On February 5th, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, sent out a letter to all member states with an attachment of sixty pages. The document (available here and here) includes all “substantive input” submitted by Member States to the Chair thus far in the fourth round of negotiations. This marks the beginning of the fifth round, which, for the first time, will be text-based.

The letter refers to GA Resolution 63/565, building on GA Resolution 62/557, which states that the basis of the intergovernmental negotiation must consist of the following three points:
i: the positions and proposals of member states, regional groups and other member states groupings
ii: the five key issues (categories of membership; the question of the veto; regional representation; size of an enlarged Security Council; and the working methods of the Council and the relationship between the Council and the GA)
iii: reports from the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform on its work during the 61st and 62nd GA sessions.

Fit for Negotiation?
Tanin’s letter asks member states to submit proposals that are “fit for negotiation purposes,” either as individual member states or as groups. The Chair further urges member states to reflect on other proposals and to revise their own proposals in the light of the progress made during this last round of negotiations. Finally, the letter states that the “open text” compiled by the Chair will evolve in a “membership-driven way.”

As reported by the Center, there has lately been criticism of the Chair by at least one UFC member country; with this letter, he seems to have catered to all parties involved. The fact that the letter presents an “open text” of some 60 pages is somewhat of a compromise between the wishes of those who would rather not see anything in writing at this point and those who would have preferred a two-page document outlining the options currently on the table. The Chair foresees the letter will “blaze a trail” towards “early reform of the Security Council.” While the adjective “early” may seem somewhat optimistic, the letter could indeed prove to be the trailblazer out of the abyss that the reform process, in the eyes of many, has been in for years. The letter, in other words, may be the end of a slow beginning and the start of substantial progress towards real reform.