The L69 group drafted a resolution on Security Council Reform in 2012 and on 25 February 2013, a very similar resolution was circulated by CARICOM. According to the cover letter, the latter resolution was sent to the Chair of the negotiations, Amb. Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, and also distributed to all members of the L69 and African Groups. The Center has combined these two resolutions in one document with columns to highlight their significant similarities - as well as a few differences. As far as the Center knows, supporters of the L69 resolution only include developing countries.
The initiators of these two resolutions clearly seek support from the African Group, which has insisted on two permanents seats since 2005, including privileges such as the right of veto. However, an African response is likely to take a while. At the latest AU Summit on 28 January 2013 in Addis Ababa, the Coordinator of the C10, President Ernest Bai Koroma of Sierra Leone, delivered a speech in which he mentioned the L69 initiative as a “positive development.” The C10, President Koroma explained, will hold meetings of Permanent Representatives to the UN in New York and the AU in Addis Ababa in preparation for the 2013 May AU Summit. It seems clear that no major decision on SC reform from Africa should be expected any time soon based on President Koroma’s statement that in addition to meetings at the level of foreign ministers, “it is envisaged that these preparatory meetings will be of added value to the high-level meeting of C10 Heads of State and Government before our Summit in January 2014.”
One factor that may slow down the African Group's decision-making has to do with its common position of two proposed permanent members to be elected by the African Union. Apparently, 6-7 African countries are vying for such seats. It is unclear whether the African Union is actively considering selection procedures at this time, a thorny issue unlikely to be resolved as long as there is no urgent need to do so.
For a resolution on permanent seats with veto rights to pass, it will need 129 out of 193 UN Member States, two-thirds of the membership. Developing countries, when united, could narrowly meet such a majority. However, there are a number of developing countries that are members or supporters of the Uniting for Consensus Group which is against new permanent seats. Furthermore, a number of developing countries are apparently hesitant to commit at this stage to a particular point of view on expansion of the Security Council. Moreover, CARICOM's seemingly self-serving accommodations for small island developing states may upset other small developing states.
There are also issues related to process. Some Member States believe that decision 62/557 - which has guided the negotiations on Security Council reform held in informal plenary - doesn't allow for votes while negotiations are ongoing and contentious. Others believe that more than two-thirds of the membership will have to endorse a resolution to meet 62/557's stipulation of "widest possible political acceptance."
Apparently, allegations are rapidly spreading that some current permanent members have started demarches to thwart the likelihood of any resolutions being tabled. Whether true or not, such allegations might actually fan cohesion among countries from the South.
Some insiders are speculating that, as in the past, circulating draft resolutions are mainly efforts to "stir the pot" and to push the often stalling negotiations along. In the words of one diplomat, draft resolutions are meant to "create some momentum." But according to other sources, the fact that the next President of the General Assembly will be from Antigua and Barbuda, a member of CARICOM, should not be seen as a coincidence.
To comment, please email:
