 Your new post is loading...
Officers and Steering Group Members
The NGO Working Group on the Security Council holds elections every three years (every two years until 2010). An elections committee is named and typically all members vote. The elections choose the Chair and Vice-Chair and five other members of the Steering Group. No one can stand for office more than three terms. In the case of tie votes, persons serve in office jointly.
2010-present | 2008 | 2006 | 2004 | 2002 | 2000 | 1998 |
2014-2016
Joseph C. Donnelly, Caritas Internationalis, Chair
Renzo Pomi, Amnesty International, Vice Chair
Michelle Kissenkoetter, International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Andrew Tomlinson, Quaker UN Office
Vanessa Jackson, Crisis Action
Robert Schupp, International Crisis Group
Doug Hostetter, Mennonite Central Committee
Jelena Pia-Comella, Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Secretary
2013-2014
Joanna Weschler, Security Council Report, Co-Chair
Gerald Martone, Intrnational Rescue Committee, Co-Chair
Michelle Brown, Refugees International
Joseph Donnelley, Caritas Internationalis
Doug Hostetter, Mennonite Central Committee
Jelena Pia-Comella, Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Secretary
2010-2012
Joanna Weschler, Security Council Report, Chair
Gerald Martone, Intrnational Rescue Committee, Vice Chair
Gorel Bogarde, Save the Children (replaced by Paul Mikov, World Vision International)
Michelle Brown, Refugees International
Joseph Donnelley, Caritas Internationalis
Kirsten Hagon, Oxfam International (replaced by Jelena Pia-Comella, Coalition for the International Criminal Court)
Doug Hostetter, Mennonite Central Committee
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Secretary {ex officio}, (replaced by David Weaver, Global Policy Forum)
2008-2010
Kate Hunt, Care International, Co-Chair
Joanna Weschler, Security Council Report, Co-Chair
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Vice-Chair
Gorel Bogarde, Save the Children
Michelle Brown, Refugees International
Doug Hostetter, Mennonite Central Committee
Cathy Fitzpatrick, Physicians for Human Rights
Tanya Karanasios, Coalition for an International Criminal Court
2006-2008
Kate Hunt, CARE International, Co-Chair
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Co-Chair
Michelle Brown, Refugees International
John Burroughs, Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
Cathy Fitzpatrick, Physicians for Human Rights
Dennis Frado, Lutheran Office for World Community
Tanya Karanasios, Coalition for an International Criminal Court
Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International
Joanna Weschler, Security Council Report
2004-2006
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Chair
Kate Hunt, CARE International, Vice-Chair
Cathy Fitzpatrick, Physicians for Human Rights
Tanya Karanasios, Coalition for an International Criminal Court
Jack Patterson, Quaker UN Office
Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International
Matt Scott, World Vision International (replaced by Dennis Frado, Lutheran Office for World Community)
2002-2004
Jack Patterson, Quaker UN Office, Chair
Catherine Dumait-Harper, Médecins sans Frontières ,Vice-Chair
Nicola Reindorp, Oxfam International
John Rempel, Mennonite Central Committee
Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International (replaced by Matt Scott, World Vision International)
Sandi Tully, CARE International
Joanna Weschler, Human Rights Watch
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Secretary (ex officio)
2000-2002
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Chair
Catherine Dumait-Harper, Médecins sans Frontières, Vice-Chair
Peter Davies, Oxfam International
Dennis Frado, Lutheran Office for World Community
Felicity Hill, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom (replaced by John Rempel, Mennonite UN Office)
Jack Patterson, Quaker UN Office
Sandi Tulley, CARE International
Joanna Weschler, Human Rights Watch
1998-2000
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Chair
Catherine Dumait-Harper, Médecins sans Frontières, Vice-Chair
Peter Davies, Oxfam International
Stefanie Grant, Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights
Iain Levine, Amnesty International
David Jackman (replaced by Jack Patterson), Quaker UN Office
Lucy Webster, Economists Allied for Arms Reduction
Joanna Weschler, Human Rights Watch
1995-1998
James Paul, Global Policy Forum, Convener
Andrew Clapham, Amnesty International
William Pace, World Federalist Movement
Alyn Ware, Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
Joanna Bernstein, Earth Action
Election Overseers/Committees:
1998: Florence Martin, Amnesty International
2000: Sandi Tully, CARE International
2002: Sandi Tully, CARE International
2004: Catherine Dumait-Harper, Médecins sans Frontières
2006: Gorel Bogarde, Save the Children & Nicole Deller, World Federalist Movement
2008: Gerry Martone, International Rescue Committee; Steve Crawshaw, Human Rights Watch; & Claire Tixiere, FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights
2010: Cathy Fitzpatrick, Physicians for Human Rights and Tanya Karanasios, Coalition for the International Criminal Court
A Short History of the NGO Working Group
By James A. Paul (Founding Secretary)
September 2010
The NGO Working Group on the Security Council is an influential forum at the United Nations. When it was founded in 1995, no one imagined that an NGO body could have regular interaction with Council members at the highest level. But the Working Group proved that the unexpected can happen, even in the high-stakes world of international policy.
The Working Group today organizes dialogue meetings between a group of about thirty major NGOs and individual Council ambassadors, as well as top-level UN official and other key players in the international security world. But the Working Group began with a different purpose in 1995. It first aimed at influencing the debate about reform of the Council -- then entering a new and hotly-debated phase. But soon, as reform discussion bogged down, the Working group changed course. In 1996, it began to organize a public "dialogue" between Council members and the NGO community. Finally, operating with a limited group of influential NGO members, it started its present series of meetings at the beginning of 1997.
This history considers the Working Group's development, as it gained increasingly-close access to the Council. The NGOs in the Working Group brought a new level of openness to the Council, at a time when the Council was a very closed and secretive body. The NGOs lobbied for accountability and they spoke in favor of human rights, humanitarian standards and the rule of law. At times, Council members listened and policies changed.
Council Reform Phase (1994-95)
In 1994, in response to a great increase in Security Council activity in the post-Cold War era, the General Assembly started negotiations to reform the Security Council. NGOs based in New York and Geneva decided to get involved. They organized a very successful conference on Council reform in New York on May 23, 1994. Early in 1995, Global Policy Forum assembled a small group of NGOs in New York to organize an "NGO Working Group on the Security Council." The new Working Group was conceived as a forum to discuss and advocate for Council reform.
During 1995, the group held two public meetings on reform topics and it also organized several private meetings with delegates and with the office of the General Assembly President - to propose initiatives, seek advice and garner support. Ambassadors Razali Ismail of Malaysia and Colin Keating of New Zealand - both recent Council members - gave encouragement to the group during this phase. In January 1996, Assembly president Diogo Freitas do Amaral delivered an important speech on Council reform to a large public meeting organized by the Working Group.
Shift to Dialogue with Council Members - Early Efforts (1996)
As Council reform negotiations lost momentum, the Group decided to organize dialogues between NGOs and Council members. The Working Group approached Ambassador Juan Somavia of Chile, who had just joined the Council. He eventually agreed to speak to a public NGO meeting in April. In May, the Working Group organized another public meeting with Council ambassador Nabil al-Araby. In early November, the Working Group organized a meeting to discuss the annual report of the Council to the General Assembly.
Taking inspiration from that success, the Working Group wrote a letter in late November to incoming Council President Paolo Fulci of Italy, proposing that Council Presidents provide a regular briefing each month to NGOs. Fulci brought the issue promptly into Council consultations. The permanent members refused the plan, but the Council affirmed the right of its members, when not serving or speaking as Council President, to brief NGOs. Ambassador Fulci then offered to be the first to brief the NGOs - in January, when his month-long Presidency was completed.
The Dialogue Takes Off (1997-98)
Ambassador Fulci met with the group in January 1997 in the first of this new series. The Swedish Ambassador, Peter Osvald, met the group the following month, but other ambassadors at this stage were hesitant. Finally, in early April, Ambassador Antonio Monteiro of Portugal, expressed his enthusiasm for the NGO effort and offered his solid backing. Counsellor Ana Gomes of Portugal, began to give the Working Group regular briefings, while Monteiro persuaded other ambassadors to meet with the Working Group. Soon there were meetings with the ambassadors of Russia and South Korea. US ambassador Bill Richardson held a breakfast meeting with the group in September, and ambassador Somavia hosted a similar event the following month. Momentum had built swiftly. The UK, France and many others now agreed to join the process.
The meetings typically lasted for an hour and a half, beginning with a statement by the delegate and followed by a question-and-answer period. On the NGO side, about twenty senior representatives attended. The NGO reps were still learning about the Council in this phase and much remained mysterious. But most sessions were lively and excitement high. It was obvious that the ambassadors enjoyed the meetings too. Compared to the slow-paced and tedious Council meetings, the NGO sessions were informative and lively.
The participants in these meetings were representatives of major NGOs with a special interest in the Council. Among the most active in this early phase were Amnesty International, Oxfam, Doctors without Borders, Human Rights Watch, the Quaker UN Office, the World Federalist Movement, the International Women's Tribune Center and the World Council of Churches. All thirty of the members were seasoned veterans of UN advocacy, but the WG gave them unique access, contact and insight into the work of the Security Council.
During 1998, with further help from the Portugese, the WG met increasingly frequently and enlarged the number of delegations it met. The ambassadors of Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia hosted lunches for the WG, signaling unprecedented support. Informal NGO contacts with delegations grew more routine and NGO members of the WG reached a far higher level of expertise on the Council's workings. Though the WG had established its closest relations with the Council's elected ("non-permanent") members, it also was meeting regularly with all five permanent members as well.
In 1998, the Group decided that it must formalize its procedures and its leadership. An election was held in the summer and GPF Executive Director Jim Paul was elected for a two-year term as chair, with Catherine Dumait-Harper of Doctors without Borders as Vice-Chair. Six others were elected to form an eight-member Steering Group that drew up membership criteria, considered future plans and drew up policies and procedures for the meetings.
New Horizons of Interaction and Advocacy (1999 and beyond)
A number of delegates proved to be strong friends and allies of the NGO initiative in the early years, including ambassadors Robert Fowler of Canada, Peter van Walsum of the Netherlands, Danilo Türk of Slovenia, and Fernando Petrella of Argentina. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the UK adopted a very cordial approach, as did Alain Dejammet of France. China, hesitant at first, increased its engagement.
In 1999, delegations began to invite a few leading NGO representatives to private receptions at the end of their Council presidencies, providing an exceptional opportunity for informal communication. In many other ways, relations deepened between delegations and WG members. Altogether, the WG held 45 events in 1999, a torrid pace of nearly one meeting each week. In December, the WG held its first holiday reception, which many delegates attended.
NGO advocacy on security issues steadily increased. Since the Working Group itself did not take common positions on matters of substance, members formed separate ad hoc groups to work jointly on advocacy topics. The first such group was the NGO Working Group on Iraq, which took up the issue of the Council's general trade sanctions on that country. Coordinating its work with colleagues in Europe, the group was able to make a strong impression on Council members with its well-researched information and robust criticism of the negative humanitarian effect of the Iraq sanctions regime.
The Security Council was deeply divided on the matter of Iraq sanctions and a worldwide public campaign to end the sanctions was well under way. The new NGO Working Group helped to bring further pressure on the Council and the NGO effort paid off in a variety of ways -- a number of countries began to press for "targeted" sanctions, the Council eased its Iraq sanctions rules, and the Council set up a special committee to examine sanctions policy more generally. In light of such successes, NGOs set up several more specialized advocacy groups - addressing the crisis in Central Africa, the civil war in Sudan, the Israel/Palestine conflict and other topics.
Particularly successful was the new Working Group on Women, Peace and Security. With Ambassador Anwarul Chowdhury of Bangladesh as its champion, the WG succeeded in organizing a special Arria Formula Briefing on its topic, a step that permanent members had previously opposed. In October, the Council passed Resolution 1325, a pathmark decision that put women's issues into its policy-making for the first time. It was clear that this resolution had come from the NGO side. And there was much follow-up activity in the months and years to come, with influence over peacekeeping and security policy more generally.
Another influential new NGO advocacy group was the Children's Watch List, which focused on issues of children in conflict, such as child soldiers, sexual abuse of children by combatants, etc. This group succeeded in winning several major Council resolutions and it kept up a steady pressure for further progress. With special support from Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sablière of France, the NGOs persuaded the Council to set up a Working Group on this topic and to consider a range of cases.
The specialized working groups did not detract from the main Working Group on the Security Council but instead strengthened it. They brought their well-developed advocacy concerns into the WG's meetings and took advantage of the contacts they made there with ambassadors and junior diplomats. By concentrating their advocacy they made a greater impression on Council members and advanced the entire process of NGO interaction with the Council.
In addition to security policy concerns, the NGOs campaigned to make the Council more open and transparent. By obtaining from friendly delegations the Council's "Program of Work" (a monthly calendar of meetings and other activities) and posting the Program on the Global Policy Forum website, the NGOs successfully pressured the Council to publish this information officially on the UN's website. Similarly, broader NGO web publications persuaded the Council to set up a website of its own with a vast trove of information, including all previous resolutions and verbatim transcripts of meetings. The Council's permanent members, always conservative in such matters, were not able to stand in the way.
NGOs also succeeded in winning influence over Council members' thematic debates during their Council presidencies. Each month, the Council president rotates and when elected members take up the presidency they are inclined to raise a thematic issue such as "protection of civilians," "peacebuilding," and "natural resources and conflict." These delegations increasingly turned to NGOs for advice on the themes and for help with related debates and resolutions.
As a result of all this cooperation, interaction between delegations and Working Group members changed from formality toward collegiality. Information and opinion flowed easily in both directions. The Working Group had become well-established in the Security Council landscape and its members were familiar personalities to all the member delegations.
The Process
The meetings of the NGO Working Group number about forty each year, an astonishing rhythm, given the busy schedule of the Council and the heavy demands on the ambassadors' time. Global Policy Forum, acting as the Secretariat of the Working Group, makes the arrangements for all the meetings and devotes considerable time to the process. Funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation provided essential support for this work.
