Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Key Delegates Differ On Reforming UN Council Key Delegates Differ On Reforming UN Council
Diplomatic World Bulletin July / August 1998 When Secretary-General Kofi Annan was in Brazil, it was music to Brazilian ears that he favored reform of the UN Security Council on the grounds that the world body's Membership was far outdated by Political developments since WW2. Brazil is bucking for a permanent seat, as is Argentina, Annan's next port of call. Yet Brazil, the economic giant of Latin America (albeit speaking Portuguese, not Spanish, but with a population of 160 million and growing) still lacks the credentials of a Germany or a Japan. Time will tell.
A seemingly endless effort to narrow differences on the issue of council reform was going down to the wire as DWB went to press. So, editor in chief and publisher Richard A. Holman -- with an assist from Sebastiano Cardi, counselor of the Italian mission -- lined up two of the principal antagonists for an exclusive interview and dialogue: namely Francesco Paolo Fulci, the permanent representative of Italy; and Tono Eitel, his counterpart for Germany.
Ambassador Eitel, who is stepping down and was therefore in a position to speak perhaps more freely than Ambassador Fulci, declared that there was "more agreement than it may look like" on the reform issue, adding that almost everybody agreed that reform was needed. Reform in procedures was necessary, he said, and "there must be an enlargement in the council membership." Picking up there, Fulci called for "a more democratic, a more transparent Security Council," adding that on the question of enlargement, after five years of debate in the working group, positions remain very "far apart." Five permanent members were enough, "more than enough" and what was needed was everyone's participation, without exclusion.
Eitel agreed that five permanent members were enough, adding "Some people would even say five too many." He went on, "I think it is realistic to say that if we can't beat them, join them. And that is our line of thinking, that, since we have that class, since we will have to live with that class, we should -- and here again I follow my friend Paolo, we should democratize it, and enlarge it." The interview was conducted as member states seemed to be nearing a conclusion of their current debate on council reform, with a vote likely on procedural questions but with a little likelihood that any substantive change is in the works.
What follows is an edited transcript of the remarks of the two ambassadors, responding in the main to DWB's questions.DWB: Ambassador Fulci, where do we stand on new permanent members?
Fulci: I only see arguments against new permanent members. And the first one. as I said before, we think that the present permanent seats should not be increased, but we think that the best way to democratize the Security Council would be to increase the non-permanent members, so that if they are more in the council, they can better check the power of the -permanent members.
Another reason why we are not in favor of new permanent members is the fact that they escape what is the quintessence of democracy, the electoral process. And they become unaccountable to the General Assembly. Once they are made permanent members, they are unaccountable except to themselves. And. this again, we can not accept. I say that there are other reasons that I could continue with but these are the two major things. We believe that you should not just give the power to a few to the expense of the many. Nobody should be marginalized; nobody should have the feeling here of being simply a spectator.Eitel: Since we will have to live with permanent members, I think that some groups and regions are not only under-represented in the circle, in the group of permanent members, but not present at all. So the argument for enlargement in that -class, in that group in that category, would be first that countries from the South should go in in order to balance what, so far, has been the predominance of countries from the North. And my second argument is that, indeed, as Ambassador Fulci has said, there is some difficulty with the present permanent members because they are permanent, if not eternal.
We see that as a disadvantage, as far as new members are concerned and that is why we have -- and that is the second argument which I would advance in favor -- we have, in our scenario, to introduce a democratic element, which is a review. At first, the new permanent members will be elected. so there is a democratic basis: they will be elected, they will not be just put there. And second, there will be, after 10 or 15 years. a chance to get rid of them it they don't perform. So they remain accountable.Fulci: We have exchanged this argument in the Oven-Ended Working- Group. and what I have done is, I have simply cited the French. 'There is Nothing more definitive than the temporary'. Once you get the permanent seat, especially,-a great country like Germany, it would be extremely difficult to divest them of their seat. But. once again, I want to point out, because I don't want there to be misunderstanding, that what we are really against is fixed permanent seats. There has been a formula advanced by the Africans recently in favor of permanent rotating seats. And we say, yes to that formula. Why not?
We say: Yes, but on condition: a) that Africa be given two seats, really, to balance-the situation as it is now, and not one, and b) that these two seats --two permanent rotating seats-- be given the veto, because if they are not given the veto, they are nothing else than nonpermanent seats. And also on condition that the same formula apply to all of the groups, not just to Africa or to developing countries, but to all the five different geographical groups.
