States Close First Round of Negotiations on Security Council Reform, Chair Ponders Next Steps
New York, 1 May 2009 – Member States concluded the first round of intergovernmental negotiations on reform of the Security Council last week. The General Assembly President’s office has indicated that the focus and form of the second round will depend on his discussions with Member States in the next few weeks, and that it will open at the end of May.
Per the 18 February work plan from General Assembly (GA) President Miguel d’Escoto, the first stage of negotiations included five themes, discussed in separate informal plenary meetings. Three themes were discussed in March – categories of membership, the question of the veto, regional representation (see Latest Development Issue #302, 6 April 2009). In April, States met several times to discuss the last two themes – the size of the enlarged Council and its working methods, and the relationship between the Security Council and the GA.
Reportedly, no decisions were reached as a result of the first-round meetings. President d’Escoto’s facilitation team now is working to determine the appropriate next step – such as another round based on the five issues or an “open negotiation.” The negotiations are being facilitated by Ambassador Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan.
Size of Council and Working Methods
To minimize repetition and “build on rather than repeat” the outcomes of previous consultations, Ambassador Tanin provided Member States with extracts from the April 2006 facilitators’ report on Security Council reform before each meeting. Each summary reflected Member States’ positions on the five themes as of early 2006.
Ambassador Tanin’s letter on Size of Enlarged Council and its Working Methods reminded Member States that in previous discussions on this topic, they had highlighted the need for better access to the work of the Council for non-members, including through information, consultations, and cooperation.
Size of enlarged council
While they have been in general agreement that the Security Council’s membership should be expanded, States’ more specific views on the size of an expanded Council continued to vary in the April meetings (see Government Statements.)
Comments included:
- Calls for a “reasonable” expansion to 20 members or less (France, Russia, others).
- Calls for expansion to at least 25.
- According to a proposal by the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, in a 25-seat Council, eight of the ten new seats would be allocated to Asia (3), Africa (3), and GRULAC (2), to rectify underrepresentation.
- Some States were flexible on the size of the membership, emphasizing the need to solve the problem of underrepresentation of Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America (Cambodia, among others).
The length and type of new seats was also debated:
- Some argued for the addition of non-permanent members only (UfC, others).
- Other suggested increasing seats in both the permanent and non-permanent categories (CARICOM, Germany, France, India, Slovenia).
- For Switzerland and others, “extended/longer term seats will be an important if not a crucial element of any agreement on Security Council enlargement,” whereas the African Group, India, and others opposed the idea of long-term seats. One proposal calls for “real long-term membership” lasting 12-15 years (Germany).
Working methods
Many States argued that reform of the Council’s working methods was the most essential part of the reform process and supported proposals made by Switzerland on behalf of the “Small Five” group (Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore, and Switzerland). The S5’s suggestions included:
- Better access for non-Members via consultation,
- Increased transparency in the workings of the Council, and
- Greater accountability through substantive dialogue with the General Assembly.
Some States, including the CARICOM grouping, suggested that the negotiations could be more productive if the two issues were discussed in two separate “clusters” – one meeting to examine the “size of an enlarged council” and another to look at “working methods.”
Russia, meanwhile, proposed removing working methods from the agenda altogether, arguing that it should be left to the Security Council to address.
Relationship between Council and GA
Member States discussed the interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly on 20 April.
An analytical report of the meeting from the Center for UN Reform Education notes that the relationship between the two bodies “has been at the center of an ongoing power struggle” between them, with countries not on the Council seeking “more insights into the inner workings of the Council as well as influence over its decisions.” Further, some States have “complained that the Council increasingly discusses issues that they feel fall somewhat outside the Council's mandate.”
Ambassador Tanin reminded States that in earlier discussions many had placed great importance on an improved relationship, and including by increased awareness and participation of non-Members of the Council in matters under consideration by the Council. Others “put this issue in the context of the so-called encroachment of the Council on the Assembly,” wrote Tanin.
During the 20 April meeting, some States emphasized the primary role of the General Assembly. Italy, for example, noted that the “central goal” of the reform process is “enhanced accountability of the Council to the whole membership.” Several delegations referred to Articles 15(1) and 15(2) of the UN Charter, which mandate the GA to consider reports from all UN organs and to request the Security Council to present its annual and special reports to the Assembly.
Some States made concrete proposals:
- Germany suggested frequent “dialogues between the Presidents of the Council, the General Assembly and ideally ECOSOC,” as well as enhanced reporting by the Council. The proposal was reiterated by many States, including Colombia.
- Pakistan suggested introducing “a mechanism to review the implementation of decisions of the Security Council.”
Other States opposed the Council’s full accountability to the GA. For example, Russia stated that while it would support “reasonable and realistic proposals aimed at enhancing the authority and efficiency” of the Assembly, it would reject any attempt “to democratize the UN and enhance the authority of the General Assembly” at the expense of the Security Council.
In the final meeting of Round One, many States called for a “composite paper” from the Chair, as they had done in preliminary meetings of the negotiations in February.
Also on 20 April, Colombia circulated a proposal covering all five themes of the negotiations, with the goal of bringing “the Council closer to being a more regionally representative body” and creating “greater opportunities for participation for small and medium States.” Among the proposals:
- Limit scope of the veto to Chapter VII matters only
- Review of reforms to Council after 15-16 years
- Establish longer-term seats of 3 to 5 years without possibility of immediate re-election
- Include among regional groups “small states” and “medium-sized states”, with each group electing representatives for two-year seats.
In this meeting, the proposal of long-term seats reportedly was received better by members of the Group of Four than it had been in the past.
Next Steps
Intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform are expected to resume for a second round in late May.
Ambassador Tanin has indicated that he will provide a timetable for the next round of meetings, along with a paper as requested by Member States. The exact form of this paper – whether it will be a compilation of the main ideas put forward by delegations during the first round of intergovernmental negotiations as well as their previous proposals, or an options paper in preparation for a draft Resolution, as has been used in other negotiation settings – has yet to be determined.
