venerdì 25 ottobre 2019

How should the UN be reformed?

What the UN says
Why is the UN important in international relations?
1) The UN is the most important and universal international organization. At present it has 193 members representing almost the entire world . The most recent members are Montenegro (2006) and South Sudan (2011). The Vatican City and Palestine are non-member observer states. Kosovo and Taiwan are not members.
2) It is the main international organization responsible for promoting and ensuring peaceful relations between states and respect for human rights. So if the UN fails, this is of enormous importance to international relations. The is much debate over UN Security Council decisions, whether these have authorised interventions, as in Afghanistan, Libya and Mali or failed to do so, as in Syria. Questions are raised about the kind of decisions made, how they are made and their effectiveness or ineffectiveness.
3) It is the main public forum for international debate, and in many ways its institutions and protocols set the moral standards for how actors within the international community should act (even when they do not), and how individuals and minorities should be treated. Over the years the UN has established the language and terminology in which political questions are debated. This may result in hypocrisy when, for example, a clearly non-democratic state is forced to use the language of democracy and human rights, but it is a very obvious form of hypocrisy which many experts argue exerts long-term pressure on states to conform to international norms of behaviour. The language of these norms will form the future political expectations of the citizens of UN member states, both democratic and non-democratic ones.
4) It is the world’s premier aid organization and provider of emergency, development and educational programs.

Why is there a need for reform? What are the main criticisms of the UN?

