A/46/PV.66 General Assembly

36.  QUESTION O? ISQUITABLB REPRESENTATION ON MD INCRIASL IN TRt MEMBBRSHIP OP THE SECURITY COUNCIL Elr. (India)! Agenda item 38, entitled "Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council", was first considered by the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session - on 14 December 1979 - at the initiative of Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Guyana, Ilaldives, Nepal, Nigeria, Sri Lanka and India. Most of these countries, joined by Cuba, Grenada, Iraq, Japan, Mauritius and Syria, submitted a draft resolution proposing an increase in the non-permanent membership of the Security Council from 10 to 14, along with some consequential changes. The proposal and the concept behind it were received with broad support acrosz the Organization's membership. However, since an agreement on certain specifics could not be reached within the time available, and because the sponsors were keen to secure the widest possible support and avoid any sense of confrontation, they agreed to postpone the consideration of the item. At the thirty-fifth session. of the General Assembly, after further consultations the proposal was modified and submitted in the form of a new draft resolution calling for an increase in the Security Council membership to a total of 21 by adding six non-permanent seats. The draft resolution vas sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Cuba, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Nepal, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Zaire, Zambia and India. In addition, the draft resolution had the endorsement of the African Group as a whole. Again, for reasons similar to those in the past, the sponsors agreed to defer the consideration of their proposal. The retionale behind the initiative, succinctly p:lt in the l xplaoatcry memorandum sccompanying the initial request for the inscription of the item on the agenda, was rimple t the increase in the Uoitod Nations membership was not being reflected in the membership of the Security Council. lurthermore, in order to strengthen the Security Council’s primary role in the maintenance of interaational peace and security, it warn felt that the Council’s composition should be reviewed with a view to providing for more balanced representation. The proposal as presented was a modest one, designed to strengthen the Councii by making it more responsive and relevant to existing realities. This rationale and the reasons for the proposal as outlined 12 year8 ago are, I submit, all the more valid today. The world h:s changed a great deal since 1979-80. Indeed, it continues to change at a pace that has left all observers wondering about the shape the map of the world will take in a few yeara or even in a few months or weeks. The breakdown of ideological barriers, and the epoch-making events in Europe and elsewhere, demand that we, the representatives of the 166 countries Members of the United Nations, reassess and reinforce the world body’s global role. My delegation ia glad to note that these developments have infused the United Nations, in general, and the Security Council, in particular, with a sense of vigour and purpose. There is renewed all-round interest in and support for the United Nations among Member States as well as the people of the entire world. A feeling of general expectation and hope is gaining ground that the United Nations can now be enabled to fulfil the promise enshrined in its Charter in San Francisco over 46 years ago. This was the promise of international cooperation, of economic and social development in all their multifarious dimensions, of BmiYy, justice and progress. But above all it was t-j the pronlre of international peace and security, a prerequisite for the pursuit of developrneat and progress by mankind. And it is the Security Council on which the Members of the United Nations hsve conferred the primary respoosibility in this field. What the United Rations Members expect and want from the Organiratioa has been articulated many a time. In the general debate in this very Hall 10811 than three months ago speaker after speaker projected their shared viov of the role in today’s world of the United Nations and its organs, particularly the Security Council, and how they can be made more responsive to the heightened expectations that reflect today’s needs. Almost without escsption, they spoke, in varying manner but with a conunonality 02 aspiration, of a sew international order based on the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and laws of international relations, in which the United Nations should play a central role. My Foreign Minister, Shri Madhavsinh Solanki, in his statement before the Assembly on 26 Seittember, while agreeing that the crucial role the United Nations has started to play in variour crisis situations was in keeping with its original mandate, stressed that the Organisation needed to be strengthened and reformed in order to live up to the enhanced expectations placed in it. He said: “one of the challenges faced by the United Nations today is to make it truly representative of the interests and aspirations of all its Members and to make it an arena of cooperative action of all nations and peoples. “In this context, we should examine, as a matter of urgency, the proposals before us for an expansion of the Security Council to reflect the increased membership of the United Nations and to ensure a more equitable and balauced representation of the Members of the United Nations in the Security Couucil." (y46/PV.11. D. 2&) This is the specific idea we are addressing today, an idea endorsed by several delegations in the general debate. Permit me to guote some of them. Presider& Collor of Brazil called for the Organisation's decision-making processes to be more open. ensuring wider participation, in the spirit of pluralism and a democratic international system. The President of Nigeria, spe*ing in his capacity as Chairman of the Organisation of African Unity. spoke eloquently for the expansion of the Security Council. Mauritius asked that the expanding nature of the United Nations should be representative of the interests of all countries, particularly at the level of the Security Council. Turkey voiced its support for the restructuring of the United Nations, and Tauxania for its democratisation. Venezuela's President underlined that the Security Council must be a representative body. Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mr. Mabatbir, expressed his belief that a restructured Security Council had a vital role to play. Italy's Foreign Minister defined major goals for the United Nations, one of which would be the expansion of the Security Council, with an increase ia the number of both permanent and non-permanent members. The Charter of the United Nations is a universally acknowlea.