States Call for “Text-based” Negotiations on Security Council Reform

New York, 25 January 2010 – Member States met on 19-20 January for the second exchange of the fourth round of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform to discuss areas of convergence. The next (fifth) round is likely to be “text-based,” according to the Chair of the negotiations.

The first three rounds of intergovernmental negotiations on reforming the Council took place between February and September 2009. The fourth round began in December 2009 and focused on positions and proposals put forward by Member States.

Prior to last week’s meetings, on 23 December, 138 Member States sent a joint letter to the Chair of the negotiations, Ambassador Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, requesting a text of options. Such a text would aid the membership in identifying areas of agreement and devising a solution, the letter said.

In addition, members of the Group of African States, the Organization of the Islamic Conferences, the Arab League, the “Small Five” group, and Uniting for Consensus addressed Ambassador Tanin with a similar request in December.

In responding to Member States’ request, Tanin suggested that a text-based round may be possible after Member States contribute more “concreteness” to the discussion.

Request for Text-based Negotiations

In the letter of 138 States to Ambassador Tanin, they requested him “to present to Member States, before the second exchange of the 4th round, a text with options to serve as a basis for negotiations, reflecting the progress achieved in the intergovernmental negotiations at the informal plenary during the 63rd Session, as manifested in the Note by the President of the General Assembly A/63/960, as well as the positions of and proposals made by Member States.” (By last week’s meeting, additional countries had joined the request and brought the number of signatures to 140.)

The letter said that the requested text would enable the membership to “immediately embark upon negotiations on the basis of such a text, in order to identify areas of convergence and find a solution that can garner the widest possible support.”

The request follows numerous statements, in previous negotiation meetings, regarding the need for a “composite document,” to move discussions past the stage of restating known positions on reforming the Council.

In contrast to the States’ request that a text be produced by last week’s meeting, Tanin suggested that text-based discussions could take place in the following round of negotiations.

In a 13 January letter to Member States, Tanin stated that he would “carefully study the appeal contained in said December 23 letter, as well as all other input received,” when the membership moves towards “a text-based fifth round.” Meanwhile, he urged delegations “to add another level of concreteness to the discussion” and to “define the areas of convergence between these positions and proposals in light of all the interconnected five areas.”

In the meeting last week (the second exchange of the fourth round of negotiations), delegations addressed both the principle of having text-based negotiations as well as the specific contents of the text. Particular concern seemed to be expressed about the potential for removing one or more current proposals from a compilation text.

Reactions to Text-based Negotiations:
- Although Italy had not been invited to sign the written request, it shared States’ views on the importance of having a composite document.

South Africa noted the weight of support for the letter, signed by 140 countries, such a “large portion of the UN membership which should not be ignored.”

Pakistan criticized the Group of Four (G4) for their role in the letter, which was “aimed at gate-crashing into the Security Council as permanent members.” Their letter had urged the Chair “to wrap up the process even when there was no consensus on the ways to accomplish the goal.”

Content – Comprehensiveness versus identifying options:
- India stressed that “the text must faithfully reflect the progress made in the negotiations” beginning in early 2009, in order to adhere to the GA’s decision of September 2009, “wherein we decided to build on the progress achieved in the negotiations during the 63rd Session.”

South Africa stated that the “text should not just be another compilation of positions,” but “must help move the process forward, identifying options for convergence.”

Italy noted that the requested text should include “in their entirety, all positions and proposals that member states presented to the facilitator, following the request that the facilitator himself made” to States in the previous exchange (8-9 December).

South Korea added its voice in favor of an options text, expressing his hope that the “exact nature, content, and purpose of the document will be discussed before its drafting is undertaken, as some … seem to be under the mistaken notion that such [a] document will be a means to eliminate certain positions.”

Possible Areas of Convergence

Also during last week’s discussion, Member States shared their observations on topics where general agreement may be emerging. They identified four possible areas of convergence:

Size of enlarged Council: Around the mid-twenties (Italy, Malaysia, South Africa)

Need to reform working methods (India, Italy, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Korea)

Need to improve relationship between General Assembly and Security Council (Ecuador, Italy, Malaysia, Nigeria, South Africa, South Korea)

Limiting use of the veto (India, South Korea)

The discussion also confirmed disagreements on some elements of reform, including on categories of membership. For instance, while some States asserted that the proposal to increase seats in both the permanent and non-permanent categories enjoyed “overwhelming support” (Brazil, India, Nigeria, South Africa), others found it to remain a divisive issue.

South Korea noted that convergence is yet to be found in the “ever-sensitive issue of categories”. Moreover, “the fact that many Member States reiterated their interest in and support in principle for the intermediary approach is a clear indication that there is no convergence on the issue.”

Italy also noted that there was a persistent and strong disagreement on the issue of categories.

Nonetheless, Brazil said, “in this key area of expansion in both categories, there are important signs of convergence, for instance, between the G-4 and the common African position.” South Africa added that “expansion in both categories as a framework for discussion” could provide Member States “with an opportunity to seek compromises in other key areas of negotiations, including the question of size, selection methods and the question of veto.” He added that “the possibilities for compromise are endless and can be anchored around expansion in both categories.”

Next Steps

The fifth round of negotiations is expected to take place in mid-February or early March.

The Philippines suggested that the next round must consist of “three exchanges to negotiate on the major proposals presented in the draft text. The fifth round should produce draft resolutions on reform issues that garner the highest possible political acceptance.”