1) UN Security Council reform. The permanent members of the UN Security Council (each with a veto on the Council’s decisions) are simply the major powers that won the Second World War. This no longer represents the economic and political realities of today’s world. In the more than 70 years of its existence there have been several attempts to reform the SC, and there is an ongoing debate on the right model to adopt, and the ideas on which to base a model. Should the UN Security Council:
a) offer permanent membership to states that are major economies today (or major powers today), or the emerging economies of tomorrow, or the most important UN donor states, (and should these have a veto or not)?
b) have more representation for the poor countries it seeks to protect?
c) base membership on better geographic and cultural representation?
d) base membership on compliance with and participation in UN activities and operations?
e) abolish the veto
While there is general agreement on the need for reform to make the UNSC more representative and democratic (though this last word is open to interpretation), there is little agreement on the correct formula to follow. In part, this is simply due to the fact that states wish to protect and promote their own power and interests. However, there are also real questions of principle. For example, if the UN based voting rights on the Security Council and in the General Assembly on population (one obvious measure of ‘democratic representation’ used in the European Parliament)
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130308STO06280/html/How-many-MEPs-will-each-country-get-after-European-Parliament-elections-in-2014
the Council would be dominated by China, a clearly non-democratic state and the GA by China and India.
Moreover, any reform proposal needs to meet at least three basic conditions. Firstly, any reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two thirds of the UN member states (see below #)( two thirds of 193 = 129?) and preferably should have the support of an overwhelming majority in the General Assembly. Secondly, it must enjoy the support of the current UNSC permanent members so as not to be vetoed. Thirdly, though this is not an obligation, it needs to make the UN more effective, not less so (i.e. not more likely to be constantly blocked and unworkable). Given these limitations, any radical reform of the UNSC seems unlikely, and even moderate reform seems to be blocked at the moment since no reform plan has two-thirds support in the UNGA so far.
For some information on the evolution of Italy’s position see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniting_for_Consensus
“On 20 April 2009, Colombia and Italy, acting as representatives of the UfC group, provided a new model of reform, which was presented as a concrete attempt to reach a deal. The document proposed creating a new category of seats, still non-permanent, but elected for an extended duration (3 to 5 years terms) without the possibility of immediate re-elections. This new kind of seat would not be allocated to single national countries but rather to regional groups on a rotational basis. As far as traditional categories of seats are concerned, the UfC proposal does not imply any change, but only the introduction of small and medium size states among groups eligible for regular seats. This proposal includes even the question of veto, giving a narrow range of options that goes from abolition to limitation of the application of the veto only to Chapter VII matters.
During the last round, Italy firmly rejected the G4 proposal as well as the African Union one and even denounced the unfair behaviour of G4 countries. According to Italy, the G4 is attempting to exclude the UfC proposal from the floor, “on the basis of a presumed level of support”.Moreover, Italy believes that it has shown flexibility by putting forward a new proposal on April 2009, while the G4 remained tied to its 2005 document. Italy's active role in current discussions started in February 2009 before the beginning of intergovernmental negotiations, when Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini hosted more than 75 countries to develop a shared path towards a reform of the Security Council. On May 2011, the members states which participated in the group meeting held in Rome rose to 120.”
For more on this and Italy’s current position, see below *
Here are the statements and positions of some of the different countries and groups: https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/security-council-reform/49905-statements-on-security-council-reform.html
2) Wider Reforms. In 2005-2006 then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made a series of addresses on the subject of UN reform. In those speeches he spoke about the need for UNSC reform, but he also devoted much time and space to recommendations on some of the other questions which had led to widespread criticism of the UN as an organization. He emphasized that the UN should act swiftly to deal with these problems in order to respond to international public opinion and win back support and to avoid seeing its image permanently damaged. Various commentators have indicated the following topics as issues to be dealt with:
a) Waste – Some critics argue that too much money is spent on personnel and special benefits for personnel instead of on projects e.g. UN employees staying in first class hotels when on mission working in the field in a poor developing country (this is also bad taste and damages the UN’s image) / the duplication of projects by UN agencies, other international organizations, NGOs and by single countries under bilateral agreements. As a result funds are wasted.
b) Inefficiency and confusion – duplication of projects (see above) and/or overlapping of responsibilities creates confusion. There is a need for much clearer cooperation and coordination between aid organizations with a clear overall planning and decision-making structure. Critics argue that there is also a need for an assessment of the effectiveness of aid programs by an external body. Often projects are limited in duration due to funding concerns (most donors will not commit funds for more than 2 years), and some will only be effective with long-term funding.
c) Organizational Deficiencies – There has also been a lot of criticism of unnecessary and irresponsible bureaucracy. For example, it is difficult to fire anybody with a permanent contract at the UN, even when someone is not doing or is not really capable of doing their job. Recruitment is based in part on each country’s financial contributions to the UN and, at the highest levels, also on political considerations, (also nepotism and favours) not purely on a person’s suitability for a post.
d) Corruption, immunity and criminal activity – there have been serious cases of corruption by UN officials misappropriating funds for themselves or their supporters. The problem is that as an international organization the UN does not fall under a national justice system and its employees enjoy too much immunity since any system of internal discipline is subject to political pressure. There have been a series of cases of rape, child abuse and extortion committed by members of UN peace-keeping forces while on mission. Aid funds are sometimes stolen and supplies resold by local authorities or criminal organizations and thus never reach the local community. In a conflict zone the money may then be used to buy arms. A UN official is not automatically subject to the legal jurisdiction of the host country for any of these crimes. Thus there is a basic lack of accountability and liability.
