UNleaks: Love in time of simulation...

We're not trying to imply anything, but these tweets and photos made us think...

South Africa & South Korea (are the same first names just a coincidence or fate?) about spending the morning together and returning favours...

Presiding Officers

Mr. Vinko is looking rather dreamy at ms. Praček, isn't he?

Oh and how he wanted to buy her a cupcake... very romantic. 

But! The next day we noticed something very strange happening between mr. Vinko and delegate of Italy...

So, now we're really confused. There was a debate on Twitter that maybe a new purpose should be introduced to the UN Charter - instead of developing friendly relations among nations... maybe it should be love among nations?

Is this love, that we're feeling?
Is this love that we've been searching for?
Is this love or are we dreaming?
This must be love!

Read More

Some last words by delegates of Sweden, South Africa and China before the last GA session

Before the last GA session we talked to permanent representatives to the United Nations of Sweden, South Africa and China. They described their expectations and explained their support to draft resolutions.

Luka Kavčič

Read More

Brief comparison between both Draft Resolutions on the topic Security Council for the 21st Century

Today at 12.15 delegates of the General Assembly member will discuss the topic Security Council for the 21st Century. Before the session, presiding officers accepted two draft resolution that were sponsored and signed by two group of countries. First group is concentrated around Uniting for Consensus group, the second group is a result of cooperation between African and G4 group and their supporters. In this article we present an overview and short comparison of the content of both Draft Resolutions.

1. Increase of permanent and non-permanent seats:

DR1: 

- No increase in permanent seats category, increase by 5 in category of non-permanent members.

- 8 non-permanent seats with a long-term mandate of 5 years, possibility of one immediate reelection.

- 7 non-permanent seats with a short-term mandate of  2 years, no possibility of reelection.

- 8 non-permanent seats should be distributed as follows: 2 from the African Group; 2 from the Asia-Pacific Group; 1 from the Eastern European Group; 2 from the Latin American and Caribbean Group; 1 from the Western Europe and Others Group.

- 7 non-permanent seats should be distributed as follows: 2 from the African Group; 1 from the Asia-Pacific Group; 2 from the Eastern European Group; 2 from the Latin American and Caribbean Group.

DR2:

- Increase in permanent seats category by 5, increase in category of non-permanent seats by 5

- 5 permanent seats should be distributed as follows: 1 for African States; 2 for Asian States; 1 for Latin American and Caribbean States; 1 for Western European and other States.

- 5 non-permanent seats should be distributed as follows: 2 for African States;

1 for Asian States; 1 for Eastern European States; 1 for Latin American and Caribbean States.

- Security Council needs 15 affirmative votes out of 25.

2. Veto right structure:

DR1:

- As it does not predict any increase in category of permanent seats, no new countries are delegated a right to veto.

- No change for countries that currently posses veto power.

DR2:

- No change in veto structure, new permanent members of Security Council do not posses veto power.

3. Working methods and procedures

DR1:

- Better access to information, including open briefings and interaction with all interested parties.

- Holding meetings in open format, while keeping closed meetings to a minimum.

- Inviting all interested and concerned parties to cooperate in the work of the Security Council.

- Increase of consultation and cooperation of the Security Council with regional organizations and countries in the region, which are concerned and affected by the matter discussed in the Security Council

- Allowing regional governmental organizations to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the  Security Council.

DR2:

- More substantive exchanges of views among the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council.

- Urges for regular and timely consultations between members and non-members of the Security Council

- To enhance its cooperation and consultations on matters affecting the maintenance of international peace and security with the relevant regional organizations, arrangements and agencies, as well as with relevant non-governmental organizations.

- Calls the Security Council to meet in a public forum open to all Member States of the United Nations as a general rule. 

4. Relationship between General Assembly and Security Council

DR1:

- President of the Security Council and the President of the General Assembly hold periodical meetings and inform Member States about the outcomes.

- Additional meetings among the President of the Security Council, the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Economic and Social Council are also held periodically.

- Annual reports of the Security Council should be more comprehensive and with deeper analytical content.

- Allow the General Assembly to examine peacekeeping and security issues and make recommendations.

DR2:

- The General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately if the Security Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

- The General Assembly may vote on the matter of international peace and security that has previously been voted upon in the Security Council if it is requested by 12 Security Council members.

