Ministry Statements & Speeches:
Mr President -
New Zealand commends you for taking up the challenge of Security Council reform – the need for which was again strongly emphasised in many statements from our Leaders in the General Debate earlier in this session. There is little doubt that structures designed in the 1945 post-war world, for an inter-governmental organisation of just 51 members, are no longer best-suited to today’s 193 member body. That is, Mr President, particularly so with the Security Council, whose membership has been expanded only once in the last 65 years – and that nearly 50 years ago when the Assembly numbered just over 100, little more than half its present membership.
For whatever reasons, back in 1945, some influential States were left out of those original power- sharing arrangements. They, and those whose power has emerged over the ensuing years, understandably now chafe at being excluded from the inner circle of this Organisation’s most powerful body. We also share the view of many smaller states that the current number of non- permanent seats, and the associated geographic groups, no longer ensure either fairness in representation, or opportunity for election.
There are, Mr President, too many faces pressed against the window. Change is needed.
However, the past two decades of debate have shown that there is no obvious or easy solution to rectifying the democratic deficit that’s inherent in the Council’s current composition; and the lack of progress inevitably raises serious questions as to whether this organisation is likely, in the foreseeable future, to agree any fundamental, structural reform of the Security Council.
In New Zealand’s view, that democratic deficit will not be fixed simply by adding another group of Permanent Members (even if that might be considered desirable), or by extending veto rights. Nor will the deficit be fixed by insisting on the status quo, despite the deep misgivings of some members regarding any expansion in the category of Permanent Members. New Zealand believes we will only make progress if we are willing to explore – and even to test – solutions that advance the interests of the wider membership, and not just a few.
That is why New Zealand has expressed support for an intermediate solution which would offer the Assembly’s more powerful members the prospect of Security Council membership for longer periods (including the possibility of immediate re-election), and which would also expand the number of seats which are held for two-year terms, thus ensuring that maller states won’t be shut out from the Council.
While we are certainly willing to consider other ideas, we believe that an intermediate solution of this nature is more likely to secure the support of two-thirds of the membership in a vote of this General Assembly, and also to achieve ratification by the same majority – a key Charter requirement that is sometimes overlooked by those who seek to tally votes in support of their position.
Mr President -
This debate is focused principally on the size, categories of membership, regional representation, working methods and the use of the veto in an enlarged and reformed Security Council. We must remember, however, that those issues are only a part of the bigger question of overall Security Council reform. Equally important, is the question of improving the current Council’s working methods – and that is change which should be achievable in the shorter term. We see this as an issue separate from structural reform.
As my Prime Minister said, when addressing this Assembly in September, the problems of the Security Council are systemic and relate both to the issue of composition and to the Council’s formal and informal processes. Considerations of efficiency and realpolitik do not justify denying elected members an effective voice in Council decision-making. For that reason, we urge the Permanent Members to take a hard look at the way they conduct their business.
They could do much to assuage concerns about the legitimacy of Council decisions if they were more open and responsive to the views of the wider membership; and if they treated the elected members of the Council – whose votes are needed for every formal decision – more as partners. In that regard, we particularly welcome the suggestion from France that there be a voluntary restriction or “Code of Conduct” on the use of the veto.
Mr President –
We look forward to exploring these and other issues in the negotiations you are to conduct; and we wish you every success in your endeavours.