http://hchacas.wikispaces.com/file/view/Diplomatic+Immunities+on+UN+Officials+Study+Guide.pdf
http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/general/diplomatic-analogy-international-functionaries-and-their-privileges
http://www.kentlaw.edu/faculty/bbrown/classes/IntlOrgSp09/PEACEKEEPERABUSEIMMUNITYANDIMPUNITY.pdf
http://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/un-peacekeepers-who-accountable-their-misdeeds
e) UN peace-keeping operations – These have had a mixed record of many successes and some failures. At present the UN is dependent on member states to provide soldiers and equipment to form the peace-keeping forces for a particular operation. This can lead to potentially fatal delays in organising and mounting the operation (Rwanda).  From this experience many commentators argue that the UN needs to have its own permanent peace-keeping forces, which would be paid and trained by the UN and directly responsible to the UN. This should guarantee the professional behaviour of these forces and allow the UN to respond quickly to a rapidly developing situation (Rwanda). Other experts argue that previous operations (e.g. in Somalia) suggest that the UN should only deploy peace-keeping forces on the ground when it is confident they will be welcomed by the local population, and that the UN mission commander in the area should have more autonomy to make decisions which need to be taken rapidly. It should be noted, however, that other experts are against what they see as a militarization of the UN. The evolution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) commitment, endorsed by all member states of the United Nations at the 2005 World Summit to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, focusses on some of the problems posed by UN interventions in the assessment criteria it sets for the decision to authorise such an operation.
Just cause: There must be "serious and irreparable harm occurring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur".
  • Right intention: The main intention of the military action must be to prevent human suffering.
  • Last resort: Every other measure besides military invention has to have already been taken into account. (This does not mean that every measurement has to have been applied and been shown to fail, but that there are reasonable grounds to believe that only military action would work in that situation.)
  • Proportional means: The military means must not exceed what is necessary "to secure the defined human protection objective".
  • Reasonable prospects: The chance of success must be reasonably high, and it must be unlikely that the consequences of the military intervention would be worse than the consequences without the intervention.
  • Right authority: The military action has to have been authorized by the Security Council.
This raises some excellent questions about R2P. See the section on Military Intervention for Humanitarian Purposes on this blog.
f) Impartiality – the UN is sometimes not seen as an unbiased international organization working to protect human rights and peaceful co-existence e.g. local attitudes to the UN intervention in Somalia in the 1990s. In Afghanistan and in Iraq (in the latter the UN did not approve the invasion but did later open a UN office in Baghdad which was then attacked) the UN may be seen as a Western organization imposing Western values by force (e.g. female education).
g) Power politics at the level of states and agencies – a poor country’s vote and support for a policy in the General Assembly and on the UNSC may be bought, given in exchange for financial aid or political favours. This leverage of rich countries over poor countries distorts representation within these bodies.
 h) The UN Human Rights Council – (which replaced the UN Human Rights Commission, a body that was much criticised by human rights NGOs and the media) has and had various members (elected for 3-year terms) such as China (until 2019), the Russian Federation (until 2016), Cuba (2019), Algeria (until 2016) Egypt (2010), Pakistan (2011), and Saudi Arabia (until 2019), all with, at best, a dubious human rights record (Syria and Iran have also been candidates). They are often more likely to be motivated to hinder or block rather than to support a serious investigation into human rights violations. Moreover, the Council has often been accused of politically motivated action (or inaction) rather than real concern for human rights violations (e.g. concentrating on the Israeli-Palestinian question to the point of excluding a real investigation of human rights violations against women and minorities in some Muslim countries and other countries). Critics argue that, in practice, it is only marginally better than the UN Human Rights Commission. Some argue that it would be better not to have a UN body of this kind since the UN inevitably represents the interests of states (and states are the most frequent violators of humn rights), and that, instead, funds should go to independent human rights NGOs (those which have a good reputation with both the media and the public). These are the NGOs that are often targeted by governments that violate human rights (e.g. Russia and Amnesty International).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24922058
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6919268.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/24/amnesty-un-syria
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156687/UN-human-rights-report-criticised-containing-condemnations-Britain--Iran-Russia-Cuba.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/25/russian-officials-raid-amnesty-moscow-headquarters
i) Aid Dependence – Some experts argue that the UN itself has made some countries in Africa aid dependent by offering aid without setting clear conditions, or concentrating sufficiently on giving countries the know-how to become self-sufficient. This is now changing and aid is now often tied to progress on democratization and human rights. There are also longer-term programs now aimed at developing the local economy. Time will tell whether this is an effective strategy.
General considerations – There has been progress on at least some of the points listed above, and the UN is now aware of its image problem and the need to make real reforms. In terms of the Functionalist theory of international relations (gradual international integration, collective governance and growing material interdependence between states) the role of the UN is clear (See the UN Charter), but it was also based on two other conflicting principles. It is in one sense a product of Idealism/Liberalism, an organization created in response to mass genocide, war crimes and human rights violations and in order to promote the universal liberal values (some would say Western values) expressed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. This is one of the things that most ordinary people expect it to be and to do. At the same time it was and is a guarantor of peace between sovereign states that often see things in terms of Realism (national interests) and Realpolitik (power politics and pragmatism). It was created to prevent another World War, to provide a forum for and foster dialogue between two very powerful states with conflicting interests and ideologies, the USA and the Soviet Union. (The Council of Europe has similar goals). To do this it had to give these states (and the other victors of WWII) special powers, the veto, to allow them to protect their interests.
