By Kirsten Schlosser
4 May 2012
On 10 April 2012 the fifth meeting of the eighth round of Intergovernmental Negotiations was held on Security Council reform. This meeting was devoted to the reform initiative of the C-10, presented by the Member State Sierra Leone. This summary is based on statements given by Member States at the meeting.
Meeting 10 April 2012
Sierra Leone spoke on behalf of the African Group:
Sierra Leone made the point that Africa’s position is a demand to “redress the historical injustices” done to the continent despite the fact that it makes up such a large part of the UN body (54 members) as well as the fact the continent is the subject of the the Security Council’s agenda approximately 75% of the time.
The African Group continues to demand two permanent seats in the Council with the same rights as other permanent members (meaning veto power) as well as two additional non-permanent seats. The delegate made the argument that this is “a matter of democracy” and that the African position is a “continental aspiration and should be given merit for consideration as a special case in recognition of the special needs of Africa.” The group also requests that the issue African permanent seats be left up to the determination of the African countries.
An interesting point that the African group made is that it considers its position on the veto a compromise. This is because it opposes the veto but as long as the veto exists the group requires that it be extended to all new permanent members.
Finally, the African Group also addressed rumors of division among African members because of some African countries’ support for the L69 Group. They made clear that the African Group is not divided; some members of the group support the L69 group as facilitators “but remain committed to the African Common position.”
Egypt
Egypt underscored that the Common African Position is not an attempt to “achieve national political interests” but to achieve a “regional objective” and correct a “historical injustice.”
Egypt further stated that Africa is not a “negotiating like-minded group” but the largest regional negotiating group that holds a common position. The delegate of Egypt then went on to point out the massive misrepresentation of such a large group of countries within the Council, which does not reflect the interests of the modern day. As proof of this, Egypt reiterated many of the statistics that Sierra Leone had recited. The delegate argued that these statistics demonstrate that the idea of equitable geographical distribution in article 23 of the Charter has not been upheld.
Egypt also made the point that because smaller regions have more representation in permanent seats, Africa technically could ask for a greater number of permanent seats relative to its size. The two seats that the AG requests could then, in a sense, be seen as a concession.
Egypt reiterated the position that African countries wished to elect their members via the General Assembly and not by the Council.
India spoke on behalf of the G4:
Addressing the opportunity given in January to address the “short resolution” in the second round of the negotiations, the G4 stated that it was encouraged by the strong show of support that it perceives it has received in the past three debates, claiming that this support comes from a group that representing Member States sweeping the spectrum. This claim for support can be seen as a way for the G4 to justify its position, even though the so-called support has yet to be proven.
The G4 highlighted its common aims with the African Group, both desiring structural reform of the Council that constitutes a much more modern representation than the arrangement that is already in place.
In terms of seats, the G4 restated its well-known position of expansion in both categories. It encouraged this expansion with attention given to Member States making contributions to the “maintenance of international peace and security as well as the need for increased representation of developing countries in both categories.” The G4 underscored its view that Africa should be included in the representation of the permanent membership.
The G4 stated that it sees the “short resolution” as a means to facilitate real negotiations. And that agreement on the key principles of expansion in both categories and improvement in the Council’s working methods would allow this, calling it “a realistic and results-driven approach.”
Again, the G4 claims that its resolution holds broad support, which needs to be “adequately reflected” in the intergovernmental negotiations. This, it claims, can be done by further revision of the negotiation text or by having a straw poll.
In its National Capacity:
India aligned itself with the statement made by Jamaica on behalf of the L69 Group.
Again, India found common ground with the African Group, stressing its support for the group’s position. As evidence of this, India stated the fact that the African Group represents more than one fourth of the entire UN membership as well as its belief in the weight of the African Group’s position; both desire structural reform of the Council that represents a modern world.
India holds the belief that the Council should have 25-26 members. And, acknowledging that although progress has been made, India believes that continuation to strive for improved working methods is important. India stressed that reform cannot be comprehensive until the veto has been addressed.
Pakistan
As a member of the UfC, Pakistan’s statement reflected well-known opinions. A champion of regional representation, Pakistan praised the African Group stating, “it is a tribute to Africa’s wisdom and sagacity that it has made significant strides to address the challenge of peace and security as a collective responsibility. The African Union (AU) and a set of sub-regional organizations embody this spirit of collective action.”
Like India, Pakistan pointed out what, in Pakistan’s opinion, common ground it shared with the African position. Pakistan went on to list these commonalities that include: comprehensive reform and an opposition to a piecemeal approach, as well as a belief in a political agreement on principles before the drafting of any resolutions or draft texts—“consensus” of course being a key principle. Pakistan reminded the Member States that prior to the Ezulwini Consensus they had shared a principle of regional representation and this principle was only strengthened by the creation of the Consensus.
Pakistan referred to Africa as a “special case,” reiterating the UfC’s Italy-Colombia paper as support for its argument as an advocate for the African position. The UfC argues that the special treatment would allow Africa to have a hand in the decisions concerning its representation on the Council and satisfy the African desire for control over its fate as well as a correction of the past.
Finally, Pakistan stated that it would strive in its national capacity as well as a part of the UfC to increase its dialogue with members of the African Group in order to “consolidate commonalities.”
The S5
The S5 kept their statement brief because the next session of the Intergovernmental Negotiations will be based on their proposal. They reiterated what all other countries have said: Africa’s voice needs to be heard. The S5 made the point that their proposal would allow for the African Union to be better informed, consulted on, and involved in the decision making of the Council; in particular: decision-making which directly affects them as countries on the Security Council’s agenda, as troop or police contributors, and as actors within the peace-building process. They encouraged better interaction between the Council and the wider membership, which would benefit the UN as a whole but in particular Africa.
The S5 then reiterated the argument that a reform of the working methods was the only reform that could be done quickly, easily, and presently. This is because the resolution does not require any Charter amendments. The S5 acknowledged that their proposal is not a solution for the working methods, but it does hope that the resolution will be a stepping-stone for further reform.
France
A member of the P5, France simply reiterated its position. France stated the need for African, as well as in its opinion Arab, representation in the Council. France also stated its support for expansion in both categories of seats. Its position is compatible with the G4’s, which it supports.
In summary
There is still very little agreement among the Member States about how to reform but there is one common theme: it is basically unanimously accepted that it is imperative to have a greater amount of African representation on the Council. Because of this it could be seen throughout this meeting that many Member States appealed to the African Group’s plight, seeking commonality with them in order to potentially garner support.
