EU meeting generated a common wish but not a common position

European Union group is another regional group that gathered this week and discussed posible outcomes of last General Assembly session after two working papers about Security Council were established. They discussed their own positions and attitude of each EU country towards the ideas expressed in the content of working papers. Meeting was attended by the delegations of United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Spain and Italy, only delegation of Czech Republic and Germany were unable to attend. As expected they did not find the common position because EU member states do not have the same status in the hierarchy of Security Council and they are not members of the same interest groups.

However, they agreed that Security Council needs to be reformed since "it does not reflect the realities of the 21st century." They believe that Council should reflect better transparency, higher level of democracy and improved legitimacy in order to achieve better effectiveness to tackle actual security issues. They were unable to identify the common position, but they found lowest common denominator and expressed it in a common wish. This wish is 'improved working methods of the Security Council and expanded number of seats for states that possess the willingness to assume such a responsibility.'

They concluded a statement in a very diplomatic way as they called for closer cooperation between Security Council and General Assembly. They also expressed a hope (sincere or not) that tomorrow's session will bring concrete solutions with broad support.

Read More

UfC make a official response to the UK and USA joint statement regarding SC reform

The delegates of United Kingdom and United States of America made an official statement this sunday, where they expressed disappointment about not being included enough in the negotiation process. First group of countries that recognized themselves in this statement was G4 and African group, who made official response yesterday. Second group that was really involved in the process of creating potential draft resolution was Uniting for Consensus group, however they did not respond to the statement till last night when our editorial received their answer.

In their official response they emphasized that their intention was not to exclude other countries from process of creating working paper, but to establish and consolidate their own common position first. They explained that their fair and open intentions can be noticed since they 'immediately invited all distinguished representatives of permanent members of the Security Council to discuss our working paper, after it was accepted.'

Uniting for Consensus group explained further that they already included some of the previously discussed positions in the current working paper. "We did not strictly follow our initial positions, but adapted our new proposal to the suggestions of other states," they wanted to make it clear.

In the second part, they wanted to make sure that other delegations understand their readiness for cooperation and compromise. Since they are the only group that does not support the idea of new permanent members, they introduced a new category of long-term non-permanent members of Security Council. According to UfC this shows their clear intentions to reach a compromise.

Lastly, they wanted to express regret because some of the countries are not sharing such flexibility of positions and are not as open to negotiations as they are. However, UfC did not want to mention to any names of these countries. They share the position of P5 group that any reform should be adopted with consensus. In this light, it looks like that Security Council is still far from being accepted because some countries are not willing to modify their positions and some of them will only accept the proposals with total support in the General Assembly.

Luka Kavčič

Bellow  you can read the whole official response by UfC:

OFFICIAL RESPONSE OF THE UNITING FOR CONSENSUS GROUP TO THE US AND UK STATEMENT ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM NEGOTIATIONS

Uniting for Consensus group would like to respond to the statement made by the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regarding the negotiations on the Security Council reform. 

We definitely did not try to exclude permanent members of the Security Council from negotiations. Our purpose was to firstly form our official position and turn it into working paper. After our working paper was accepted, we immediately invited all distinguished representatives of permanent members of the Security Council to discuss our working paper. Furthermore, some of the positions were already previously included in the document. We have shown our flexibility again - we did not strictly follow our initial positions, but adapted our new proposal to the suggestions of other states. Our official position is well known, we are the only group that is opposing any expansion of permanent membership, and group that supports adding new non-permanent members with two-year mandate. With introduction of new category of long-term seats (five-year mandate with possibility of one immediate reelection) we wanted to make a compromise with all those states, who want to increase number of permanent seats in order to gain more influence and make the Security Council more representative. We are very disappointed that some states are not prepared to negotiate or change their positions. Last but not least, we believe a legitimate reform should be adopted with consensus. A reform, which will be adopted by less than consensus, is not an appropriate reform. Uniting for Consensus is calling for a consensus before any decision is reached on the form and size of the Security Council.

Read More

G4 and African group respond to joint statement of UK and USA

Two days ago we published joint statement made by United Kingdom and USA, that can be found here. They publicly shared a disappointment because they claimed that they were not included in the negotiation process regarding Security Council reform. We later found out and reported that there were two major working groups that were preparing working paper, Uniting for Consensus and G4+African group. Each of them have different ambitions and plans for the outcome of thursday's GA session, however only the latter commented the statement of United Kingdom and USA and recognized the importance not to ignore their position. They are completely aware that Security Council reform needs strong cooperation and broadest support possible.


G4 and African group explained that they wanted to 'coordinate and establish common position' before creating a draft working paper and talking to other delegations. It looks like that African countries are very committed to achieve greater representation in the Security Council and they are aware that only complete consensus inside the group can bring them success. G4 group is another group that knows the importance of close cooperation since India and Germany are supporting each other's ambitions for permanent seat. After the draft working paper was created, they contacted the delegates of UK and USA in order to collect standings from P5 group.

