Last gathering in the series of General Assembly sessions took place last thursday on 16th May 2013 at Faculty of Social Sciences in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Delegates concluded round of sessions with a discussion and voting on a topic of Security Council for the 21st century. Majority of countries were present and active in sharing their opinion and finding possible solution. Two draft resolution were introduced during the session, however none of them received required support in the voting procedure.
Last General Assembly session started with short opening speech made by Mr. Andrej Logar, head of sector for international organizations at Slovenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It proved that this session is something special because two distinguished guests more were present: Ms. Simona Leskovar from Slovenian permanent representation to the UN and Mr. Ahmed Eid, first secretary of Egyptian embassy in Slovenia. After that, the session continued in accordance with regular procedure. All delegates were present except the representations of Brazil and Ghana who were absent at all General Assembly sessions. We regret that those countries could not make their voices heard because two draft resolutions were proposed by G4 and African group, where opinion of these two countries would be desired. The total number of delegates was 28, which meant that 15 votes was required for normal majority and 20 votes were required to create a two-third majority which was needed to accept any of draft resolutions.
Before the session, our editorial overviewed both proposed resolutions and noticed that they are similar in manny provisions or are aiming for very similar goals at least. However, it was clear that both draft resolutions differ widely on the topic of increasing number of permanent seats. It looks like that this was the crucial topic that divided countries who really wanted to reform the Security Council. Uniting for Consensus group defended the position that no new permanent seats should be established, because they believed that events in international community will be controlled by group of 10 privileged countries. They also thought that increasing number of permanent seats is not long-lasting solution because new geopolitical forces can arise in the future and Security Council reform will be needed again. As an alternative, they introduced the category of long-term non-permanent members. This category predicts that a state is a member of Security Council for 5 years with a chance of immediate reelection. This seats would be distributed fairly between the regional groups, who will decide for their own who is the most suitable representative of their geopolitical area. By that, they created flexible category which still allows certain country to be a constant member of Security Council for indefinite time. This solution was very interesting, ambitious and proved that delegates of Italy, Turkey and Spain were very creative in finding solutions which would attract a vast majority of countries. However, they were unable to convince members of G4 and African group whose general idea of new Security Council remained unchanged.
One of their general goals was the increase of permanent seats for five new members that are G4 countries (Brazil, India, Gemany, Japan) and state representing Africa. All other goals were similar to the positions of UfC group, but divided opinions on the topic of permanent seat category prevented that only one draft resolution was established. During the discussion became clear that both group of countries agree on expanding the membership in non-permanent seat category, their desire is elimination or at least limitation of veto power and they both had similar ideas on improving of Security Council working methods. Nevertheless, it looked like that both groups were focused on the differences rather than common positions. This behavior was very successfully encouraged by P5 states, where Russia and China used every chance to highlight differences in their opinion. On the other hand France and UK played more complexive game by supporting G4 and African group proposal and giving them false hope that they can achieve 20 votes in favor. USA played the role of bad guy, in order that voice of P5 did not get ignored. In the end, they achieved that no Security Council reform was accepted while maintaining the public image that they are willing to accept suitable reform. In the following paragraphs you can find out what happened at thursday's session in detail.
General Assembly session started with a series of speeches spoken by permanent representatives of attending countries. Argentina pointed out that states should put a limit on veto power and enforce cooperation between SC and GA. Australia encouraged other delegates to leave their national interests aside and find a solution. They also expressed support to India to gain a permanent seat in SC. USA delegate gave sharper speech and expressed disappointment because P5 were not included enough in the negotiation process. They believed that process of adopting a reform is equally imported as content. In addition, they think that SC reform should be result of consensus not a compromise. France gave more optimistic speech and expressed support to expanding of permanent and non-permanent seats. They called for greater regional representation and supported G4 states to become permanent members of SC. Spain was one of the sponsors of draft resolution presented by UfC group, so their speech was aimed to boast this proposal. Italy was the second sponsor of draft resolution established by UfC that took the podium and they expressed regret that some countries are not flexible in its positions and are forgetting that UN were created to present diversity. Germany also criticized current efficiency of UN and pointed out that SC was not reformed since its establishment. In addition, they called everybody who promised Germany their support to hold promises. Czech Republic pointed out that increase of non-permanent and permanent members is needed. UK expressed support to G4+1 states in their aspirations for permanent seat, but they also believed that this negotiation process lost its legitimacy since P5 were not included in it. According to South Africa, who was one of the sponsors of draft resolution established by G4 and African group, SC reform must include membership increase and broader regional representation. They added that reform of working methods is also neccessary, since we are experiencing double standards in the work of SC.
The speech of Turkey was based on the current situation in Syria, which is according to them a proof that actual SC is not effective that is why they call for fairer and more inclusive global order. Egypt is another sponsor of draft resolution presented by G4 and African group, that is why they stressed out necessity for reform that will include more permanent and non-permanent seats. Malaysia called for abolishing of veto power or at least limiting it in cases of grave violations of international humanitarian law and for increase of SC members. Mexico expressed support to UfC proposal and its introduction of new category of long-term membership which can provide new de facto permanent members. Saudi Arabia was not satisfied with the course where negotiations were going and called for consensus. Sweden believed that we need reformed and strong UN, who will acknowledge significant changes in Africa, Latin America in Asia. Russian Federation repeated their position expressed in P5 joint statement - they support G4+1 candidates for permanent seats but they will not discuss changes of veto structure. They also shared disappointment that they were not included more in the negotiations. Cuba shared observation that geopolitics clearly changed however SC has not and called for increase of seats in both categories. Venezuela told that they are supporting draft resolution of G4+African group, but further discussions are needed. They believe that SC should have 3 permanent and 6 non-permanent members more and that veto power must be abolished. India was one of the authors of this draft resolution and they called for transparency by reforming working methods and inclusiveness by adding new members. They also thanked Germany, Egypt and South Africa for cooperation in constructing the draft resolution.
In the last part of speeches, Iran expressed their dissatisfaction by orientation of Assembly on increasing of membership and ignoring the changes of veto structure. In their opinion, inefficiency of SC should not be tolerated. South Korea supported draft resolution of UfC and called for big and justified changes. Israel made an surprising observation that Iranian delegation finally recognized Israel as a country while commenting on needed SC reform that should have broad support. China raised their voice and highlighted that there is clearly no consensus between countries and that none of draft resolutions should not be accepted.
Luka Kavčič
0 comments:
Post a Comment