Counsellor Kim Won-soo, Representative of the Republic of Korea to the UN at the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council
Mr. President,
Having made preliminary comments of a general nature last Tuesday, I will respond today to your invitation to encourage delegations to express their positions on the issues covered in CRP2/rev.1 and CRP4. We welcome active participation of many delegations in discussions on these two papers.
My delegation joins other delegations in submitting CRP4 as a contribution to the working group's discussion on Cluster I and related issues. We are grateful to the Bureau for reflecting part of our proposal in the revised version of CRP2. The Bureau rightly follows the past practice of revising conference room papers (CRPs) prepared by it on a continuing basis. We also welcome the Bureau's willingness to put to the floor both papers on equal footing. Through the Bureau's efforts, we hope, we will ultimately have a consensus CRP on Cluster I issues that can be used, not only for this year's working group but also for future working group discussions.
Mr. President,
I would now like to state my delegation's position on various questions as contained in CRP 4. I will do so as succinctly as possible, since my delegation has stated its positions on the substance of Cluster I issues on many occasions, most recently by my Ambassador in the February and April sessions of the working group.
On question number one of CRP 4, we believe that there is strong consensus on the need to expand the Security Council, reflecting fundamental changes that have taken place over the past five decades. Therefore, our answer to this question is an emphatic yes. And I do not think any member in this working group has any doubt on the need for the enlargement of the Council. We also believe that such expansion should take place in a manner to ensure a more democratic and effective Council with greater accountability to the general membership of the United Nations. A generally agreeable expansion package should allow all member states to be given the opportunity to serve in the Council with reasonable frequency, commensurate with their capabilities to contribute to the work of the Council. We should be careful not to end up with a package that only empowers a few select member states with a privileged status.
My delegation does not have any particular aspiration or hidden desires. Instead, my delegation has only one goal, namely making a positive contribution to the process of producing the most feasible package to make the Security Council a better functioning body to meet the new challenges of the 21st Century. Therefore, my delegation always stands ready to consider carefully any expansion package without any bias in an effort to promote general agreement on this crucial issue.
As to the issue of the increase in the permanent membership, many outstanding questions remain unsolved. Questions 2 through 6 cover three salient questions, namely first, the total size of the enlarged Council, second, the issue of privileges, and third, the method of selection or election of new members. We believe that satisfactory answers should be found through common efforts to these questions before we move to the next stage in our consultations in this working group. My delegation attaches particular importance to the linkage between the issue of privileges and the increase in permanent membership, as covered in questions 3 through 5. Given the importance of this linkage, we are of the view that these two issues cannot be separated under any justifications. We are sure that this view is supported by an overwhelming majority of members.
With regard to question 7 of CRP 4 on the NAM fallback position, we are always flexible about the expansion of the non-permanent membership, pending whether or when the international community can find optimal answers to outstanding issues regarding the increase in permanent membership. Non-permanent membership through reasonable periodic elections, by definition, better ensures the democratic representativity of the Security Council. By extension, we are also of the view that any expansion package should not greatly upset the current ratio between the numbers of the permanent and non-permanent members. We prefer an expansion package that will retain the number of the non-permanent members reasonably higher than that of the permanent members.
As to question 10 on periodic reviews, my delegation strongly favors option (a) that asks for a vote of confidence with the same majority required at the initial election or selection of new permanent members, if any. To work as a meaningful test of accountability, periodic reviews should be undertaken in a manner consistent with the spirit of general agreement that will be required for an initial decision on the expansion package, if it includes the increase in the permanent membership. Through this year's discussion on the issue of periodic review, we hope that those delegations with direct interest on the matter can indicate their preferences in more specific terms on either of the two options covered in question 10.
Mr. President,
I would like to conclude by emphasizing the need for all of us to make further efforts to reach general agreement on all agenda items before the working group. We have to bear in mind that we are dealing with an issue whose outcome will dictate not only the lives of our generations but also those of future generations for a long time to come. We have nothing to lose in going extra miles with a view to seeking consensus, and making a decision when all of us are ready to do so.