In other words, if African countries rotate, why Asia and all the Latin American countries should not rotate? Or, why German and Japan should not rotate? If there is rotation decided for some, then there should be rotation decided for all. Otherwise, what we do here is introduce a new discrimination.
We would not any longer be the United Nations -- to use an expression which has been introduced by our Brazilian colleague -- we would become the United Regions. And we are not the United Regions, we are the United Nations. Furthermore, it would introduce new discrimination if, on one side, Africa would have permanent rotating seats and Germany and Japan would have fixed permanent seats. It would introduce a new discrimination in the sense that the countries from the North 'there will be seven real Permanent Members' while from the South, they would remain at zero.DWB: Ambassador Eitel, do permanent seats necessarily imply a veto? What do you envision?
Eitel: I think what we briefly call the permanent seat is characterized by two elements. The first one is, expressing the term permanent, which means there is not a fixed limit of two years. But if that member performs -- and I'm now speaking not of the original five, but of new permanent members -- if that member performs, that member will continue on that seat for 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, if not called back, -so-to-speak, by the electorate, which is the General Assembly.
And the second element for a so-called permanent seat is the veto. If that element would be lacking, that would be a diminution of that qualification. For example, if you are a permanent member, you pay more for peacekeeping. It would be difficult to argue that if you don't have all the trappings of a permanent seat... you pay more. And there are other considerations. But, indeed, these two make up a permanent seat in my view.Fulci: On the question of the contribution to the United Nations, I frankly think that it is misleading to say that because some countries contribute more than others they are entitled to a permanent seat. And let me quote here what the Foreign Minister of Mexico said to the General Assembly when he said: Well, if that were the case, then we should give a Permanent seat to Ted Turner, who has given $1 billion to the United Nations ... Olof Palme, Prime Minister of Sweden, in 1985, I believe, came here and told the General Assembly: we should put a ceiling not higher than 15 percent for every country in order to avoid that the peace organization become the hostage of one or two countries alone.
And if they don't pay, then the organization can not function. And also, in terms of absolute money, this is really, you know, not such an enormous amount. I believe that the contribution of Germany would be about $100 million, if I am not wrong. Well, I remember again, our dear colleague from Qatar saying: "If that is the price for a permanent seat, we can certainly afford it. I might suggest to my government to bid for -a permanent- seat if the cost is $110 million a year".
I think that we have to draw a distinction between fixed permanent members -- and we are against them, for sure; absolutely,- 100 percent. We, Italians have introduced and submitted a new proposal of our own, and our proposal is: let us increase the Security Council by 8 or 10 seats, nonpermanent members, let us have some countries rotate more frequently than others in these new seats, which, in the end, is what is happening today. It is a "more frequent rotate proposal." Look at the record, you will see that there are some countries that rotate more frequently than others. And how would these countries rotating more frequently be chosen? And we thought that one criteria would be the contribution to the United Nations in general.
A second criteria could be a contribution to peace keeping operations. In other words, not only in terms of money, but contributions also in terms of troops. Or, at least, that your own soldiers today are fighting. or going under the banner or the flag of the United Nations. And there could be still other criteria, I think. Now, we used to call them in our formula "More Frequently Rotating. If instead, they are called "Permanent Rotating Members", the class is the same. We are absolutely happy. We can live very well with it, the substance would not change.Eitel: In regard to Paolo's remarks on the question of contributions to the United Nations, one thing seems clear to me: contributions are not and cannot be exclusive criteria for permanent membership. At the same time, there cannot be much doubt either, that contributions reflect the active engagement of a Member State and its citizens for the purposes of the United Nations. Without these contributions which are vital for the international peace and security - the criterion spelled out in Art. 27 for (non-permanent) Council membership - the United Nations would not exist.
Germany's ranking over years as the third largest contributor to the United Nations is well-known. Germany has always paid its contributions in full and their increase rates in the recent past have only been surpassed by. those of Japan. If the United Nations welcome this kind of active engagement of individual Member States - and I believe they do - then it may be wise to honour and to encourage it by accepting the willingness of those countries to assume greater responsibility in the Council to the benefit of the entire Organization.DWB: Ambassador Eitel, what do you feel should be the criteria for service on the Security Council?
