Security Council Reform by Amb. PARK Soo Gil, Permanent Representative
at the Plenary Meeting of the 51st UN General Assembly
Thank you, Mr.President,
The Republic of Korea has, with keen interest, been actively engaged in the important deliberations of the Working Group and is pleased to join today's debate on Agenda Item 47.
Mr. President,
The modernization of the Security Council is a critical issue of our time and a challenge to which the international community must rise. The ability of the United Nations to formulate a credible peace and security agenda for the next century will depend greatly upon our accomplishments in that undertaking. Therefore, this daunting task must be addressed earnestly and with prudence. Throughout the reform process, the Republic of Korea has maintained a consistent position and one which we should like to reaffirm on this occasion.
First and foremost, we support the expansion of the Security Council. That is clearly warranted in the light of the dramatically changed character of international relations as well as the substantial increase in UN membership over the past decades. If the Security Council is to become more legitimate, credible and effective as the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, it must be more representative of today's world.
Second, we have stressed that in enlarging the Security Council, particular caution should be exercised against taking any decision which would empower a select few member states with a privileged and irreversible status. We believe such a move would run against the trend of democratization and further undermine the adaptability of the Organization to the continually evolving international environment.
The notions of "permanency" and "the veto" have become rather outdated. Despite the reality of the current permanent members, we are not yet convinced by the argument that without an increase in permanent membership, Security Council reform would be neither balanced nor complete. It does not reconcile with the new era of democratization, global cooperation and inter-dependence.
Third, we support the expansion of the non-permanent membership. We are pleased to note that this year's Report of the Open-ended Working Group documents the position of a large number of member states, and I quote, "The proposal that, in case of no agreement on the increase of other categories of membership, expansion should take place only, for the time being, in the non-permanent category received wide support," unquote. (A/50/47, para 29)
As to a concrete modality for the enlargement of the non-permanent category, we are open to a variety of proposals including the simple addition of several non-permanent members or more frequent rotational schemes. We believe the Working Group must concentrate upon working out a modality for non-permanent expansion that would be acceptable to the general membership, rather than focusing on a highly divisive and controversial issue, namely, whether or not permanent members should be added.
In this regard, we do not confine our thinking to the current a 2-year term for non-permanent members. For instance, we might consider the addition of several new non-permanent members, perhaps as many as 8, with longer than 2-year tenure such as a 4 year term, who would be elected in exactly the same manner as the current non-permanent members. The equal eligibility of all member states for that new opportunity could circumvent the strong conceptual objections which any creation of a pre-selected and privileged group of countries would incur. This also may enhance the overall representativity and credibility of the Security Council.
Fourth, with regard to the current decision-making process of the Security Council, we believe that an overhaul of the veto system is in order.
While we recognize the consolidating trend of non-exercise of the veto since the collapse of the Cold War, many delegations expressed the opinion during Working Group discussions that any Security Council reform package must include the improvement of that undemocratic system. To that end, we support the idea of circumscribing the scope of veto power to Security Council actions taken under Chapter VII of the Charter, as has been endorsed by so many countries. In this connection, we take note of the Brazilian Ambassador's interesting proposal to allow permanent members to cast a "no" vote without vetoing.
Another important and closely related veto issue is whether it will be extended beyond the current permanent members. It seems entirely illogical and rather self-defeating to allow the proliferation of veto holders while at the same time trying to minimize the overuse or abuse of the veto. We firmly believe that the privileged group of veto holders, endorsed 50 years ago as a special exception to the principle of sovereign equality, must not be enlarged.
And fifth, we support the further improvement of the Security Council's working methods with a view to enhancing transparency and ensuring greater interaction between non-members and members of the Council while not sacrificing its operational efficiency.
In this context, we welcome the important progress made to that effect in recent years, such as regular briefings by the President of the Security Council to the general membership, more frequent orientation debates and consultations with troop-contributing countries. These positive initiatives should be consolidated and further developed.
The foregoing views are of particular importance to my delegation and will continue to be our guiding principles in the common pursuit of Security Council reform. We sincerely hope these views can evolve and develop by virtue of constructive and enlightening input from other delegations.
Mr. President,
It is understandable that each delegation will have a different opinion as to where we stand on the question of Security Council reform, and just what progress was achieved during the last session of the Working Group. Some see none at all while others observe something tangible. For our part, we recognize at least two significant developments on the issue of enlargement.
One is that the so-called "quick-fix" solution has been declared off the table. This year's Report of the Open-ended Working Group states, and I quote,
"In the event that there is agreement for an increase in the permanent membership, an increase only by industrialized countries would be widely regarded as unacceptable," unquote. (A/50/47, para.26)
Given this convergence of opinion, we may now be left with primarily two options, that is, either to increase the non-permanent category only in its broader sense, or to expand permanent membership to include the developing world along with additional non-permanent members.
Three years of experience in the Working Group tells us that the former option is less divisive in nature and would be easier to bring about, and the latter would be extremely difficult to realize in the light of the complexities surrounding the selection of new permanent members.
The idea of permanent regional representation or permanent regional rotating seats was floated and discussed during the past session of the Working Group as a way of bringing the developing world into permanent membership. However, it allows ONLY the industrialized nations to join permanent membership in the traditional sense, leaving the developing world in a state of great uncertainty.
Moreover, given the complex regional dynamics of the developing world, I wonder how such a formula could work. I note several delegations already expressed, rather convincingly, conceptual objections to this apparent oxymoron. It was interesting to hear from the Mexican Ambassador that permanent regional rotating seats are nothing new, and that non-permanent members have all been elected to seats permanently assigned to each region.
Another development is that even those who support an increase in permanent members accept the proposition that the word "permanent" should not imply "eternal," a point made continually by delegations with strong reservations on that increase. We note that a nation widely regarded as a direct beneficiary of an increase in permanent membership, put forward the idea that new permanent members should not be eternal but subject to periodic review with a 15-year interval in the form of a General Assembly vote. (see Annex XIV in A/50/47/Add.1)
Although their proposal as a whole may not enjoy broad support, it echoes my delegation's repeated advocacy that the qualifications of Security Council members must be checked against time and that democratic review in the form of elections is essential. Furthermore, the combination of "permanent" and "periodic review" might be seen as having something in parallel with the mix of "non-permanent" and "longer tenure."
We take some encouragement from the fact that the conceptual gap is not unbridgeable. If there exists a common ground, it would be worthwhile to explore it. In our view, longer term non-permanent membership is something worthy of further consideration.
In conclusion, Mr. President, my delegation looks forward to contributing to the deliberations on this important issue under your able leadership. We also wish to assure you and all our distinguished colleagues here today that my delegation is ready to work together on any new constructive initiatives or proposals which may lead us to a consensus on the reform and restructuring of the Security Council.
Thank you.