In fact, it can be argued that it played this role, maintaining a dialogue between the US and USSR, extremely well during the Cold War (all Cold War conflicts were local proxy conflicts, never direct conflicts between the US and the USSR). The UN was the stage for the Cuban missile crisis but also for its resolution, and the UN continues to play a crucial role in conflict prevention, peace-keeping and conflict resolution with varying degrees of success. In Functionalist terms the UN needs to include all states whatever their political system and values in order to promote peace, and states often join the UN still prioritising their own ideology and national interests. This inevitably involves a certain amount of hypocrisy for some states, given the references to fundamental freedoms and human rights in the UN Charter (mentioned 7 times, for example see Article 51) which states must accept in joining, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights covenants that states are encouraged to sign and ratify. For example, in the same year that democratic Italy joined the UN, Franco’s Spain also joined. Being part of the UN has rarely depended on democracy and human rights (apartheid South Africa is the exception, on 12 November 1974 the General Assembly suspended South Africa from participating in its work, due to international opposition to the policy of apartheid.). This conflict of ideas at the heart of the UN is unavoidable. If the UN was given powers to enforce its values on its members, some of them, the more powerful ones one imagines, would probably leave the organization rather than accept a loss of sovereignty (and in many cases a loss of power by the ruling party or elite) and investigations into human rights abuses. (We should remember the fate of the League of Nations # #)In fact, respect for the sovereignty of each UN member state and non-interference in a state’s domestic politics is one of the basic principles of the UN and the current international order (consequently, it does not automatically recognise a right to secession and this can also be a problem), and this is unlikely to change in the future, especially as there is no simple mechanism for such a change. As a result the UN has a mandate to try to prevent (and the International Criminal Court has a mandate to investigate) human rights abuses within member states but no real mechanism to do so within powerful states or states that simply refuse to cooperate. Again the debate about R2P demonstrates the difficulties involved in launching a UN operation on humanitarian grounds and about the legal questions and practical dangers involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_to_protect The opposition encountered by the ICC from some African states and the accusations of discrimination also demonstrate these problems.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet2Rev.1en.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/31/african-leaders-plan-mass-withdrawal-from-international-criminal-court
Conclusion: Thus given what we have said above, one could argue that the real role of the UN and ICC is Constructivist, to create a normative environment and language regarding peaceful relations between states, democratic values and human rights in the hope that states and individuals will gradually reform and conform over time. As was suggested above, the UN is responsible in the same way for creating and reinforcing the diplomatic language and behavioural norms for international relations based on peaceful coexistence and cooperation, collective security and mutual respect. If we compare the cooperation and dialogue between states today and at any time before or during the Cold War it would be difficult to deny that the UN and the international community have made some very real progress.
# The reform of the Security Council requires the agreement of at least two-thirds of UN member states and no veto from any of the permanent members of the UNSC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council
# # The predecessor of the UN, the League of Nations failed to prevent a second global conflict essentially because it no longer included most of the world’s major powers. The US never joined it. Of the League's 42 founding members only 23 were members when it was dissolved in 1946. The Soviet Union became a member on in September 1934, and was expelled on in December 1939 for aggression against Finland. Germany joined in September 1926 and withdrew in October 1933, rejecting the idea of collective security and disarmament negotiations. Italy was a founding member but withdrew in December 1937 in response to the sanctions which had been imposed on the country for its 1935 invasion of Abyssinia during which time poison gas was utilized. Another founding member, Japan, withdrew in March 1933 in response to a report calling for it to withdraw its forces from Manchuria. At the start of World War II the only major powers still in the League of Nations were Britain (and the 5 major separate members of its empire) and France. Thus, the question is – if the United Nations abolished the veto on the Security Council and opened the decision-making process to a majority in the general Assembly (with the power to impose sanctions on any member, large or small), would the US, China, Russia and other major countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia) accept this change or simply withdraw from the organization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
Background to the call for reform
After years of research, Annan presented a progress report, In Larger Freedom, to the UN General Assembly, on 21 March 2005. Annan recommended Security Council expansion and a host of other UN reforms. On 31 January 2006, Kofi Annan outlined his vision for a comprehensive and extensive reform of the UN in a policy speech to the United Nations Association UK. The speech, delivered at Central Hall, Westminster, also marked the 60th Anniversary of the first meetings of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council. On 7 March 2006, he presented to the General Assembly his proposals for a fundamental overhaul of the United Nations Secretariat. The reform report is entitled: "Investing in the United Nations, For a Stronger Organization Worldwide”. On 30 March 2006, he presented to the General Assembly his analysis and recommendations for updating the entire work program of the United Nations Secretariat over the last 60 years. The report is entitled: "Mandating and Delivering: Analysis and Recommendations to Facilitate the Review of Mandates".
Reform of the UN – some background reading
On the UN Human Rights Councilhttp://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/CanadSenateHRC022508.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/the-un-human-rights-council-does-not-deserve-us-support
General reform of the UNhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/rosett040406.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kofi_Annan#Farewell_addresses
Reform of the UN Security Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council
http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/CSS-Analyses-72.pdf
http://globalsolutions.org/files/public/documents/ManagingChange-1.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council#United_Kingdom_and_France
more extreme and I hope it’s not true:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/243512/u-n-insider-there-no-transparency-brett-d-schaefer