Eitel: The Charter of the UN has criteria for non-permanent members and I just mention contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security. For new permanent members, that would have to be, of course, a basic recommendation. Then I can readily subscribe, and I often do, to my friend Paolo that contributions of any kind are important, but the third element, which I find is the decisive one, is being elected into that position by the General Assembly.
As Ambassador Fulci has quoted our Brazilian colleague about the United Nations of Regions, that is just what his plan - Ambassador Fulci's Plan - and some other plans, might be degenerating to. If you insist that what is due to one region, should be due to other regions: if you make the region the basis of a dispatch of members into a forum, into the Security Council, then it is not the General Assembly any longer. And, well. one can think about that. But then you have to rearrange to amend the Charter from bottom to top, because so far it is the General Assembly. And, indeed, if the Africans want to rotate, and the General Assembly, second condition, is in agreement with that, we have nothing against it.
But if, for example, Latin America doesn't want to rotate. I do certainly not insist on Latin America to rotate. Let the General Assembly say: Well, there is one candidate, there are two candidates, four candidates, from Latin America and we elect none, or one, or whatever. I think that is, in my view, the easiest and the most important category, having been elected by the General Assembly.Fulci: I agree entirely that they must be elected by the General Assembly. Of course, every region can designate whomever they like So, what at I don't see is the risk of degeneration that my good friend Tono Eitel sees. What we had in mind, and what we suggested, is simply the continuation of the present system that the region designate and the General Assembly elects.
But another point, which I think is absolutely fair, we should - especially, to avoid any misunderstanding -who is so sure that there would be an agreement in the region on permanent membership? Even in our region, the Western European Group, I know of great countries who would be very unhappy, just to choose one. And the same with Latin America. There would be quite a few countries who would be absolutely unhappy with the position of having one, or having two permanent members. So this is why I keep saying: Beware, we are at the United Nations, not the United Regions; we must remain as the United Nations otherwise we would change the thing radically, and entirely. Then we should have five different regions and every- region of the world organize itself as they want, and we are not submitted to the General Assembly any longer. No, we oppose that. We reject that.Eitel: I think a region may if they want to, by a majority decision, by unanimity- in the region, nominate a system of rotation, nominate one candidate, nominate two candidates, but a region may also do nothing, because possibly, they don't want to do anything, or because, possibly, they don't agree on anything. So the regions are a player, but not a necessary player, and that is, if they become a necessary player, then I would call that a degeneration of a system where the General Assembly is the necessary player, into a system where the region becomes necessary player.
Fulci: Maybe you know that Tono comes from the land of Immanuel Kant, so he is much more rational than I am. I, frankly, don't see this risk of degeneration. I believe that if a continent like Africa decides that they want some countries to rotate, and they submit those countries to the General Assembly, they are absolutely free to do so. African states have been able to reach agreement more than others on sharing nonpermanent seats. To be more precise, in Africa, 15 countries have done more than two terms, and 24 countries have had, at least. one term. And only 14 countries have never been sifting on the Security Council.
If you look, instead, to Asia, you will see that the number of those who have already been on the Security Council is 10. Eleven have been-there only twice, and 27 have never been. Imagine? Twenty-seven? There are some countries that are original founders of the United Nations and who have never been able to sit on the Council simply because, even when they decided to become candidates, they did not get enough votes. But, I mean, in Africa, to avoid this, they have simply agreed to take turns. I don't see any degeneration in this: on the contrary, we have the same kind of agreement in the western group in ECOSOC, and I think it is marvelous, it works. Why we could not have it also in the Security Council? May be somebody could think about this one day.Eitel: I only say, that if you force a region to make up its mind, even if it doesn't want to, that is the degeneration. I have nothing against the African model. I'm all for that if it is in agreement.
DWB: Ambassador Eitel, do you feel in the Security Council for the future, the regions should control a certain number of seats?
Eitel: They do that already, in the category of non permanent Members. There is a sort of gentlemen's agreement that assigns seats to certain regions, and it is even a rather complicated: one, because groups like the Arab group that has member states in both regions has a complicated system how they are considered. So, I think, yes, we should try to find gentlemen's agreements on this sort of thing, but again, I think the basic right -- the basic democratic right -- of every state is to run for an office with the consent of its region or without.
DWB: By formalizing this gentleman's agreement, or any agreement by region?
