By Jakob Silas Lund, 28 April 2010
On April 22nd, the Security Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Issues held an open debate on the working methods of the Council. The debate raised some key questions that are relevant to the ongoing Security Council reform negotiations. Furthermore, to keep the issue of its working methods on the agenda of the Security Council is, in and of itself, an accomplishment.
Japan’s role
The open debate was the third of its kind with the previous debates having taken place in 1994 and 2008 respectively. Japan chaired the working group in 2006, as well as in the current session after the country became a non-permanent member again in the 2009-2010 term. The Presidency of the Council was also in Japan’s hands in April, which provided the opportunity to organize this debate.
The debate went quite as expected with the usual factions highlighting their usual positions: the P5, particularly the P3, remained skeptical, to say the least, about non-members of the Council interfering in the Council’s business and urged everyone to approach the topic with realism (Russia kindly reminded member states of Art. 30 of the Charter, stating that the Council shall adopt its own rules of procedure); the G4 seemingly remained committed to reforming the working methods of the Council, but repeated that real reform will not occur until an expansion in “both categories” is ensured; the UFC emphasized the importance of working methods reform and underscored that the issue must remain an integral part of the overall Security Council reform process; the S5 insisted that reforming the working methods of the Council is, in effect, the most relevant change to the vast majority of countries at the UN; and scores of other countries expressed contentment with recent progress—key among them has been the Ombudsman for the sanctions committee—but also stated that “more can be done.” For a more in-depth analysis on the different aspects of the Security Council’s working methods, see this recent article from the Center.
S/2006/507
Many countries lauded the increased interaction between the Council and Troop Contributing Countries (TCCs), which has been one of the main issues in the working methods debate. France and Japan said that the consultations with the TCCs have improved and that the dialogue with regional organizations has also seen positive developments. Bosnia likewise welcomed the progress made on these issues. Brazil stated that the TCCs should be allowed more time in advance to consider draft resolutions regarding areas relevant to their contributions —Uganda suggested that TCCs should be consulted at least one week prior to debates—and that they should have increased access to the Security Council in general. Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the African group, joined the choir calling for increased interaction with the TCCs, as did Jordan and other S5 countries. Brazil expressed its agreement with Nigeria who had called for increased dialogue with the African Union. Italy was one of a handful of countries to call for improved interaction with both TCCs and other actors, including NGOs. Luxembourg suggested using the Arria Formula meetings more and Liechtenstein said that briefings by senior UN staff should be open to all members.
Presidential Note S/2006/507 is seen as a seminal document in the ongoing process of reforming the Council’s working methods. The concept paper inviting member states to the open debate stated that the purpose of the debate was “to assess the implementation of the measures set out in the annex to S/2006/507.” (concept paper can be found here). Presidential Note 507 and its annex spell out the key issues and lists major achievements in the process thus far. Many references to 507 were made in the previous debate on April 22nd: most of them pointed out that the document was a milestone, but that many of the goals from the document still have not been implemented. Gabon specifically pointed out that notes eight and nine of the document still lack implementation . Liechtenstein, speaking on behalf of the S5, pointed out that the S5’s paper on working methods reform was never acted on because the Council produced its own document, namely S/2006/507. That the Council produced its own paper was great but if the note is not implemented, nothing has been gained, Ambassador Wenaweser said. The Ambassador pointed to measure number 46 in the Note, which urges the Council to include non-members in the process of adding and removing countries from sanction lists .
