HE Mr. Inocencio F. Arias,
Ambassador Permanent Representative of Spain
April 23, 1998
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 Security Council. Decision-making process,-including the veto
Mr. President,
In your opening statement two days ago, you pointed out the great importance attached to the issue of decision-making in the Security Council, including the veto. You also underlined that the overwhelming majority of the Member States follows with great attention the debates in our Working Group on this matter.
We fully concur with your analysis and my delegation is undoubtedly among those which give a particular attention to this phase of our discussions.
Consequently, the first conclusion which we should draw is that we must not shy away from a thorough consideration, without any undue haste, of this issue, with a view to reaching generally acceptable agreements. Thus, we believe, on the one hand, that the discussion must take place in the Working Group itself, and not in a more restricted forum. This is the only way to assure all delegations of the opportunity to participate in our deliberations.
On the other hand, we cannot agree with those delegations that suggest a postponement of our discussions to a later stage, in which our deliberations would be more advanced. The decision-making process, including the use of the veto, is an issue vitally linked - I would say with a perverse logic - to the other two main areas of our discussions, i.e., the enlargement in the membership of the Security Council and the improvement of its transparency and working methods. All three issues must, then be dealt with together.
Mr. President,
Allow me to state in very clear terms a common place: we do not like the veto, we do not like it at all.
Ambassador Tello has provided us with a most perceptive and relevant historic overview of the diplomatic circumstances which led to the establishment of the modalities of the exercise of the veto by the five permanent of the Security Council, as they are reflected in the Charter.
It is true that all the Member States of the United Nations have signed and ratified the Charter, in conformity with its Article 110, and, consequently, we have accepted all the provisions contained therein, including those referring to the use of the veto.
Notwithstanding this, a certain number of countries made clear, from the beginning, their reservations about the veto and, in any case, there is now a large majority of Member States which feel a clear uneasiness about the use of the veto and which consider, in any case, that the veto, as it is formulated in the Charter, does not correspond anymore with the aspirations of the international community for a democratization of the United Nations.
As far as my county is concerned, while aware of the difficulties of attaining the goal of the abolition of the veto in the present circumstances, we have repeatedly suggested to limit its exercise to situations to which Chapter VII of the Charter would apply.
Mr. President,
In order to reflect in practical terms our proposal, we submitted a working paper with ideas for adapting the decision-making process. Our proposal is contained in the addendum to the CPP10 submitted by Spain in June 1996, and can be found in the Report of the Working Group to the 50th session of the General Assembly.
On the basis of the distinctions spelled out in Article 27 relating to the issues to be decided upon by the Security Council, we have proposed to differentiate among three types of decisions:
1. Those on procedural issues, to be adopted by an absolute majority;
2. Those on substantive issues not related to Chapter VII, to be adopted by
a special qualified majority, without veto - we indicated that the threshold for this qualified majority could be 3/5 or 2/3 of the members of the Council;
3. Those on substantive issues related to Chapter VII, with the same special qualified majority and the possibility of exercising the so-called right of veto.
This would be a possible compromise solution that could help us move forward in the search of a formula acceptable to all delegations and which would take into account both the realities of the status of the present permanent members of the Security Council and the aspirations for a greater democratization of the United Nations to which I referred earlier.
Mr. President,
Let me briefly recall here our position on the granting of the veto to possible new permanent members of the Security Council.
I believe that the position of Spain on the enlargement of the Security Council is well known to all, particularly on the question of new permanent members. We are of the opinion that this is a particularly contentious issue which could bring about more difficulties than benefits.
In this respect, my country firmly believes that any extension of the use of veto to new members would only make more difficult the decision-making process of the Security Council and would not in any way reinforce the efficiency and legitimacy of the Council as the organ with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Mr. President,
In concluding, my delegation wishes to express its satisfaction for the very substantive general debate we have had in our three sessions and the proposals made by different delegations. We believe that these proposals should now be considered in detail by our Working Group, in order to complete a thorough analysis of the different aspects which at present characterize the exercise of the veto.
We thus welcome the decision adopted yesterday afternoon by the Bureau, so the Working Group can start next week the consideration of the proposals submitted.
Thank you, Mr. President.