"Certain positions and suggestions were considered and incorporated even before," they continued and explained that they did not ignore the common position of P5 group. For example, in a working paper they did not include the demand to abolish a veto. They concluded the statement by recognition of accepting large cooperation while negotiating in General Assembly. It seems that they are sticking to this since their representatives were seen on the meeting with Uniting for Consensus and P5 delegates today. We will report what was the outcome of this meeting soon.

Luka Kavčič

Bellow you can read official respond to UK and USA statement:

OFFICIAL RESPONSE OF THE AFRICAN-G4 GROUP TO THE STATEMENT ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM NEGOTIATIONS

Group of African states and the G4 would like to respond to the statement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America published in the UN Herald.

We would like to stress that our group decided to first coordinate and establish a common position on the Security Council reform and form it into a draft working paper. As soon as our draft document was prepared we contacted the UK and USA and sent them our document in order to hear their opinion and discuss the comments provided by respective Representatives.

Furthermore, certain positions and suggestions of the permanent member states were considered and incorporated in our proposal even before, while African and G4 states were preparing the draft on the Security Council reform, when the group of African states already made concessions and eliminated its demand for the abolition of veto.

We strongly believe that in order to retain Security Council’s accountability, efficiency and legitimacy and in order to reflect the nowadays reality of the international community, it needs to be reformed. However, such reform requires strong cooperation and the broadest support possible and this is why African and G4 states approached variety of member states and proposed a meeting with the permanent members of the Security Council.

Read More

USA: "We will support the reform that will reach consensus."

Yesterday, our editorial received another statement by permanent representative of United States of America, Ms. Urška Učakar. We already reported about joint statement made by delegations of UK and USA this week, in which they expressed some regret and disappointment due to non-inclusiveness in the negotiation process. In a statement that you can read bellow, Ms. Učakar explains their position on Security Council reform in more detail. They pointed out that they will support expansion of membership that will enjoy consensus and will vote for changes of working methods, which will improve Council’s effectiveness, transparency and accountability.

"We would like to emphasize that a quick and irrational decision might do more harm than good," is written in the first paragraph of media statement. USA thinks that any reform of Security Council should enjoy consensus, otherwise it will not reach desired goals of transparency, efficiency and fair representation. "USA will support an expansion of membership, but this has to be country specific and proportional amongst regions," is she explaining further. According to her, candidates for new permanent seat must have ability to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.

"Countries that might become permanent members must have a history of political stability, deployable military and civilian capabilities together with the willingness to use them with UNSC resolutions, a track record on UN financial contributions, a firm stand on the usage of the Chapter VII. of the UN Charter, ability to cooperate diplomatically and a record of participation in global security regimes and solutions."

She repeated once again, that USA will not accept any change of current veto structure, because this can lead to inefficient Council. "United States strongly support changes in the working methods, which will improve Council’s effectiveness, transparency and accountability," she comments the propositions about reforming the working methods. In the last part of the statement, she concludes that their delegation is ready to talk further with other states, because the consensus on SC reform has not been reached yet.

Luka Kavčič

Bellow you can read the original version of statement:

United States of America remain committed to the United Nations and are therefore certain that a reform of the Security Council is needed. However, due to several obstacles in the negotiation process, we would like to emphasize that a quick and irrational decision might do more harm than good. Despite our commitment to a Council that is more transparent, efficient and representative, we are convinced that this reform must enjoy consensus and support among Member States.

United States of America support a modest reform in membership and changes in the cooperation between the Council and the General Assembly. USA will therefore support an expansion of membership, but this has to be country specific and proportional amongst regions.

Enlargement cannot diminish Council’s effectiveness. Candidates for permanent membership must be judged on their ability to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Any expansion proposals must accommodate charter requirements for ratification and must name specific countries. USA will not support any kind of modification of the veto structure or a proposal that includes veto powers for any new member.

Our most important policy objective is to prevent an inefficient council, which can be done through a modest expansion and membership of reliable States. Countries that might become permanent members must have a history of political stability, deployable military and civilian capabilities together with the willingness to use them with UNSC resolutions, a track record on UN financial contributions, a firm stand on the usage of the Chapter VII. of the UN Charter, ability to cooperate diplomatically and a record of participation in global security regimes and solutions. We must keep in mind that the final idea of this reform is to improve the Council and this can only be done through inclusive negotiations, taking into account opinions of all States, their perspectives and concerns and last but not least, contribution of each candidate to the international peace and security.

United States strongly support changes in the working methods, which will improve Council’s effectiveness, transparency and accountability. The annual report of the Security Council provides all Member States with a transparent and comprehensive review of its work. USA aspires to facilitate the exchange of information and enhancement of cooperation between the two co-equal principal organs of the UN. In order to achieve this, USA proposes a different reporting procedure, where General Assembly would receive more than only one annual report.