No two meetings are the same and the experience varies a lot from one guest to another. Some are brilliant, humorous, and brimming with information while others (inevitably) are less memorable. After an initial statement by the ambassador or other invited guest, group members ask questions (often prefaced by background comments). There is no set agenda, but meetings usually focus on the most important crises and other issues before the Council - such topics as Afghanistan, Darfur, Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. NGOs also press Council members to take up neglected crises. And they raise thematic issues that the Council tends to neglect. The meetings are off-the-record, so that the diplomats can speak most freely.
Exchanges during the Working Group events are typically low key, but sometimes meetings take a dramatic turn. Occasionally in meetings, members bring new evidence directly from the field, surprising the ambassadors with real-time reports of immediate interest to the Council - human rights violations, humanitarian crises, fresh outbreaks of conflict, peace agreements broken, unknown opportunities for peaceful solutions. NGOs best able to present information of this kind command the attention of the diplomats by offering credible and well-targeted evidence.
The meetings serve four main functions. First, they inform NGOs about the work of the Council (including its many private meetings and behind-the-scenes negotiations). Second, they provide ambassadors with unique information and analysis from NGOs with field presence or analytic acuity. Third, they offer NGOs an opportunity for advocacy and pressure. And fourth, they introduce diplomats to NGO representatives (and vice versa), so that wider contact and advocacy (outside the meetings) can take place smoothly and easily.
The Working Group Meets with Senior UN Officials, Experts and even Foreign Ministers
In 2001, the Working Group decided to widen its horizons and to meet with senior UN officials, as well as policy experts. UN Under Secretary General Jayantha Dhanapala, head of the Department for Disarmament Affairs, launched this new process in January of 2001, followed by USG for Poliitical Affairs, Kieren Prendergast in July, Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for Human Rights in November, USG for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guéhenno in February 2002 and USG for Humanitarian Affairs Kenzo Oshima in March 2002. Thereafter, the group met regularly with these and other high officials, including members of the Secretary General's Executive Office, Special Advisors, Envoys and a variety of others.
Among the special officials and experts meeting with the group were Professor José Alvarez. President of the American Society of International Law, Gerard McHugh, Coordinator of the Security Council Panel of Experts on Sudan, Ambassador Pierre Schori, Special Representative of the Secretary General for the Ivory Coast, Andrew Whitley, Director of the New York Office of UNRWA, and Carolyn McKaskie, Director of the Peacebuilding Support Office.
The group also began to meet occasionally with foreign ministers of Council members. In October 2001, Brian Cowan, Foreign Minister of Ireland met with the group and followed with a second meeting in 2002. There were meetings as well with UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy, Miguel Angel Moratinos of Spain, Rogtien Biaou of Benin, Rafael Bielsa of Argentine, Michael Spindelegger of Austria, and a number of junior ministers and ministry officials.
There were many memorable meetings and special events, including luncheons, with the ambassadors of Sweden, Slovenia, Portugal, France, Russia, Namibia and Bangladesh (among others). There was a lively meeting with a group of Spanish parliamentarians in 2004 and briefings with incoming General Assembly Presidents - Jan Elaisson of Sweden in 2006, Sheikha Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa of Bahrein in 2007 and Joseph Deiss in 2010.
Conclusion
The NGO Working Group on the Security Council has continued to innovate in its meetings and broaden its perspective. In 2010, for example, the group visited the 24-hour Situation Center of the Department of Peacekeeping and it organized a luncheon on Private Military & Security Companies. But meetings with Council ambassadors remain at the center of the Working Group's program. Members find that the group is a unique and exceptionally valuable process of interaction and consultation. After thirteen years and more than five hundred meetings, the process continues with renewed energy to address the great security issues of the day.
To view the previous version of A Short History of the NGO Working Group from April 2001, please click here.
NGO Working Group on the Security Council The NGO Working Group on the Security Council brings together about thirty five major NGOs for an annual series of meetings with Council ambassadors and high-level UN officials. Since 1997, the NGO Working Group has provided this unique platform for NGOs to access the UN Security Council. As the Security Council's decisions affect nearly all NGO constituencies - including human rights, humanitarian relief, disarmament, governance, and the concerns of women and children - the Working Group works to maintain a diverse membership. Due in part to the diversity of its membership, the NGO Working Group as a whole does not undertake specific advocacy positions, but rather provides a forum for NGOs and members of the Security Council to come together to exchange information and build relationships for bilateral advocacy. Currently, the NGO Working Group comprises about 37 members, and holds approximately 40-45 meetings per year with Council delegations and UN officials. Secretariat Information Joseph Donnelly, Caritas Internationalis, Chair Renzo Pomi, Amnesty International, Vice Chair Jelena Pia-Comella, Coalition for the International Criminal Court, Secretary Abagail Lawson, Coordinator http://www.ngowgsc.org coordinator@ngowgsc.org 708 3rd Ave, Suite 1715 New York, NY 10017 (646) 465-8512
GPF has been a part of Security Council Reform Discussion since it was founded. It has hosted conferences on the subject and summaries of the events can be found below.
"A European Seat in the UN Security Council?" (May 23-25, 2011)This conference focused on the regional dimensions of Security Council reform, and specifically the possibility of a European Seat on the UN Security Council. It was especially timely as it was just a few weeks after the historic vote in the General Assembly giving the European delegation full observer status. Unlike previous GPF conferences on the topic, this conference took place in Brussels and included a trip to the European Parliament to present the ideas generated during the discussions. Conference on Reform of the Security Council (April 21, 1997)This conference took place in New York and featured the following speakers: Ambassador Razali Ismail (UN General Assembly President), Ambassador Michael Powles of New Zealand, Catherine Dumait-Haper of Doctors Without Borders, Ambassador Paolo Fulci of Italy, and Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies. "Reforming the Security Council" (May 23, 1994)This early conference on Security Council Reform featured speakers from the UN, Missions and NGO's. Transcripts are provided for each of the speakers' statements.
Picture Credit: United NationsA lively debate is held around the ambivialent relation between the Security Council permanent members and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Especially the US opposition to the court is very visible in the Security Council as the US threatens to veto all peacekeeping resolution to impose its opposition to the International Criminal Court (June 2002 and following). Sections on the veto and the ICC in the Security Council, general analysis as well as a set of interesting tables and charts on the veto, including a listing of the subjects vetoed by the Security Council with texts of the draft resolutions can be found on our site.The five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States) enjoy the privilege of veto power.This power has been intensely controversial since the drafting of the UN Charter in 1945. The United States and Russia would probably not have accepted the creation of the United Nations without the veto privilege. Fifty years later, the debate on the existence and use of the veto continues, reinvigorated by many cases of veto-threat as well as actual veto use. This page follows the issue, and provides data and a comprehensive list of all the vetoes cast and the subjects vetoed in the Security Council since 1945. GPF has gathered a substancial collection of posts, opinions and analysis pieces as well as news articles dealing with the debate surrounding the veto.
Picture Credit: wikipedia.orgThe ongoing debate about Security Council reform has mainly focused on the expansion of membership of the Council. The rationale for membership expansion is to include emerging powers on the Council, but new single state members could exacerbate regional competition rather than collaboration. This section aims to examine an alternative model for Council reform that would give permanent seats to regional organizations or blocs rather than individual countries. This could make the Council more representative without having to enlarge the Council too much. Additionally, regional secretariats in New York could provide support for smaller countries that are serving on the Council and would normally have a small team with fewer experts on the large number of issues before the council. Proponents of regional representation, like Italy, see the European Union as the first potential candidate for a regional seat on the Council seat representing the interests of a large number of states. However, opponents argue that the UN Charter does not recognize regional organizations as eligible for membership in the UN. This argument could block the EU from becoming the first regional member of the Security Council.. Below there are documents and articles that discuss the possibility of regional representation as the solution for Council reform. Statements can be found separately sorted by year or by country.
Documents | Articles DocumentsThe European Union and the Reform of the UN Security Council: Toward a New Regionalism? (May 2011)Drawing on the recent papers that both authors have written, this paper further elaborates on the thinking of the writers on the possibility of a European seat on the UN Security Council. (Istituto Affari Internazionali) Towards a More Effective UN Security Council? The EU’s Role in the Post-Lisbon Era (March 2011)Nicoletta Pirozzi of the Istituto Affari Internazionali discusses the European Union’s relationship with the United Nations. Her paper highlights some dimensions, both benefits and potential challenges, of the EU being represented as a single actor within the UN system. Upgrading the EU's Role as a Global Actor (January 25, 2011)Following the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, the EU needs to sort out its foreign policy to beocme a leader on the international level. (Center for European Policy Studies)
The EU's Contribution to the Effectiveness of the UN Security Council: Representation, Coordination and Outreach (July 2010)This report from the Istituto Affari Internazional highlights the role that the EU is already playing in the Security Council. It further highlights the f benefits that would come if the EU was more formally accepted as a member of the UN and possibly the Security Council. (Istituto Affari Internazionali) The Reform of the UN Security Council (July 2010)This report from Istituto Affari Internazionali discusses the current proposals for Security Council Reform. While there is a general consensus that the Council must be reformed to reflect the current world order, there is no agreement on the scope of reform and how best to implement it. The report looks at the role that regional organizations play and presents arguments for regional representation as a possible means of reforming the Council. (Istituto Affari Internazionali) Regional Representation as a Basis for Security Council Reform (June 2007) Professor Joseph E. Schwartzberg suggests weighted regional representation as a way to reform the membership of the Security Council. His proposal consists of twelve regional seats including four individual states (the US, China, India and Japan) and eight regional groupings. These seats would be based on a weighted vote based on a formula including the country's population and contribution to the UN budget. Schwartzberg argues that the weighted voting system would bring a fairer and more workable allocation of power in the UN as well as a more legitimate world body. Articles 2010
There is a Seat on the UN Security Council for the European Union – The French Seat (December 22, 2010)According to this article, the European Union needs a seat on the Security Council in order for the EU and UN to coordinate their efforts. One possibility would be for the EU to take over the French seat, which critics argue is a relic of a by-gone era. The French seat would be most logical because France is fully integrated into the European Union, while the United Kingdom is not. (Harvard International Review)
UN Security Council Membership: The Admission of India and Other Necessary Reforms (November 24, 2010)The US backing of Indian aspiration to join the Security Council may have opened the door for more systemic reforms. This article argues that Security Council reform should incorporate five permanent regional representatives (that would rotate among three countries), three additional permanent members, and ten elected non-permanent members. (The Jurist) Call for Reforming the UN Security Council with Regional Unions as New Members (October 27, 2010)In his upcoming book on UN reform, Shiv R. Jhawar, the founder of Noble World Foundation, argues that the UN Charter should be amended to allow regional organizations to join the UN and have permanent seats on the Security Council. The EU, as a legal entity with a political, legislative and judicial system, should be the first regional member of the Security Council. (Noble World) Islamic and Arab States Should Have Security Council Seat, Says Pakistan (June 30, 2010)Pakistan argues that changes must be made to the Security Council to reflect “current realities” that the UN Charter does not take into account, specifically the need for permanent representation on the Council for Arab and Muslim states. Pakistan’s proposal is one of the many put forward by countries vying for seats and rival groups hoping to restructure the Council. (CNSNews)
France Backs Africa for UN Seat (May 31, 2010)Speaking at the 25th Africa-France Summit in Nice, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that it was "not normal" that Africa has no permanent seat on the UN Security Council. He expressed France's support for greater African representation in global governance bodies such as the Security Council, the G20 and the World Bank Executive Board. However, at a summit focusing largely on economic ties between the two regions, Sarkozy's gesture was clearly a diplomatic effort to woo African leaders and gain leverage with business interests. With Chinese and Indian investment flooding the African continent, old powers like France are struggling to maintain their economic influence and market access. (Al-Jazeera) 2009 The United Nations Role in Peace and War (December 4, 2009)Former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, argues that the UN has become a body of unrealistic expectations. The five veto powers corrupt the UN charter by acting out of the interests of states rather than "we the peoples". Halliday suggests that regional permanent seats in the Security Council would entail less corruption of international law and the UN Charter. He believes that the rights of the worlds poorest would be properly addressed for the first time if all regions were presented. (Global Research) Third Meeting on Security Council Reform Looks at Regional Representation (April 2, 2009)In 2009, member states of the United Nations discussed the possibility of regional representation on the Security Council, but most decided that regional organizations would not be effective. Critics of regional representation spoke out against it as potentially misleading and too complicated. Furthermore, the argument was made that only states can be members of the United Nations, which excludes regional organizations. (Center for UN Reform Education)
2007 Britain Will 'Have to Give Up Seat On UN', Claims Think-Tank (August 15, 2007)European think-tank Skeptika claims that under new European Union (EU) treaty provisions, the UK and France must cede their UN Security Council seats to the EU on issues where the EU takes a common position. The UK Foreign Office rejects this possibility, claiming that the "UN Charter does not allow international organizations like the EU to hold a seat on the Security Council." (Daily Mail)