Eitel: Well, that would change its character. I will only give you one example. For example, we all -- you probably as much as I -- get letters from Israelis who complain about their State - Israel - not being a member of the ASEAN Group. So, I think that regionalism is good, but I don't think it should go beyond that we have now.
DWB: Ambassador Fulci? Regionalism, should it be formalized?
Fulci: Well, I think that wherever possible this would be a good thing because it would avoid what has produced, at times, bloody races for the Security Council. You have no idea what goes on in some regional groups in order to be elected, or not elected. While if you make a good rotation, as it already exists in ECOSOC, for instance, for the Western Group, why not? Then everybody's happy and everybody get's a share of participation in the activities of the Security Council. Not many have tried this before: perhaps it might be a good time to start considering.
DWB: What about the tremendous private economic forces, amounting to some $16 trillion?
Fulci: Before talking about private economic forces, allow me to talk about economic powers. Money is not everything in the United Nations. What really is, I believe, extremely important is not only the amount of money they can possess, but the capability and ability to give to others - to help others. This is extremely important. And I think one should always beware thinking because one is a big guy, he owns the world. No, I think that is mistaken.
Of course, those who have more means can help those who need more than the others. But I repeat, this should not be the only yardstick, there are others. For instance, who is ready to give the most precious of all things, the life of its young men and women for the cause of-peace in the world? I think that's another yardstick - that one should never forget. I have sometimes been a bit cruel with my Japanese friends, telling them:Yes, we understand your philosophy: you pay and we die. No, that is not the type of philosophy that we would accept here at the United Nations.DWB:Are some of these free enterprise organizations more inclined to go out of their way -- and should they -- to help with their resources or not? Or initiate projects? Should that be a factor? The culture -- what the private sector does?
Eitel: I think that due to globalization. the national character of these huge firms is fast disappearing. We have firms in America. in Italy, in Germany, whereve,. but their produce is produced somewhere else: their money goes as salary somewhere else. So, if I overinterpreted my friend Paolo a little bit, I would agree with him that it should not be a criterion, whether, for example, in a country, there are more major firms than in another country.
The second question: What do these firms do? My Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel has said here before the General Assembly, that development cooperation is preventive peacekeeping -- development cooperation is preventive peacekeeping. And I think there you have a field where these firms should probably become more active than until now. And I don't want to judge certain firms, there's certainly ample room for improvement and that is a field where there should act. I don't think that these private concerns have a role in really peace and war. I don't think so. If that were so, I would think that would be bad.DWB: Do you think they should have a role in drugs - the war on drugs, or hunger, on housing, on health?
Eitel: I think so, yes. The Secretary-General has always spoken about civil society and how it is necessary to incorporate the NGOs -- the non government organizations -- and firms, and the universities, and all these institutions, into the work of the United Nations. That is a major field, and Ambassador Fulci has several times referred to the ECOSOC, and that is, for example, one of the forums where these institutions should play a major role. But in the Security Council proper, so far, I don't see that role.
Fulci: I was just going to say the same thing: that it has, perhaps, little bearing on the Security Council reform, but it certainly has a lot of bearing on many activities of the United Nations. We have all become very much aware that without the help of civil society -- and when we say civil society, the big corporations are at the forefront because they are the ones with the means. They should really give more, they should participate more than they do now. They should be much less shy, also because it's in their interest as Tono was saying before. If they want a global reach, then they have to that they have this world approach.
DWB: Ambassador Eitel, you mentioned elected, and then perhaps, unelected. What sorts of vote, specifically, would you have in mind for either goal -- election or recall?
Eitel: I would think that the Charter provides under Article 108, for two-thirds of the membership, and I think that is what we need because -- and hope there is not disagreement between the two of us -- this is not only an important question, this is a very important question. And the highest majority provides for in the Charter, should apply.
Fulci: This is music to my ears. because as you know, we have introduced a Procedural Resolution asking for at least 124 votes, that is to say, two-thirds of the Member States to approve any resolution bearing on the reform of the Council. While, unfortunately, our German friends introduced an amendment to that Resolution, saying. not two-thirds of the present and voting should be sufficient to bring about new Permanent seats, to which, later on, Permanent Members would be elected. To this we say: No, sir. Our New Zealand colleague has put it this way "how can you imagine that with the same majority -- two third of present and voting -- that it's needed to elect a Member of ECOSOC, exactly with that same majority you can create new permanent memberships?" That is absolutely unthinkable.