The Spirit of the Charter
Bosnia poetically pointed out that open and closed meetings are compatible, yet oftentimes the two different meeting formats clash. This was one of several statements encouraging the Council to have more open meetings, while also expressing understanding for the fact that some meetings must remain closed off to the public. Many pointed out that the “spirit of the Charter” required more open meetings to be held. Finland, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, expressed contentment with the increased level of open meetings but added that the meetings could be of a higher quality. The thematic debates, for example, should be more action-oriented, Finland said. In that connection, it was interesting to note that this was only the third ever open debate on the Council’s working methods. Recently, journalists around the UN have complained that their access to the Council has been restricted. One article complains that the decision to restrict journalists’ access was, like most other decisions at the Council, taken in secrecy . Interestingly, the open meeting on April 22nd allowed NGO representatives to sit on the intermediary Council’s balcony, but did not allow those seated there to access the headphones providing simultaneous translation. How can they call it an open meeting if NGO are allowed to sit there but not to listen in?” one UN staff asked rhetorically. While neither headphones nor journalists’ access fall under the sphere of working methods reform, both issues do add to the perception that the Council is closed-off to others than its members. The issue of open meetings is crucial to the relationship between members and non-members of the Council. Many countries stated that this relationship has been improved lately, but that, as expected, more can still be done. South Africa said exactly that, and added that the Council should not be an “exclusive P5 domain.”
Several member states made it clear that they thought the Council should have permanent rules for its working methods. Nor surprisingly, none of the permanent members were endorsing this idea. The Council’s rules of procedure are (in)famously provisional and they have an almost mystic air to them. While the rules are available online, critics say the their impermanence makes it difficult for new comers and outsiders to know whether they are actually in force. Those who favor having provisional rules only (namely the P5) say that it provides much-needed flexibility for a body that can at times be much too rigid. Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the permanent rules of the Council should include restrictions on the veto. His suggestion mirrored those proposed by the S5: prohibiting the use of the veto in cases of “genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.” Later, Egypt expressed its alignment with its own statement on behalf of the NAM and continued to talk in its national capacity.
Among the remaining issues being discussed were the annual report from the Council to the Secretary General (most wanted it to be more substantive and comprehensive); the use of Chapter VII (particularly the African nations urged the Council not to use Chapter VII actions lightly or for national interests); comprehensive reform (G4 and African states made it clear that real reform must include an expansion of the Council in numerical terms while UFC members made it clear that real reform must include reform of working methods); listing and de-listing countries from the sanctions list; the new ombudsman; and the legitimacy and efficiency of the Council. For a detailed account of the issues discussed, see document S/PV.6300
What Does it All Mean?
Two major questions arise from the debate: 1. Can and will it change anything? and 2. Knowing that the working methods constitute one of the five key issues in the overall Security Council reform process, could it have an impact on that process?
Question number one is perhaps slightly easier to answer, at least as far as aspirations go. A delegate from Japan told the Center in a recent interview that their goal is to update Presidential Note 507 and to produce a new, comprehensive Presidential Note if possible. The “if possible” should be seen in the light of several different, at times conflicting, interests within the Council on this issue. Most likely, the debate will not lead to permanent rules of procedure or anything close to it, but taking into account the significance of 507, it may produce a similarly informative document outlining the current priorities and progress made to date.
Whether the debate will have an impact on the overall reform efforts will to a large extent depend on the answer to question 1. If something substantial comes out of the debate, it may persuade some member states to accept a separation of the working methods from the general reform process. The problem with this is that some of the countries that emphasize the need to include working methods in the reform process at any cost are seen to do so out of a wish to delay the process rather than a genuine concern for the rules of procedures of the Council. Even an impressive outcome of the open debate, therefore, may not be enough to sway these countries. Nonetheless, the more change the debate is seen to have produced, the harder it will be to ignore its effects.
It may also be that the most important effect of the debate will be to show the broader membership of the UN that the Council is willing, however hesitantly, to openly discuss its own working methods, which could spur some positive momentum in the general reform process. Skeptics may argue that open debates like these serve to give an illusion of openness on behalf of the Council but not much else. “I’m not sure that more open meetings will necessarily lead to more openness in the decision-making process”, one observer commented.
Japan pointed out that the Council has become more open in so many ways. The information it shares in both the Journal and on its website has become more comprehensive. Be that as it may, the Council has not kept up with the Journal, which recently stepped into the 21st century by joining both Twitter and Facebook
