 5 May 1997 is still, unfortunately, accurate. Of course, France has clarified its position and we thank it for its flexibility. But of the remaining four Permanent Members, three—the US, UK and Russia—have yet again failed to clearly express support for permanent membership for developing countries. They have also continued to advocate an overall size of a reformed Security Council that makes it impossible for developing countries to realize their aspirations. So long as they refuse to show flexibility or clarify their positions on these central issues, this Working Group will remain at an impasse.
20. The US and UK had also professed surprise that their positions had been subjected to special analysis by my delegation. This is surely disingenuous. They above all must surely know that it is their positions that can advance this process or block it indefinitely. We take no joy in our conclusion that most of the Permanent Members are not ready for a real reform of the Security Council, expect on their own terms; terms that would be unacceptable to the vast majority of the UN membership. We would like nothing better than to be proved wrong.
21. We invite the US, the UK, Russia and, for that matter, China, to state, simply, clearly and unequivocally for the record, if possible in writing to avoid even the slightest possibility of misunderstanding, that they will support permanent membership with full powers for developing countries. The time for equivocation is past. Members of this Working Group deserve the courtesy of clarity. Thank you.
