A/49/PV.49 General Assembly

My delegation is pleased to participate in this debate on the annual report of the Security Council. We appreciate this opportunity to reflect on the nature of the relationship between this Assembly and the Security Council. There are six organs established by the Charter of the United Nations. Two of these organs have power formally to bind Member States: first, the International Court of Justice in respect of matters of law which are in dispute between States and which are within the Court’s jurisdiction; and secondly, the Security Council in respect of measures necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council also has a role with respect to enforcement of the Court’s judgments. The other organs of the United Nations — the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and this General Assembly — are deliberative political organs with wide-ranging mandates but with no authority to bind except in two very specific ways. The General Assembly can direct the work of the Secretariat, which is, of course, the sixth organ, and it can bind Member States financially by virtue of the contributions which it may assess under Article 17. As we see it, each of these organs is an integral part of a single whole, and the Charter provides for complex interrelationships between these organs. This web of relationships involves reporting, specific channels for recommendations, prescribed processes for elections, judicial review in certain defined circumstances, and finally, political consideration of decisions. It is a series of relationships involving checks and balances that were designed by the founders of the Charter to avoid the dominance of the United Nations — and ultimately of the Member States — by any one of the organs. In considering the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, we do not think it is appropriate, as some have suggested, to assert that the General Assembly is somehow the superior body and that the Security Council is a subordinate body and as such is accountable — or should be — to the General Assembly. That is not what the Charter prescribes. Some delegations have suggested that we explore the possibility of amendments to the Charter to adjust formally the relationship between these two organs. My delegation would never oppose the idea of serious discussion about ways really to democratize the United Nations — but, of course, this is a major issue. Democratization could not stop with the simple question of the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. If we were to contemplate a Our conclusion therefore is that the legal balance of power set out in the Charter, between the Council and the Assembly, will be with us for some years yet. The purpose of our present exercise must therefore be to look, in the context of the annual report of the Security Council, at what improvements can be made within the framework of the current legal balance. We agree strongly with those who say that change is needed. We believe change is needed in the practice and the culture of the Security Council — the way it operates in practice. But what sort of changes are required? We believe that the report of the Security Council currently before this Assembly indicates some valuable changes which have been made since the Council’s previous report was considered by the Assembly. First, subjects for discussion at the informal consultations of the Council are now announced in the Journal, so that General Assembly members do have advance notice of them. Secondly, The Council’s provisional monthly work programme is now circulated to all Missions and contains a calendar of significant dates relevant to the mandates of peace-keeping operations and also of sanctions regimes. Opportunities for input therefore exist. Thirdly, consultations between the President of the Council and the chairmen of the regional groups have been initiated. Fourthly, the annual report itself is now prepared on time, the organization of its contents is more helpful and it contains a modicum of analytical comment — although as Fifthly, informal and ad hoc mechanisms have been found, albeit rather too rarely in our view, for the Council to consult with United Nations Members outside the Council on matters of significance to a particular region. Finally, on one occasion consultations did take place between the presidency and Member States directly affected by an untoward turn of events. In the case I am referring to, consultations were held with troop contributors to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, during the crisis which followed the death of the President of Rwanda in April. All these developments are positive and move in the right direction. They improve the transparency of the Council’s work, but there is much more that could be done. The first area in which, we believe, more could be done relates to information about the work of the Council. The process of casual briefings by delegations after sessions of informal consultations has never been satisfactory. It is haphazard and means that only certain delegations who happen to be waiting get briefed. This leads to errors in that the information is hurried and often third hand, with the risk that delegations might be seriously misrepresented. We welcome the initial step taken by the President of the Council, last month, to hold briefings for interested delegations. We believe that this practice should continue, and it should