--: prescription for relations among States the world over. But like the fast-changing world itself, the Charter cannot be static or immutable. Some of its provisions - for example. the composition of the Security Council - have already come under scrutiny, and rightly so. In this particular context, I should like to refer once again to the dramatic global changes taking place, especially in Europe. These cP,-.n?ss inevitably draw attention to the personality, as it were, of t!.- Serurity Council. The Winiatgr8 for ?oroiqm bffmirr of the non-e1ipn.d countrior, meeting at Accra, Ohana, in Septombor of thir year, daclmrod that “the curront l ffortr at refomr of the Unit.6 Nation8 rhould iacludo mealum de8igaed to nako rho deci8iOn-making procorr at the United Rstionr, particularly the Security Council, noto democratic and tranrpsront. In thir coato%t, the proront membership of the Security Council rhould be roviowed with a view to rofloctiag the incrosassd membership of the United Wationr, and promoting more equitable and balanced reprerent8tion of the Uemborr of the United Ratlon8.” The rocoatly concluded Becand Sumit of thm Group of 15 at Caracas declered that: “The Unitmd Yatioor should be reformed l o a8 to increare its efficiency and l ffoctivenerm and adapt to the new iaternational rituation. The rtroagtheniag of the United Mations rhould be based on 1 the recognition that thm management of world affair8 is a matter of rharod rerponribility . ..(‘. In 1946 the United Cation8 had 51 Me&err, 11 of which wore represented in tb8 Security Council - a maroaably fair ratio. In 1963, the United Ration8 MBmbar8hip had grorn to 113, and the feeling mouat8d that the Security Council did not retain the representative character it deserved. The result was the vote increaring the Council’s membership to 15. The ratio of the Security Council membership to total United Nations membership at that time 8tOOd at 7.5, comparing United Nations favourably with the figure of 4.6 in 1946. The comparison in fact suffered much more if one look8d only at the ratio for the non-permanent category: it tolo from 6.6 to 11.3. The position today is clearly aven more unsatisfactory. With a membership of 166, the Security Council has 11,l L’nited Nations Members represented in each of its seats l In such a context, can one argue that the Security Council, the principal organ for the maintenance of international peace and security, is representative enough to discharge its onerow responsibility in the expected transpareat and democratic manner? Rectification ir poeriblo Im tvo rap. One of thorn is to roadjust the PreSOnt ounber Of 8eat8. Thi8 apprO8Cb Vill, bOVOV@f, ItOt a&k888 m main problem of overall under-reprsreatatioa of Member8 in the Security Council, besides generating it8 own difficultier, The only logical and politically acceptable method, thereform, ir to expand the r#mberlhip of the Security Council, keeping in mind the prOVi8iOnl Of Article 23 Of the Charter. Uy delegation do08 not intend to make a rpecific proposal at thi8 rtage. It would prefer to engage in urgent, wide-based and purpo8eful consultations in order to evolve an agreement on the figurer and number8 involved, a8 well as on the exact methodology and it8 detailr. Eovave r , I would like ta emphasise further here the urgency of thi8 proce88. Mowntous decisions affecting all of us are currently oa the anvil of the major policy-making organs, and it is only appropriate that these are taken vith a broader and more representative participation of the international comunity. A main argument often advanced against an increase in the Security Council membership is that it would affect the Council’s efficiency and effectiveness. My delegation is not convinced of this argument and cannot accept it. On the contrary, ve believe, that a more representative Council will prove more efficient and effective in that its decisions will have that much more weight behind them. Let us not be unmindful of the fact that during the long years of East-West confrontation the Security Council, despite its limited size, often remain paralysed. The Council has been capable or incapable of discharging its functions not because of its size but because of the imperatives of international life. Expansion of the Council is also discouraged on logistical or managemeat grounds. But citing reasons of logistics and management in matters of international peace and security is c-1 dilficult. to accbpt, especially in the prosent era whore more democratic and transparent corduct of international relations is being stressed. At any rate, ue cannot aliow management fears to block reforms that would go a long way to ntrengthen the Council. My delegation is convinced that a more representative Security Council will be able to discharge its tasks with enhanced efficiency and efficacy. We wish to pursue this objective in .a spirit of promoting consensus on what we consider a question of great importance and urgency. We trust that all the Members of the United Nations will be abls to support this endeavour. It is obvious that the General Assembly does not have adequate time to take a substantive decision on this item before the end of the current session. I therefore propose that, at the end of the debate on this item this morninq, the Assembly decide to carry this item forward to the forty-seventh session for further consideration. Mr. MQNTA8Q (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): For many years it had been considered anathema openly and formally to raise issues such as the nature of the representation of Member States on the Security Council and an increase in the number of its members. Moreover, for a long time it was believed that to discuss in this General Assembly matters regarding the Security Council’s structure or operating procedures was inappropriate and tactless. Those who attempted to submit such issues to debate were negatively characterized as responsible for causing Pandora’s mythic box to be opened. It is for these reasons that the Mexican deleqation believes that it is of the greatest importance to hold the present debate. It clearly reflects the maturity that has been achieved by our Organization. t-1 The structure of the Security Council, a8 wall a8 its functioning and procedures, he8 constantly given all of our daleqBtians feeuon for thought and ref 1 ,ction. The mere fact that this firrt exchange of point6 of view is taking pldce refJbct8 the profound changer the international conxnunity is experiencing and demonstrates our ongoing concern that the United Nations should be adapted to reflect a changing international reality. It is precisely the recent developnants in the international political arena that have placed the Securit Council in 8 position of increasing importance and caused it to have a greater impact on the work of our Organizetion and on international relations. Various circumstances have merged to induce unprecedented activity within the Council. Prom the expansion of the peace-keeping operations system to the mandatory and constant monitoring of event8 that threaten or run the