* For the evolution of Italy’s position on UN reform:
Uniting for Consensus
Uniting for Consensus (UfC) is a movement, nicknamed the Coffee Club, that developed in the 1990s in opposition to the possible expansion of the United Nations Security Council. Under the leadership of Italy and Columbia, it aims to counter the bids for permanent seats proposed by G4 nations (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) and is calling for consensus before any decision is reached on the form and size of the Security Council.
History
Italy, through its ambassador Francesco Paolo Fulci, along with Pakistan, Mexico and Egypt, in 1995 founded the "Coffee Club". The four countries were united by a rejection of the proposal of an increase in the permanent members of the Security Council and the desire to encourage rather the expansion of non-permanent seats. The founders of the group were soon joined by other countries, including Spain, Argentina, Turkey, Canada, and South Korea, and in a short time the group came to include about 50 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The thesis of the Uniting for Consensus group is that an increase in permanent seats would further accentuate the disparity between the member countries and result in the extension of a series of privileges with a cascade effect. The new permanent members would in fact benefit from the method of election used on a number of specific UN organs which would be particularly advantageous to them.
After agreeing with the need to increase the representativeness of the Security Council, in 2005 during the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly, the UfC group — led by the representatives of Canada, Italy, Colombia and Pakistan — made a proposal that centres on an enlargement of the number of non-permanent members from ten to twenty. The non-permanent members would be elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term and would be eligible for immediate re-election, subject to the decision of their respective geographical groups. The other members and co-sponsors of the text, entitled "Reform of the Security Council", were listed as Argentina, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, South Korea, San Marino, Spain and Turkey. Although the proposal was not accepted, the initiative found broad consensus among member states, including permanent member China.
On 20 April 2009, Colombia and Italy, acting as representatives of the UfC group, provided a new model of reform, which was presented as a concrete attempt to reach a deal. The document proposed creating a new category of seats, still non-permanent, but elected for an extended duration (3 to 5 years terms) without the possibility of immediate re-elections. This new kind of seat would not be allocated to single national countries but rather to regional groups on a rotational basis. As far as traditional categories of seats are concerned, the UfC proposal does not involve any change, but only the introduction of small and medium size states among groups eligible for regular seats. This proposal includes even the question of the veto, giving a narrow range of options that goes from abolition to limitation of the application of the veto only to Chapter VII matters.
During the last round of discussions, Italy firmly rejected the G4 proposal as well as the African Union one and even denounced the unfair behaviour of G4 countries. According to Italy, the G4 is attempting to exclude the UfC proposal from the floor, “on the basis of a presumed level of support”. Moreover, Italy believes that it has shown flexibility by putting forward a new proposal on April 2009, while the G4 remained tied to its 2005 document. Italy's active role in current discussions started in February 2009 before the beginning of intergovernmental negotiations, when Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini hosted more than 75 countries to develop a shared path towards a reform of the Security Council. On May 2011, the members states which have participated in the group meeting held in Rome rose to 120.
26/09/19 Ministers of the Countries belonging to the “Uniting for Consensus” Group held a meeting in New York today to assess the state of the UN Security Council reform process.
The last rounds of negotiations that took place in 2019, confirmed the existence of growing areas of convergence as also the persistence of diverging views on key aspects of the reform.
Eager to achieve results in the process, UfC Countries reaffirm that the IGN remains the sole legitimate setting for discussion on Security Council reform, in full transparency and with the participation of all UN Member States.
In this sense, UfC Ministers reiterate the need and the urgency for the UN membership to agree on a reform model capable of making the future, expanded Security Council more democratic, accountable, representative, transparent and effective, reaffirming that the creation of new permanent seats would hamper the achievement of these goals.
The UfC Ministers therefore call upon all Member States to continue to engage constructively in seeking a fair and equitable compromise solution that meets the collective interest of all 193 Members of the UN, garnering the widest possible political support from the membership.
UfC Countries invite others to explore the idea of creating longer-term non-permanent seats, assigned to UN regional groups and with the possibility of an immediate re-election, coupled with an increase in other non-permanent seats. UfC Ministers believe that this proposal can be the basis for a possible solution able to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of those Countries that wish to contribute regularly to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as provide better opportunities for smaller States.