continue if possible on a daily basis. We also believe that it can be done without prejudicing the confidentiality and efficiency of the informal consultations. The second area for the further improvement which we believe should be effected in the report of the Security Council would relate to an increase in the capacity of the Council to consult with and receive input from non- members of the Council. We believe that a major source of concern is that a State which raises an issue before the Council, but which is not itself a member of the Council, has no opportunity under the Council’s current operating processes to present its position publicly until after the Council has decided in private what action it intends to Another major concern, which is felt very strongly by members of the General Assembly, in particular those that are troop-contributing countries, is that the Council is not providing sufficiently responsive mechanisms for consultation with troop-contributing countries on major issues relating to peace-keeping operations. I believe it is important to record here our appreciation of the efforts of the Secretariat to date in this regard to organize meetings of troop contributors for the provision of information. These are useful, but, as so many other colleagues who have spoken in this debate have pointed out, they are no substitute for consultation between the Council and troop- contributing countries. My delegation has joined in the Security Council with the delegation of Argentina to make a proposal, set out in document S/1994/1063, which would provide for a substantial improvement in this consultative process and a more appropriate recognition of the requirement that exists on occasion for members of the General Assembly to have a direct dialogue with the members of the Security Council on matters such as peace- keeping operations. We remain hopeful that a positive outcome to this initiative will be achieved. We also believe that there are cases in which the Council’s consideration of issues would benefit from mechanisms to allow informal input by regional countries closely interested in or affected by a situation. As has occurred at least once in the past, working groups of the Council could liaise with such groupings of States to receive input. Finally, how are we to proceed in the future? My delegation believes that these are matters on which only the Council itself can in fact take decisions. They are not matters which can be imposed by a vote in the General Assembly. The Council has shown that it is capable of addressing these sorts of issues, and we are very pleased that it is making some attempts to reform its culture to reflect the new climate that exists in this Organization. But, unfortunately, on some issues the Council allows itself to be sidetracked into delay or, worse, inaction by a small minority or on occasion by a sole dissenting voice. We believe that this is unacceptable on matters which beyond any shadow of a doubt are of a procedural nature and on which the wish of the majority is clear.

Allow me first to say that my delegation welcomes the fact that the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, in his capacity as President of the Security Council, introduced the report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. We hope that this practice, which we are encouraged to note was reinstituted last year by the Permanent Representative of Brazil, will become a tradition to be followed by future Presidents of the Security Council. It is particularly important for us that the number of delegations participating in this debate has continued to increase. In our view, the report of the Security Council is of interest to all delegations, as the Council has become not only the most active organ of the Organization, but also the one whose activities increasingly affect a large number of countries. It must be recalled that this item is included on the agenda of the General Assembly in compliance with provisions of the Charter. Article 15 requests the Council to provide annual reports to the Assembly, since, as stated in Article 24, the Council’s powers are conferred upon it by the Members of the United Nations — that is, the General Assembly — on whose behalf it acts. In other words, when the General Assembly considers the report it is not only taking cognizance of issues of the greatest interest to the entire international community, but is also fulfilling responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter. Nevertheless, as we have indicated in the past, the content of this report does not enable the General Assembly truly to fulfil its responsibilities in an effective manner. In its present form, the report of the Security Council may be useful to libraries and documentation centres, but it is not useful to States, which, in accordance with the Charter, must assess the activities in which the Council engages on our behalf and determine whether or The delegation of Cuba is among those that have systematically criticized the partial and cursory manner in which the work of the Council is presented to the Assembly. Last year we observed that a number of positive changes had been made in the report, thanks to the efforts of several members of the Council. It seems that such efforts have not continued, and this year’s report is totally devoid of any analytical material that would allow us to assess what the Council has done or failed to do. This is closely associated