2008Reform of the Security Council (April 2008)This Center for UN Reform Education article reviews Security Council reform proposals from 1991-2008. The article notes that UN member states such as Italy and Pakistan cite the need for consensus to stall the reform process, and prevent regional rivals from gaining seats at the Council. Furthermore, previous efforts to increase the openness of the Council have backfired, as permanent members move the decision-making process to informal closed meeting rooms adjacent to the Security Council chambers. Squaring the Circle - A Regional/Economic Proposal for Reform of the United Nations Security Council (May 2008)This Dag Hammarskjold Foundation article suggests a Regional/Economic Proposal (REP) for UN Security Council (SC) reform. According to the REP, SC members represent a geographic region, and have a minimum of 4 million people or a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of at least US$40 billion. In the voting process, SC members must have regional support from countries with 60 percent of the member's population and GDP. The author believes that the P5 will probably not accept the REP proposal because it diminishes their power within the Security Council. Between Enlargement and Reform - The UN Security Council: Choices for Change (May 2008)This article focuses on two different debates of Security Council (SC) reform. The quantitative theory wants equal representation of different regions in the SC. The qualitative theory, however, believes that countries who contribute the most to maintaining international peace and security should be permanent members of the SC. The author supports the quantitative theory because it promotes greater regional involvement instead of the interests of a single country. (Dag Hammarskjold Foundation) Beyond Extension - The UN Security Council: Insights into an Ongoing Debate (May 2008)This Dag Hammarskjold Foundation article discusses various proposals for Security Council (SC) expansion, including the possibility of expanding the SC to generate a more equally distributed regional representation. The General Assembly has rejected recent reform proposals. The SC's permanent members argue that enlarging the council would "have a negative effect on the ability of the body to undertake rapid and effective action to maintain peace and security." Security Council Reform - An Overview of Member States' Positions (December 8, 2008)This chart by the Center for UN Reform Education outlines the positions of various UN member states on issues relating to Council reform, including regional seats, veto reform, and preferences for timing of intergovernmental negotiations. Security Council Reform - the 62nd GA Session and the Road Ahead (November 11, 2008)In 1993, UN members including Japan and Germany helped to establish a General Assembly Working Group on Security Council reform, but members of this Working Group cannot agree on various issues such as expansion of the permanent members. In February 2009, further negotiations will take place, but as in the past, the divergent interests of UN members are likely to stand in the way of any reform agreement.(Center for UN Reform Education) A Look at the Transitional Approach to Security Council Reform (June 24, 2008)The transitional approach to Security Council reform means that UN members would agree on basic reforms and adapt these agreements later on at a conference. Countries have not been able to decide on the timeframe for a review conference or on the proposals for the transitional reform approach because New Zealand, Germany and others fear that the initial basic reforms would become permanent. (Center for UN Reform Education) UN Security Council Seat: China Outsmarts India (May 30, 2008)China refused to endorse India's bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council at a recent BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia. China remains concerned about India's economic, technological and military advances and is trumping New Delhi's quest for global stature by blocking India in the Council. India's dashed hope for Chinese support proved to be nothing more than a political illusion, which may have negative consequences in the economic and military relations between both nations. (Indo-Asian News Service) Six Member States Submit New Proposal for Security Council Reform (March 27, 2008)Germany has tabled a proposal at the UN General Assembly to expand the Security Council from 15 to 22 members. The increase would create a new seat for countries from Latin America, the Caribbean, Western and Eastern Europe, and two seats each for representatives from Africa and Asia. The proposal, however, does not address how long each country would hold a seat, or the contentious issue of veto power. Any enlargement of the Council would require the amendment of the UN Charter. ( ReformtheUN.org)2008 Reform of the Security Council (April 2008)This Center for UN Reform Education article reviews Security Council reform proposals from 1991-2008. The article notes that UN member states such as Italy and Pakistan cite the need for consensus to stall the reform process, and prevent regional rivals from gaining seats at the Council. Furthermore, previous efforts to increase the openness of the Council have backfired, as permanent members move the decision-making process to informal closed meeting rooms adjacent to the Security Council chambers. Squaring the Circle - A Regional/Economic Proposal for Reform of the United Nations Security Council (May 2008)This Dag Hammarskjold Foundation article suggests a Regional/Economic Proposal (REP) for UN Security Council (SC) reform. According to the REP, SC members represent a geographic region, and have a minimum of 4 million people or a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of at least US$40 billion. In the voting process, SC members must have regional support from countries with 60 percent of the member's population and GDP. The author believes that the P5 will probably not accept the REP proposal because it diminishes their power within the Security Council. Between Enlargement and Reform - The UN Security Council: Choices for Change (May 2008)This article focuses on two different debates of Security Council (SC) reform. The quantitative theory wants equal representation of different regions in the SC. The qualitative theory, however, believes that countries who contribute the most to maintaining international peace and security should be permanent members of the SC. The author supports the quantitative theory because it promotes greater regional involvement instead of the interests of a single country. (Dag Hammarskjold Foundation) Beyond Extension - The UN Security Council: Insights into an Ongoing Debate (May 2008)This Dag Hammarskjold Foundation article discusses various proposals for Security Council (SC) expansion, including the possibility of expanding the SC to generate a more equally distributed regional representation. The General Assembly has rejected recent reform proposals. The SC's permanent members argue that enlarging the council would "have a negative effect on the ability of the body to undertake rapid and effective action to maintain peace and security." Security Council Reform - An Overview of Member States' Positions (December 8, 2008)This chart by the Center for UN Reform Education outlines the positions of various UN member states on issues relating to Council reform, including regional seats, veto reform, and preferences for timing of intergovernmental negotiations. Security Council Reform - the 62nd GA Session and the Road Ahead (November 11, 2008)In 1993, UN members including Japan and Germany helped to establish a General Assembly Working Group on Security Council reform, but members of this Working Group cannot agree on various issues such as expansion of the permanent members. In February 2009, further negotiations will take place, but as in the past, the divergent interests of UN members are likely to stand in the way of any reform agreement.(Center for UN Reform Education) A Look at the Transitional Approach to Security Council Reform (June 24, 2008)The transitional approach to Security Council reform means that UN members would agree on basic reforms and adapt these agreements later on at a conference. Countries have not been able to decide on the timeframe for a review conference or on the proposals for the transitional reform approach because New Zealand, Germany and others fear that the initial basic reforms would become permanent. (Center for UN Reform Education) UN Security Council Seat: China Outsmarts India (May 30, 2008)China refused to endorse India's bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council at a recent BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) meeting in Yekaterinburg, Russia. China remains concerned about India's economic, technological and military advances and is trumping New Delhi's quest for global stature by blocking India in the Council. India's dashed hope for Chinese support proved to be nothing more than a political illusion, which may have negative consequences in the economic and military relations between both nations. (Indo-Asian News Service) Six Member States Submit New Proposal for Security Council Reform (March 27, 2008)Germany has tabled a proposal at the UN General Assembly to expand the Security Council from 15 to 22 members. The increase would create a new seat for countries from Latin America, the Caribbean, Western and Eastern Europe, and two seats each for representatives from Africa and Asia. The proposal, however, does not address how long each country would hold a seat, or the contentious issue of veto power. Any enlargement of the Council would require the amendment of the UN Charter. (ReformtheUN.org)
2006UN Reforms Not Possible Without Security Council Expansion: Sen (November 22, 2006)In this Zee News article, India's Ambassador Nirupam Sen warns against maintaining the status quo of the UN Security Council. He also points out that the Council's encroachment on the General Assembly's area of competence leads to the "marginalization" of the Assembly. The ambassador calls for expanding the Security Council membership, as well as ensuring that the General Assembly keeps a strong and effective role. A Bigger Security Council, With Power to Act (September 26, 2006)With UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urging reform of the UN Security Council, this International Herald Tribune article calls on the US government to make reform of the institution a top priority. The author proposes to expand of the Council and abolish the veto for all Security Council resolutions authorizing direct action in response to a crisis. "We need a Security Council that is both representative and effective," the author concludes. Member States Prove Again that Reshaping Security Council is Most Divisive UN Reform Issue (July 21, 2006)Despite Member States promising to redouble their efforts to achieve reform of the UN Security Council, agreement remains elusive. Differing reform proposals and regional rivalries again frustrated the UN General Assembly's work at reaching a consensus. While most proposals focus on increasing Council membership, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Jordan, Singapore and Liechtenstein have joined in recommending modifying Council procedures and working methods to make decision making more open and clear. (Associated Press) UN Defies West in Vote for Human Rights Council (May 9, 2006)The UN General Assembly has "brushed aside both US and Western criticisms" and elected China, Russia, Cuba to the new Human Rights Council. But the author states the Council election resulted in a good "representative sampling" of governments with varying commitments to human rights. Some observers believe the Council election gives a good indication of how a vote for permanent seats on the Security Council would fare, but others criticize this reasoning, stating that voters can differentiate between candidacy for a permanent seat and candidacy for a short-term seat on the Council. At any rate, "the race for permanent seats is over, finished and dead." (Inter Press Service) Japan Unlikely to Submit New Security Council Reform Plan by September (March 19, 2006)Japan may not table a new resolution pushing to expand Security Council membership to 21 members by September 2006 given the lack of support, particularly among permanent members. Although the US supports Japan's bid for a permanent seat, Washington opposes expansion of the Council's membership. As a Japanese official puts it, "only scant percent of chance exists for Security Council reform." (Japan Economic Newswire) Japan Seeks 6 New Seats on UN Council to End Expansion Deadlock (February 1, 2006)In an effort to gain a permanent seat and end a deadlock over Security Council expansion, Japan discussed a proposal with the US and China to add six members to the world body. According to Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, the plan is a compromise between the US preference to add four countries to the Council and the wishes of Brazil, India and Germany - Japan's former G4 allies - to include 10 new members. (Bloomberg) A Competing Model: A Security Council with 20 Members (February 1, 2006)A non-profit policy research organization called Center for UN Reform Education has put forward an alternative model to the many proposals introduced in the past on Security Council expansion. The plan, called Model X, enlarges the Council to 20 members by adding five four-year renewable term seats - as opposed to the 9 or 11 new members previously proposed. Also, Model X groups the member states in a way that Africa, Asia, Europe, Americas and the Pacific would each have five seats, thereby ensuring more balanced representation from each continental region. So far, the Council's great powers have stalled any attempts towards Security Council reform. Japan Pushes for UN Seat (January 22, 2006)Japan plans to boost its military presence in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, in the hopes of securing US support for a permanent seat on the Security Council. Tokyo's hostile neighbor, veto-wielding China, believes Japan's past occupation of China disqualifies Tokyo of a permanent seat and is determined to frustrate Japan's ambitions. (Aljazeera) Brazil, India, Germany Present Resolution on UNSC Expansion (January 7, 2006)Following a move by Nigeria, South Africa, Ghana and Senegal in December 2005, three of the Group of Four (G-4) - Germany, India, and Brazil - have re-introduced to the General Assembly their draft resolution aimed at expanding the Security Council. Japan, the fourth G-4 country, decided not to join the initiative this time. Both texts are similar to those tabled in July 2005. By reintroducing their draft resolutions, the two groups of countries hope to revive the debate on Security Council reform. (Xinhuanet) Japan Says No to G-4 Bid (January 7, 2006)While Japan continues to lobby for expansion of the Security Council, Tokyo opted not to support the move by the Group of Four (G-4) to retable the previously unsuccessful draft resolution. Japan hopes instead to explore other possible options that may gain broader support. One of Japan's central aims will be to address the concerns of the US and China, who have opposed the G4 resolution and whose support will be necessary for any such resolution to succeed. (News 24)
2009
Statement by H.E. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti at the Fourth Round of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform (December 8, 2009)
General Assembly: Security Council Reform – Statement by Mr. Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations (December 8, 2009)This general statement by the French Ambassador proposes compromise reforms that could be implemented more immediately while a new reform model is designed. (Permanent Mission of France to the UN)
Statement by Ambassador Zhang Yesui, Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations, at Debate of the 64th Session of the General Assembly on the Work and Reform of the Security Council (November 13, 2009)
Statement by the Mission of Spain on Security Council Reform (November 12, 2009)Brazil: Statement by Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti on Security Council Reform (September 2, 2009)As part of the G4 group, Brazil argues that a more diversified group of permanent members will lead to a more representative Security Council. Viotti explains that Brazil's interests and needs are similar to countries in the developing world, and a Brazilian permanent seat in the Council would therefore make it more representative. She suggests that the majority of member states in the UN should elect the permanent members. Viotti argues that the only solution to alter the balance of power in the Security Council is to expand the Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories. (Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations) Italy: Statement by Ambassador Giulio Terzi on Security Council Reform (September 2, 2009)Ambassador Terzi argues that the greatest obstacle for a Security Council reform is the G4 group's persistent request for permanent seats. According to Terzi, expanding the Security Council with five permanent members would make the council neither more democratic nor more representative. Furthermore, identifying five countries that deserve these permanent seats would be close to impossible, since the role of international actors in the world constantly changes due to political and economic factors. (Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations)
France: Statement by Mr. Gérard Araud (September 1, 2009)Statement by Colombia and Italy on Security Council Reform (April 20, 2009)Small-5 Group on Reform of Working Methods of Security Council (April 7, 2009)Ambassador Peter Maurer of Switzerland presented this brief statement on behalf of the Small-5 Group (Liechtenstein, Singapore, Switzerland, Jordan and Costa Rica). He emphasized that reform of the Council should be extended beyond membership change to include reform of the Council's working methods. The S-5 wants change in the way the Council meets, the way it conducts its business, the way it interacts with the General Assembly and the means by which it is transparent and responsive to the international community. The S-5, which has been working for several years, has submitted a formal proposal and requests Council action on it.( Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the UN) Brazil: Statement by Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti (April 7, 2009)The African group says the current membership in the Security Council is unacceptable and calls for an enlargement in both permanent and non-permanent seats. It argues that Africa should have no less than two permanent seats with all the privileges of the current five permanent members. The group claims that better African representation in the Council will contribute to the maintenance of peace and security in the continent. (Mission of Sierra Leone to the UN)
Statement by H.E. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti at the Plenary Informal Meeting of the General Assembly on the Reform of the Security Council (March 4, 2009)This statement by Ambassador Viotti focuses on the need for expansion of permanent and non-permanent members of the Council to make it more reflective of the modern world. The Brazillians reject the idea of “intermediate or interim reform” because the “term has become too equivocal and has lost its utility” since it is not linked to specifics proposals. ( Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations) General Assembly Meeting on Security Council Reform : Categories of Membership - Statement by H.E. Mr. Jean-Maurice Ripert, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations (March 4, 2009)Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert stated to the General Assembly France’s support for membership changes in the Security Council as a part of reform. In this statement, the French give their support to the G4 and to Africa in their bids for permanent membership. Additionally, the Ambassador references the British-French proposal for an intermediate reform with immediately renewable seats with longer terms to experiment with composition of the Council before making permanent reforms. ( Permanent Mission of France to the UN)