Luka Kavčič

Read More

Draft Resolution 2 enjoys the support of G4, P5 and African group

Last night we talked to permanent representative of Egypt to the United Nations, Ms. Tamara Čakić. We discussed about the meaning of meeting that took place this week between all groups that are most involved in the negotiation process regarding Security Council reform - G4, P5, Uniting for Consensus and finally African group. As Egypt is one of the co-sponsors of the Draft Resolution 2, Ms. Čakić was answering in the name of all four sponsors. Two of the sponsors are from African group (South Africa, Egypt) and two of them are from G4 group (India, Germany). According to interview, P5 countries are also more in favor of Draft Resolution 2, however Uniting for Consensus countries are still insisting on their own positions.

Yesterday there was a meeting between delegates of G4, P5, African group and Uniting for Consensus group. Have you reached any compromise as we know that you have different positions towards SC reform?

The Tuesday's meeting was a scheduled meeting of G4 and African states with the P5 members of the Security Council in order to bring closer our positions and finally adopt a resolution that will enable the members of the UN to implement the changes to the current SC membership and working methods. After discussing possible common points with the P5 members the Representative of Italy and Spain (in the name of the UfC) joined us in the final attempt to negotiate our proposals in order to gather broadest support in the GA. However, positions of the G4 and African states differ from the position of the UfC in the most essential points and that is the reason we did not succeed in forming a common draft resolution. However, we have very similar positions regarding the working methods, which is also an important perspective of the reform and we will definitely aim at furthering our cooperation in this field. The result of negotiations with the P5 group is reflected in the proposed G4-African draft resolution and the support we gained among the P5 states.

What are your expectations for tomorrow's session? Which draft resolution is most likely to pass?

We of course firmly believe that Draft Resolution 2 sponsored by South Africa, Egypt, India and Germany is the best possible way to start reforming the SC. If we would not believe in the possibility of success of our proposal there would not be any sense in discussing and representing the draft at tomorrow's GA Session. We do expect a heated debate in the GA and at the same time hope that it will prove itself to be a fruitful one too.

Did African group achieve any supporters?

African group has the support of the G4 and of course vice versa. In addition, support for the candidacy of the G4 as well as for the permanent seat for Africa was expressed by the two P5 states; UK and France. The other states that expressed interest in our proposal are named as signatories of the Draft Resolution 2. However, at the session, as well as we already did before, we will join our efforts in retaining the support of signatories as well as with arguments of our proposal convincing other states to support the Draft Resolution 2 and thus finally reforming the SC.

Luka Kavčič

Read More

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

Italian delegate explains the content of UfC working paper in more detail

UN Herald is publishing the content of the interview that we did with the permanent representative of Italy to the United Nations, Ms. Tjaša Božič. We talked about Itialian cooperation inside Uniting for Consensus group and its goals and expectations before the last session of General Assembly. We wanted to find out more about the plans of Uniting for Consensus group, which are one of the driving forces of negotiations regarding Security Council reform. She explained the Uniting for Consensus idea of reformed Council, the content of working paper and the clash of interests with other groups of states.

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.

Read More

Russia will support G4, South Africa and Egypt, veto right has to remain unchanged

This week, UN Herald interviewed a delegate of another permanent member of Security Council - Russian Federation. Russian permanent representative to the UN, Ms. Eva Keržič shared Russian position about the ongoing negotiations regarding Security Council reform. Ms. Keržič was one of the signatories of joint statement that P5 states published more than a month ago. In this document Russia supported the idea of increasing membership of Security Council but rejected any idea of changing the current veto structure. We wanted to know what changed since then and what positions that are on the table is Russia supporting.

We are glad to say that we received very straight-forward answers which leads to the observation that Russia has detailed and clear vision about acceptable proposals. Ms. Keržič told us, that Russia is supporting the increase of only permanent members and she believes that the increasing number should be 6 states. These 6 states should be G4 group (Japan, Germany, India, Brazil), South Africa and Egypt. "Any larger increase of member seats would make Security Council not efficient enough and less responsive," she explained their position. In conclusion she added that Russian position is still the same as it was at the time of signing the joint statement.

In the second part she stated that Russia will cooperate the most with "the states that we share the most similar position." According to our informations and assumptions these are the P5, G4 and some of the African group states. Russia was not preparing any working document and is taking rather rigid position regarding the Security Council reform. It looks like that Russia is pretty satisfied with the current structure of the Security Council and its important role in it. Although Russia is recognizing the need for reform, it will certainly not be the initiator of the changes.

Luka Kavčič

Read More