Given the fact that no proposal has so far enjoyed consensus among all the Members, we are ready to further discuss the matter in order to eventually reach an agreement. We feel bound to continue the work on UN goals, values and missions. We are committed to the organization and take seriously the importance of making sure that all Member States are appropriately involved and informed. 

Urška Učakar

Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations

Read More

EU meeting - Media statement

This morning five EU member states Czech Republic,  France, Germany, Italy and UK, held another meeting dedicated to a wider discussion on the the topic 'inter-ethnic issues involving minorities', with the aim of strengthening their possible jointly position towards minorities. 

 However the agreement regarding this topic has not passed, the representative of Italy Ms. Tjaša Božič said that "one of the member states does not recognize minorities". Despite that, Union still stand united in order to tackle violence, hate crime and discrimination against minorities, since they feel a duty that each individual should enjoy human rights, equality and should not be the subject of discrimination. As all of the member states, except France, are signatories of the Working paper on minorities, proposed by UK, South Africa and India, they pointed out the importance of inclusion of clause on terrorism.

Later this day, when we receive the answers from all EU states, we will prepare special article on management of the minority issue within the Union. Stay tuned :)

Read More

"Asian-Pacific region on the work" - Australia's formal statement

In previous days The UN Herald have released the information about the Asian- Pacific meeting. 

 Below you have opportunity to read the formal statement of Australian representative, Ms Katarina Mulec, who shared the following statement:

"The age of fast development and even faster information certainly brought it's pros and cons. We celebrate that and welcome the fact, that world became much smaller due to the incredible speed if IT. That gives us the opportunity to be more aware of events, that are happening in the real time all around the world. However, the IT can also be dangerous.

Since bilateral and multilateral arrangements among states are extremely important and not always a subject of public opinion, we strongly encourage the press and other representatives to be cautious and more responsible when handling sensitive informations. Communication is key, and uncoordinated information is not a subject of public opinion. We believe in importance of press, however, we encourage you to work more closely with representatives on the matters such as Asia - Pacific meeting. 

At this point, Australia is happy to confirm that in fact that meeting will take place and it will be closed for the public. Time and place or any other info are not appropriate for general public at this time, however, we will be happy to issue a press release after the actual meeting takes place."

Delegates of states involved in Asian-Pacific group have agreed that they will give media statement on the in next few days.

***

Regarding the comments on the articles we publish, you also have the opportunity to share your opinion bellow the published article in the special field for comments ;)

Aleksandra Đurđević

Read More

Indonesia's formal statement on the article "Asian-Pacific region on the work"

Today, 16th April, The UN Herald received an e-mail with a formal response of the representative of Indonesia to the article published the previous day - "Asian-Pacific region on the work". 

In the article, it was reported that a semi-formal meeting will take place between the representatives of China, South Korea, Indonesia and Australia. The article was based on the information given by the delegate of South Korea and his expectations on the upcoming meeting. More on the article you can find out on: http://unherald.blogspot.com/2013/04/asian-pacific-region-on-work.html

Below you can read the letter of the representative of Indonesia, where she pointed out her remarks and demands concerning the passing of information to the wider public and journalists. 

"The information age has, with its ICT revolution, brought along many changes and issues that were previously unknown to the international community. Among others, the freedom of media has finally been recognized as a crucial element of a modern, democratic society. Nevertheless, this freedom is still breached too often, as is the fundamental right to freedom of speech. Taking all that into consideration, it is however necessary to acknowledge the fact that matters, characterized by an international, multilateral involvement, are utterly delicate and do, as such, require the most tactful, delicate and cautious handling.

The Republic of Indonesia categorically denies that it is, was or had been in the know of any kind of detailed agenda of the so called »Asian-Pacific meeting. « Yes, the meeting itself has been agreed upon, yet, there has not been any discussion about the time, location or, most importantly, the agenda of the meeting.

Secondly, the Republic of Indonesia finds it utterly inappropriate that certain representatives are overly bold with their statements about the expected outcome of the aforementioned meeting. Furthermore, we believe it is not within the authority of individual representatives to pass judgments about and expectations of the outcome of any future negotiations on selective topics, especially not the ones that hold their focus on the actions and behaviors of other states.

Last but not least, the Republic of Indonesia would expect that all details, that are to be shared with the general public, are agreed upon by the representatives of the states involved beforehand. We, the representatives, are expected to be responsible enough to be able to handle information with enough caution so that it does not harm the current issues and relationships in the international community. Not everything can be at full disclosure to the general public. On the other hand, should such statements be an expression of a personal opinion or mere assumptions, it should undisputedly and clearly be stated so.  Should this not be the general modus operandi in the future, the Republic of Indonesia fears that it might seriously jeopardize the possibility of any potential agreements, solution and/or dialogue.

Tina Orešnik

Representative of the Republic of Indonesia"

Aleksandra Đurđević

***

Disclaimer: This information is fictive and serves for the purposes of the UN simulation only.

Read More