Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Security Council Reform
Documents and Statements
Documents | Statements | Archives
Membership including Expansion and Representation
Transparency including Working Methods and Decision-Making Process
General Articles | Veto | UN Reform
Back to the Main Security Council Reform Index
Documents
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 answers some requests 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.
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.
Three of the Group of Four (G-4) countries - Germany, India, and Brazil- introduced a draft resolution to the General Assembly aimed at expanding the Security Council. The proposal, to boost the body's membership from 15 to +25 countries by adding six permanent and four non-permanent members, is the same resolution the G-4 tabled in July 2005. Japan, the fourth G-4 country, decided not to join the initiative this time, instead negotiating with the US to try to come up with a proposal that Washington won't oppose.
In this report, the President of the General Assembly Jan Eliasson reiterates its commitment towards Security Council reform, including issues related to the body’s expansion and working methods. In 2005, member states put forward numerous proposals for a more representative, effective and efficient Council. Eliasson encourages member states to continue to engage in constructive dialogue to reach the broadest agreement possible.
Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal and South Africa re-introduced the draft resolution the African Union (AU) tabled in July 2005 ahead of the Millennium+5 Summit. The bid proposes to expand the Security Council to 26 members, including six new permanent seats with veto power. However, the African countries cannot agree on who should get permanent seats. The four countries hope to revive the debate on Security Council reform when AU members gather for a summit in January 2006.
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)
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)Report of the Facilitators for Security Council Reform to the General Assembly (June 26, 2007)
In their report to the President of the General Assembly, the facilitators, Ambassadors Heraldo Muñoz of Chile and Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein, propose a temporary approach to expedite Security Council reform. This transition period should include a new category of membership with longer-term seats, either renewable or not. The agreement would include a mandatory review in a set number of years. The facilitators do not recommend how many new seats should be added, nor how long the transitional phase should last, but insist that the process move from consultations to concrete intergovernmental negotiations.Report of the Facilitators for Security Council Reform to the General Assembly (April 19, 2007)
The ambassadors of Tunisia, Cyprus, Croatia, Chile and the Netherlands facilitated a UN General Assembly report on Security Council reform. The report proposes temporarily expanding Security Council membership as part of a transitional approach to reform. Making available more Security Council seats would increase countries’ chances of achieving Security Council membership.Tabled Uniting for Consensus Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 21, 2005)
In response to draft resolutions tabled by the G-4 and the African Union, Uniting for Consensus has tabled its alternative proposal. The draft resolution proposes adding 10 non-permanent members immediately eligible for re-election to the Security Council, leaving formalities of re-election and rotation to regional groups.Tabled African Union Draft Resolution on Security Council Reform (July 14, 2005)
Also responding to the G-4 resolution, the African Union has tabled its proposal calling for 11 additional members on the Security Council, with Africa gaining two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats. The AU also recommends that new permanent members gain all existing privileges—including veto power.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.Excerpt of Kofi Annan's Report on UN Reform: In Larger Freedom (March 21, 2005)
In his report on UN reform, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan only touches very briefly upon Security Council reform, and does not recommend specific action on this vital aspect of UN reform. Annan urges member states to consider both models A and B, as outlined by the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, and calls on states to reach a decision on Security Council enlargement before the summit in September 2005. (United Nations)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.”
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.Uniting 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.Uniting 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.General Assembly Working Group on Security Council Reform
Razali Paper on Security Council Reform (March 20, 1997)
GPF Paper by James Paul on Security Council Reform (February 1995)
More Documents on Security Council Reform
Statements
Statement 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.”Statement by Italian Ambassador on G-4’s “Unethical” Behavior (July 26, 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.
More Statements on Security Council Reform
More Information on the Security Council
More Information on Security Council Reform
More Information on UN Reform
