By Jakob Lund, May 13th 2010
On May 10th, Zahir Tanin, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, sent out a long-awaited fax to all member states containing a “negotiation text”. The text and the annex can be accessed on the website of the PGA. The text includes the proposals sent by member states to Tanin's office since he opened the process of moving towards a text-based solution.
Delegates and observers had been waiting anxiously to learn the nature of the text, which, if accepted as a basis for further concrete text-based negotiation by the member states, will be the first of its kind in recent history of the Security Council reform negotiations. The document is 29 pages long with an annex containing the full proposals sent in by member states. The Chairman’s office received close to 30 different proposals—either from individual countries or groups—representing virtually all countries at the UN. Some countries that are affiliated with more than one group (such as the Arab Group and OIC, for example) co-signed several proposals.
In his letter, Tanin, in “strict conformity” with consensus decision 62/557, invites member states to examine the proposals and submit any changes or amendments they may have before May 20th. The next meeting, which will be the first in the fifth round, is planned for June 1st. This coming round of negotiations will, if the member states agree to the outline suggested by Tanin, be based on the “negotiation text”.
Will the Member States Take Ownership?
The all-encompassing text is divided into five parts reflecting the five key issues in the process, listing excerpts from the positions in the submissions made by member states. The five issues are: Categories of Membership, the Question of the Veto, Regional Representation, the Size of an Enlarged Council and Working Methods, and Relationship Between the Council and the GA. The contributors are: the African group; Italy and Columbia; the Philippines; Slovenia; CARICOM; Uruguay; Cuba; L.69; Liechtenstein; Russia; Peru; UK and France; Canada and Mexico; G4; Monaco; China; South Korea; Venezuela; Norway; North Korea; Pakistan; Bolivia; Denmark; the US, the NAM; the P5, the OIC; the Arab Group; and the Eastern European Group.
This method of dividing up the text seems like a deliberate effort to please as many member states as possible and foster further negotiation: it does not outline a numerical level of support for any of the proposals and maintains a neutral tone. The big question, of course, is whether the member states will accept the text as a basis for further text-based negotiations. Tanin proposes to member states to engage in: “informal drafting exercises” and further to: “merge language to reduce the obvious overlaps in the text and to address the outstanding differences.” However, one could imagine that some of the member states will be afraid that such a step forward in the negotiations will be too fast-paced and perhaps they will question the Chair’s authority to suggest the framework of the negotiations, arguing that this should be left entirely up to the member states. All this will be much easier to judge after the fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations commence on June 1st.