risk of endangering international peace and security, the Security Council has seen its agenda saturated and its capacity to respond at times overwhelmed. We appreciate and recognize that the member8 of this important body have responded to the demands imposed on them with great yrofessionelism and a sense of the responsibility required of them by the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, we cannot fail to recoqnire that, at various times, it has been evident that there exists an urgent need to have a body which responds faster, effectively and in a representative fashion corresponding to the overall interest of the membership of this Organization. It must be emphasized that the underlying causes are not a lack of will on the part of its Members but rather structural limitations which, we feel, should be subjected to a timely process of deep reflection. In 1979, when thin item wa8 firrt included in the agenda of the Ceasrsl A,88lsnblY, am tbo reprerentative of India hns recalled, roa8onm of equity were invoked for itcroaming the number of the Council’8 wmbero. Some stated that such an erpanrion would inevitably create a heavier and more cwnbersome body, rhfch would have difficulty la acting rriftly and taking effective decisions. Othsrs claimed that, in order to 8trength8n the primary role of the Security Council in maintaining internstioaal peace and security, it wa8 of fundamental importance that it8 composition be erarained 80 a8 to provide it with a more equitable and balanced representation of the Xemberr of the United Nations, in whose n8me it act8, in cuaformity with Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Charter. The delegation of Xexico find8 merit in the poritioar at both extremes. We agree that increasing the number of memborr doe8 not nec888arily lead to greater efficiency , We aeverthelesr are of the opinion that, given the unquestionably central role of the Security Council in the international political life of our time, the priority which we 8hould purrue i8 to adapt it 80 that it may be truly representative of all our intrrests, without sacrificing it8 capacity for appropriate and effective action. We believe that, in addition to the role of the Security Council in contemporary international life, there are other reason8 which lead to the consideration of this item. Among these is the substantial change in the number of Members of the United Nations. In 1963, the last time that the structure of the Council was modified, the United Nations had 113 Members. Everyone knows that, with the increase in the membership of the United Nations to 166, the proportional representation by the 10 non-permaneut members of the Security Council hsr bean rignificaatly teducmd. Hor*ver , in the view of np delegation, the irrue im not rimply a di8parity in the nathomatical ratio. The lack of more equitable reprorentation tend8 to impair the prjnciplo of sovereign equality of Statem, all of which share the 8&me concern for the maintenance of international peace and security. Perhap the lRO8t important i88Wr however, and dc,ubtle88 th. laO8t delicate and controverrial, concern8 the cbaages in the structure and distribution of international power, We all know that the balance of power prevailing in 1945 and during subrequeat decade8 ha8 undergone profound change8 and i8 COn8t8iitly evolving. It 18 therefore ObViOU8 t0 u8 that, in a constructive 8pirit, we aumt adapt tha Security Council to the prevailing reality of the international order a8 it exi8ts at the end of the century in which we live. At the San Francisco conference, the delegation of Mexico, in endorring the article related to the comporition of the Security Council, 8tatOd that the text was an implicit application of the legal principle establirhing a relationship between power8 and ObligatiOn8, safeguarding th3 basic principle of the equal rights of all Stater. Mexico interpreted that article a8 granting broader right8 to the State8 derignated a8 permanent fnember8. mainly because those nation8 had the greate8t rerponsfbility for the mafntenanC0 of peace within the international community. We must ark ourrelver whether today the foregoing principle ha8 been upheld or whether, on the contrary. those States which currently have a decisive weight in international affair8 are marginalized from the Security Council, both with respect to powers and responsibilities. (Mr, 1 It is porxiblo that a thoughtful conridoration of thorn irruor may lead to the conclurion that it ir aecorrary to expand the mombarrhip of the security Council. We might also coacludo that the structure of the Council should be modified within its present xIae. In any went, Mexico considers It a priority that e careful examination of thare isruox bo initiated without prejudice to any conclusion which may be reached. Towards that end, wo can profit from the reflection which ia necessarily prompted by the forthcoming comnemorstion of the half-century of the United Nations. Our approach ia constructive and oriented towards the aeed to have 8 body which acts effectively and with the full legitimacy of the coxmnunity of nations. We cannot portpono the imperetivo need to democratise international relations, and this can only be successfully eccomplirhed if organ8 such as the Security Council are constituted in a manner that is genuiaely representative of Msmber States. At the same time, it is our opinion that an exercise, such an the one we propose, would give an impetur to the continuous dialogue which should exist between the Security Council amI the General Assembly, and would simultaneously strengthen the mandate of the latter in conformity with Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter. The composition of the Security Council should reflect the current balance of power, and we should regard the criteria of special responsibility and legal equality of States as an indivisible set of principles. It should also make it possible to take into account the new centres of power which have arisen in recent decades, as well as the new criteria for assessing power and its nature in international politics. The dolegation of M8xico bellow8 that the propored examination would be 9snuinely beneficial to all Member State8. If, am a result of much a procsmm, we could rmconxnend changer that l nhanca transparency and opennmmm in Security Council proceedingr, footer a balanced relationrhip between it8 msndate and the mandate of the General Ammembly, and adequately reprerent the centre8 of international pow8r, we would than havs achieved the objoctivem 8ot forth in the San Pranci8co Charter, who80 principle8 continua to be a8 valid now 88 they were than. ID COnC1U8iOn, the delegation of Mexico would like fully to rupport the proposal of the permanent reprerentative of India to the 8ffect that thim item remain under di8cu88ion et th8 forty-mevoath 8ession of the GOn8r81 Am8embly. H-. w (Veneruela) (interpretation from Sparish): Equitable mean8 just, COrr8Ct and