The UfC Countries reaffirm their full commitment to continued constructive engagement.
During the meeting the UfC Group discussed possible practical ideas for its action in the future in order to further enhance the Group’s contribution to achieve an effective UN reform to the benefit to the whole UN membership.
New York, September 26, 2019 from
where you will find this:
UN reform: The Security Council
The new international order, markedly changed as compared with the post-Second World War situation, and the emerging threats to international security and stability, require the renewed commitment of all member states to redefine the essential structure of world security governance.
The Security Council is the primary body concerned with the maintenance of world peace and security. It is made up of five permanent members (The United States, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and China, with veto power), and ten non-permanent members, distributed geographically, elected for a two-year mandate and not immediately re-electable (3 for Africa, 2 for Asia, 2 for the Western Group, 1 for Eastern Europe, and 2 for Latin America). The number of these seats was increased from 6 to 10 in 1963 as a result of decolonization.
In the nearly twenty years of debate over Security Council reform, two substantially divergent visions continue to prevail among the 193 United Nations members, specifically with regard to the creation of new permanent seats.
A portion of the international community does not consider the creation of new permanent seats on the Security Council as being in the interests of the international community and of improving the Council’s overall efficiency. While the position of the current permanent members can be explained by the historical circumstances that led to the foundation of the United Nations, a new hierarchical stratification of the international community, with the assignment of privileged positions not subject to the electoral process, is not justifiable. The consequent further and inevitable exclusion of the elected members would drain the Security Council of credibility.
This is the position of Italy and the other members of the “Uniting for Consensus” movement. 
Additionally, Italy considers it essential that regional configurations are given greater importance, and in that sense maintains the assignment of a Security Council seat to the European Union as one of its fundamental foreign policy objectives.
On the other hand, a different portion of the international community adheres, albeit from diverse perspectives, to the notion of a larger Security Council with additional permanent members, with the aim of adapting its composition to reigning geopolitical equilibria.
Common to both stances is the urgency that any reform be based on the principles of greater geographic representation, the broader democratic participation of the membership and increased operational efficiency. Thus a rebalancing of the Council in favour of the countries of the southern hemisphere – particularly of the African continent – would certainly be desirable.
The General Assembly launched intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reforms in 2009 with the aim of arriving at a formula for compromise capable of garnering the broadest possible consensus. Italy has held three major ministerial events in Rome on the theme of Security Council reform: one on 5 February 2009, one on 16 May 2011 and the latest on 4 February 2013.
The February 2009 conference, chaired by then Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, revealed its more than 75 participants’ broad agreement on the need to correct the African continent’s under-representation on the Security Council, and to strengthen the role of small and midsized countries as well as relations between the Security Council and the General Assembly. The May 2011 conference, also chaired by Minister Frattini and entitled “Global Governance and Security Council Reform”, and attended by 120 countries, led to the reassertion of several major principles advanced by President of the 65th General Assembly Deiss: the adoption of a broadly embraced reform model, respect for the United Nations’ founding values, and the need for simplification, efficiency and flexibility.
In line with the 2009 and 2011 conferences, the February 2013 ministerial meeting entitled “New Approaches to the Security Council Reform” and co-chaired by then Minister for Foreign Affairs Giulio Terzi and Secretary of State of Spain Gonzalo de Benito Secades, confirmed the existence of points of convergence among the negotiating groups: the need for flexibility and a spirit of compromise, the greater representation of Africa, and the quest for a more broadly endorsable reform model.
Also interesting, from 2009:
“The Italian proposal is unique in that the plan creates actual regional seats, not seats for individual states assigned by region. By embedding truly regional voices on the Council, wider collective interests may triumph over the more narrow interests of single states. The Italian proposal gives two additional permanent but veto-less seats to Africa, Asia, Western Europe and other groups, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. "Each regional group would have the 'operational management' of the seats and . . . would define principles and mechanisms with appropriate checks and balances to prevent national occupation of the seats and ensure regional representation."