Statement by Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at an Informal Meeting of the General Assembly on Security Council Reform (February 19, 2009)In this statements, Ambassador Rice highlights the need for Security Council reform to make the Council representative of a 21st century world, and expresses US support for expansion as long as it does not reduce the effectiveness or efficiency of the body. The US also sees Council reform as a separate issue from more general UN reform. (US Mission to the UN)
Statement by Ambassador Peter Maurer at the Start of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (February 19, 2009)At the start of intergovernmental negotiation on Security Council Reform, Ambassador Maurer of Switzerland highlights his country’s policies. He critiques the deadlock over expansion and membership reform and stresses the need to continue improving the transparency and working methods. ( Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations)
Statement by H.E. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti at the Plenary Informal Meeting of the General Assembly on the Reform of the Security Council (February 19, 2009)
2005Statement by US Ambassador on Security Council Reform (November 10, 2005)In his statement to the General Assembly, US Ambassador John Bolton reiterated that the US will not support the attempts of Germany, Brazil and India to enlarge the Security Council, arguing that boosting the number of seats to 25 would weaken the body's ability to act. Neither will it consider the proposal from Switzerland, Singapore, Jordan, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein to improve the methods of work of the Security Council: "As clearly stated in the Charter, the Security Council alone can determine its own working methods and procedures." Liechtenstein Statement by Foreign Minister Rita Kieber-Beck (September 23, 2005)Reforms "cannot be dictated by power or money," warned Italian Ambassador Marcello Spatafora, as he accused Group of Four countries of using "financial leverage" in order to gain support for their Security Council enlargement resolution. In this surprisingly harsh and direct statement, Spatafora implores the General Assembly to take a stand on the G-4's improper and unethical practices rather than "sweep the dust under the carpet." Statement by US Ambassador Tahir-Kheli on Security Council Reform (July 12, 2005)Addressing the Group of Four countries as "good friends of the United States," Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for UN Reform, Ambassador Shirin Tahir-Kheli nevertheless says, "Let me be as clear as possible: the US does not think any proposal to expand the Security Council" including one based on our own ideas "should be voted upon at this stage." She dismisses the G-4 and other proposals because they lack broad support and could undermine the effectiveness of the Council, and urges other countries to oppose a vote on the G-4's framework resolution. Statement by Canadian Ambassador on Security Council Reform (July 12, 2005)Ambassador Allan Rock criticizes the Security Council for being "fixed" rather than "fluid," an "anomaly to be accommodated, not a model to be emulated." A member of the Uniting for Consensus group, Canada supports Council expansion but opposes the Group of Four framework resolution due to its undemocratic and inflexible nature; as Rock noted, "I know of no democracy in which a single election is sufficient to entitle the winner to remain in office in perpetuity." Statement by Swedish Ambassador on Security Council Reform (July 11, 2005)Swedish Ambassador Anders Lidén considers Security Council reform "one of the more daunting tasks and also one of the most important" preceding the General Assembly (GA) meeting in September 2005. Taking note of the existing Group of Four tabled resolution, Lidén argues against even the consideration of veto power for new permanent members, while asking for a review mechanism to ensure that a two-thirds majority vote in the GA could replace new permanent members who "fail in their responsibilities." Statement by Pakistan Ambassador on Security Council Reform (July 11, 2005)In his statement to the General Assembly during the debate on the Group of Four's draft framework resolution, Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram warns that Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have "hijacked" the important goal of strengthening the UN. Using strongly critical language, Akram says the G-4's drive for permanent Security Council seats is purely a selfish move, and "to add insult to injury, self-interest has been portrayed as altruism." Akram instead endorses the proposal of the Uniting for Consensus group. Statement by Ambassador Wang Guangya on Security Council reform at the 59th Session of the General Assembly (July 11, 2005)This statement to the General Assembly stresses the main points of the same year’s policy paper, but it also emphasizes that there must be a process to achieve consensus in order to reform the Council. China also gives explicit support for an African seat along with expansion to include more developing countries.(Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations)
Position Paper of the People's Republic of China on the United Nations Reforms (June 7, 2005)This position paper by China on UN emphasizes membership and representation. However, the paper focuses more on the methods of determining reform, mainly through consultation within regional groups and then the UN member states as a whole, prior to bringing proposals to a vote. The policy allows the Chinese to appear in favor of reform while demonstrating that the process should move forward with any speed. (Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations)
2000Ambassador Shamshad Ahmad Khan of Pakistan at the General Assembly (November 18, 2000)Strongly opposing any move to expand the permanent seats in the council, Pakistan's Ambassador states that "There is no justification for the creation of new centers of privilege at the cost and expense of the rest of the membership." (Karachi Dawn) Letter Submitted by the Delegation of Italy to the Open Ended Working Group of the Security Council (July 10, 2000)A draft paper for discussion regarding "legal observation on the notion of permanent membership on the Security Council." Italy hopes to push for progress in the deliberations by focusing on fundamental and structural questions, rather than meddling with the ambiguous language often used in Security Council reform proposals.(Document A/AC.247/2000/CRP.5) Foreign Ministers in Havana Call for Democratization of United Nations, Enlargement of Security Council (April 12, 2000)In an informal discussion of G77 members, ministers of developing countries urged the democratization of the decision making process in the UN. They also called to discard the "one-size-fits-all" mentality of describing what constitutes a democratic government. (Group of 77) Letter Submitted by the Germany to the Open Ended Working Group of the Security Council (March 31, 2000)A proposal from Germany for Council members to explain reasons for casting a veto. Germany argues that for veto members of the Council, justifying their actions might make it more difficult for them to cast a veto. In an ideal scenario, they might even refrain from using the veto altogether. (A/AC.247/2000/CRP.5, Annex VII )
|
Members of the NGO Working Group on the Security Council
Membership as of February 2015
Richard Atwood
Director of Multilateral Affairs, Head of NY Office
International Crisis Group
Janet Benshoof
President
Global Justice Center
Philippe Bolopion
UN Advocacy Director
Human Rights Watch
Christen Broecker
Associate Director
Jacob Blaustein Institute
Rudelmar Bueno de Faria
Representative to the UN
World Council of Churches
John Burroughs
Executive Director
Lawyers' Committee for Nuclear Policy
Sally Chin
Head of Office
Oxfam International - New York
Sapna Chhatpar Considine
Program Director
International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect
Kathryn Cooper
Campaigns and Advocacy Manager
Crisis Action
Ryan D'Souza
Research Analyst
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Stéphanie David
Representative to the UN and Director of NY Office
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Marie Dennis
Co-President
Pax Christi International
Geronimo Desumala
Advocacy Officer
World Council of Churches
Joseph Cornelius Donnelly
Permanent Delegate to the UN
CARITAS Internationalis
Fabien Dubuet
UN Representative
Médecins Sans Frontières
Bani Dugal
Principal Representative
Bahá'í International Community to the United Nations
Mel Duncan
Executive Director
Nonviolent Peaceforce
Tatiana Dwyer
Executive for Global Justice
The United Methodist Church
Dennis Frado
Director
Lutheran Office for World Community
Felice Gaer
UN Representative
Jacob Blaustein Institute for Human Rights
Alexandra Hiniker
Representative to the UN and Head of Office
Pax Christi International
Doug Hostetter
UN Representative
Mennonite Central Committee
Kate Hunt
UN Representative
CARE International
Vanessa Jackson
New York Director
Crisis Action
Stephanie Johanssen
Legal Counsel for European and UN Affairs
Global Justice Center
Debra Jones
UN Representative
Save the Children Alliance
Bruce Knotts
President
NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace & Security
Stephen Lamony
Senior Advisor, UN and Africa
Coalition for the International Criminal Court
Volker Lehmann
Senior Policy Analyst
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
Sahr MuhammedAlly
Senior Legal and Amends Advisor
Center for Civilians in Conflict
Nina Nepesova
Global Humanitarian Policy and Advocacy Advisor
World Vision International
Jelena Pia-Comella
Program Director
Coalition for the International Criminal Court
Renzo Pomi
Representative to the UN
Amnesty International
Guy Quinlan
Board Member
NGO Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security
Eveline Rooijmans
Senior Humanitarian and Policy Advisor
Oxfam International
Gay Rosenblum-Kumar
Senior Advisor for Advocacy and Outreach
Nonviolent Peaceforce
Robert Schupp
Senior Analyst, UN Advocacy and Research
International Crisis Group
Lisa Sherman-Nikolaus
Advocacy Officer
Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict
Eva Smets
Director
Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict
Ryan Smith
Presbyterian Representative to the UN
Presbyterian Church, USA
Andrew Tomlinson
Director
Quaker UN Office
Alyn Ware
Global Coordinator
Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament
Joanna Weschler
Deputy Executive Director
Security Council Report
Frank Williams
UN Representative and Director
World Vision International
Kristele Younes
Director of UN Humanitarian Affairs
International Rescue Committee
****
Abagail Lawson
Coordinator
NGO Working Group on the Security Council
Updated January, 2010 Introduction
The NGO Working Group on the Security Council is a group of about thirty NGO representatives whose organizations have a special interest in Council matters. Founded in its present form in 1997, the group now organizes off-the-record briefings almost every week with one of the ambassadors on the Security Council. The group also meets from time to time with top UN officials and occasionally also with ministers, parliamentarians and NGO experts. Group members include many large international NGOs in the fields of humanitarian relief, human rights, disarmament, global governance and development. The NGO side has high-level representation, including heads of agency, senior officers or respected NGO representatives. The meetings take place nearly always with the Permanent Representative, either in missions or in NGO conference rooms. NGOs' Interest in the Council
NGOs have a large stake in the work of the Council. The Council's decisions directly affect the core programs of many NGOs. NGOs need good information on the Council and its work, so as to better plan and carry out their policy. NGOs also have important information, expertise and experience that they want to offer the Council, to influence its thinking on policy matters. This is particularly true of human rights and humanitarian organizations that are directly in the field during complex emergencies. But it is true of a wide range of other NGOs as well. Further, both the UN and member states turn to NGOs as partners and service contractors, as well as policy-innovators, in emergency and post-emergency situations under the Council's authority. So NGOs want to actively engage with the Council, to improve its capacity to preserve international peace and security. Council Members' Interest in Dialogue with NGOs
Council members have found that NGOs can provide exceedingly valuable field information from their contacts in crisis areas, helping to improve their delegations' awareness of the issues and contributing to the Council's policy-making process. In many cases, NGOs may even be directly involved in UN field programs. The Department of Political Affairs often draws on NGO sources when it prepares Council briefing papers, suggesting the potentially unique quality of this information. Furthermore, NGOs can offer valuable analytical capacity, as the Council considers broad policy issues such as improving sanctions, strengthening peace-building, improving early warning capacity, protecting humanitarian workers, and the like. Delegations sometimes call on NGOs to help them with background papers or to suggest experts and reference sources as they consider these issues. Additionally, NGOs can prove a vital link to and from the public, to engage policy-makers and influentials in many countries in ways that are deeper and more lasting than media reporters' coverage of the Council. All Council members find this aspect useful, as they seek to define and explain their position to a broad global public. Finally, delegates find the WG Meetings to be stimulating and thought-provoking, an often refreshing change of pace from the Council's numbing round of meetings. The NGO meetings enable delegates to reach beyond the diplomatic community to engage with an extremely well-informed group, representing an impressive range of human concerns. A Brief History of the NGO Working Group
In early 1995, a group of NGOs came together in New York to organize the NGO Working Group on the Security Council. A number of delegations gave encouragement to this initiative and several public meetings took place. The Working Group became increasingly active in 1997, as the group began a regular series of meetings with Council ambassadors. In addition to the ten elected members, all five permanent members agreed to meet with the Working Group. In 1998, the Working Group held 21 meetings with delegates on the Council, and in 1999 the Working Group held 32 similar meetings. By 2002, the tempo had increased to 36 meetings with delegates, 2 meetings with foreign ministers and 5 meetings with high UN officials, as well as a variety of other events, totalling 50 in all for the year. Since that time, the pace of meetings has held steady at about 45 per year. The Working Group also organizes informal contacts between NGOs, delegates, experts and others. It occasionally organizes small private meetings or lunches. And it helps to circulate documentation and information about the Council to the NGO community and the wider public. Membership and Practices of the Working Group
The Working Group has a closed membership that includes representatives of Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, Amnesty International, CARE, and Save the Children. NGO representatives that wish to join must apply and must prove the seriousness of their purpose and their organization's special program concern with the Security Council. The Working Group does not claim to be representative in any formal sense, but it does have powerful legitimacy, since it contains many of the largest and most effective international NGOs working at UN Headquarters in such fields as humanitarian relief, human rights, global governance, women's rights, and disarmament. Four WG member organizations have won the Nobel Peace Prize. The NGO Working Group is headed by elected officers and governed by a Steering Group of seven members. Historically the Global Policy Forum acted as secretariat of the Working Group which organized all meetings. However in 2013 the host of the secretariat was transferred permanently to the Institute for Global Policy. The Working Group meets annually in a plenary meeting to discuss its process and working methods. Though the Working Group is a relatively new institution, it is very actively involved in a process of development and self-reflection. It addresses the question of how best to reflect the concerns of NGOs world wide, particularly those from developing countries. As one means to broaden its representation, the WG occasionally invites NGO leaders from other regions that come to New York for special events such as the Commission on Sustainable Development. The briefings with delegations are always private and off-the-record. Typically, 18-25 NGO representatives attend. Sometimes PRs bring other members of their delegation to the meetings, to address special topics. This has proved to be a useful formula. The event gets under way with an opening presentation, usually concerning two or three major issues currently before the Council. There follows a lively question period. The entire briefing lasts for an hour and a half. Delegates tend to be impressed by the high level of the NGO representatives present, by their expert knowledge and by the cordial spirit and the overall quality of the exchange that takes place. The NGOs, for their part, appreciate the frank and open dialogue, as well as the opportunity to get to know Permanent Representatives and members of delegations.
United NationsAs part of UN Reform, the UN has dedicated this page to their efforts to strengthen the organization. The General Assembly’s webpage provides information on the state of Security Council Reform under “Main Issues”. Previous General Assembly Presidential pages are still available with the material from those years.
Missions Many Missions at the United Nations provide information on Security Council Reform, especially statements made by their representatives.