with the increasing number of requests for greater transparency in the activities of the Council. Prevailing practices, which are characterized by the closed and secret nature of most of the substantive deliberations of the Council members — and notwithstanding some marginal improvements in the course of the past two or three years, which we of course recognize — make it increasingly necessary that requests for an analytical, complete and comprehensive report be met. Other elements in the Council’s activities are also linked to the issue we are considering today. The Security Council has shown an increasing tendency to consider as its own a number of issues in the work of the Organization that have nothing to do with the powers conferred upon it by the Charter. It arrogates to itself the right — which has not been given it — to decide when a situation does or does not pose a threat to international peace and security, and this might lend impetus to the growing tendency to interfere in the internal affairs of States; it arrogates to itself, without appropriate guidelines laid down by the democratic and universal bodies of the United Nations, the power to determine when there is a need to have recourse to the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter. For today’s Security Council, and for some of its permanent members in particular, that organ constitutes the Organization’s only valid body; this conveniently ignores the fact that each one of the bodies that make up the United Nations has its own functions and powers. The Council’s tendency to act as an autonomous body continues to grow, and, given its responsibilities with regard to international peace and security and its consequent power to impose sanctions or resort to the use of force, that tendency is increasingly dangerous. It is also cause for concern that every time the Council takes up an issue, however simple, it immediately decides to keep it under review, thereby enabling some of its members continuously Indeed, appropriate information to the Member States, adequate structure and analysis in the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly, as well as special reports presented when circumstances warrant, as provided by the Charter, are all necessary and imperative if the Organization is to become effectively democratized and fulfil the purposes and principles for which it was created. Nothing that the Council does or fails to do should be hidden from the Members of the Organization, on whose behalf, I repeat, the Council acts. Here, I am forced to note that the document that we are now considering does not contain a single word concerning the tenor of the Security Council’s real discussions, and that, in our view, is a virtual violation of the Charter and its provisions setting forth the Council’s obligation to report to the General Assembly. In so doing, the Security Council is preventing the General Assembly from carrying out its legitimate responsibilities, even its responsibility to make recommendations to the Council regarding its activities or modus operandi. There can be no doubt whatsoever that in order to allow the Assembly to fulfil those functions Member States should ensure that it also has the means to implement the powers conferred upon it by the Charter with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security and the peaceful settlement of disputes, powers that are set forth, inter alia, in Articles 10, 11 and 14 of the Charter itself. In light of this, my delegation would like to express its complete endorsement of the statement on this item made by the representative of Indonesia on behalf of the members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and to emphasize most particularly the need for this item to remain open after the conclusion of the present debate, in order to allow for the holding of the consultations foreseen in paragraph 4 of General Assembly resolution 48/264, which, in essence, are closely linked to this subject. In this connection, the report should also duly reflect the frequent oral reports to the Council by high Secretariat officials and the letters exchanged between the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General, when those are not published as official documents of the United Nations, and it should include a report on the activities of the subsidiary organs of the Council, which are also of the utmost interest to the Members of the Organization. At the same time the report’s structure should be made more functional and be adapted to the new analytical content we are advocating. This would be our only means of determining what the real activities of the Council have been during the year or of being able evaluate, albeit in a summary manner, the results of those activities in political terms. We urge the Members of the Organization to consider this issue seriously as a first step towards the pressing and necessary reform of the Security Council, along with the restoration of equitable geographical distribution in the Council’s membership and an increase in its numbers. Failure to do so would be tantamount to ignoring our responsibilities as Members of the United Nations. If the Council cannot by itself modify substantially the manner in which it reports to the General Assembly so as to meet the wishes of the Organization’s membership as a whole, the General Assembly should be prepared, sooner rather than later, to make the necessary recommendations to that effect.

