7 May 2007
During the 8th meeting of the 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 (OEWG) of the 61st session of the General Assembly (GA), which took place on Thursday 3 May and continued until 4 May, Member States discussed the assessment of the state of the debate on Security Council Reform and the “Notions on the way forward,” contained in the report compiled by the five facilitators appointed by the President of the GA, H.E. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa, in February 2007. The facilitators based their report on extensive multilateral and bilateral consultations conducted in the past few months.
In her opening remarks, the President of the GA stated that, at this stage, what is important is “to agree to a results-oriented process.”
While all of the 60 Member States speaking during the consultations confirmed their will to reform the Security Council and expressed eagerness not to lose the current momentum, the membership appeared still extremely divided.
The G4 (Germany, Japan, India and Brazil) lamented that the report from the Facilitators did not indicate that there is a substantial consensus within the membership towards approving an enlargement in both categories of membership: permanent and non-permanent. In particular, Germany was very vocal in calling for a vote that would help determine where the majority stands. It was stated that waiting for a consensus would kill Security Council Reform and that in a negotiating process the minority position has to show more flexibility than the majority. India noted that there has never been more that 1/3 support for transitional arrangements proposed in the past, some of which also figure in the report, while expansion in both categories has reached almost 2/3 support. However, this is not reflected in the report of the facilitators. India suggested that a fruitful negotiating text would have taken the majority view and integrate it in the minority view in terms, for example, of adding periodical reviews for new permanent members. The G4 and the US, supported by a number of other Member States, insisted that new facilitators (1/2) be appointed by the GA President, assigned with presenting a few models integrating most approaches, for the next stage of negotiations. The US reinstated its support for the inclusion of Japan, and “perhaps other” powers that can take responsibility in keeping international peace, in the permanent member category.
On the other hand, Uniting for Consensus (UfC) insisted that there is no such consensus on increasing the membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, otherwise Member States would not still be discussing the issue at this time. UfC asked that Member States be given the time to internalize all the proposals included in the report, and “distill” the new approaches and ideas, before moving to a process of negotiations or a vote. Pakistan underlined how there are not only two categories – permanent or non-permanent – on the discussion table, but several: permanent with or without veto, semi-permanent, non-permanent etc… UfC was also very firm in denying the necessity to appoint new facilitators as, according to them, that would equate to showing mistrust in the five facilitators and their work to date. UfC hoped that the five facilitators would continue to serve in their capacities to foster further discussions/consultations/negotiations.
The African Group reiterated their position asking for two permanent seats with veto power and five non-permanent seats (as per Ezulwini Consensus). The veto should be granted to all new permanent members to be then removed gradually in a second phase. They asked for further proposals to be elaborated, in particular in regard to the transitional arrangements proposed in the report: what would be the final objective of a interim/transitional arrangement and a timeline of, or at least suggestions on, how to reach the final goal. With better formulated proposals on an interim arrangement, they would be able to discuss it at the African Group Summit, taking place in Ghana in early July, and report the results of the discussion, and eventually a new negotiating position, to the whole membership before the end of the 61st session. At any rate, a solution envisaging permanent seats and veto power at a later stage, after a review for example, would not be acceptable as Africa looks to be made part of the balance of the voting power in the Security Council as soon as possible.
The NAM also reiterated their position affirming that, even though veto power is a detestable notion which needs to be eliminated, the new permanent members need to be granted veto power in order to be able to realistically change the power balance within the Council and reflect the current global state of affairs. The NAM called again for the limitation of the use of the veto in cases of violations of jus cogens norms.
For the sake of initiating a process of reform of the Security Council, a considerable number of States declared their willingness to explore transitional arrangements, in particular those interim arrangements envisioning an immediate enlargement of the non-permanent seats category. Discussions and consultations would continue on enlargement in the permanent seats category, especially with regards to whether or not to grant the right of veto to new permanent members, a major issue which is now dividing the membership. In order to be able to explore interim arrangements, several Member States asked to be given more time to discuss the proposals contained in the report with their capitals and in a multilateral setting.
Wide support was voiced by all Member States, for the reform of the working methods of the Security Council which should continue regardless of the results of the current negotiations on expansion of the Council.
In her closing remarks, the President of the GA affirmed that she had established the facilitation process with a clear objective in mind: to provide the membership with a fair and objective assessment of the current state of affairs concerning Security Council Reform, and that this objective had been achieved. Now, the evaluation and suggestions contained in the report should serve as a good basis for future discussions, “without prejudging existing positions of Member States.” She confirmed to be “personally committed to ensure that the current momentum is not lost.” On the basis of the statements and comments offered by the 60 Member States who spoke on 3 and 4 May 2007 – the President of the GA will come back to Member States with her proposal on how best to move the process forward.
Find a list of the statements made available at the meetings at ReformtheUN.org
---------------------------------------------