This is from a general analysis of the various proposals for UNSC reform on:

See also:
Posts about the UFC group’s position on UNSC reform on the site of La Rappresentanza Permanente d`Italia presso le Nazioni Unite a New York http://www.italyun.esteri.it/Rappresentanza_ONU/Menu/L_Italia_e_l_ONU/Riforme/

Uniting For Consensus (UFC) and Italy

Mr. President,
On behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) Group, I wish to thank you for convening this annual debate on Security Council reform, and warmly welcome the appointment of Ambassador Sylvie Lucas to her new pivotal capacity. We are confident that she will be attentive to the needs and concerns of all Member States to facilitate our collective endeavor in the coming months. Allow me also to thank Ambassador Courtenay Rattray for his efforts during the past negotiating session.

We believe that the 69th session of the General Assembly can be seen as a step forward on our path towards reform in terms of active participation by an increasing number of Member States. Countries that in the past had been on the margins of the debate decided to engage and to spell out their positions on the future of the Security Council. This is a material legacy: our debate needs to be more inclusive - just as the Council we are striving to reform.

Similarly, we need full transparency. The Inter-Governmental Negotiations are a membership-driven process, mandated by General Assembly decision 62/557. We need predictability through a clear agenda, not arbitrary guidance. Member States should be facilitated in their work, through timely information and extensive consultation. Each Member State, belonging to any negotiating group, has the right to be adequately informed about the procedure. The past has demonstrated that divisive approaches and initiatives complicate our process even further, distancing us from reaching our commonly shared goal of reform. Thank you, Mr. President.
http://www.italyun.esteri.it/rappresentanza_onu/it/comunicazione/archivio-news/2015/10/2015-10-30-cardi-riforma.html Mr. President,
The UfC Group has been tirelessly advocating for a deeper discussion of the principles on which the Council’s reform must be based. It is a crucial undertaking to clarify how we conceive the reform, which would facilitate negotiations. Proof of this was given to us by the negotiations on the methods of selection and appointment of the Secretary-General, under last year’s annual resolution on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. The collectively shared principle of a more transparent selection process was spontaneously translated into some concrete measures. We knew, with clarity, where we were heading so we achieved most of the expected results in only one year of work.

We all have been talking for years about the common goal of a more representative, democratic, accountable and effective Security Council, but do we really agree on the meaning of these principles? Let me give you a concrete example. Exactly one week ago, most of us attended the launch of a Code of Conduct, supported by over one hundred countries, aiming to limit the use of the veto and prevent the Council’s inaction to make it more effective in the face of heinous international crimes. However, today we will still hear voices in favor of adding new permanent members, new veto powers, all while pursuing the same goal of making the Council more effective.

Mr. President,
The Uniting for Consensus Group has been very forthcoming in clarifying how we interpret the reform principles that I have just mentioned. The UfC has already tackled the issue – most recently – last year, at the general debate and throughout the entire work session. Today, as a further contribution to the debate on the objectives of reform, I would like to touch on an increasingly recurrent issue: the request for “a Security Council representative of the realities of the XXI century”. This is certainly an important concept because it suggests that Security Council reform should be reflective of the changes that have occurred in the last 70 years. Let me summarize the three main changes that have taken place.

