by Jakob S. Lund
On November 12th and 13th, the UN General Assembly (GA) met to discuss the annual report of the Security Council immediately followed by a plenary meeting on the questions of equitable representation in and increase in the membership of the Council.
The Annual Report’s Quality Still Disappoint Many
As discussed in a recent article by the Center, the annual report from the Council to the GA is customarily criticized for not being analytical enough, providing merely a summary of activities in the preceding year. This criticism was, not surprisingly, repeated this time. Pakistan called for “more analytical depth” in the report and Mexico urged the Council to use the annual report to enhance transparency of its workings. Liechtenstein noted that while more discussion of the decision-making process in the Council would be welcome, there are no illusions of a full-fledged political report. The Ambassador also urged the Council to better coordinate between the country-specific and thematic debates in the report. He further stated that while the annual report should be used as an occasion to reflect on the working methods of the Council, in fact only short references were made to Council meetings on this issue.
Working Methods
The US touched on the issue of working methods, but only in regard to the Council’s open meetings and briefings. The American representative stated that several open meetings and briefings have been held over the last year but that very few member states have attended them. Several other countries expressed the need for more transparency in the Council’s work and South Africa suggested that the provisional working methods—which have not been formalized for more than 60 years—be changed. Spain, on the other hand, commended the Council for including Troop Contributing Countries (TCC) when making decisions in situations where the TCCs’ troops are involved. The Solomon Islands repeated the idea of banning the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law, in line with the S5’s proposal on working methods.
No Repetition of Former Statements?
The discussion on expansion of the Council offered several statements that were difficult to distinguish from the statements made in September this year (link to sept article)—or in preceding years, for that matter. Countries associated with the UFC employed the codeword “democracy” several times to make it clear that expanding the Council with additional permanent members would only result in less accountability. African and G4 countries, on the other hand, stated that there must be additional permanent members to enhance the democratic representation in the Council and further spoke of the need for a more legitimate Council reflecting the “world of today.”
The question of whether or not a sufficient majority exists in favor of any of the proposals currently on the table remained unanswered as those in favor of a given proposal claimed to be backed by a “large majority” while those opposed made it clear that no such majority exists.
The US said that expansion in both categories (permanent and non-permanent) is “a possibility”, but underlined an earlier stated point: before any expansion is agreed to, it must be clear which countries would take up additional the seats. In other words: there will be no talk of allotting two permanent seats to Africa without deciding which two countries would take up the seats beforehand. Russia referred to the tough conditions for expansion reminding everyone that any decisions would require at least a 2/3 majority if voted on, if not agreed to by consensus. Japan, on the other hand, called for reform to happen now and asked that member states refrain from repeating former statements. Those who root for swift reform will wish Japan better luck convincing their peers of their first request than they have had with the latter.
Where There’s a Will There’s a Way
The Philippines stated that: “the dice have been cast” and asked that decisiveness take the place of mere talk: what can be agreed to now should be adopted now, they said. The Philippine representative stopped short of tabling a resolution, however, and ended his statement by reminding his fellow representatives that where there is a will there is a way. This observation possibly sent a gloomier signal about the prospects for prompt action than the Philippines likely intended. The discussions did not show serious attempt from any of the established blocks to find genuine compromise.
There may, however, be glimmers of novelty from a rather unsuspected side: rumors among diplomats close to the reform process have it that there are discussions within the African group to soften up its insistence on at least two permanent members fro Africa with all the rights and privileges of the current P5. Supposedly, Libya is contemplating convening a meeting of the African group to discuss the Ezulwini consensus. Any moderation of the hitherto firm African stance would certainly put things in a new light and could, perhaps, convince other countries to show more willingness for compromise, too. In October, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan was reappointed by the President of the GA, Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, as chair of the intergovernmental negotiations. His stewardship will be an important part of ensuring progress on the issue of Security Council Reform in the 64th GA.