I wish to thank the President of the Security Council for his presentation of the annual report of the Council to the General Assembly. The report is testimony to the dramatically increased activities of the Council in recent years. It gives a clear indication of its heavy and ever-increasing workload, and my delegation wishes to take this opportunity to express its appreciation for the dedication and hard work of the members of the Council. It should not be forgotten — and many speakers have said this already — that the Council is fulfilling this role on behalf of the entire membership of the Organization, as provided in Article 24 of the Charter. It is here that the legitimacy of the Council’s actions is anchored. But from that Article of the Charter it also flows that the general membership is entitled to be informed about the way in which the Council is fulfilling its responsibilities. My delegation holds the view that, against the background of the Council’s increased responsibilities, the general membership is entitled to receive a different kind of report than the one we now have before us. I fully realize the difficulties involved in producing a report that is of a more analytical character. I am not advocating that an extensive account should be given of all the aspects of the negotiations in the informal consultations in the Security Council. Informal consultations are useful, necessary and indispensable for the effectiveness of the work of the Council. At the same time, it is necessary to enhance the transparency of the work of the Council. More than ever before, the Member States are actively involved in peace- keeping operations around the world mandated by the Security Council. It is therefore logical that, more than ever before, Member States feel the need to be involved in the Council’s decision-making process. The flow of information between the Council and the membership at large has to be improved. The annual report is one of the channels that can be used for this purpose. In this light, the present format of the annual report does not seem appropriate any more. The United Nations finds itself at present in a transitional phase, seeking a new identity in a new and complex international context. The Organization is trying to redefine its role in responding to the many challenges it is facing. Especially in the field of peace-keeping, the United Nations has learned important lessons in the recent past. However, in the report of the Council, which is the only body competent to authorize such operations, no At any rate, it seems to me that a special chapter in the report dedicated to an evaluation of the experiences of the past year would be a welcome enrichment of the present format, a sort of chapter on lessons learned. If the Organization wants to be responsible, credible and successful, it is of paramount importance that we try to learn as much from our failures as from our successes. It is not acceptable that a body which is given such tremendous power and responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security should render account by way of a simple list of its activities during the past year. No organization in which powers of this magnitude are delegated to a select body would be content with a purely factual annual report. Before closing, let me assure the Assembly that my critical remarks made here today about the report are in no way meant to infringe the competence and prerogatives of the Security Council. My suggestions and comments should be seen as an effort to contribute to an enhancement of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the decisions of the Council, in whose important role we continue to believe.

The Security Council has once again produced for the General Assembly a report with a long and detailed list of its activities between June 1993 and June 1994. From the report, the volume of the Council’s work in the interest of the maintenance of international peace and security appears particularly impressive. However, in terms of quality, I am afraid I must note once again, as in previous years, the purely descriptive nature of the document. One should not forget that this report constitutes the main formal link between two bodies of vital importance to the United Nations system. The need to redefine and invigorate relations between the Council and the General Assembly, which is the embodiment of the United Nations general membership, has been repeatedly One of the various proposals for reform is to infuse new life into this type of annual report by eliminating some of its ritual, bureaucratic verbiage and enriching it instead with an assessment of the substantial problems that the Security Council must face. My delegation fully supports this proposal. Only in this way can the General Assembly, which elects two thirds of the Security Council’s members, gain a more concrete and accurate idea of the Council’s activities. We would also like this report to be accompanied by other instruments and mechanisms that would make relations between the General Assembly and the Security Council closer and more organic. Various proposals to this end have been advanced during the debate on the reform of the Security Council. Examples include the establishment of periodic meetings between the Presidents of the two bodies or the creation of a shared subsidiary body. We believe that these proposals should be examined in depth since a more efficient and fruitful collaboration between the two bodies would provide the fundamental premise for guaranteeing the entire United Nations membership a greater sense of participation in the work of the Council. We feel that one step in the right direction was taken by last month’s President of the Security Council, Sir David Hannay, when he held a briefing on October 27 for all the Missions not represented on the Security Council. The response was warm, and 70 or so countries showed up. We applaud this initiative and look forward to briefings by future Presidents. This should become established practice. The participation of the greatest possible number of Member States should be encouraged. To this end, we take the liberty of suggesting that such briefings by the President of the Security Council be held regularly on a certain day of the week — possibly at the same time and place — and that they be announced in the United Nations Journal. We should not forget that many of the improvements in the Organization have come about not through Charter revisions but through changes in practice. This is the road we should continue to follow. Finally, I want, like other representatives who have spoken, to underline another step that might be taken.