rea8Onable. When five nation8 are more equal because of the privilege of the veto than the other 161 Member8 of our Grganiration, then the subject of equitable repre8entation and an increase in the membership of the Security Council becomes a subject of extreme validity and importance to be considered in fashioning a new and emerging international order. I should like to address the subject of equitable representation in the membership of the Council together with the inseparable subject of the veto power of the permanent members of the Council. We believe that an increase in the membership of the Council, without the elimination of the anachronistic veto power, would not only be senseless but certainly would not be equitable. I had the opportunity of listening to and r-e&ding carefully the statement of the representative of India, Mr. Charekhan, about the need to obtain a better balance of representation on the Security council as a way of contributing to its prestige and effectiveness in global terms. We are in comploto ayroement, and we support his views as to the urqent need to expand the membership of the Security Council so that wo nay have a more representative and more efficient Council whose decisions carry much greater weight. X should like to address the question of the veto power in the context of 1945, when it was adopted, and in the context of today’s totally different realities. I want to put into historical perspective the conflicting views that have been presented in conamction with this subject. ?rom the very beqinninq - in San ?rancisco - the principle of the vote power was questioned. Its first sevsro critic was Mr. Herbert Watt, the than reprrsentative of Australia, who called it an absurd imposition cn the international cosxnunity. Venexuela is on record as having made a similar statement. In San Francisco our then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Caracciolo Parra Perea presented our position by saying that it was his hope that this formula would, with the passage of time, evolve into a more democratic and representative system that could involve all nations. In 1947 the then representative of Veneruela, Carlo8 Eduardo Stalk, said in the General Assembly: “The much debated question of revisinq the United Nations Charter in order to abolish or limit the veto power, is once again under discussion. Our country supports with unshakable determination the principle of the sovereign equality of all nations, which is not compatible with the privilege granted to the permanent members of the Security Council under Article 27 of the Charter. He recognize that the application of this Article has . . . impaired its authority and the prestige of the Organization”. (Qffichl-vnd seaon, 0. 73) (en) It wan not until April 1947 that the veto power became a subject of much di6CU66iOn in the United Nationr, and even the United State6 Congress started to conridor whether it would be appropriate to abolirh it. . Thi6 rubject wa6 again dircusred owing to the Soviet Union'6 reaction to the United Nation6 progra565e6 of a66irtanc6 to GrOeCe and Turkey. I should like to refer to a few of the rrtatements that were made at that time. On 3 April 1947 Sir Alexander Cadogan, the then representative of the United Kingdom, said: "The United Nation8 ha6 been stifled and turned into a 6tOrfle Organiratfon becau66 of th6 abusive U66 of the veto by the Soviet Union." In AUgU6t 1947 John Ro6t.r Du11e6 raid! "Removal of the veto power from the five permanent member6 is necessary. International policies that Create fear or bitterns66 anywhere mu6t be rubjectod to the 6crutiny of the General Assembly.” At that time the representative of Argentina, Josi Arm, presented a draft resolution arking the General Assambly to convene a conference of Member State6 for the purpose of abolishing this privilege. He said: "The United Nation6 cannot work with the veto power. We support the idea of legal equality of all States." The then representative of the United States, Warren Austin, said: "The Charter doe6 not need to be changed at this time. The only thing that need5 to be done is to raise its level of ethics. The Charter will grow and adapt to the needs of mankind in the course of time." Among all these statements wa6 a very surprising one made by Andrei Gromyko at the 6amo General Assembly session. He said that the origin of the veto was an initiative not of the Soviet Union but, rather, of the United States President, Mr. Roosevelt, and the British Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill. Qromyko said that the United States and the United Kingdom were the initiators of the veto and that the Soviet Union had supported President Roosevelt's proposal because it was felt that the unanimity of the great Powers, es a principle, would contribute to the maintenance of peace. If one reads editions of ThtiRm of 1945 and 1947 one will see that the content of that period ia completely diffsront from that of today. But the important thing is not who put forth this initiative but, rather, the fact that the privilege wa8 granted unanimously for the five permanent members of the Security Council. In this connection, I should like to cite a letter to TheZ&naa of London in 1947, in which Lord Esher said! "It would be a mistake to suppose that Mr. Molotov and Mr. Gromyko are the prime exponents of a negative vote. In the year 1653, the inconceivable law of l-&mum ve& allowed for the possibility of a veto in the Polish Parliament by one individual simply by pronunciation of the words 'I will not permit 11.' That law lasted 200 y6arr. What ia incredible is not that it lasted so long but, rather, the fact that 150 years after its revocation in Poland it is still alive and still exists as a privilege in the Security Council of the United Nations." The reasons for maintaining the veto yravileqe in 1945 were as debatable at that time as they are today, as we observe the fragmentation of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a commonwealth that has even agreed to the creation of market economies, the promotion of private enterprise and the defence of private initiative. This represents ;-II embracing of the democratic values and ideals of the West rather than a call to arms. Sweeping away old structures and opening the path to something new, the agreement that created the Soviet Union in 1922 was also adopted in a climate different from today's. This agreement ham boon end.6 by the currant leadsrr in a brief rtatomont of a few paragraphs. Profound changer are once again occurring in that great land. An increase in the membership of the Security Council should not require major arguments. When the United Nations membership increarred from 51 in 1945 to 115 in 1963, the Security Council membership increared from 6 to 10. As wo know we are now 16% Members - three times the number in 1945. The fact that the membership of the Security Council was increased in 1963 warn in recognition of the increase in the number