Three-phased approach towards charter amendment.

Having considered the expansion and equitable representation of the Security Council, the General Assembly decided on 23 November that any reform of the Council would require a two-thirds majority vote of Assembly members.

Most States agreed that Security Council reform was a central part of the revitalization of the United Nations and that the composition of the Council needed to reflect the changing needs of the international community and the realities of the world today.

Botswana said that the Council had shown serious deficiencies recently in its response to internal conflicts. The crux was, therefore, how to expand the membership of the Council so that its authority, legitimacy and representativeness would be enhanced. China recalled that since 1963, when the Assembly first adopted a resolution to enlarge the Council, the membership of the United Nations had increased nearly fourfold and most of the new Members were developing countries. The reform process would be considered a success only if an enlarged Council enhanced the representation of developing countries.

Senegal noted that significant differences still existed between those countries, like France or the Russian Federation who in the name of efficiency advocated an expansion to 21 members, and those who called for 26 members. A "dynamic compromise" to meet the requirements of representation and effectiveness had yet to be found.

Differences also existed between those who wanted an expansion in both permanent and non-permanent seats and those who wanted only one category. Members of the Non-Aligned Movement believed that the expansion should be based on equitable geographical representation. A number of States supported proposals for an additional five permanent seats, with one each going to the developing countries in the regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, and two reserved for industrialized countries, such as Japan and Germany. A number of States advocated an expansion in both categories, but also supported a "fall-back" plan to proceed with the increase in the number of non-permanent seats first. Many also supported a system of rotation among States of each region, which addressed issues of fairness, justice and democracy.

Mexico opposed such an expansion, stating that the "permanent rotating seats" constituted one of the "most flagrant deceits" emerging from the deliberations on the issue. Member States of the Organization of African Unity claimed that to correct imbalances, two permanent and two non-permanent seats should be given to Africa, as the 53 African States constituted almost one third of the entire membership.

The Arab Group also called for a seat, stating that its share in United Nations membership was some 12 per cent. Iran said the Islamic States, representing over 1 billion people, deserved a permanent seat in the Council. Ukraine also called for an additional seat for the Eastern European bloc, while India asserted its own claim for a permanent seat.

Singapore warned that small States - more than 50 per cent of Member States, with populations of less than 10 million - relied on the Council for their security, and that it could be undermined if expansion made the decision-making process unwieldy.

Member States also agreed that comprehensive Security Council reform entailed reforming its working methods and decision-making procedures. Informal consultations should not replace formal meetings in which all Member States could participate and make their views known during Council deliberations. The most critical and perhaps most controversial issue remained the veto power by permanent members, described by some States as anachronistic and inconsistent with the principles of democracy and equality of States, with its use limited to the enforcement of sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The Permanent Observer for Palestine recalled that since 1973, the Palestinian question had been subjected to 21 vetoes in the Council by one of its permanent members. The existing permanent Council members, however, rejected any limitation of their veto power. The United Kingdom pointed out that it was almost nine years since it last cast a veto-in a manner consistent with its responsibilities under the Charter. Kazakhstan favoured giving new permanent members the same prerogatives as were vested in the existing members, so as not to create a new category of Council membership. Uganda said that the reform process should also bridge the gap between the permanent members and the elected members of the Council.

The deliberations made it possible to achieve progress due to the adoption of a phased approach. The first phase would consist of defining the framework of the agreement. Next would be the election of candidates for new permanent seats, possibly on the basis of regional rotation. And the third stage would involve amendments to the Charter. Such an approach would give Member States sufficient time to reach general agreement.

New Security Council Members

The General Assembly on 8 October elected five new members to serve on the Security Council. The Council is composed off we permanent members - China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United - and 10 non-permanent members who serve two-year terms; half of them retire each year. According to established practice, elections are based on geographic distribution. Argentina, Canada, Malaysia, Namibia and the Netherlands will fill the seats vacated by Costa Rica, Japan, Kenya, Portugal and Sweden. The five other non-permanent members, whose two-year terms end in 1999, are Bahrain, Brazil, Gabon, Gambia and Slovenia.