By Kirsten Schlosser
4 May 2012
On 13 March 2012 the fourth meeting of the eighth round of Intergovernmental Negotiations was held on Security Council reform. This meeting was devoted to the reform initiative of the L.69 Group, presented by the Member State Jamaica. This summary is based on statements given by Member States at the meeting.
L.69
The L.69 Group is comprised of 41 countries from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Jamaica spoke on behalf of the L.69 group stating the belief that expansion in both categories would best reflect the reality of today, achieving a more “accountable, representative, and transparent Security Council.” This expansion would constitute extending the Council to 25/26 seats, with new permanent members holding the same powers as the existing permanent members, including the power of the Veto. Trying to appeal to the African Group, the L.69 Group stated its belief that its proposal is in line with the Ezulwini Consensus. It also believes strongly in the improvement of working methods saying that both of these should provide the direction for further negotiations.
The group also claims that it has the support of over 80 countries in writing; this is the same amount of support that the G4 claimed to have received. This claim for support as well as the position presented by the L.69 group is very similar to that of the G4, which caused a bit of concern for some countries from the UfC as well as from the African Group during the meeting.
Japan spoke on behalf of the G4
The G4 was thankful for the strong support that it had received from members of the L.69 Group showing that the initiative had a “large, diverse, and cross regional group of Member States - big and small, from the developing and the developed world.”
The G4 stated its desire for structural reform by expanding the number of seats in both categories, taking into account the contribution of countries to the preservation of international peace and security as well as the need for increased representation.
The G4 highlighted its commonalities with the L69 Group including: type of membership expansion as well as the need to improve working methods.
Finally, the G4 argued that the wide support should be reflected in the intergovernmental negotiations and that this should be considered as the basis for the continuing intergovernmental negotiations.
Clearly, these positions are very similar to the L.69 group, which sparked some confusion among other Member States.
African Group
Speaking on behalf of the African group, the delegate from Sierra Leone pointed out the close relationship between the African Group and the L.69 group. The delegate stated that “our engagement and consultations with the L-69 has the potential of heading towards the direction of a common platform when fully crystallized, and which we hope, will remain open to all reform minded delegations and interest groups committed to a comprehensive and early reform of the Council and to redressing the much acknowledged historical injustice done to the African continent…” The African Group went on to state its support for comprehensive reform in all five categories, rejecting a piecemeal approach to reform.
Egypt
Speaking in its national capacity, Egypt pointed out a few points on which it wanted further clarification. One of these points pertained to the issue of the Veto. Both the G4 and the L.69 proposals are comprised of similar ideas but the G4 proposal does not include the Veto. Egypt desired to know if “new permanent seats having the same prerogatives and privileges of the current permanent seats” includes the Veto as a right of new permanent members. This of course is key to the African position.
Should the L69 initiative include the Veto, Egypt went on to question whether the 80 supporters of the L.69 are the same supporters of the G4 despite the major differences concerning the issue of the Veto.
Finally, Egypt stated that if the word “Veto” was added to the G4/L.69 draft resolution along with the expansion of the permanent category, the delegate believes that African Countries would vote in favor of the draft resolution.
Spain
In response to the L.69, Spain also posed a few points of concern. Spain noted the similarity between the G4 and L.69 proposals, both claiming 80 countries’ support as well as having the same ideas concerning expansion and working methods. This made it seem like these two proposals are identical. But because only two of the G4 countries support the L.69 proposal, Spain acknowledged that there must be some differences and asked to know what these differences were.
Spain also pointed out the presence of some African countries in the support of the L.69 proposal; this is interesting because the African group has its own common position, which is represented in the Ezulwini Consensus. Spain found this, as well as the absence of the two G4 members, strange and wondered if the support of some of these African countries is indicative of some kind of divide within the African Group.
France
The delegate of France expressed his belief in the possibility of progress, urging that the process move into serious negotiations. This is because, in France’s opinion, the Member States have at their disposal all of the components necessary for negotiations, including: clarified versions of the main proposals, a compilations text, and an option for temporary reform.
Summary
Both the L.69 and the G4’s proposals seem to be almost identical in their support as well as their principles; these overlaps of seeming contradictions generated some confusion among Member States. For example this could be seen in Egypt’s concern that had been sparked by the ambiguity of the two proposals. It could also be indicative of a possible schism between African countries, which would contradict the position of consensus that African countries had upheld until this point.