China, one of the P5, provides some of its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. France, one of the P5, provides some of its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. Russia, one of the P5, provides some of its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. The US, one of the P5, provides some of its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. Brazil, a member of the G4, posts all of its statements on Security Council reform on its website. Germany, a member of the G4, provides its statements to the General Assembly on the state of Security Council reform on its website. India, a member of the G4, posts all of its statements on Security Council reform on its website. Japan, a member of the G4, posts many of its statements on Security Council reform on its website. Liechtenstein, a member of the Small 5 (S5), provides its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. Singapore, a member of the Small 5 (S5), provides its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. Switzerland is a member of the Small Five (S5) focused on Security Council working method reform. Its website provides statements by its Ambassadors and materials presented by the S5 group. Italy is one of the leaders of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) movement. Its website provides statements from their representatives as well as those of other countries. It also provides materials from the Uniting for Consensus group. Pakistan is a member of Uniting for Consensus. Its website contains many of the statements that its representatives have made on Security Council Reform. Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan has been leading the initiative on Security Council Reform in the General Assembly since 2008. The Mission of Afghanistan provides the key documents that he has produced connected to his work. Canada has been advocating for an intermediate solution to UN Reform. It posts many of its statements on its mission website. South Africa provides some of its statements on Security Council Reform on its website. South Korea has been advocating for an intermediate solution to UN Reform. It posts many of its statements on its mission website. NGO’s The International Peace Institute follows the Security Council and offers some insight into its dynamics and the possible impacts of the reform movement on the Council’s work. Citizens for Global Solutions is an American-based organization that works towards educating the American public about the importance of international organizations and strengthening the UN. It has a section dedicated to UN Reform as well as a connected research organization, the World Federalist Institute, that produces publications on strengthening global governance. This site is a project of the World Federalist Movement and Institute for Global Policy (WFM-IGP) that has compiled numerous articles, documents and statements on Security Council Reform as well as UN reform more generally. The Center for UN Reform Education follows the developments of general UN reform. It has articles on the state of Security Council reform and many of the relevant documents.
UN reform is endlessly discussed, but there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose. Foundations, think tanks and blue ribbon commissions regularly call for institutional renovation. Secretary Generals trumpet their reform initiatives. NGOs make earnest proposals. And from Washington come somber warnings that the UN must "reform or die."
UN reform is not a politically neutral, technocratic exercise. Bids for power and privilege lurk in every proposal. Many experts would like to see a stronger and more effective multilateral organization, but the mightiest governments are usually opposed to a robust institution, and they often use their power to block change.
Picture Credit: United Nations Another popular reform topic today is the improved coordination and "Coherence" of the UN's many agencies, funds, programs, departments, research institute and other bodies. Though efficiency may result, there is the danger that "one voice" may stifle creativity and enforce conservative policies. The site looks at the Millennium+5 reforms, proposed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan in March 2005, a process that was weakened by complex negotiations and last-minute demands from Washington. The site also posts General Analysis of UN reform topics more broadly. Reform initiatives have also targeted NGOs and their role at the UN, not always positively. The controversial Cardoso Report promoted roundtables and "hearings," with carefully-selected NGO actors, to replace a more open process. In contrast to shrinking NGO space, the UN has rapidly expanded its relations with Business, through numerous "partnerships" and a high-profile "compact." is central to UN reform. The UN cannot perform effectively as long as its budget remains tightly constrained. For all the talk about auditors and oversight bodies, the UN mainly needs cash. Financial reforms must consider new ways to raise funds, including "alternative financing" such as Global Taxes.Finally, the site provides links and resources for further research on every aspect of UN reform. General Analysis on UN ReformUN Reform InitiativesUN Reform TopicsNGOs as new actors at the UNBusiness as a new actor at the UNUN Financial CrisisLinks and Resources on UN Reform
The Security Council has taken several steps to increase its efficiency and transparency in recent years. These so-called "cluster 2" reforms do not require an amendment to the UN Charter, and have therefore not stirred the same amount of controversy as the debate on expansion of the Council has. The Security Council now holds more public meetings and consults more frequently with external actors, including NGOs. It has also given other UN members the opportunity to speak before the Security Council and has made a special effort to enhance relations with troop contributing countries, meeting with them on a regular basis.In addition, the Council goes on missions to specific areas that are on its agenda. In order to increase the effectiveness of sanctions, Council members have set up a sanctions-monitoring mechanism. At the administrative level, the Secretariat has launched a website, which provides easy access to the Council's discussions and decisions. However, reform of the Council's working methods remains a work in progress. For the Security Council to become a preventive rather than a reactive UN body, it needs to gather information from external actors and other UN organs far more efficiently and further increase transparency of its proceedings.This page contains articles about the Security Council's working methods, transparency and its relationship with other UN organs. GPF PerspectivesTowards a Democratic Reform of the UN Security Council (July 13, 2005)James Paul and Céline Nahory argue that adding more permanent members to the Security Council would enlarge a discredited oligarchy rather than build for a democratic future. They also oppose the addition of elected members, arguing that an expanded Council would be too large to function effectively and not substantially more representative. Instead, they propose a process of stronger regional representation as a future-oriented approach that can develop in stages and without the headache of Charter change. (Global Policy Forum) Articles2010 Security Council Working Methods: A work in Progress? (March 30, 2010)Governments continue to debate the reform of the Security Council’s working methods. The permanent Council members, known as the P5, continue to resist change. This report raises issues about the lack of transparency and flexibility of the current practices at the Security Council. It also emphasizes the recent developments on working methods since 2006, concluding that the results have been “patchy”. (Security Council Report) 2009 Ambassador Peter Maurer of Switzerland presented this brief statement on behalf of the Small-5 Group (Liechtenstein, Singapore, Switzerland, Jordan and Costa Rica). He emphasized that reform of the Council should be extended beyond membership change to include reform of the Council's working methods. The S-5 wants change in the way the Council meets, the way it conducts its business, the way it interacts with the General Assembly and the means by which it is transparent and responsive to the international community. The S-5, which has been working for several years, has submitted a formal proposal and requests Council action on it.(Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the UN) UN Launches Talks to Expand Security Council (February 19, 2009)Political dynamics within the UN Security Council very much reflects the 1945 geopolitical situation. The P5 still remain the most significant members in the council, despite a number of competing powers such as the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan). The G4 proposes that the Security Council includes an additional five permanent members without veto power, as well as, five new non-permanent members. African countries support the G4 proposal, but want a permanent seat for the African Union. Italy, among others, rejects the proposal of additional permanent members and instead advocates for ten non-permanent members. (Reuters) 2008 UN Security Council Reform: Unrealistic Proposals and Viable Reform Options (November 25, 2008)The Security Council does not adequately represent the world's population and its decision making process is slow and not transparent. Abolishing the veto of the five permanent members is not realistic, since all P5 members must agree with this change. The author argues that countries must exert pressure to restrict use of the veto, by requiring the P5 to justify invoking it, especially in cases that are not in their vital interest. (American Diplomacy) Reform of the Security Council (April 2008) This Center for UN Reform Education article reviews Security Council reform proposals from 1991-2008. The article notes that UN member states such as Italy and Pakistan cite the need for consensus to stall the reform process, and prevent regional rivals from gaining seats at the Council. Furthermore, previous efforts to increase the openness of the Council have backfired, as permanent members move the decision-making process to informal closed meeting rooms adjacent to the Security Council chambers. 2007 Security Council Transparency, Legitimacy and Effectiveness (October 18, 2007)In the 2005 World Summit, the United Nations General Assembly (GA) agreed that the Security Council needed to reform its working methods. These methods include the Council's transparency, participation, accountability and efficiency. With this in mind, a group entitled the "Small Five," including Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, pushed for more action on Security Council reform through a draft resolution in 2006. This Special Research report outlines the history of the Council's practice and procedure, and the pending issues of reform. (Security Council Report) 2006 A Bigger Security Council, With Power to Act (September 26, 2006)With UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urging reform of the UN Security Council, this International Herald Tribune article calls on the US government to make reform of the institution a top priority. The author proposes to expand of the Council and abolish the veto for all Security Council resolutions authorizing direct action in response to a crisis. "We need a Security Council that is both representative and effective," the author concludes. Member States Prove Again that Reshaping Security Council is Most Divisive UN Reform Issue (July 21, 2006)Despite Member States promising to redouble their efforts to achieve reform of the UN Security Council, agreement remains elusive. Differing reform proposals and regional rivalries again frustrated the UN General Assembly's work at reaching a consensus. While most proposals focus on increasing Council membership, Switzerland, Costa Rica, Jordan, Singapore and Liechtenstein have joined in recommending modifying Council procedures and working methods to make decision making more open and clear. (Associated Press) Note by the President of the Security Council on Working Methods (July 19, 2006)In a significant move, the Security Council adopted a note by the President, attempting to clarify its procedures and practice. Following months of work by the Council's Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Matters, the note codifies the terminology used in different Council sessions (including Arria Formula meetings with NGOs); lists steps at making the Council's work more transparent; and aims at improving the flow of information from the Council. The note picks up some proposals made by Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, who introduced a draft resolution calling for greater transparency in the Council's work in March 2006. Draft Resolution on Reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council (March 20, 2006)Switzerland together with Singapore, Jordan, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein tabled a draft resolution in the General Assembly (GA) proposing 19 measures to improve the working methods of the Security Council. Acknowledging that the Security Council is the master of its own procedures, the initiative serves as an invitation by the GA to the Security Council to open a dialogue with all UN member states. ElBaradei Criticizes Security Council (March 26, 2006)International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei criticized the Security Council engagement history, calling it inadequate, selective or mistimed. Citing failures to prevent the atrocities in Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Darfur, ElBaradei noted, "It is clearly time for the Security Council to be reformed, expanded and strengthened." ElBaradei's criticism of the UN body comes as the five veto-wielding members struggle to agree on a draft statement on Iran's nuclear program. (Aljazeera) Security Council's Secretive Habits Challenged (March 21, 2006)Switzerland, along with Singapore, Liechtenstein, Jordan and Costa Rica tabled a draft resolution to the General Assembly calling for reform of the Security Council's working methods to enhance transparency and accountability and to improve collaboration between the Council and the larger UN membership. The proposed changes, described by some diplomats as "a first" in the history of the world body, come at a time when the five permanent powers are debating crucial political issues - including the nuclear ambitions of Iran - in closed-door sessions, thereby shutting off the 10 elected members of the Council from its decision-making process. (Inter Press Service) UN Council to Give Bolton Daily Updates (February 4, 2006)US Ambassador John R. Bolton, known for his assertive and confrontational style, began his presidency of the Security Council by setting up daily briefings on UN activities by the UN Secretariat and challenging his colleagues to discard their prepared statements and engage in unrehearsed dialogue. Bolton hopes that by "conducting...business in a new way," he can make the Security Council "a more effective decision-making body." The idea got a lukewarm response from some members, but the Council nevertheless agreed to the change on an experimental basis. (Associated Press) 2005 5 Small Nations Propose Reforms for UN (November 10, 2005)Switzerland, Singapore, Jordan, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein presented a draft resolution proposing reforms of the Security Council's working methods in the General Assembly. The draft asks the Council to consult with all UN member states on resolutions, and requests that the five permanent members explain every veto to the General Assembly. Permanent members reacted to the initiative with disdain. US Ambassador John Bolton announced he won't even look at the resolution, while British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry called it "an invitation for change but not an obligation." (Los Angeles Times) African experts agree that the African Union's (AU) unwavering stance on Security Council reform is "tragic," in that it will keep the AU from being a powerful lobbying force for issues of development and poverty eradication at the Millennium+5 Summit. The AU has firmly stood by the demand for permanent veto-power seats on the Security Council. Moreover, the AU's lack of an "opt-out clause" makes it impossible "for individual African countries to act alone without being seen to be breaking ranks or dissenting." (BuaNews) UN Reform Bogged in Complex Political Geometry (August 12, 2005)The African Union's decision to reject a compromise with the Group of Four on Security Council expansion and instead "stick to its guns" on the demand for veto power "has set the stage for a showdown in which [Africa] looks certain to end the loser," says the Financial Gazette. Discussing the multifaceted opposition to potential new members and their privileges, this author raises questions over the Council's existing power structure and the possibility of eliminating the veto completely in the future. Tabled G-4 Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 6, 2005)The G-4 has tabled its framework resolution on Security Council reform, calling for a vote within a 12 week timetable that observers find unrealistic. The less contentious proposals on the Council's working methods, which remain the same as in previous versions of the draft, have more of a chance to succeed than membership expansion plans. UN Security Council Candidates Drop Demand for Veto Power (June 9, 2005)The "G4" - Japan, India, Germany and Brazil - have amended their proposal to expand the Security Council by postponing their veto request for at least 15 years. As Germany's UN Ambassador Gunter Pleuger acknowledged, this "concession" comes as a result of "strong opposition" to the original draft resolution from permanent members of the Security Council. At the moment, only France has agreed to co-sponsor the G4, while Washington has said it "needs more time to study" the revised proposal. Will the veto "concession" be enough to turn current Council opposition around? (Voice of America) Swiss Proposal on Reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council (June 2005)The Mission of Switzerland to the UN released an unofficial paper with recommendations for reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council. The mission proposes that the Council submit more extensive and detailed reports to the General Assembly and that it better consult the broader UN membership in subsidiary bodies such as sanctions committees. The mission hopes that these reform measures will be included in the broader UN reform debate. 2004 Excerpt of the High Level Panel's Report on Threats, Challenges and Change (December 2004)Among broad recommendations for reform of the UN, this excerpt of the High Level Panel's Report focuses specifically on Security Council reform. In order to increase the Council's effectiveness and credibility and "enhance its capacity to act in the face of threats," the Panel puts forward two options for expansion without veto powers. Model A foresees enlargement with both permanent and elected members, whereas model B proposes enlarging the Council with only temporary elected members. The Panel also recommends the introduction of a system of "indicative voting" and encourages an increase in the Council's transparency and accountability. (United Nations) Echoes of Reform Sound at General Assembly Debate (October 1, 2004)Many nations at this year's General Assembly debate focused on Security Council reform through membership expansion. They argued that security threats facing the world require a reform of the Security Council to better reflect the realities of the international community. Although almost all agree on the need for reform, nobody expects to change the veto power attributed to the five current permanent members. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) 2002 Procedural Developments in the Security Council - 2001 (June 6, 2002)This UN Secretariat report shows developments in the procedures and working methods that the Security Council has undertaken in 2001 to promote transparency, openness and efficiency. The document provides interesting data on the work of the Council. 2001 More Delegates Urge Restriction of Security Council Veto (November 1, 2001)A General Assembly press statement that repeats earlier calls for restricting or eliminating the right of veto in the Security Council. Delegates are urging greater transparency in the Council's working methods and an increase in its permanent and non-permanent membership. Statment by Italian Ambassador Sergio Vento on Security Council Reform (October 31, 2001)Ambassador Vento restates Italy's position opposing additional permanent members of the Security Council. He also advocates increasing the Council's transparency and accountability. (Italian Mission to the UN) Envoys Voice Doubt In Security Council (October 17, 2001)The frustration resulting from the lack of transparency at the UN is shared by numerous Ambassadors. The international cooperation against terrorism will only succeed within the framework of an accountable and transparent United Nations. (Washington Times) 2000 Security Council's Credibility Undermined: Pakistan (October 19, 2000)Pakistan accused the Council of selectivity in the implementation of resolutions, and pointed to a lack of credibility each time a conflict is ignored and left to the parties to resolve the disputes themselves. (Karachi Dawn) The Role of the Security Council in the Prevention of Armed Conflict (July 20, 2000)Ambassador Hasmy of Malaysia urges integrated work of the Council with other UN agencies "to re-orientate itself from its usually reactive approach to the management of conflict to one of pre-empting or preventing conflicts". This would require a more in-depth analysis of conflict situations and an enhanced relationship with the Secretariat. Security Council Takes New Step to Enhance Transparency of its Work (January 4, 2000)According to a release from the UN News Wire the Security Council has passed new measures to keep non-members better informed on the process and content of the groups work. 1999 Note by The President of the Security Council (December 30, 1999)Security Council President for December, UK Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, issued a procedural note that improves Council transparency. 1998 Memorandum on Security Council Reform (December 22, 1997)Signed by all ten non-permanent members of the Council, this is a strong call for greater Council openness, with a number of specific proposals. The memo makes clear the gap between the Council's powerful permanent members, who prefer to act behind closed doors, and the rest of the Council's members, who tend to favor steps towards greater accountability. Reform Negotiating Text by the Bureau of the Working Group (May 29, 1997)The key text under consideration by the General Assembly Working Group. The Cluster II (Working Methods) section is especially interesting and the complex proposals on the veto are revealing of the deep opposition the veto stirs among the general membership. Declaration on Security Council Reform by the Foreign Ministers of the Non-Aligned Movement (April 8, 1997)Statement from ministerial meeting in New Delhi which is seen as a setback to the Razali proposal.