of States Members of the United Nations, Today the cage is stronger still because in today’s world order there are economic Power8 that did not exist at that time, such aa Germany and Japan. The creation of supranational entities such as the European Conunuoity is another highly significant factor that must be taken into account. We believe in a new etfucture, with an increase in the permanent membera, or a restructuring of the composition of the permanent members, 80 aa to reflect today'8 political and economic realities. At the current session of the General Assembly the President of Venezuela, Mr. Carlos Andrea Perez, expressed very clearly his concern about the need to make the Security Council more representative. He said: “our own people’s aspiration for democracy [must be also the] aspiration of the United Nations. The Organisation will not be strengthened unless an agreement is reached to eliminate the right of veto . . . . a right that responded to circumstances and realities that have ceased to exist. This mechanism . . . limits its effective contributions to collective security. The right to veto limits the achievement of consensus". (A/46/PV.8, p. 131 I should like to reiterate the proposal the President of Venezuela made on that occasion that the Assembly entrust to a committee of experts the study ( tlLLAC.Li a.LYQxamual B ) of new rtructurer for the Organiration end the functioning of the Smcurity couuci 1 l The countrlea now holding a decisive advantage would be pormsnent memborr of the Council, and the membership might also bo l xpandod. Decirionr on collective security would need at lsaet half the votes of the gualifiad majority of itm member8 to reflect the general will of the International conmlunity. The prorent trend towards the democrati8ation of international relation@ offers a majoa- opportunity for the establishment of a new order that ir more just. Undoubtedly, a democratfred Security Council must be a part of that new order. It ir clear that substantial changes are taking place in the world. Why, then, should our Organisation be the only one that ir not changing? Ju8t yerterday the European Community and its leaders reached agreement on a Treaty that putr them on the path to closer economic and political integration and, I emphaeire, to the establishment of a cornnon defence and foreign policy. This event should make it clear that there is a need to examine and restructure the nature and composition of the Security Council. I baliovo tbet it ie aleo clrsr that those l vonte have a direct boaring on tbroa of the Porn-nt Me&err of the Iacurity Council. Whooovor a l uggeetioo ie mada for change, we are told that l uch a l tep would open a Pendora’e box. However, I must may thet euch an attitude hae coma to represent i-biIity in the United Iatioae. The real eye&o]. of our tiAn ie opennese and change. Wo caoaot coatlaue to advocate the need for change throughout the world l acl at the l aree time dieregard our own needs in our own House. Wo nuet propare thm Organieation for an oquitabls end reprereatstive world, and we ruet do 80 moon. Mr. (Italy): In the part few years many internstionsl 8ovoloplMnte have mado poeeiblo what ie generally recogniead ae a veritable reaaieeanco of tbo United Natione. The and of the cold war and of the bitter ideological etru99ls between taet and Wet have creatatl condition8 for a more belancetl and rational approach to the eolution of political and military conflicte. The euccoee of United Rations intervention and mediation in regional conflicts would not have been possible without the poeitive changes in intarnetional relations. At the name time the recognition that such global probleme am the preservation of the enviromeat or the rational utilizatioa of common natural reeourcee can be tackled only within the framework of a universal political organizstion ham widened the horizon of the United Nations, making the Organiration a truly indispensable tool for the international cmwnunity. One of the measure8 to be taken to confer upon the United Nations the authority necessary to meet its responsibilities in the political field is, from our point of view, to assure adequate rcpresentativeness to the Security Council. twt-1 As my Foreign Minister stated on 27 September, Italy feels that the time has come to adjust the structure of the Security Council. In fact, the new international reality underlines the need to involve in our collective responsibility countries that have hitherto played a role not commensurate with their importance and that are xiou acquiring new political and economic dimensions together with axk awareness of their growing responsibilities. Italy is in favour of an expansion of the Security Council with an increase in the number of both permsment and non-permanent members, which vould not necessarily entail extending the right of veto to all the new permament members. We feel that the selection of the latter should be made on the basis of such objective criteria as the size of the country's population, its gross national product and its contribution to the United Nations budget. The Security Council was first expanded in 1963 to take account of the increase in the number of Member States. Since then, the United Nations membership has risen from 113 to 166, an increase of almost SO per cent. This factor is in itself sufficient to warrant an expansion of this decision-making body of the Organisation. Since it is required to make choices of major importance, the Security Council should fully reflect the evolution of the world community. At the end of the Second World War it appeared logical that the preservation of what was then a new order should be primarily entrusted to the countries that were recognised as its major pillars. Subsequently. in an essentially bipolar situation, those same countries became the major proponents of the two conflicting ideologies that dominated the world. This situation has changed. Many countries and peoples are now painfully redefinining their goals and aspirations, thereby often engendering conflicts with the goals and sspirstioas of their neighbours. Such hitherto unlimited cormnodities aa sir and water are now perceived a8 finite. Mankind’s unchecked multiplication l oemm to load to it8 own destruction. In these circumrtancer the search for peace where it does not exist or its maintenance where it does requirer even more intricate processes of crisis management. The game logic that identified a limited number of countries as founders and guardiaar of a certain order would now call for the attribution of a similar role to those few other countries that will be celled upon to tixercisr the greater effort8 and hear the major corta. social as well am economic, for the establishment and mhintenance of a new order. There is in the Assembly a growing awareness of the need to overhaul the machinery of the United Nations. The time aeemtt to be near when the composition of one of its major organs should also