UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY FIFTY-NINTH SESSION
STATEMENT BY DR TIM MCIVOR, AMBASSADOR AND DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF NEW ZEALAND ON BEHALF OF AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND NEW ZEALAND
ITEM 11: REPORT OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL
ITEM 53: QUESTION OF EQUITABLE REPRESENTATION ON AND INCREASE IN THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL AND RELATED MATTERS
MONDAY 11 OCTOBER 2004
AS DELIVERED
Mr President
I have pleasure in making this statement on behalf of Australia, Canada and my own country, New Zealand. This is the first time that the CANZ group of countries has made a joint statement in Plenary on these items. It reflects our commitment to efforts over the next twelve months towards reaching agreement on Security Council reform, and our shared positions on a range of issues about the working methods and transparency of the Council.
Mr President
We would like first to thank the Security Council and Secretariat for the work that has gone into the preparation of this year�€™s report. It seems that the workload of the Security Council is increasing in both intensity and volume each year, which has implications for us all. Australia, Canada and New Zealand have the following comments on the Council�€™s report, with some suggestions on future action.
First, on the transparency of the Security Council�€™s work, we welcome the number of open meetings over the last year and ask that a greater proportion of such meetings be held in the future. Open meetings and briefings are crucial to allowing information to flow between the Security Council and the wider UN community. We think they improve both the quality of the Security Council�€™s decision making and the membership�€™s understanding of the Council�€™s work. Early distribution of the monthly programme of work (even in draft) is important in this regard, particularly for small missions with limited resources.
Second, although there have been some steps in the right direction, there is still a long way to go in improving Security Council consultation with the wider membership. While we fully recognise the need for timely decision-making, the Security Council must seek the views of Member States before taking decisions on issues that affect them, particularly decisions which impose obligations on Member States to act. This is particularly the case with respect to countries contributing troops to UN peacekeeping operations. The onus is on the Security Council to initiate this dialogue at an early stage and to avoid presenting the membership with a fait accompli. Discussions need to be meaningful, not lip service.
Mr President
Reform of the Security Council remains a key issue. There is widespread support for expansion of the membership of the Council but no consensus on the issue of new permanent membership. The President of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly worked hard to advance the discussion. But the Open-Ended Working Group effectively remains deadlocked. There is no realistic prospect that the Working Group on its own can achieve agreement.
We will not rehearse here the arguments in favour of a larger and therefore more legitimate Council. Our countries have individually set out our national positions on Security Council reform on a number of occasions, most recently in statements during the General Debate.
Mr President
Australia, Canada and New Zealand hope that a proposal of the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change will provide a basis for a successful negotiation on a more representative Council. The Panel has been asked by the Secretary-General to provide independent recommendations on this and other key issues facing the United Nations. We urge Member States not to seek to pre-empt the Panel�€™s report, but rather to respect the Panel�€™s independence and keep an open mind on possible ways forward.
Australia, Canada and New Zealand are prepared to be flexible. We agree that reform must involve an increase in non-permanent membership and that there can be no extension of the veto. We look to enhanced opportunities for Security Council membership for all Member States, not just a privileged few.
We recognise how important Council reform is to Member States. We also share concerns that deep-seated differences on this matter not hold up a package of reforms aimed at strengthening the United Nations and enhancing its ability effectively to meet current and future challenges. But this does not mean that we think this issue should be considered separately. First, including Security Council reform within a broader package may increase rather than decrease the prospects of achieving consensus on it. Second, the Security Council is at the core of the UN�€™s response to threats to international security. At the same time, the Council has expanded the range of issues that it determines constitute threats. Accordingly, proposals for enhancing collective action in dealing with a broad spectrum of threats cannot sensibly be separated from the issue of the representativeness of the Council. What the Council does and who is on it are inextricably linked.
As important as the structure of the Council may be, what is no less critical is the manner in which it represents the interests of the global community in whose name it speaks and acts. It is a community comprising individual human beings as well as states. Accordingly the Council's primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security must, as the Council has recognized incrementally, include the security of individual human beings as well as nations. In this context we welcome references such as that in Resolution 1564 underlining that a government bears the primary responsibility to protect its population within its territory. We would add however that the Council cannot ignore its obligations if the actions of a state violate that responsibility. What we seek is the evolution of international law and practice so that multilateral action may be taken in situations of extreme humanitarian emergency.
Mr President
It is worth remembering that membership of the Security Council is not the only way to influence, and broaden the basis of, Council decisions. We should consider further changes in the operation and practices of the Council to allow non-members to make greater input to Council deliberations. There has been some progress with respect to peacekeeping issues in this regard. Consultation however must be meaningful. We should also look more closely at the relationship between the Council and other organs of the UN.
This leads us to a final point, Mr President. We have noted that the Council�€™s agenda is busier than ever. The Council focuses on acute threats to international peace and security. But there is a need for better arrangements to provide more effective, coordinated UN oversight of international peace building efforts in post-conflict situations over the longer term. This oversight would need to involve a wide range of players. We look forward to future discussion on this and related issues once the Secretary-General�€™s High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change has reported at the end of this year.