For many years, some member-states have been advocating expansion of the Security Council, arguing that adding new members will remedy the democratic and representative deficit from which the Council suffers. Disagreement on whether new members should be permanent or have veto power has become a major obstacle to Security Council reform. Brazil, India, Japan and Germany want a permanent seat in the Council, and have threatened to reduce their financial or military troop contributions to the UN if they are not rewarded with permanent member status. African countries have also expressed the need for permanent African representation in the Council to bring an end to the hegemony of northern industrialized nations in the powerful UN organ. In December 2004, the Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed two models for enlargement, which both suggest expanding the Council to 24 members. Model A proposes adding six new permanent seats, with no veto, and three new two-year term elected seats. Model B creates a new category of eight seats, renewable every four years, and one new two-year non-renewable seat. Neither the Panel's document, nor the March 2005 Secretary General’s report titled "Enlarging Freedom" expresses a preference for one of the two models. Skeptics question whether Security Council reform is feasible as long as certain members have the power to veto. There are also articles and documents on regional representation.
This page contains follows the ongoing debate on Security Council expansion, including discussions on membership and representation. Articles2013
Reforming the Working Methods of the UN Security Council - The ACT Initiative (August 2013)The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has issued a publication about the newly formed ACT initiative created by 22 UN countries to accelerate and promote developments in accountability, coherence and transparency within the UN Security Council. ACT also aims to encourage non-council members to take part and reform the prior working methods of the council to allow non-members to benefit more from the body. (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung) 2012Breaking Up Britain? (January 19, 2012)The composition of the UN Security Council reflects the world as it was in 1945, especially for the United Kingdom. The Scottish National Party has set autumn 2014 as the date for voters to decide whether Scotland should secede from the UK. If Scotland gains its independence, the UK will lose almost half of its land mass and 90 percent of its oil and gas reserves. The UK may also lose its deep-water ports, the only safe place in the UK where nuclear deterrents could be harbored. Will Scottish independence pave the way for emerging powers like India or Brazil to challenge the UK’s status on the Security Council? (Al Jazeera) 2011
Another Wake-Up Call (August 8, 2011)This article by a former member of the Pakistani Foreign Service critically examines Pakistan’s policy on Security Council reform. The author worries about China’s recent statement that it is not opposed to India becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. He criticizes the way the Pakistani government is handling the issue, only focusing on “pacifying domestic opinion”. According to him, Pakistan has to reconsider its strategy on the Security Council reform and make it clear it opposes the G-4 (India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil) ambition to create more permanent seats. The G-4 is mainly supported by small States - their “greatest weakness” - and still lacks the necessary two-thirds majority to implement a reform of the Security Council membership. (The News International) Wikileaks Exposes US’ Double-Game on UN Security Council Expansion (July 25, 2011)The G4 (India, Brazil, Germany, Japan) and the African Union have led talks about the expansion of the Security Council from 5 to 10 or 11 seats for at least two decades. The US has publicly supported these initiatives and has recently backed India’s bid for a permanent seat. However, diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks show that US backdoor diplomacy has done everything to prevent a Security Council expansion. Indeed, the US fears losing its influence in the executive body of the UN and its privileges, such as the veto right. China and Russia share similar views. All three countries want to create a new class of less powerful permanent members (RTN Asia).2010There is a Seat on the UN Security Council for the European Union – The French Seat (December 22, 2010)According to this article, the European Union needs a seat on the Security Council in order for the EU and UN to coordinate their efforts. One possibility would be for the EU to take over the French seat, which critics argue is a relic of a by-gone era. The French seat would be most logical because France is fully integrated into the European Union, while the United Kingdom is not. (Harvard International Review) Germany, India to Work Together on Security Council Reform (December 13, 2010)Germany and India have vowed to work together on Security Council reform during their two year term as elected Council members. One of their main goals is to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. Both countries have an interest in obtaining a permanent seat. Germany and India are advocating for more regional parity, arguing that Africa and South America are not permanently represented and Asia has only a single permanent representative. (Deutsche Welle)
UN Security Council Membership: The Admission of India and Other Necessary Reforms (November 24, 2010)The US backing of Indian aspiration to join the Security Council may have opened the door for more systemic reforms. This article argues that Security Council reform should incorporate five permanent regional representatives (that would rotate among three countries), three additional permanent members, and ten elected non-permanent members. (The Jurist)
Obama Backs India for Seat on Security Council (November 8, 2010)President Obama announced in New Delhi that he supports India's bid for a permanent seat on an expanded Security Council. He did not outline details of how the US plans to support India's bid, nor did he suggest a timeline for Council reform. Obama's announcement underscores support for India as a global power, countering the increasing influence of China. Obama's announcement came at a critical time, according to one Indian diplomat, as Indian officials were beginning to place more importance on the G-20 than the Council. (New York Times) Dream of Influence: Germany Renews Campaign for UN Security Council Seat (September 16, 2010)Germany has been campaigning vigorously for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat. Peter Wittig, Germany's Ambassador to the UN, has spoken with 190 of his 191 UN counterparts, campaigning for their votes. Canada and Portugal are also vying for a non-permanent seat and it is a close race between all three countries. The secret vote will take place this week and potentially lead to a powerhouse Council dominated by BRIC and G8 nations. (Spiegel) African Leaders Call for Permanent Security Council Seat for the Continent (September 24, 2010)Africa occupies seventy percent of the Security Council's agenda, and yet does not have a permanent seat on it. African leaders called on the UN last week to remedy this lack of permanent representation. Senegal has proposed a permanent seat with the right of veto for an African nation. While Africa may deserve a seat, this would be one step on a long road of reforms for the Security Council to become a more democratic institution that is not dominated by the politics of the P5. (UN News) Islamic and Arab States Should Have Security Council Seat, Says Pakistan (June 30, 2010)Pakistan argues that changes must be made to the Security Council to reflect “current realities” that the UN Charter does not take into account, specifically the need for permanent representation on the Council for Arab and Muslim states. Pakistan’s proposal is one of the many put forward by countries vying for seats and rival groups hoping to restructure the Council. (CNSNews)
France Backs Africa for UN Seat (May 31, 2010)Speaking at the 25th Africa-France Summit in Nice, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that it was "not normal" that Africa has no permanent seat on the UN Security Council. He expressed France's support for greater African representation in global governance bodies such as the Security Council, the G20 and the World Bank Executive Board. However, at a summit focusing largely on economic ties between the two regions, Sarkozy's gesture was clearly a diplomatic effort to woo African leaders and gain leverage with business interests. With Chinese and Indian investment flooding the African continent, old powers like France are struggling to maintain their economic influence and market access. (Al-Jazeera)
India Deserves Place at UN High Table (March 10, 2010)India is the world's second fastest growing economy, the country with the second largest military budget and the home to one-sixth of humanity. Since 1994, India has repeatedly tried and failed to gain a permanent seat in the Security Council. This article from an Indian newspaper notes the rise of China and India as new "global powers," and it argues that the Council's permanent membership should be modified, since it no longer reflects current political and economic realities. (Deccan Herald) Increased Security (January 20, 2010)Many who actively advocate for expansion of the UN Security Council's membership argue that an increase in the number of members will remedy the democratic and representative deficit from which the Council suffers. In October 2010, Canada will once again stand for election to a two-year term as non-permanent member of the Security Council. This article represents the Canadian viewpoint as it explores the need for the nation's increased role in the Council. 2009The United Nations Role in Peace and War (December 4, 2009)Former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, argues that the UN has become a body of unrealistic expectations. The five veto powers corrupt the UN charter by acting out of the interests of states rather than "we the peoples". Halliday suggests that regional permanent seats in the Security Council would entail less corruption of international law and the UN Charter. He believes that the rights of the worlds poorest would be properly addressed for the first time if all regions were presented. (Global Research) UN Launches Talks to Expand Security Council (February 19, 2009)Political dynamics within the UN Security Council very much reflects the 1945 geopolitical situation. The P5 still remain the most significant members in the council, despite a number of competing powers such as the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan). The G4 proposes that the Security Council includes an additional five permanent members without veto power, as well as, five new non-permanent members. African countries support the G4 proposal, but want a permanent seat for the African Union. Italy, among others, rejects the proposal of additional permanent members and instead advocates for ten non-permanent members. ( Reuters) For many years, some member-states have been advocating expansion of the Security Council, arguing that adding new members will remedy the democratic and representative deficit from which the Council suffers. Disagreement on whether new members should be permanent or have veto power has become a major obstacle to Security Council reform. Brazil, India, Japan and Germany want a permanent seat in the Council, and have threatened to reduce their financial or military troop contributions to the UN if they are not rewarded with permanent member status. African countries have also expressed the need for permanent African representation in the Council to bring an end to the hegemony of northern industrialized nations in the powerful UN organ. In December 2004, the Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change proposed two models for enlargement, which both suggest expanding the Council to 24 members. Model A proposes adding six new permanent seats, with no veto, and three new two-year term elected seats. Model B creates a new category of eight seats, renewable every four years, and one new two-year non-renewable seat. Neither the Panel's document, nor the March 2005 Secretary General’s report titled "Enlarging Freedom" expresses a preference for one of the two models. Skeptics question whether Security Council reform is feasible as long as certain members have the power to veto. There are also articles and documents on regional representation.
