By Jakob Silas Lund, 11 December 2009

On November 16th, the chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, sent a letter to all member states inviting them to the first meeting of the fourth round of negotiations. The negotiations ended up spanning over two days rather than the planned one-day session.

In his letter, Tanin encouraged member states to: “reflect on their own positions and proposals and on the positions and proposals of their peers.” This was seen as a step on behalf of the chair to narrow down the proposals and move towards actual negotiations rather than mere repeats of already stated positions. Expectations, therefore, were perhaps higher than is usually the case for negotiations on reform of the Council. Tanin did not play down those expectations in his opening speech. On December 8th, the 29th anniversary of John Lennon’s murder, Tanin proclaimed that he “may be a dreamer,” but that he was “not the only one” and referred to the member states’ “burning desire” to reform the Council. Judging from the statements on the floor, however, not all delegates had been listening to Imagine on their way to the Trusteeship Council, where the negotiations were held.

Permanency or Not
Brazil, Japan, India, and Germany and other member states reiterated their support for expansion in “both categories” (permanent and non-permanent). Portugal stated that expansion in both categories would bring the Council “into line with contemporary geopolitical realities,” while Brazil opined that it would lead to “greater legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council’s work.” Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the African group, restated their insistence on a minimum of two permanent seats for Africa as per the Ezulwini consensus. Along with Egypt and other African nations, Sierra Leone also maintained that these two permanent members must be elected by the African Union. Egypt added that the veto remains an issue that cannot be ignored and one that Africa will not back down on. Recently, rumors have had it that the African group might be willing to soften up on this issue, which may have been the reason Egypt came out so strongly. The UK expressed support for the G4 and Africa’s call for more permanent seats but also said that they were willing to consider the intermediate approach.

This was perhaps illustrative of how opinions among some member states have shifted towards at least reflecting on the intermediate model. Both Germany and Indonesia said that while they, as a principle, want expansion in both categories, they believe the intermediate approach may be the most constructive for now. The Netherlands suggested a version of the intermediate model with a review period of eight to ten years, while Slovenia suggested a twelve-year review period. Pakistan proposed an intermediate approach in which countries could hold long-term seats and be re-elected, an idea also supported by Italy. Italy further underlined, however, that the intermediate solution is a compromise approach leading to a compromise solution and that it can never end in permanency for any new member state. The fact that Germany and Italy can agree on supporting the intermediate solution with such different opinions about the end-result shows just how broad and vague the concept still is.

Working Document or Not
A dividing issue was whether to produce a text as basis for further negotiations. Brazil suggested that a proposal laid out by member states may be perceived as biased and suggested that Ambassador Tanin produce a working paper. Palau, India, Czech Republic, Germany and other states echoed this suggestion. Surprisingly, Spain, a member of the UFC, also supported the idea of a working document. Pakistan, on the other hand, stated that: ”any narrowing down of positions, based on erratic majority-minority logic would run counter to the spirit of negotiations.” They further warned Ambassador Tanin not to let his “shoulders be used to fire upon a specific target.” Italy said that proposals for negotiation documents would be unacceptable and “destined inevitably for failure.” Disregarding these negative sentiments, the Philippines resubmitted five draft resolutions (first submitted on June 22, 2009) on the issues of the veto; the jurisdiction of the GA; the working methods of the Council; and expansion of the Council in both categories.

The divide over whether or not to put a text on the table has roots in the perceptions of whether the necessary 2/3 majority exists in favor of any one proposal. Several countries, including India, Brazil, and Jamaica, referred to the “vast majority” in favor of expansion in both categories, while Pakistan and others opined that there is no “empirical basis for this calculus.” Turkey said that the “mindset that dismisses other views as minority” is becoming an obstacle to reform and added that it is “obvious that there is no sufficient majority behind any of the proposals.” Italy found the idea of a straw poll to be undermining democratic principles.

Working Methods
Judging from the exchanges on December 8th and 9th, reform of the working methods of the Council should be fast approaching. Virtually all members who spoke mentioned the working methods. Portugal said that while Presidential note 507 was adopted by the Council, the membership of the UN “still lacks a full understanding of the Council’s assessment of the implementation of that note.” Several countries, among them Egypt, praised the S5’s work on working methods reform.

Statements were made in favor of increasing the inclusion of Troop Contributing Countries in the decision-making process; improving the relationship between the GA and the Council; and for more transparency in general. Bolivia suggested getting rid of the veto altogether while some repeated the suggestion from the S5 of abolishing it in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law. Venezuela, on the other hand, suggested granting the veto to all members of the Council—permanent as well as non-permanent—but to limit it to cases falling under chapter VII of the Charter. Regardless of this substantial support for working methods reform, however, the UFC demands that reform must be comprehensive (i.e. include all five key issues). This means that the P5 does not even have to object to the potential changes at this point, which expected to happen if a proposal was ever brought to the floor.

The Long and Winding Road
The Philippines said that statements had been repeated ad infinitum in the preceding three rounds of negotiations and urged its peers to not make this fourth round a “waste of time,” which would be “obnoxiously intolerable.” Whether the member states will hear the call from the Philippines is yet to be seen. This latest exchange did show that many member states have maintained a strong dedication and desire for their preferred version of reform. Whether there is an equally strong willingness to compromise and to seek solutions that can garner the necessary majority is much less clear. It remains a speculation whether this was just the fourth in a boxing-like epic match of 15 rounds. The process has indeed, in the words of Ambassador Tanin, been a long and winding road.