be revised. Mr. Ew (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): This item was included in the agenda of the General Assembly at its thirty-fourth session. However , it has not hitherto been the subject of any profound debate. Since that time, the Assembly has continued to defer the item to subsequent sessions rithout discussion. The positive developments that have recently taken place on the international scene have given the item a new dimension. A new era of international relations now appears on the horizon as a result of the historic changes that have occurred in many parts of the world. Policies of confrcntation and ideological conflict have given way to policies of dialogue and cooperation. The ramifications of these positive developments have reflected on the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of interrrdtional pelce and security, and in particular on the Security Co.lncil, which ham undoubtadly turn.6 8 now loaf in the maanot of it8 handling of iatoraational mnd roqional problem. Recently, it bar boon notod that the Security Council haa begun l ffoctivoly aad roriourly to rook poscoful rottlomeatr of problems that were aggravated in the cold war period. With the on6 of that period. WI must all rork to lay the foundationa for a new era band on jurtice and equality among aatioar and peoplor and oa the cerratioa of the policior of polarlration and he9amony , 8 aou l r8 barad oa the principlea of the Uaitod Ratioar Charter and oa the realiratioa of tbo international order whose fouadstione were set forth in tbo Chartor.* l Mr. Traxler (Italy), Vice-President, took the Chair. Iho uay io which tha Security Couacil bar dealt with l uccoeeivo recent dovalopmoats bar given a l onoo of confidence to the iatoraatioaal community and has resuacitstod confidence in thm Charter and in the ability of this Organisation to schiavm the roaultr for which it was established. Of more importance is the groator clarity of vimion for tha international cornunity. It has become manifestly clear that the mason of tho Unit.8 Ratioaa iuabillty to discharge it8 remponaibilitios fully for many yearr wa8 not aay deficiency in the purpcsar and priaciplos of tho United Rations Charter but rather in the lack of political vi11 on thm part of Member States, in particular the permanent memberr of the Security Council. The future of tbo international order and the possibilitier of developing it and building upon it for the benefit of international peace and security, or the failure of that order will depend above all on the ability of the Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities stipulated in the Charter and its discharge of those responsibilities without dereliction, discrimination or double standards, Hence the international interest in reviving this item and imbuing the debate on it with a new dimension that would ie consonant with the positive developments witnessed in the world today. It is the hope of Egypt’s delegation that the General Assembly vi11 accord this matter its due importance, as reflected ifl the statements made by thm heads of delegations at this session and in the statements made today. fn the light of the aforesaid. it may be appropriate for the General Assembly to consider the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. It was agreed previously to introduce a limited modification in 1963, which led to increasing the Council's membership from 11 to 15 members. Now, when the United Nations membership has grown to 166 Members, it is only natural for many State0 to call for a comprehensive study of the subject, including consideration of a corresponding increase in the Couocil’s membership. The objective to which we all aspire is to increase the efficacy of the Council in discharging its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Mr, &m (Algeria) (interpretation from French); It gives the Algerian delegation great satisfaction to speak today on item 36 of the agenda of this session of the General Assembly, entitled “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council”. The Algerian delegation, uhich together with other delegations took the initiative of having this item inscribed on the agenda of the General Assembly in 1979, is ploased to see that at last debate ia beginning on a question whose importance we have always emphasized. We had to be pat.;dnt for some 10 years, but this debate is finally taking place. The major political changes that have occurred in international relations have undoubtedly created the conditions that have given this issue a decisive impetus. The new world order being discussed today cannot be constructed without strict respect for the principles on which our Organisation is based and which are enshrined in its Charter. In this respect, the fundamental principle of the sovereign equality of Member States has its most democratic reflection in the composition and functioning of the General Assembly. The same concern for democratic principles should be reflected. mutatis mutandig, in the composition of the Security Council. It is true that the Charter clearly recognises, on the one hand, the special responsibility of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security and, on the other, special prerogatives fat the permanent members. But that special rorponribility should be rend and interpreted in the light of Article 24 of the Charter, which clearly states that that special responsibility Is conferred upon the Security Council for the specific purpose of ensuring prompt and effective action by the United Nations, and on condition that it is actiug on behalf of the Member States. The organic link thus established between the members of the Security Council and the other Members of the United Nations is made clear in Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Charter, which provides that the Security Council must address to the General Assembly for its consideration annual and special reports, including an account of the measures the Security Council has decided upon or taken. In the light of those provisions of the Charter and of the political necessity for dialogue and cooperation between the General Assembly and the Security Council, it is essential that the composition of the Council faithfully and equitably reflect that of the General Assembly. This could not but contribute significantly to enabling our Organiration to function in a more democratic and harmonious, and therefore effective, way. Since the last amendment to the Charter on this question - now three decades ago - the number of States Members of the United Nations has increased from 113 to 166. This increase has not been reflected in any modification of the composition of the Security Council, whose membership has been frozen at 15. Other principal or subsidiary organs of the United Nations have progressively adapted their composition to the new international dimensions and realities, even if that has not always been done in a completely