This page contains follows the ongoing debate on Security Council expansion, including discussions on membership and representation. Articles2013
Reforming the Working Methods of the UN Security Council - The ACT Initiative (August 2013)The Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung has issued a publication about the newly formed ACT initiative created by 22 UN countries to accelerate and promote developments in accountability, coherence and transparency within the UN Security Council. ACT also aims to encourage non-council members to take part and reform the prior working methods of the council to allow non-members to benefit more from the body. (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung) 2012Breaking Up Britain? (January 19, 2012)The composition of the UN Security Council reflects the world as it was in 1945, especially for the United Kingdom. The Scottish National Party has set autumn 2014 as the date for voters to decide whether Scotland should secede from the UK. If Scotland gains its independence, the UK will lose almost half of its land mass and 90 percent of its oil and gas reserves. The UK may also lose its deep-water ports, the only safe place in the UK where nuclear deterrents could be harbored. Will Scottish independence pave the way for emerging powers like India or Brazil to challenge the UK’s status on the Security Council? (Al Jazeera) 2011
Another Wake-Up Call (August 8, 2011)This article by a former member of the Pakistani Foreign Service critically examines Pakistan’s policy on Security Council reform. The author worries about China’s recent statement that it is not opposed to India becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. He criticizes the way the Pakistani government is handling the issue, only focusing on “pacifying domestic opinion”. According to him, Pakistan has to reconsider its strategy on the Security Council reform and make it clear it opposes the G-4 (India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil) ambition to create more permanent seats. The G-4 is mainly supported by small States - their “greatest weakness” - and still lacks the necessary two-thirds majority to implement a reform of the Security Council membership. (The News International) Wikileaks Exposes US’ Double-Game on UN Security Council Expansion (July 25, 2011)The G4 (India, Brazil, Germany, Japan) and the African Union have led talks about the expansion of the Security Council from 5 to 10 or 11 seats for at least two decades. The US has publicly supported these initiatives and has recently backed India’s bid for a permanent seat. However, diplomatic cables revealed by Wikileaks show that US backdoor diplomacy has done everything to prevent a Security Council expansion. Indeed, the US fears losing its influence in the executive body of the UN and its privileges, such as the veto right. China and Russia share similar views. All three countries want to create a new class of less powerful permanent members ( RTN Asia). 2010There is a Seat on the UN Security Council for the European Union – The French Seat (December 22, 2010)According to this article, the European Union needs a seat on the Security Council in order for the EU and UN to coordinate their efforts. One possibility would be for the EU to take over the French seat, which critics argue is a relic of a by-gone era. The French seat would be most logical because France is fully integrated into the European Union, while the United Kingdom is not. (Harvard International Review) Germany, India to Work Together on Security Council Reform (December 13, 2010)Germany and India have vowed to work together on Security Council reform during their two year term as elected Council members. One of their main goals is to expand the permanent membership of the Security Council. Both countries have an interest in obtaining a permanent seat. Germany and India are advocating for more regional parity, arguing that Africa and South America are not permanently represented and Asia has only a single permanent representative. (Deutsche Welle) UN Security Council Membership: The Admission of India and Other Necessary Reforms (November 24, 2010)The US backing of Indian aspiration to join the Security Council may have opened the door for more systemic reforms. This article argues that Security Council reform should incorporate five permanent regional representatives (that would rotate among three countries), three additional permanent members, and ten elected non-permanent members. (The Jurist) Obama Backs India for Seat on Security Council (November 8, 2010)President Obama announced in New Delhi that he supports India's bid for a permanent seat on an expanded Security Council. He did not outline details of how the US plans to support India's bid, nor did he suggest a timeline for Council reform. Obama's announcement underscores support for India as a global power, countering the increasing influence of China. Obama's announcement came at a critical time, according to one Indian diplomat, as Indian officials were beginning to place more importance on the G-20 than the Council. (New York Times) Dream of Influence: Germany Renews Campaign for UN Security Council Seat (September 16, 2010)Germany has been campaigning vigorously for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat. Peter Wittig, Germany's Ambassador to the UN, has spoken with 190 of his 191 UN counterparts, campaigning for their votes. Canada and Portugal are also vying for a non-permanent seat and it is a close race between all three countries. The secret vote will take place this week and potentially lead to a powerhouse Council dominated by BRIC and G8 nations. (Spiegel) African Leaders Call for Permanent Security Council Seat for the Continent (September 24, 2010)Africa occupies seventy percent of the Security Council's agenda, and yet does not have a permanent seat on it. African leaders called on the UN last week to remedy this lack of permanent representation. Senegal has proposed a permanent seat with the right of veto for an African nation. While Africa may deserve a seat, this would be one step on a long road of reforms for the Security Council to become a more democratic institution that is not dominated by the politics of the P5. (UN News) Islamic and Arab States Should Have Security Council Seat, Says Pakistan (June 30, 2010)Pakistan argues that changes must be made to the Security Council to reflect “current realities” that the UN Charter does not take into account, specifically the need for permanent representation on the Council for Arab and Muslim states. Pakistan’s proposal is one of the many put forward by countries vying for seats and rival groups hoping to restructure the Council. (CNSNews) France Backs Africa for UN Seat (May 31, 2010)Speaking at the 25th Africa-France Summit in Nice, French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared that it was "not normal" that Africa has no permanent seat on the UN Security Council. He expressed France's support for greater African representation in global governance bodies such as the Security Council, the G20 and the World Bank Executive Board. However, at a summit focusing largely on economic ties between the two regions, Sarkozy's gesture was clearly a diplomatic effort to woo African leaders and gain leverage with business interests. With Chinese and Indian investment flooding the African continent, old powers like France are struggling to maintain their economic influence and market access. (Al-Jazeera) India Deserves Place at UN High Table (March 10, 2010)India is the world's second fastest growing economy, the country with the second largest military budget and the home to one-sixth of humanity. Since 1994, India has repeatedly tried and failed to gain a permanent seat in the Security Council. This article from an Indian newspaper notes the rise of China and India as new "global powers," and it argues that the Council's permanent membership should be modified, since it no longer reflects current political and economic realities. (Deccan Herald) Increased Security (January 20, 2010)Many who actively advocate for expansion of the UN Security Council's membership argue that an increase in the number of members will remedy the democratic and representative deficit from which the Council suffers. In October 2010, Canada will once again stand for election to a two-year term as non-permanent member of the Security Council. This article represents the Canadian viewpoint as it explores the need for the nation's increased role in the Council. 2009The United Nations Role in Peace and War (December 4, 2009)Former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, argues that the UN has become a body of unrealistic expectations. The five veto powers corrupt the UN charter by acting out of the interests of states rather than "we the peoples". Halliday suggests that regional permanent seats in the Security Council would entail less corruption of international law and the UN Charter. He believes that the rights of the worlds poorest would be properly addressed for the first time if all regions were presented. (Global Research) UN Launches Talks to Expand Security Council (February 19, 2009)Political dynamics within the UN Security Council very much reflects the 1945 geopolitical situation. The P5 still remain the most significant members in the council, despite a number of competing powers such as the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan). The G4 proposes that the Security Council includes an additional five permanent members without veto power, as well as, five new non-permanent members. African countries support the G4 proposal, but want a permanent seat for the African Union. Italy, among others, rejects the proposal of additional permanent members and instead advocates for ten non-permanent members. (Reuters)
2007Security Council Reform: a Transitional Approach (December 3, 2007)Member states have agreed that the UN Security Council must become more representative, efficient and transparent to be seen as more legitimate, yet a number disagree on how this reform should occur. Among various proposals from countries, the GA appointed facilitators to conduct consultations about the Council's reform. The facilitator's main point consists of adding a mandatory review clause, which demands that after a couple of years, the Council has to review its reform. (UN Chronicle) Africa Presses Demand for Security Council Seat (December 11, 2007)The UN General Assembly continues to debate Security Council reform. The African group has requested two permanent seats, with all rights including veto power. Angolan Ambassador Ismael. Gaspar-Martins expressed the "continent's position" requesting a more inclusive, transparent and democratic Council. So far, only China and Britain support the African pledge. (Final Call) UN Security Council Reform: Veto Right for Mexico (November 19, 2007)This article argues that Mexico should be made a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power because it would be the best representative of Spanish-speaking countries. The rationale for putting Mexico forward as the leader of the Hispanophone countries is based upon its population and economy in addition to its language. (American Chronicle)
New Bid to Reform UN Security Council Begins (November 13, 2007)The majority of UN members agree on expanding the Security Council's membership, to make it more representative and equitable. However the members diverge on how that expansion should happen. They also express concern that the enlargement will diminish the Council's effectiveness. Pakistani Ambassador Munir Akram stated that Council reform should include all countries, should be based on broad multilateral proposals, and should require consensus support. (Associated Press - Pakistan) UN Backs India for UNSC Seat (November 13, 2007)France and Britain favor India, as one of the G-4 candidates for a new permanent seat on the UN Security Council. In their speech, both countries requested a more representative and consequently credible and effective Council. While Russia abstained from comment, Japan and China placed greater importance on having new permanent members from African countries. Before backing any candidacy, the US recommended a "set of criteria" for the aspiring candidates, such as a commitment to human rights. Ironically, critics have often criticized China and the US, both permanent members, for human rights violations. (NDTV) Cuba Opposes Greater Power to UN Security Council (November 13, 2007)During a UN General Assembly (GA) meeting on Security Council Reform, Cuba called for a more democratic, representative, responsible and effective Council. Cuba's Ambassador Rodrigo Malmiera argues that the Council suffers from a lack of representation from developing countries. The Council does not represent the world's contemporary realities, raising questions about its legitimacy representative and procedures. Malmiera called for greater involvement of non-permanent members in the Council's agenda, as well as membership reform. He also expressed apprehension about the Council's jurisdiction and working methods, such as the selection of Council agenda items. (Prensa Latina) UN Reform, Including SC Expansion Not End in Itself - Russia Envoy (November 13, 2007)Russia, one of the five permanent members with veto power, declared at a General Assembly meeting that Security Council reform discussions should preserve the "foundations" of the United Nations. According to Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN Representative, the Council should only expand if it can also become more effective. Even though Churkin expressed a willingness to work with non-Council members, in order to continue further peacekeeping improvements, his speech did not seem to favor the Council's enlargement. (Itar-Tass) Britain Will 'Have to Give Up Seat On UN', Claims Think-Tank (August 15, 2007)European think-tank Skeptika claims that under new European Union (EU) treaty provisions, the UK and France must cede their UN Security Council seats to the EU on issues where the EU takes a common position. The UK Foreign Office rejects this possibility, claiming that the "UN Charter does not allow international organizations like the EU to hold a seat on the Security Council." (Daily Mail) General Assembly Launches New Effort to Tackle Divisive Issue of Security Council Reform (April 20, 2007)The UN General Assembly issued a report on Security Council reform, proposing that UN member states consider a temporary expansion of Security Council membership. All previous attempts at reform have failed for lack of agreement on size and composition of an expanded Council, due to national and regional rivalries. The report says that reform should increase opportunities for countries to serve as members on the Council and should increase involvement with the Council's work whilst not serving. (Associated Press)
2005
Security Council Reform Debate Ends Without Agreement (November 12, 2005)Disputes over permanent membership once again blocked UN member states from reaching consensus on Security Council reform. While the five permanent members consider the debate closed, ambassadors from countries seeking permanent seats said they might bring the issue to a vote in the General Assembly. (Voice of America) Bolton Rejects UN Council Plan (October 15, 2005)US Ambassador John Bolton will not support the attempts of Germany, Brazil and India to enlarge the Security Council, arguing that boosting the number of seats to 25 would make the world body less effective. But Bolton reiterated the US commitment to Japan's bid for permanent Security Council membership, as it represents a "major international economic player." (Associated Press) Japan Rethinking Plan for Security Council (September 30, 2005)Japan shows increasing signs of displeasure with the UN since failing to get a permanent seat on the Security Council at the Millennium+5 Summit. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi claims his government faces growing pressure from the Japanese population to scale back its dues to the UN because citizens no longer believe the country is getting its money's worth. UN officials warned Japan that withholding dues would only delay UN reform and alienate other member states. Japan pays 19.5 percent of the annual UN budget of $1.8 billion, second only to the United States, whose contributions amount to 22 percent when paid in full. (Associated Press) Africa Split Hope for Delhi's UN Bid (August 28, 2005)The African Union (AU) prepares to meet in London the first week of September to find a last minute common position on the rival proposal put forward by the Group of Four (G-4). This article looks into the possibility that the AU will split and that the majority of African states will side with the G-4 to present a joint draft resolution in the General Assembly before the High Level summit. (Telegraph, India) No UN Reform Likely, Say Directors of Africa Policy Think-Tanks (August 28, 2005)African experts agree that the African Union's (AU) unwavering stance on Security Council reform is "tragic," in that it will keep the AU from being a powerful lobbying force for issues of development and poverty eradication at the Millennium+5 Summit. The AU has firmly stood by the demand for permanent veto-power seats on the Security Council. Moreover, the AU's lack of an "opt-out clause" makes it impossible "for individual African countries to act alone without being seen to be breaking ranks or dissenting." (BuaNews) UN Reform Bogged in Complex Political Geometry (August 12, 2005)The African Union's decision to reject a compromise with the Group of Four on Security Council expansion and instead "stick to its guns" on the demand for veto power "has set the stage for a showdown in which [Africa] looks certain to end the loser," says the Financial Gazette. Discussing the multifaceted opposition to potential new members and their privileges, this author raises questions over the Council's existing power structure and the possibility of eliminating the veto completely in the future. African Leaders Reject Compromise on UN Security Council Reforms (August 5, 2005)The African Union has formally rejected the option of compromising with the Group of Four on Security Council expansion proposals. Ninety percent of the 53-member group voted to stick to the AU's original plan, which allots two permanent veto-wielding African seats on the Council. A compromise was one of the G-4's last hopes to gain enough support in the 191-member General Assembly for their resolution, and the AU's "rejection may scuttle years of work toward expanding the Security Council," claims the Associated Press. US and China Unite to Block G4 Plan (August 3, 2005)Although the United States and China have both openly opposed the Group of Four resolution on Security Council expansion for different reasons, the two countries have agreed to formally work together to block the G4 plan from approval in the General Assembly. China's Ambassador Wang Guangya says the main objective is to find a different expansion plan that is not "divisive," and he notes that the countries will work parallel but not together because "we have different friends in different parts of the world." (Associated Press) Egypt Slams Nigeria over UN Seats (July 28, 2005)The African Union may no longer speak with a unified voice on Security Council expansion. Nigeria announced that the AU reached an accord with the Group of Four by abandoning veto power as a requirement for new permanent members and agreeing to a total of four instead of five African seats on the Council. But Egypt, claiming that Nigeria "tried to subjugate the African position" to better its own chances of gaining a Council seat, denies that a compromise was reached and instead warns of a potential "fracture in the African position." (Daily Trust) Japan Sees Risk of UN Aid Cut If Council Bid Fails (July 28, 2005)If the resolution of the Group of Four on Security Council expansion fails, G-4 member Japan says Tokyo may feel "domestic pressure" to cut its contributions to the United Nations. Japan is the second-highest payer to the UN, behind the US, and a drop in the country's regular assessments could deepen the current UN financial crisis. (Reuters) Italy Accuses Countries on Council Seats (July 26, 2005)In a statement to the General Assembly, Italian Ambassador Marcello Spatafora accused G-4 governments of using aid