Security Council Reform by Amb. CHOI Sung Hong, Deputy Permanent Representative
at the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform
Mr. Chairman,
We appreciate all the documents put before us including CRP. 3, 4 and 8. These papers have greatly contributed to making our debate particularly productive by sorting the right issues upon which to focus.
Those that have emerged in the course of our debate on Cluster II revolve more or less around the question of how to ensure transparency and the constructive input of non-members in the work of the Council to the widest possible extent without sacrificing its operational efficiency. My delegation shares the key thrusts and general direction of the Argentine/New Zealand paper. Without repeating what many others have said in support of the key elements made by Ambassador Keating, let me confine myself to commenting on a couple of points to which my delegation attaches importance.
First, regarding the question of participation of non-members of the Council at informal consultations, we share the view that they should be permitted to do so in one way or another if they are party to a dispute under consideration or their interests are particularly affected. Given the current practice whereby most Council deliberations are conducted in informal discussions and formal meetings largely reserved for the formalities of officially adopting resolutions resulting from informal consultations, it is clear that what are referred to as "informal consultations" indeed constitute an integral part of the Council's decision-making process. While recognizing that informality and relative confidentiality of informal consultations can most often serve the interest of consensus-building, we do not believe this overrides the benefit of hearing from the direct or interested parties to the dispute in arriving at a more informed decision.
Some delegations have argued that parties can make their views known to Council members through such existing arrangements as "Arria's Formula". It is true that interested delegations will make necessary demarche with Council members outside the informal consultation room, and sometimes this proves to be more effective than being heard during informal consultations.
However, this cannot justify the deprivation of a parties' right under the Charter to be heard at the most crucial stage of the Council's decision-making process. We believe that a compromise is possible by which to accommodate both the need for informality and the imperative of justice for the parties in a manner consistent with the letter and spirit of Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter.
Secondly, we support a greater resort to open formal meetings as a way of enhancing the Council's transparency. We believe that orientation debates are useful especially for initial consideration of an issue, adoption of measures under Chapter 7 of the Charter including sanctions, consideration of security issues of a global nature and when development of an issue stands at a turning point. In this connection, it may be preferable to carefully define the categories of issues to be taken up as a rule in orientation debates so that open debates can take place with flexibility. Allowing non-members of the Council, such as the direct or interested parties to a dispute or regional organizations concerned to call for an open debate is also an idea worth exploring.
Thirdly, we see further room for improvement in the way sanctions are reviewed. Under the current practice, once sanctions are put in place by a Security Council resolution under Chapter 7, they tend to be open-ended until a consensus emerges on their lifting. There are no clear criteria by which to guide the Council in considering whether and to what extent, the conditions for lifting sanctions are met. We believe that objective criteria and clear procedures for lifting sanctions should be developed in detail in order to enhance the credibility of UN sanctions.
Fourthly, we believe that the informal system of the "friends group" of the Secretary-General could contribute to the efficiency of the Council's workings. Although the positive role of the "group of friends" or "contact groups" in general is recognized, I feel that this useful system should operate without hampering the transparency of the work of the Security Council.
I am not aware of by what criteria and by whom these "friends" are selected and why some members are in and others are out. We believe that these groups should be open to those who wish to join. We also believe that, at the very least, the members of each group should be made known to the general membership.
Fifthly, as the Brazilian ambassador noted, the recommendations contained in CRP.8 carry different legal implications, some of which require more legally-binding institutionalization than others. Some require a simple modification of practice while others are much more complicated. We may be able to approach these various proposals in a more systematic manner by categorizing them in accordance with their required degree of institutionalization.
Such an approach may also be useful in determining which elements to include in a complete reform package. It may be worthwhile to consider those recommendations requiring Charter amendment as an integral part of any overall package, while those falling short of Charter amendment may proceed on their own without any linkage to more complex issues. It would be rather self-defeating to lump such notions as daily briefings and greater accessibility as the circumscription of the scope of veto and the expansion of permanent or non-permanent membership.
We certainly agree that the modernization of the Security Council through the one-time inclusion of all reasonable ideas would be an outstanding achievement, but the realities are less than encouraging. We should be cautious of the all-or-nothing approach.
Finally, we look forward to further constructive discussions on Cluster II issues and to more timely progress in this equally important area of Security Council reform.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