The report of the Security Council is one of the most important documents that the General Assembly has before it. As the Secretary-General points out in his report, “The vastly enhanced activities of the Security Council have generated a justifiable interest ... among the Member States ... and the international community”, who are demanding “more transparency in the working methods”. (A/49/1, para. 30) Notwithstanding this acknowledgement, one can only conclude that over the past year only marginal progress has been made in the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly or between the Council and Member States with regard to procedures governing information, consultation, transparency and predictability. As a reference document the report is invaluable to Member States, but it is of lesser usefulness for the purpose of assessing the conflicts dealt with by the Council, the interests at stake in those conflicts and the merit of measures adopted by the Council to resolve them. Anyone wanting an overall picture of a given crisis and of the strategy adopted to resolve it would have to consult the Secretary-General’s report on a case-by-case basis. An overall analysis of the activities of the Organization through its various bodies continues to be necessary. The present approach is piecemeal; it has not yet been structured. The report that we are considering today is but one piece — indeed, an unrelated piece — of the whole. The importance of the process and the methodology of information is relevant not only because of the very nature of the items concerning the maintenance of international Venezuela considers it necessary to continue to explore options to improve the situation. We are in favour of achieving greater and better interaction between all the competent organs in the area of international peace and security by parallel and mutually complementary means. First, there must be an increase in the number of members of the Security Council. Secondly, the procedures governing information and consultations must be improved. Our objective is to encourage a working relationship that produces better communication and coordination between the General Assembly and the Security Council and ensures that each body fully respects the jurisdiction of the other. In this context, we have welcomed the progress that has been made in the sphere of the Council’s documentation and related issues; this is dealt with in chapter 28 of the report. At the same time, we should like to see similar progress in any direction that would facilitate the tasks of the General Assembly, whose powers under Articles 10, 15 and 24 of the Charter do not require confirmation in respect of either matters of substance or matters of procedure. Ultimately, however, such progress depends on the Council’s authorizing the Secretary-General to provide information more frequently to the Council, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Charter. Venezuela favours greater use of special reports, which are particularly justifiable in the case of matters considered under Chapter VII of the Charter, and the production of ordinary reports at intervals that are more in tune with the dynamics of the Council’s activities. The annual report could be subdivided into semester sections. Thus it would be closer to the activities being reported upon. In addition, its contents should be more analytical, as has been said repeatedly in this Hall. Closer follow-up to the activities of the Council, to reports by the Secretary-General, to consultations and plenary The report that is being considered by the General Assembly covers part of the period during which Venezuela had the responsibility of being a member of the Security Council. My delegation has no comment to make on the report’s content in respect of matters in the consideration of which we participated. However, we should like to repeat that consideration of these matters would have been more useful if it had taken place a year ago, and our work in the Council would have been enriched by more dynamic relations between the Council and the General Assembly. During the period of our membership we advocated regular consultations and exchanges of views with regional groups and States concerned. From our own experience we can say that the Council’s work would have benefited substantively and operationally. For this reason we are convinced of the virtue of transparency and of constructive interaction. We are confident that the methods of work and procedures of, and the submission of reports by, the Security Council and the General Assembly will develop in the direction of achieving these goals.

I should like, at the outset, to thank Sir David Hannay, who occupied the presidency of the Security Council during the month of October, for his very helpful presentation of this report to the General Assembly. We appreciate his efforts to contribute to the recent commendable trend, in the functioning of the Council, towards greater transparency and concern for the interests of States that are not members of the Council. My country would also like to take this opportunity to express its high esteem for the delegations of all the States — both permanent and non-permanent members — The views of my country on the work of the Security Council and on issues of special interest to us have been expressed on a number of occasions, most recently in the general debate and in discussions that have begun both in plenary and in the Committees. It is therefore my intention to try to make this statement as concise as possible. Allow me therefore to focus on some ideas and specific proposals pertinent to the functioning of the Council which, we believe, would improve its efficiency and the transparency of its work. In the effort to achieve greater openness and transparency in the work of the Council we welcome the steps undertaken over the past year to provide information to non-member States on a regular basis. Let me note, in this connection, the decision by the Council to make available the tentative forecast of its monthly programme of work as well as draft resolutions in their provisional form. We also welcome the practice, recently introduced by the Presidency, of holding periodic informal briefings on the current work of the Security Council. In our opinion, further measures in this direction could include regular and/or ad hoc operative briefings on the deliberations at meetings of the sanctions committees; the introduction of the practice of open meetings of the Council’s sanctions committees or participation in meetings of these committees by States concerned, as observers, whenever such participation is warranted by the discussion of issues of vital importance for them; and measures to provide improved and more timely access of interested States to documents of the sanctions committees, as appropriate. The need for consultations with States that are not members of the Council but that are directly concerned is most strongly felt when economic sanctions and other similar preventive and enforcement measures are considered. We note steps taken in this direction during the past year, in particular concerning applications made under Article 50 of the Charter, as a consequence of the implementation of the sanctions imposed against the former Yugoslavia, which are listed under chapter 2 B of part I of the report. In conclusion, let me express my hope that the suggestions I have made will prove useful in our common endeavour to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Security Council in the fulfilment of its highly important mission with regard to the complex problems facing the world today.