satisfactory way. It would be paradoxical if the Security Council, which boarr ruch a groat rompoamibility in the nuintonanco at Intornatlonal pace and recurity, wore to rmato the mole organ that boom oot take into account the coomtaot l olargomoot of the iotoraational community. The time ham come to review the oompositioa of the Socurlty Couacll in order to ensurs that tha rspresentatloa on it is more equitable and more just and takes bsttsr account of the increase in the numbar of States Uembots of the United Nations. The Algerian dolegation is among those which have always felt that it is in the true fnterest of all Member States to mako the mechanisms, structures and activities of the Uaited Nations reflect the quantitative and qualitative changes which are constantly taking place in the international community. Recant international events offer us striking examples of such qualitative changes on the world political scone which the United Nations must doal with, both in organlratio-31 terms and in terms of the Organisbtion’s internal operation. That will certainly be a long-term undertaking, and my drlegation will make its contribution to it at the proper time. Even today, however, we can prepare the groundwork by 6 .panding the momborship of the Securit) Council in order to ensure more equitable geographical repressntation on it, particularly for the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin Americnr that would make the Council more reprosentativs and would enable it to discharge more effectively its functions and responsibilities under the Charter. Hr. B (Brasil); The issue we are considering today is neither a new nor an ordinary one. As a matter of fact, the item entitled “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” has been on our agenda since the thirty-fourth session of the General Assembly. For more than 10 years, however, the item has not been the subject of formal substantive discussion. This year a combination of varloum factor8 moon8 to have generated enough momentum to justify conducting the prammat erchsnge of views. Even though the item ham repeatedly been ovorlooked in the recent part, the question itself - the need to addremm the issue of the compomition of tho Security Council in the light of the intonmo and fmr-roaching changom taking plsce in internst ional relation8 - ham continued to be dimcummed. both within and outside the United Nationm. In rmcmnt year8 a growing number of meminarm and lecture8 have touched upon the required adaptation in the Council’8 membership. an issue that ham similarly been mooted and dimcummed in a series of meetingm hold and declsrationa made by varioum group8 and organirations and in analymom by premtigioum author8 which appoarod la publication8 in various parts of the uorld. In the United Nation8 the quemtion of appropriate conmidorstion of the issue of the compomitioo of the Security Council warn rofmrrmd to by a number of delegation8 during this year’s general debate, and thm l ubjmct is frequently mentioned in informal talk8 betwaon intoromtod delegations. While fully recogniting the sensitivity of the immuo and the sense of responsibility and caution with which it must necessarily be examined, Brazil welcomes the discussions currently taking place. All things considered, the time is ripe to begin dealing with the question, and there are several indications pointing in that direction. The Security Council is too important an organ not to reflect, in it8 composition as in other respects, the fundamental changes which have taken place in the United Nation6 and indeed in the world order, since 1963, the one and only time when there has been a numerical adjustment in the Council's membership. At that time, almort 30 yoarr aqo, the nwnbor of non-permanent moat8 on the Council wan incrrarod from 6 to 10, bsaicslly in ordor to rofloct the growth of an Organisation that had gone from itr original 51 Uembar States to 113, thanks mainly to the SUCCOIIO of the decolonisation procome. Todny the membership of the United Nations has roached 166 States, while the number of seats on the Security Council remains unchanged. The ratio of the total number of countries Membotr of the United Nations to the number of seato on the Council ia 11.06 to 1. It uaa 7.53 to 1 in 1963, and 4.63 to 1 whan the United Nation@ came into being. To put it in other figurer, in 1945 over 20 per cent of tho Members Yore topresented on the Council. Derpite the increase in tto number of non-permanent seats, that fraction dropped to 13 per cont. in 1963, and at presmnt it ir roughly 9 per cent. The position of Eraxil on thia matter is well known to the ints‘.national cofmlunity. Two years ago, speaking from this roltrum, Brazil called for a re-examination of the adequacy of the Council'r compomition, not only from the traditional rtaodpoint of re-establishing a proper relationrhip between the number of seat8 and the total momberahip of the United Nations but slro, and especially, in the light of the changes in political relationehipr that had taken place on the international scene since the end of the Second World War. It was then suggested that an additional category of permanent members, with no veto power, could be considered. As Ambassador Gharekhan, the Permanent Representative of India, has just recalled. President Fernando Collor of Brazil called for a United Nations decision-making process that was more open, ensuring wider participation in the spirit of pluralism and a democratic international system. If one takoa into account tho fact that the l ituation in 1989 already allowed for tmfatmncmr to changing tmlationahipa, there can bo no doubt that today that aaaottion tomaina mote valid than l vet. Ar it spproachor ita goldon jubilee, thm United lationa, in particular the Security Council, ia required to face incteaaingly complex taxka, not the least of which at@ thorns of further democratising the Otqanixation and making it mote effective. Argument8 have been raiaod in thm paat to the effect that any increase in the Council’8 composition would l ndanqer the efficiency of that principal organ of the United I@tionr. Nothing could bo mote fotaign to out intent: we enviaago a mom balanced and teptesentativo composition for the Security council, one that would furthmt contribute to it8 l ffactivoamaa and rmrponaiven*aa. Uaing aimplo toaaoning, one could ray that a one-member Council would be the moat l fficient, but it would certainly bo the leaat democratic. One might alao ray that the moat democratic Council would comprise the entire membership, but it would moat probably be the leaat efficient. Somewhere between those two OxtremoR, a aound and ratiafactory solution l hould be found, by the uaual diplomatic meaax. In him impirocl l pooch to the Amrombly moma dsyr ago, him firrt aa Bocretary-General-demign&tm, Mr. Boutror Boutrom Ghmli, referring to the baric laruor that in hi8 view confront the international conwnunity, rtstmd, "There in the need to