Eitel: I agree with Paolo, the establishment of new Permanent seats is a Charter amendment and needs the majority provided for Charter amendment in the Charter. Where we disagree is, whether steps preparing a Charter amendment should already require the same majority as the final Charter amendment does. There we disagree. But, let me immediately add, this is mainly a disagreement on words because, let's assume something like the draft Resolution submitted by the former President of the General Assembly, Razali would be voted upon. He had a scheme where certain seats were envisaged and so forth. Let's assume that that would be voted upon by a majority below two-thirds of all members. What does it matter?
The implementation of that preparatory step would have to go through. article 108,. that is to say, through the two-thirds of the Members-majority, at any rate, it would be a welcome indication to see: Ah, we have 100, or 50 or I don't know how many countries voting in this or in that direction. But it is not meant to change anything: it is only indicative. And when we come to the real thing, to an amendment of the Charter -- for example, by creating an African Permanent seat -- this can not be done , I agree, by a majority below Charter amendment majority.DWB: Before I ask the last blockbuster question would either of you like to ask a question -- one question -- to each other? Is there some single question -- because you have dealt with this -- that perhaps we have overlooked?' I am sure there are many.
Eitel: I have no question, I have a statement: Well, I'm on my way out; actual I am out, and I just wan to thank Ambassador Fulci for three years of, well, competition, of opposition, against each other. But I must state what a fair competition -- and I don't dare to go into Italian anymore because I tried it once and apparently did not hit the right word, an the effect was not the desired one. But let me just that I consider Ambassador Fulci a comrade-in-arms and I am now leaving that, but I consider him a friend...I must say, I think I know his position so well that I don't have any questions about it. The only question which would come to my mind is: How deeply rooted is that position? But I know it is very deeply rooted, so I don't ask that question.
DWB: Ambassador Fulci, do you have a question?
Fulci: Well, first thing, I have only one regret here, that Ambassador Eitel Ts leaving the UN before me. Because he really has been one of the greatest gentlemen that I have met, not here, but in 42 years of diplomatic life. And everybody is simply privileged to have the opportunity to work -- or even oppose -- Ambasssador Eitel. I never, for a moment, felt any animosity or I felt uncomfortable. All the time I knew that what was in front of me, in the end if everything was taken away was a great humanist, is a great German but above all, a great European.
You've asked me if I had a question to ask of Ambassador Eitel. Yes, my question is: don't you think that instead of wasting our energies in all this combat, we should not try to bring out .... a real common European policy, and begin with the idea of a European seat. I think this would really be constructive for the future, instead of continuing like in the past: who is more powerful, and who is less powerful? Let's unite in Europe, let's begin here with the reform of the Security Council.DWB: Three years from now, what do you think will be the status of Security Council reform ?
Eitel: Three years from now we will have a resolution, a resolution which would certainly envisage enlargement of the Council. I would hope, enlargement of the Council in both categories, and it would be in the process of being ratified by, well, as many countries as possible. It would need, at present, at least 124, and that would take years. So even if today we had a resolution adopted, three years from now I would assume this process of ratification would still be going on. But, I think, if all those who are for Council reform do not get their act together within one or two years -- as an order of magnitude, if we don't get our act together rather soon, I think the window of opportunity will be closed.
Fulci: Three years from now, I think that there might be two scenarios. One scenario is that nothing has happened. Nothing happened, and everybody will continue to go on his own. The other scenario is on the contrary: try to do something among the Europeans, among the members of the Western Group in order to avoid that every time that there is a race for the Security Council, it becomes a bloody race. Because this is what is happening nowadays.
And it gets worse and worse because all member States think that they have the right to sit at least once in the Security Council. And I think they have the right. They can not be marginalized forever. And the only way to do this, therefore, is to try to reach an agreement among ourselves, to reach a consensus, not to try to impose the will of one on the other. And let us not forget that when the Working Group was established, it was suggested by Sir David Hannay that the group should work on the basis of general agreement. General agreement is much more than two- thirds of the Member States. A general agreement would be something, I imagine, between unanimity and the two thirds of member states (124). Something around 155 - 160 states. That is our aim. I think we should try to agree on that majority (155-160) for any reform of the Security Council.
