1. The decision unanimously taken by the membership to set up this Working Group was a reflection of the fact that all members of the United Nations considered it necessary to enlarge the membership of the Security Council. The two years of work of the Working Group has reinforced this broad agreement among Member States that the Security Council should be enlarged with a number of new seats, in order to better reflect the realities of today's world. In order to ensure continued and strengthened support for the Security Council in discharging the important duties assigned to it by the Charter, we need a Council with enhanced representatively and legitimacy.
2. In spite of the broadly shared wish for reform, discussions so far have not really brought us closer to the general agreement we need on this crucial issue. We believe that flexibility will now be necessary on the part of all of us. We also feel that there are a number of interesting elements in the many proposals that have been tabled, elements of which we should build in trying to bring the process forward.
3. As the delegation of Norway has had the opportunity to state in this Working Group on earlier occasions, we believe that a balanced approach to this question requires an enlargement with both permanent and non-permanent seats.
4. The founding Members of the United Nations as well as all other Member States have freely decided to adhere to the Charter, and have agreed to the principle of the Security Council being a representative body with limited membership and particular authority and responsibility.
5. The structure that was established for the Security Council in the Charter has contributed to conferring on the Council the authority and legitimacy essential for the fulfillment of its primary responsibility: the maintenance of international peace and security. Another structure, without permanent members and the particular rights and obligations pertaining to this status, could have led to matters of peace and security being dealt with elsewhere. Unilateralism would have replaced multilateralism. This is also the reason why attempts to abolish the category of permanent seats would not only be unrealistic, but would also tend to impair the ability of the Security Council to discharge its duties.
6. An increase in the number of both permanent and non-permanent seats is therefore the logical outcome of a process of reelection as to how the composition of the Security Council, with its existing two categories of membership, could best reflect present political and economic realities.
7. The factors that should guide us in the increase in the number of permanent seats are the following: (a) the capacity and the readiness of Member States to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the United Nations; and (b) the need for a more equitable and balanced geographical representation.
8. Considering this need for a more equitable and balanced geographical representation, as well as the new political realities, we suggest the following:
(a) The permanent membership should be increase by five new seats;
(b) Three new permanent seats should be for developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America;
(c) Two new permanent seats should be for industrialized countries.
The allocation of the new permanent seats to individual countries should take into account the aforementioned factors. It is also essential, not only for the possibility of reaching a general agreement on this issue, but also with regard to the future legitimacy of the Council, that the regions concerned be instrumental in finding solutions.
9. With regard to the three new permanent seats for the developing countries, discussions in this Working Group so far indicate, in our view, that one realistic option would be a regionally based rotational system, establishing permanent regional rotating seats.
10. Within the framework we suggest, it would be for the countries in the regions to decide how their new permanent seat should be allocated. This could be to one single country; it could be to a few countries on a rotational basis; or it could be on another basis the region might choose, the principle remaining that each region decide for itself.
11. We have noted that a number of Member States during the last session of this Working Group expressed interest in further discussing a model for enlargement of the Council along the lines the delegation of Norway has suggested above. We therefore believe that a more focused discussion on this approach in the time ahead might prove to be fruitful.
12. Finally, while care should be taken not to impair the efficiency of the Security council, an enlargement of the Council be five new permanent seats as suggested should be complemented by an enlargement with a number of new non-permanent seats, in order to maintain a reasonable balance between the number of permanent and non-permanent seats on the council, and to enhance further the representatively and the equitable geographical distribution of its membership.