Firstly, in these 70 years, not only has the number of UN Member States grown, but the relative weight of the different regional groups of the United Nations has also changed. This has led the membership to unanimously request an enlargement of the Council favoring areas that, to date, have been disadvantaged in the distribution of seats. The response of the UfC to this first trend is unequivocal: we support an enlargement of the Council up to 26 members, assigning the majority of added seats to Africa, the Asia-Pacific and Latin America. We also understand and heed the call of the Eastern European Group, and of cross-cutting groups of States - such as SIDS, Small States and the Arab countries.

Secondly, some Member States aspire to play a more prominent role in the Council. The UfC highly values the contribution that these States may offer to the maintenance of international peace and security. No one has asked them to forfeit their willingness to play a greater role in the Council. In fact, our proposal of longer-term seats with the possibility of an immediate re-election was conceived precisely to meet these expectations. Let me clarify: these seats would not be reserved to a select group of countries. All UN Member States willing to make a bigger contribution to the work of the Council would have the right to run for a longer-term seat. Our proposal is democratic in nature.

Thirdly, over the past 70 years, we have experienced change at an incessantly faster pace in the international arena. The emergence of new regional actors and new global challenges imposes a modern vision for the Security Council, enhancing its flexibility not only in terms of operations, but also in terms of its very structure and representation. The reality of the XXI century is in continuous transformation, and a changing reality requires a Council able to adapt to it. We believe that regular elections are the best way to guarantee, not only a truly democratic and accountable Security Council, but also a Council able to continually adapt to the rapid changes of today and tomorrow.

This is what we mean by inclusive Security Council. Let us offer to all Member States, especially Small States and Developing countries, which represent the majority of this membership, the opportunity to contribute more to the Council’s work. This goal can be achieved solely by ensuring a proper, fair and democratic system, through regular elections. This is what we mean by a Security Council in tune with the realities of the XXI century: a new, modern Council grounded on a profoundly democratic vision that carries within it inclusiveness and adaptability.
Mr. President,
This is the path toward the early reform that our leaders called for more than 10 years ago. A reform that can be attained with no further delay, building on the many - already existing - convergences among Members States. A comprehensive reform of the Security Council that can be concretely achieved by enlarging the Council with new elected members, and by a more balanced and equitable representation of regional groups. An enhanced and closer relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, and improved working methods of the Council, including the question of the veto, are also areas that require our due attention.

Mr. President,
This is also the path toward a consensual reform of the Security Council that due to its paramount importance necessarily needs to be endorsed by all Member States. The Uniting for Consensus Group stands ready to cooperate with you, the new IGN Chair and the entire membership for advancing this process, in good faith and in mutual respect, being guided by our strong conviction that a truly democratic Security Council reform is possible and within reach.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Italy's position 2016-7
http://www.italyun.esteri.it/rappresentanza_onu/en/comunicazione/archivio-news/2017/07/assemblea-generale-riforma-consiglio.html
Position of the permanent SC members on Security Council reform from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council#Permanent_member_proposals One proposed change is to admit more permanent members. The candidates usually mentioned are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. They comprise the group of G4 nations, mutually supporting one another's bids for permanent seats. The United Kingdom, France and Russia support G4 membership in the U.N. Security Council.[24] This sort of reform has traditionally been opposed by the Uniting for Consensus group, which is composed primarily of nations who are regional rivals and economic competitors of the G4. The group is led by Italy and Spain (opposing Germany), Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina (opposing Brazil), Pakistan (opposing India), and South Korea (opposing Japan), in addition to Turkey, Indonesiaand others. Since 1992, Italy and other members of the group have instead proposed semi-permanent seats or the expansion of the number of temporary seats https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council#United_Kingdom_and_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council#Russia http://www.china-un.org/eng/chinaandun/zzhgg/t29435.htm http://in.rbth.com/world/2015/08/15/rusia-supports-applications-of-india-brazil-for-permanent-membership-in-un-sc_390367
http://m.deccanherald.com/articles.php?name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deccanherald.com%2Fcontent%2F441308%2Fuk-france-support-india-permanent.html




Pubblicato da alle

Nessun commento:

Posta un commento

Nota. Solo i membri di questo blog possono postare un commento.

Iscriviti a: Commenti sul post (Atom)