|
|
General Assembly Debates Security Council Reform: Still Slow Goingby Jonas von Freiesleben The General Assembly met from 12 to 14 November 2007 in a plenary debate to discuss Security Council reform. The meetings did not result in any concrete steps; instead they clearly illustrated the continued divisiveness of the issue, which is now entering its 15th year as an agenda item. The President of the General Assembly, H.E. Mr. Sgrjan Kerim, is expected to shortly communicate to Member States an outline of the upcoming follow-up processes, which should include intergovernmental negotiations. THE GA DEBATES REFORM OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL Inscribed as item 122 on this year’s agenda, the General Assembly took another crack at the problem in a three-day marathon debate this week. The immediate backdrop of the debate was the progress achieved during the last Assembly. With the adoption in September of a decision to continue consideration of the question, along with the relevant proposals put forward by Member States, regional groups and political coalitions, the decision called for further concrete steps to be taken towards reform during this General Assembly session, “including through intergovernmental negotiations.”
Furthermore, he said the process must advance: “Based on these consultations, our objective should be to develop a framework, in order to begin intergovernmental negotiations, by identifying and reaching agreement on the various negotiable elements,” urging those present to be guided by the Facilitators’ reports [the Five Facilitators' Report and the Two Facilitators' Report of last session], and the positions and proposals of Member Sates. The President also said countries “should have primary ownership” of the issue and welcomed their “substantive proposals and views on how to embark on the next stage in this important process so that we can achieve concrete results during the sixty-second session.” Following Mr. Kerim’s remarks, almost 90 Member States took the floor; delivering statements on their views on the composition of a reformed Security Council and the way towards it (please see reports from the UN Department for Public Information from 12 November 2007 and 14 November 2007 for a full list of speakers as well as summaries of statements). Many indicated their frustrations over the slow-going process. For almost 15 years the General Assembly has been discussing the issue of creating a more “representative” Security Council, and in the view of many delegations, reform of the Security Council reform continues to be central to the overall process of revitalizing the United Nations. The issue, speakers on all sides stressed, hinged on the essential question of how to compose a Council both “small” enough for quick and efficient action and large enough for effective and legitimate decision-making. They also underscored that a reshaped Council would not be more effective unless its working methods were much more transparent, accountable and inclusive. However, while delegations seemed to agree that the Security Council is in need of reform, few agreed on how. And positions did not appear to have changed much since last session’s debate in September. Different groupings of states continue to back different reform models, and these factions continue to play a major role in the process. The main factions at the recent meetings were as usual the Uniting for Consensus bloc (lead by Italy and Pakistan), the Group of Four (Germany, India, Brazil and Japan), and the African Group. Various sub-groups exist under these groups, although with a few notable exceptions, most countries in general fall into one of these main categories. During the discussions, it became apparent that the different groupings remain as before. At the debate Italy, Pakistan and the rest of the states in the Uniting for Consensus bloc made forceful statements arguing for a reform including only non-permanent members elected on a regional basis. The Group of Four (Germany, Brazil, India and Japan) and their backers called for the inclusion of new permanent members in a reformed Council. The obvious candidates for the new seats would be the four above-mentioned states and two African representatives. The African Group, consisting of all African states, maintained their call for two permanent seats with veto powers allotted to their continent, while some Gulf States asked for a permanent seat for the Arab region and certain Eastern European countries requested one more non-permanent seat. Among the few notable exceptions from the enlargement debate were Liechtenstein and the rest of the Small Five faction (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Jordan and Singapore). The S5, as they are commonly known, had made reform of the Council working methods a key feature in their statements and urged the membership to work for these improvements; even if the debate on enlargement stalls. France and the United Kingdom openly stated their support for India, Brazil, Germany, Japan and an African member as permanent members. Russia stressed that effectiveness should be the ultimate goal of reforms, not necessarily an expansion, while the United States expressed their support for a Japanese permanent seat. China stated that a reform of the Security Council would not be complete without adequate representation from the developing world and especially Africa. The discussion also revealed huge differences in opinion on how to move the process forward. Although most Member States agreed that the process of working methods reform could continue independently from the enlargement debate, disagreement on how to move the latter track forward continued. The statements delivered clearly showed, that there was no consensus on how to understand the term ‘intergovernmental negotiations.’ In general though, Uniting for Consensus urged the membership to continue to use the Open-Ended Working Group as the main forum, to build upon the Facilitators’ report and not to adopt any ‘artificial’ deadlines. Members of the G4 asked the membership to act as soon as possible in order to use the current momentum. Germany, Brazil and India indicated their willingness to pursue a solution outside the Open-Ended Working Group. Both India and Germany requested a text from Mr. Kerim as a basis for negotiations as well as a set timeframe for negotiations. India stated that they would not be interested in any interim or intermediary model as recommended by the Facilitators during the 61st session, and urged the membership to take radical steps to reform the Council as soon as possible. Common among many statements from across the different factions were that they had sought a more forceful approach from the President of the General Assembly. In particular, many wanted explicit guidance on how to move the process forward. In his concluding remarks Mr. Kerim said that, “the pillars of the edifice called ‘intergovernmental negotiations’ must be set up as you have defined them during the debate that we are now concluding.” In mapping the road ahead, Mr. Kerim noted that it “…ought to be accomplished through an objective and transparent process to first identify the negotiables in order to then move to intergovernmental negotiations.” According to the President, the Open-Ended Working should continue to be the center of negotiations on any framework or modalities for ‘intergovernmental negotiations.’ Finally, he announced that he would return shortly to the membership with an outline of the follow-up process, although he did not elaborate further on this approach. THE WAY FORWARD? For those reasons, many viewed the debate as a “make-or-break” moment in the current reform process. Commentators had noted that Mr. Kerim could either come out with an agenda of his own; illustrating the negotiables and clearly map the way ahead for the membership or he could leave the initiative to the membership and let Member States decide where to take the negotiations. According to sources close to the developments, Mr. Kerim chose the latter. Some Member States had instead wanted a more forceful approach from the President. Other close observers noted that some Member States themselves need to “stick their neck out” and move the process forward rather than leave it to the President of the General Assembly who is likely being pushed in opposing directions by the membership. The statements delivered did unfortunately not reveal any significant break-troughs on how to move the process forward. Instead, they seem to reflect the all too familiar opinions that have echoed throughout the halls of the United Nations during the last 15 years’ debates on the issue. Whether starting a process of ‘intergovernmental negotiations’ will reveal more flexibility remains to be seen. Indeed, even how the membership will chose to interpret the above term will be interesting. While the next step is likely to be a convening of the Open-Ended Working Group on Security Council Reform soon, perhaps even in the following week or the week after, few seem to believe that much concrete can be achieved at this moment. As usual the reform process is slow going. The questions everyone currently seems to be grappling with in New York are; what steps could possibly overcome the divisions that split the membership, and who would take the lead? *This update is an analysis of some of the main ideas discussed at the meetings and does not represent a complete and official account of all positions expressed by Member States.
|
