Italy is one of the most visible member states of UfC group whose goal is the enlargement of nonpermanent seats. Can you tell us in more detail how do you imagine new distribution of nonpermanent seats?
Ms. Božič: Italy and its Uniting for Consensus partners are aiming at the enlargement of non-permanent seats, in order to improve equal representation, efficiency and accountability of the Security Council. We are convinced that each region should be equally represented. We are also aware that some states would like to have greater influence in the Security Council and longer mandate.Therefore we are introducing new category of membership, long term seats, which are allocated to states according to their region. Mandate of long term seats is five years, with the possibility of one immediate reelection. But in order to represent its region, state has to gain 50% support of this particular region. Eight additional long term non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected according to the following pattern: two from the African Group; two from the Asia-Pacific Group; one from the Eastern European Group; two from the Latin American and Caribbean Group and one from the Western Europe and Others Group.Seven non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected according to the following pattern: two from the African Group; one from the Asia-Pacific Group; two from the Eastern European Group and two from the Latin American and Caribbean Group. Taking into account also five permanent members we can see, that each region has the same amount representatives and states get the opportunity to have a longer mandate in the Security Council and an opportunity to improve protection of interests of their regions.
Do you accept any potential solution that includes increasing of permanent seats?
Ms. Božič: No. We believe expansion of permanent seats of the Security Council would make Security Council even more non-democratic and inefficient. Furthermore, reform of the Security Council has to be a long-term reform. We are all aware that current structure does not reflect the current state of the world. And this is a crucial point. If we add new permanent members now, what shall we do in 10, 15 or 20 years, when other countries will develop, will have a greater power in international affairs and will be ready to assume greater responsibility? Shall we apply the same logic and add new permanent members again? With such approach we will end up with a Security Council consisting of 40 members. Adding new permanent members would mean that the Security Council would become an even more exclusive club, at the expense of all the other UN members and this would not serve the long-term interests of the United Nations. We have to prevent such situation in the beginning and balance the structure of the Security Council with adding new non-permanent member states.
In UfC joint media statement you mentioned change of the working methods between GA and SC? Can you explain what does this include? What do you think this is necessary?
Ms. Božič: UfC group is convinced the relationship between General Assembly and Security Council has to be improved. Among other things, we are proposing strengthening the role of the General Assembly in election of member states, additional and regular meetings among the President of the Security Council, President of the General Assembly and also President of the Economic and Social Council, stricter reporting of the Security Council to the General Assembly, etc. We also included demand for more cooperation of the Security Council with other state, who are not members of the Security Council and with regional organizations. These changes are necessary in order to enhance accountability of the Security Council.
Other delegations seem to have different ideas of SC reform. Which are the most common conflicts of ideas?
Ms. Božič: Italy and UfC group believe the reform of the Security Council has to be reached with consensus. Unfortunately this was impossible ever since member states started with discussions about Security Council reform, and still seems impossible. Most common conflict of ideas is change of membership. Two influential groups exist (Uniting for Consensus and G4+1) that support different approaches in reaching more representative Security Council. On one hand, UfC is strongly opposing any expansion of permanent membership, and supports only expansion of non-permanent membership. On the other hand, G4+1 supports expansion of permanent and non-permanent membership. But there are also some points of agreements - change of working methods, transparency, responsible use of power to veto, etc.
0 comments:
Post a Comment