ensure the maintoaance of international peace and recurity in conformity with the Charter. Thir roquirer the rtrongthrning or the United #etioar machinery in a manner that would enable it to fulfil it8 important objective8 not only in poaco-komping but in peace-making end peace-building a8 well." t-59. p,-_U) My delegation believom that the quemtion of equitable rrprementation on and incrramo in the mombermhip of the Security Council l hould bo conridored in thir context with prudonco, care end foresight in order to enhance the future ability of the United Nationr, and the Security Council in particular, to cope with its fundamental responsibilities for safeguarding international peace and security. It in in thim mpirit that Braril take8 part in the debate on agenda item 38. In the 8ama rpirit, my country will continue to participate in future discwriona on this crucial issue. The evolving realitierr of the international situation and the central role the United Nations is being called upon to play in the shaping of the future of mankind indicate that the time has come for this question to receive the attention and thorough consideration it certainly deserves. The delegation of Braail, therefore, supports the proposal made by the distinguished representative of India that this item be carried forward to the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly for further consideration. &I- (Nigeria) : Since being introduced in 1978, the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council has remained one of the most contentious and critical issues before the General Assembly. Probably as a reflsction of the sensitivity of this iSsUa, the Assembly hse not been able to address it effectively, but instead has kept on deferring it. We have now reached a stage where it has become insppropriate to continue to delay its substantive consideration. The unprecedented speed with which the world has changed over the past two years and the potential role and promise that the future holds for the United Nations make it imperative that this issue be considered now, objectively and realistically. The reality is that the world has undergone tremendous changes since the creation of the Organisation in 1945. The United Nations, which started with an original membership of 52 States, now has 166. Secondly, the configuration of pover ha8 also changd radicslly. The victorious Powers of the Second World War are no longer the exclusive preeminent Powers. Other Powers and regions have since emerged. For instance, Af rics, which had only four Member States at the inception of the Organisation, now constitutes the largest regional group, which, with 51 Members accounts for almost one third of the Organiration’s membership. Thirdly, the role and functions of the Organitation have undergone important changes. Old preoccupations have given way to new. Issues such as decolonisation have almost been resolved, while new areas such aa the environment are gaining well-deserved recognition and attention. Still, other matters such as disarmament are still being qrapp:ed with. Similarly, hitherto prominent structures such as the Trusteeship Council and the Fourth Committee are gradually giving way, while peace-keeping operations and observer missions have evolved significantly. Likewise, issues of economics and development are now being given great attention. Finally, a nau world order is briny established which promisom to replsce confrontation with consensus and conflict with cooperation. The wave of democratiastion in so many parts of the world is ushering in an era of freedom and self-determination and the quest for ccllectivo security. In the face of these realities and developments, the objective fact is that, of all the organs of the United Nations, the Security Council has been the least responsive. It is true that the Council WFS expanded in 1963 from nine to 15 members, but its structure does not accord with present-day reality. The regional groups are not equitably represented. African and Asian countries have a total of three seats each; countries of the Latin American and Caribbean Group have two seats, as do those of Eastern Europer while countries of the Group of Western European and Other States have a total of five seats. Furthermore, of the five permanent, veto-wielding members, three are from the Group of Western European and Other States, one each from Asia and the Eastern European Group, while Africa and Latin America do not have any. This arrangement can hardly bo said to be democratic. There is, therefore, the need to restructure the Security Council to make it more equitably representative and democratic. Many, ourselves iwcluded, have been wondering what effect the unification of Europe in 1992 will have on the makeup of the Security Council. For example, could a single European political entity continue to maintain two permanent seats and an additional one or two non-permanent seats on the Council? What of the developments in Eastern Europe, particularly the events unfolding in the Soviet Union? What impact will these have? There is also the question of those Member States that have now emerged as major contributors to the Organization. Are they, together with other countries that represent a great percentage of the world's population, not justified in seeking greater representation on the Security (nr.) Council7 There im almo the irmue of the continuing relevance of veto poror, especially conmidoring that not a single veto has boon cast throughout 1990 and 1991, despite the Gulf crisis. Questions like these should be examined objectively and discussed frankly. The legitimacy cf the Council end the moral authority of the Grganiaetion can only be enhanced if the favourable wind of democratisation that is sweeping across the world passes through the United Nations. This will go a long way towards promoting in the minds of many States the positive nature of the nature of the new world order which is emerging, a new world order in which the United Nations is expected to play a leading end crucial role. The world is dynamic and it has come e long way since 1945. The United Nations and all its organs should be adapted to changing circumstances in order to enhance their credibility, relevance and overall acceptability. The Organisation remains the only truly global forum of international legitimacy end multilateral diplomacy. All its principal organs, without exception, should be truly representative .t all the regions and all the nationm of the world, in en equitable and democratic manner. The PRRSIRm: A proposal has been made that the General Assembly defer further consideration of this item to the forty-seventh session, and that it include this item in the provisional agenda of that session. May I take it that the General Assembly decides to defer further consideration of this item to its forty-seveath session and to include the item in the provisional agenda of the forty-seventh session? . Jt was so decided .