Let me begin by associating my delegation with the statement made by the President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, Sir David Hannay, in introducing the annual report of the Security Council for the period 16 June 1993 to 15 June 1994, contained in document A/49/2. Nigeria welcomes the improvement, not only in the format of the report, but also in its presentation. We note also, in the context of the report, indications as to changes that need to take place in the working methods and procedures of the Council in order to provide for enhanced interaction and consultation between members of the Security Council and States Members of the Organization. My delegation had welcomed the establishment by the Council, in June 1993, of an informal working group on documentation and other procedural matters. That group met regularly in the course of the year covered in the report to consider ways of improving the Council’s working procedures. The measures which resulted from those such endeavours have been useful, although there is room for substantive improvement. For example, the initiative currently under discussion as to how best to brief Member States on the progress or outcome of the Council’s informal consultations is a welcome development and one which my delegation fully supports. We hope that other members of the Council will continue to support it. The decision to make available to all Member States the tentative forecasts of the programme of work of the Security Council each month, with annexes of reports by the Secretary-General has considerably enhanced the Council’s efforts to achieve greater transparency. Further improvements in this direction would be very welcome. My delegation is impressed by the volume and scope of work, evident from the report, which the Council had undertaken in the past year in the maintenance of international peace and security, which is its primary responsibility. It is significant to note, for instance, that the Council adopted 87 resolutions and issued 68 statements by the President covering conflict areas and related issues. No doubt, the scope of this work reflects the changed circumstances of the international post-cold- war situation, which has enabled our Organization to begin to play the role and to fulfil the expectations envisaged for it by the founding fathers. Peace-keeping has become the critical concern of our time, and rightly so. Out of the several peace-keeping operations currently being undertaken by the Security Council, unfortunately a preponderant number of them happen to be located in our continent, Africa. The sober reality of the increase in the number of conflicts and their location reflects the depth of the political problems facing In conclusion, my delegation wishes to reiterate its firm belief that the Security Council can only maintain and enhance its credibility, its legitimacy and its effectiveness if it adopts processes that are both democratic and transparent. We therefore urge the Security Council to intensify efforts in this direction. Organization of work

I should like to inform delegations that, as announced yesterday, the Assembly will consider agenda item 39, “The situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, on Thursday, 3 November 1994 in the morning instead of on Wednesday, 2 November 1994 as previously scheduled.

The presentation and consideration of the report of the Security Council has in recent years become one of the high points in our work. The renewed interest in this report is merely the reflection of the profound changes that have occurred in international affairs which have led to the expansion of the activities of this central body of the United Nations system, and thus to more frequent decisions on subjects of major concern. The overriding role played by the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security has, quite rightly, made it a body in the activities of which all States are rightly interested, hence the importance they attach to its work, functioning and working methods. It is also why the annual reports of this body submitted pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Charter are of great interest for all States, in particular for those that do not have sufficient human or material resources systematically to follow all the subjects dealt with by the Council. The delegation of Mauritania fully agrees with the views expressed by the Ambassador of Indonesia speaking as current Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement. Acting on this request is particularly crucial since with the increase in the items dealt with it is essential to give States the means to make a positive contribution to the decision-making process and to participate in all the preparatory stages. That is why my country supports efforts to expand the membership of the Security Council to make it reflect the current realities of our world as well as the prevailing sensitivities we find in it. That is also why we would like to see the flow of information between the Council and the General Assembly become an ongoing process and we think that the Charter provisions here should be applied more systematically. The crucial role of the Security Council in the preservation of international peace and security makes it a body whose decisions have important ramifications in various areas of activity. That is why the way it functions and acts is a matter of great importance. Here we welcome the new unity of action we have witnessed in the Council in recent years, just as we welcome recent efforts to submit reports within agreed deadlines. Finally, we hope that the current negotiations seeking to bring about the changes we wish to see, with regard to the composition of the Council and its working methods, will continue. The commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary should encourage us to redouble our efforts so that we can face the future with an instrument that is capable of meeting the challenges and opportunities ahead.

