STATEMENT BY MR. MASON SMITH, COUNSELOR/DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE

INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS ON THE QUESTION OF EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION ON AND INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE COUNCIL

UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, 22 JUNE, 2009

 

Thank you Mr. Chairman,

 

Thank you for convening this meeting and also for your letter of 17 June 2009.

 

Fiji welcomes this opportunity to participate in this third and final exchange of the second round o f intergovernmental negotiations on the questions pertaining to the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, the working methods of the Council and the question of the veto. Our positions on these issues have been expressed in this forum on a number of occasions and indeed in tithe debate of the Open Ended Working Group on Security Council reform.

 

On the question pertaining to tithe relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, Fiji remains of the view that improved interaction; both formal and informal, between the Security Council and General Assembly including other principal organs of the United Nations must be institutionalized in the form of standard operating procedures. This will not only improve the relationship aspects of the Council and the General Assembly, more importantly, it will ensure member states are in a better position to implement Council decisions—something which is lacking at the moment.

 

The working methods of the Council have been the topic of much debate within and outside the United Nations. Some have argued that only the Council has the competence to address its working method. We disagree with this view and wish to highlight, that this form of self-regulation has not worked and will not work in the future. One only has to look at the current financial and economic crisis we are confronted with, too conclude that self‐regulation does not work—therefore this misleading notion, that competency resides with only a select few does not stand the test of scrutiny(1).

 

We acknowledge that some progress has been made with regard to the Council’s working methods; however my delegation is of the view that these are more aspirational, ad hoc and selective in nature rather than holistic in its implementation.

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

Our concerns reflect a number of specific aspects of the Council’s practice and procedure, essentially those that relate to: transparency, participation, accountability and efficiency. Let me highlight some of our major concerns.

 

On the issue of transparency, my delegation is of the view that the practice of holding Council meetings in private closed sessions must be reduced if not eliminated and that meetings be held in public in the Council’s chamber. Furthermore, regular, institutionalized briefings to nonmembers of the Council on subject‐specific issues that are detailed and analytical will assist in addressing the question of transparency.

 

On the issue of participation, my delegation wishes to reiterate the outcome of the 2005 World Summit on the reform of the Council’s working methods wherein our Leaders recommended that the Council: “continue to adapt its working methods so as to increase the involvement of States not members of the Council in its work, as appropriate, enhance its accountability to the membership and increase the transparency of its work”. In this regard, Fiji continues to urge the Council to consider the participation of all troop and police contributing countries in its deliberations of matters pertaining to peacekeeping operations including during the review of mandates.

 

On the issue of accountability, my delegation wishes to highlight the ongoing debate regarding the perceived inadequacies of the content of the Council’s annual report and its adoption process. Fiji is supportive of the view, held by many, that the Council’s annual report must be more analytical to capture the most important issues addressed during the year under review, including its ability to deal with issues, difficulties encountered and areas of improvement; and most importantly its rational on major decisions taken by the Council. Likewise, public debate on the actual content of the Council’s annual report must also be inbuilt into the adoption process.

 

On the issue of efficiency, my delegation wishes to stress that with the increase in workload of the Council and its subsidiary bodies, must also come a corresponding level of efficiency. Some have measured efficiency by the number of resolutions passed or by the number of Presidential statements issued; we would rather Mr. Chairman, that efficiency be measured, amongst other things, through the Council’s procedures. The Council’s own Rules of Procedure which have remained frozen in its provisional form since 1946 must be reviewed to ensure that the Council has a definitive set of rules to govern its working method(2). My delegation believes that a definitive set of Rules of Procedure will improve the Council’s very transparency, accountability and efficiency. The argument that the current provisional rules of procedures provides the Council with some degree of flexibility again does not stand up to scrutiny.

 

In addition to these major issues of concern, the proposal by the S5(3) on improving the working methods of the Security Council and indeed those improvements proposed by the Philippines is shared by my delegation and we would urge that they be given further serious consideration.

 

Mr. Chairman,

 

Allow me to now address the question of the veto. As my delegation has previously mentioned in these forum, Fiji understands that the word “veto” refers to the concurring vote of the permanent members of the Council as provided for in the UN Charter.

 

A principled question that perhaps should be asked is; would the retention of the veto by permanent members and or extension of the veto to new permanent members bring improved efficiency and effectiveness or increased legitimacy to a reformed Council? Unfortunately, history has taught us that the national interest of permanent members will often override the noble aspirations for maintaining international peace and security; often at the very expense of member states who need the protection and assistance of the international community. The inaction of the Council in addressing past cases such as Rwanda is testament to this lesson from history.

 

Fiji’s principled position regarding this matter is that the veto is inequitable and is not conducive to enhancing neither the efficiency, effectiveness, nor the legitimacy of the Council and should therefore be abolished. Notwithstanding this principled position and should the veto remain, Fiji will be supportive of the demand that the following restrictions be placed on all permanent members on the use of the veto:

• First, a permanent member of the Security Council using its veto should explain the reason for doing so at the time the relevant draft resolution is rejected in the Council and a copy of the explanation should be circulated as a Security Council document to all Members of the Organization,
• Second, no permanent member should cast a non‐concurring vote in the sense of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law,

• Third, the General Assembly should also be granted the powers to override the veto in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law, and  

• Fourth, the methods and procedures governing the Council’s role in the selection of the Secretary‐General(4) must also be re‐looked at with the view of ensuring that the decision of the majority of the members of the General Assembly is not overridden by the Council.

 

Furthermore, and should the veto remain, Fiji is not supportive of the idea that new permanent members should only exercise the right of the veto until after a review in 10‐15 years. Likewise, the concept of a regional veto is, in my delegation’s view, unwieldy and thus Fiji would be cautious in its approach to this proposal.

 

Fiji believes that these restrictions on the veto will assist in improving efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the Security Council and counter the influence of national interests in the decisions of the Council in matters relating to genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law.

 

To conclude Mr. Chairman, my delegation again urges you, as we did on 11 June 2009, to issue an outcome document, at the conclusion of this round of the intergovernmental negotiations, which contains the views and proposals that have garnered the widest support from members so that we can then focus on specific proposals in the next round of negotiations and thereby achieve decisive progress that you yourself have called for, before the end of the sixty‐third session of the General Assembly.

 

I thank you.

 

 

*1 The expressed provision in the UN Charter that states the UNSC acts on behalf of the member states also reinforces the argument that member states must have a voice in addressing the working method of the Council.

*2 The Council’s ROP was last reviewed in 1982 where Arabic was included in the ROP as an official language of the Council

*3 Agenda item 120. Follow‐up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit by Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland. Draft resolution A/60/L.49 of 17 March 2006 entitled: Improving the working methods of the Security Council

*4 Resolution 11(1) of 24 January 1946  

Next >