money to blackmail poor countries into supporting the G-4 bid for Security Council permanent seats. Expressing outrage at the "improper and unethical behavior," Spatafora asked the GA to start a formal investigation on the matter. This "rare public attack by one European Union member against another" serves as an indicator of rising tensions and rising stakes over Council reform. (Associated Press) Not-So-Musical Chairs (July 26, 2005)The obsession of a few UN member states over gaining permanent seats on the Security Council "is now threatening to stymie desperately-needed UN reforms," says AlterNet. Discussing rivalries and other complications with current enlargement proposals, this author warns that "the Council is already top-heavy toward the industrialized world," and adding members would only make the Council less efficient. Last Chance Talks for G4 UN Hopefuls (July 25, 2005)African Union ministers "hold the key" to the Group of Four's bid for Security Council permanent seats, yet the Deutsche Welle points out that AU support still may not ensure a mandatory two-thirds victory if the G-4 calls for a vote on its resolution in the General Assembly. Despite German and Japanese offers to increase foreign aid in return for support, the necessary votes have proved elusive and the debate over Council expansion will likely drag on past September 2005. Mexico, Canada Introduce Third Plan to Expand Security Council (July 22, 2005)The 12 state group Uniting for Consensus has introduced its proposal for Security Council reform to the General Assembly, despite tense divisions in the General Assembly. The US opposes all current proposals for Council expansion. Washington believes adding members would dilute its power and render the Council ineffective. But many believe reform should overcome US "arm-twisting" and create a more representative world body. (Los Angeles Times) African Union Optimistic on Council Plan (July 21, 2005)The African Union, which tabled its resolution on Security Council expansion in the General Assembly on July 14, may be willing to give up its demand for veto power in order to at least get two permanent seats on the Council, reports the Associated Press. AU President Oluyemi Adeniji expresses optimism that the AU and the Group of Four can come to a compromise and call for a vote before the month's end, but permanent members China and the US would oppose the resolution. A Security Council Numbers Game: All Bets Off (July 19, 2005)Century Foundation's Jeffrey Laurenti argues against adding permanent members to the UN Security Council, warning that a larger Council would magnify the "fundamental disconnect between power to decide and responsibility to implement". He says US opposition to the Group of Four resolution effectively ruined the chances for a vote on the proposal -an outcome he favors for different reasons than Washington. Noting that five countries with veto power already caused Council inaction because of national political interests, Laurenti believes that the best reform proposals entail regional representation and elected terms. Annan Urges Calm in Heated UN Council Reform Debate (July 12, 2005)The General Assembly debate over the G-4 Security Council expansion resolution stirred high tension and "undiplomatic language", as Secretary General Kofi Annan had to warn representatives "to calm down." The rare intensity of the debate, which has only just begun, demonstrates how far apart UN member states stand on the issue of Security Council expansion and how unlikely it is that one of the current proposals will become a reality. (Reuters) Japan Ups Aid by $10bn (July 8, 2005)At the Group of Eight summit in Gleneagles, Japan announced that it would sizably increase its foreign aid budget by $10 billion over a five year period. Japan's current official development assistance rate lies at 0.19% of gross national income, way below the UN's 0.7% target. The decision to increase aid is likely a move to "make the country's presence felt as it seeks to win a permanent seat on the UN Security Council," says Finance24. Tabled G-4 Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 6, 2005) Brazil, Germany, India and Japan have tabled their draft "framework" resolution calling for Security Council enlargement to 25 members, including six additional permanent seats. In a desperate attempt to secure permanent membership, the Group of Four (G-4) had accepted to forego their right of veto for at least 15 years. The less contentious proposals on the Council's working methods have more of a chance to succeed than membership expansion plans. Also see previous versions of June 8 and May 13 . Africa Throws UN Council Expansion into a Muddle (July 6, 2005)The African Union has adopted a new plan for Security Council reform, calling for an 11 member expansion with two permanent and two nonpermanent seats for Africa but stopping short of deciding which countries would lobby for those seats. The AU proposal differs slightly from that of the Group of Four (Germany, Brazil, India and Japan) by proposing an extra nonpermanent seat and veto power for new permanent members. Asking for veto power will likely spell defeat for the AU plan, as current permanent members strongly oppose such a proposal. (Reuters) Security Council Reform Not Just a Question of Numbers (July 5, 2005)Security Council reform should focus on "changes in the decision-making process" rather than membership expansion or veto rights to improve the UN's multilateral nature, say Latin American analysts. Warning against the continued state of the Council as an "oligarchical, undemocratic mechanism lacking in transparency," this Inter Press Service article nevertheless falls victim to the membership debate and mainly argues over the prospect of Brazil as a new permanent Security Council member. 3 Hurdles Remain for G-4 (June 10, 2005)The G4 (Brazil, India, Germany and Japan) have faced considerable opposition from UN member states in their efforts to obtain permanent membership in the Security Council, and must now also overcome differences among themselves over Council reform. India disapproves of the G4's decision to drop veto demands, and Germany and Japan disagree over the amount of international support behind their draft resolution. With all these obstacles, the threat that "the momentum of Council reform could come to a halt" continues. (Yomiuri) Africa Fails to Break Deadlock Over UN Reform (June 9, 2005)Pursuant to proposed UN reform, the African Union (AU) "has agreed to seek two permanent and five non-permanent seats on the Security Council." However, African foreign ministers have not selected criteria for choosing candidates, and cannot agree which two countries should represent the AU. This deadlock reflects Africa's deep regional differences "largely based around colonial divisions," and threatens the continent's ability to "speak with one voice and…act together" in the Security Council. (Reuters) UN Security Council Candidates Drop Demand for Veto Power (June 9, 2005)The "G4" - Japan, India, Germany and Brazil - have amended their proposal to expand the Security Council by postponing their veto request for at least 15 years. As Germany's UN Ambassador Gunter Pleuger acknowledged, this "concession" comes as a result of "strong opposition" to the original draft resolution from permanent members of the Security Council. At the moment, only France has agreed to co-sponsor the G4, while Washington has said it "needs more time to study" the revised proposal. Will the veto "concession" be enough to turn current Council opposition around? (Voice of America ) US in Face-Off with UN Hopefuls (June 9, 2005)The US, China and Russia are pushing to delay a General Assembly vote on a draft resolution to expand the UN Security Council. The US finds itself "in the uncomfortable position of siding with the Chinese and Russians": as the Los Angeles Times suggests, the three permanent Council members fear a diminution of their power. Nevertheless, Brazil, Germany, India and Japan - the "G4" who drafted the proposed resolution - say that this opposition will "not deter them," and will only hasten the vote. The Insecurity Council (June 8, 2005)President of the UN General Assembly Jean Ping highlights the lack of consensus among UN member states on Security Council reform and says the issue has awakened "great passions and fixed attitudes." The G4 resolution - a proposal by Germany, India, Brazil and Japan to grant them additional permanent membership - faces strong opposition from China and the US, and competing reform proposals have come to light. As Jean Ping notes, Council reform may fall through unless "fundamental shifts on the part of some key countries" take place in the next several weeks. (South China Morning Post) Players and Proposals in the Security Council Debate (June 3, 2005)This report looks at the state of the debate on Security Council, analyzing the three proposals that emerged from the High Level Panel's and Kofi Annan's reports. As the Group of Four has circulated a draft resolution to add six permanent seats, United for Consensus put forwards two models (the Green Model and the Blue Model) adding only elected members. Will Washington take a leadership role and push the two groups to find a consensus before heads of states gather for the high level summit in September 2005? (Centre for UN Reform Education) China: UN Council Resolution Dangerous (June 1, 2005)In June 2005, Brazil, Germany, India and China (the "G4") will ask the General Assembly (GA) to vote on a draft resolution , which calls for Security Council expansion and gives the G4 permanent membership. The resolution meets strong opposition from China, which called it "dangerous" and has "hinted it would use its veto." According to Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya, this resolution will "split UN membership" and prevent member states from discussing other UN reform issues. Nevertheless, China has indicated that if the GA and the other Security Council permanent members accept the G4 proposal, Beijing "would take into account the feelings of others." (Associated Press) UN Divided over Proposal to Expand Security Council (May 13, 2005)Japan, Germany, India and Brazil will submit a draft resolution to the Security Council proposing a UN Charter amendment, necessary to enable the Council to expand to 24 members. The document foresees an increase in permanent seats from 5 to 11, with two seats for African countries. Two thirds of the 191-member General Assembly needs to vote in favor of the proposal if the aspiring nations want to secure permanent member status. Critics argue that enlargement will not necessarily result in a reformed, more accountable Security Council and warn that the document simply serves the national interest of the six candidates. (Los Angeles Times) Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats (April 28, 2005)While UN member states discuss adding new permanent seats to the Security Council, African states disagree on which countries should represent the continent as new permanent members. Various factors such as troop contribution records to UN peacekeeping missions, democratic values, African representation, financial contributions to the UN and financial capability will determine the likelihood of obtaining a seat. Candidates include South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Senegal and Libya, each of which faces opposition from fellow African countries. Since the African Union has failed to reach a consensus on African representation in the Council, the campaign "is going to be long, nasty and brutal." (Pambazuka) UN Security Council Expansion Thrown into Disarray - Again (April 12, 2005)Regional rivalry and long-standing disputes between neighboring countries will likely prevent expansion of the Security Council with permanent members. The "Like-Minded Countries Uniting for Consensus" want an addition of elected members only, arguing permanent members should only be added "with the widest possible consensus, which doesn't exist right now." As leaders of the initiative, Italy, Pakistan, South Korea, Mexico and Argentina have clear domestic interests to oppose Germany, India, Japan and Brazil respectively from obtaining a seat on the Council. The existing permanent members' opposition to new permanent seats further diminishes the chances of a change in the permanent make-up of the Council. (Inter Press Service) China Fights Enlarging Security Council (April 5, 2005)China's UN Ambassador Wang Guangya has said Beijing will only support Security Council enlargement if most new members come from the developing world. Ambassador Wang also insisted it was "essential" that the 191-member General Assembly unanimously adopts the proposal, leaving little hope for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who proposed to enlarge the Council to 24 members and stressed that failure to obtain a consensus "must not become an excuse for postponing action." (Washington Post) If 22 Million Chinese Prevail at UN, Japan Won't (April 1, 2005)A popular Chinese website has gathered some 22 million signatures to oppose Japan's bid for a permanent seat in the Security Council. The Chinese government has allowed state-controlled media to cover the campaign prominently. The initiative indicates that China might block a Japanese seat or pressure Japan to force concessions to China in return for Security Council membership. Diplomatic relations between both countries have significantly deteriorated following disputes over energy resources as well as a long-standing disagreement over Taiwan. (New York Times) Italy's Regional Model (April 2005)Opposing new permanent members - and Germany in particular - Italy proposes to add 10 permanent regional seats that each group would manage independently with its own principles and mechanisms to ensure regional representation rather than a national occupation of their seats. United for Consensus' Green Model (April 2005)In the Green Model, United for Consensus proposes to expand the Security Council with an additional 10 elected seats. All 20 elected members would serve in the Council for two year terms and be eligible for re-election. United for Consensus' Blue Model (April 2005)The Blue Model foresees longer-term seats while at the same time adding regular two-year elected seats to the current ones. Longer-term seats would be elected for three or four years and might run for re-election. Common African Position on Security Council Reform (March 7-8, 2005)This excerpt from the African Union's (AU) Common African Position on Reform of the United Nations focuses on Security Council reform and calls for full representation of Africa in the Council. The AU demands at least two African permanent seats on the Council with veto powers and an additional five non-permanent seats. The statement further notes that the AU will itself determine which African countries should represent the continent as new members. Position Paper of the Group of Like-Minded Countries "United for Consensus" (February 18, 2005)In this paper, the Group of Like-Minded Countries states its common position on Security Council reform. Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Kenya, Algeria, Italy, Spain, Pakistan and the Republic of Korea have united in support of "Model B, with appropriate improvements" as outlined in the High Level Panel's Report on Threats, Challenges and Change. The group hopes to find support among other UN member states for the model that suggests adding only elected, non-permanent members to the Council. It argues that "Model B is democratic and more flexible, providing for fairer and equitable representation and accountability." UN Seat: AU Sets Up Committee On African Position (February 1, 2005)African Union (AU) Chairman, President Olusegun Obasanjo established a 15-member committee which will produce an official African position on UN Security Council reform. The AU will present its stance to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for inclusion in his report to the General Assembly in March. The committee will consider options outlined in the High Level Panel's report on Security Council reform recommendations and nominate African nations eligible for a seat on the Council. (This Day-Lagos)
2010
Statement by H.E. Ambassador Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti on Security Council Reform (December 14, 2010)This statement pushes for a one to two page version of the negotiating text that summarizes consensus points. Ambassador Viotti presents the Brazilian position on the agreement that the negotiations have yielded. (Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations) General Assembly - Security Council Reform: Statement by Mr. Gérard Araud, Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations (November 11, 2010)In this statement, Ambassador Araud stresses the need to focus on creating a workable text from the text that Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan compiled from the positions of the member states. (Permanent Mission of France to the UN)
Statement by Ambassador Ragaglini of Italy on Security Council Reform (November 11, 2010)On November 11, 2010, the General Assembly held a meeting on the question of equitable representation and increased membership at the Security Council. In his statement, Ambassador Ragaglini of Italy presented the position of Uniting for Consensus, a group of countries that oppose an increase in the number of permanent seats at the Council. Uniting for Consensus argues that creating more permanent seats would postpone rather than solve the problem, as the Council would have to add more of these seats in 15 or 20 years to accommodate new geopolitical changes. Rather, the Council should be opened to new long-term non-permanent members and consider the possibility of regional representation. ( Mission of Italy to the UN) Statement by Ambassador Peter Maurer on the Report of the Security Council and the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Related Matters (November 11, 2010)This statement addresses the UK’s 2010 Report on the Security Council and the issue of representation. Ambassador Maurer commends the report for being more reflective than narrative. (Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations) Statement by Mr. Bhubaneswar Kalita on the Annual Security Council Report and Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council (November 11, 2010)Remarks by Ambassador Manjeev Singh Puriat the Informal Meeting (closed) of the Plenary on the 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 (June 2, 2010)Statement by Ambassador Li Baodong at the Security Council Open Debate on Working Methods (April 22, 2010)This statement by Chinese Ambassador Li Baodong focuses on reform of the working methods of the Security Council. It recommends further strengthening of “communication and interaction” with non-Council members. It also recommends assessing the current working method changes. Little attention is paid to the other main issues in Council reform, including membership changes. ( Mission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations) Statement on the Working Methods of the Security Council (April 22, 2010)Ambassador Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein made this statement on behalf of the S-5. It summarizes the prior events and outlines the guidelines that the S-5 support for reforming the working methods to enhance transparency, access and inclusion of other member states in the Security Council. (Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations) UK/French Position on Reform of the United Nations Security Council (March 1, 2010)This position paper was written in response to Ambassador Zahir Tanin’s request for member-states’ positions on the issue of Security Council Reform for the Open Ended Working Group. The position paper mainly discusses membership issues and the possibility of intermediate solutions for immediate reform to allow progress as negotiations for permanent reform continue. ( Permanent Mission of France to the UN) Proposal on Security Council Reform: Elements for the Immediate Model (February 26, 2010)This proposal from Liechtenstein provides an outline for an intermediate solution to Security Council reform that could be agreed upon and used for an interim period while more permanent changes are negotiated. (Permanent Mission of Liechtenstein to the United Nations)
|