At the outset I wish to express the gratitude of the delegation of Japan to the Secretariat for preparing this report of the Security Council to the General Assembly for the period from 16 June 1993 to 15 June 1994. Japan was a member of the Council during the first half of that period. The report is a useful document consisting in large part of a compilation of the relevant documents and materials on all subjects that the Council addressed in the course of the year. My delegation notes in particular that during that time, the Council held 153 formal meetings, adopted 187 resolutions, and issued 68 presidential statements. We note with great interest that this level of activity is a clear reflection of the As my delegation emphasized during the debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, the need to reform the organization of the Council and the need to reform its functioning are the two issues which together form the basis of an overall plan to reform the Security Council. They should therefore be examined concurrently. It is hoped that agreement will be reached on both of them as soon as possible. In the context of the present agenda item, Japan strongly supports measures to achieve greater transparency in the work of the Security Council. As a member of the Council, Japan worked actively towards this end, particularly through the working group on procedural matters. In addition, when Japan served as President of the Council in 1993 it engaged in more than 60 bilateral consultations in an effort to expand communication between members of the Council and non-members. On this score, a number of proposals have been submitted, including a few by my own delegation, to make information on Security Council activities, particularly on the progress of its informal consultations, more readily available to United Nations Member States. We are gratified to note that the Council itself has been making efforts and taking appropriate action in this direction. As described in the report, in July 1993 the Council decided to make available to all United Nations Member States a tentative forecast of the programme of its work for each month. Also, in March 1994 it decided that the draft resolutions in their provisional form would be made available to States which are not members of the Council. These new measures have surely been helpful in improving the transparency of the Council’s work. Moreover, we understand that the Council has recently introduced a new system of periodic briefings to be made by the delegation which holds the presidency on the In order to enhance the legitimacy and credibility of the Council, it is important that the two-way flow of information between the Council and United Nations Member States be improved. This, in turn, will contribute to a more effective functioning of the Security Council. My delegation has joined others in suggesting that a mechanism should be established for consultations on peace-keeping operations between the Security Council and the countries concerned, including those that make major contributions of funding and troops, as well as other interested countries. We note that some improvement has been made in this regard by ensuring interaction on major peace-keeping operations through meetings between the Council and troop-contributing countries, enabling both sides to better understand the views and concerns of the other. We also stress the importance of improving relations between the Security Council and the General Assembly, and of ensuring that the views of the latter body are reflected in the deliberations of the Council. In closing, let me once again express my delegation’s gratitude to the Security Council for its efforts to enhance the transparency of its activities. We hope the Council will continue those efforts while paying due regard to the need to maintain efficiency in its work.

Today, once again, we are speaking in a debate in the General Assembly on the report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. The report this time covers the period from June 1993 to June 1994. This is a continuation of a welcome practice, which was begun in 1990 by the delegations of Colombia, Cuba and Malaysia. This practice has made possible a beneficial dialogue between two United Nations organs, the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with the express provisions of Article 24, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter. In this context, we would like to give special thanks to the delegation of the United Kingdom for introducing this report to the Assembly and for continuing the approach taken by the delegation of Brazil last year, that is, adopting the report in a formal meeting of the Security Council. Argentina’s commitment to these activities is as clear as it is concrete, as we assume what we consider to be one of the most serious responsibilities for Member States that derives from the Charter. Argentina’s interest in these problems has been shown not only in our ongoing participation in the debates in the various United Nations forums, but also in our having contributed 1,600 Blue Helmets from Argentina who are currently engaged in nine peace-keeping operations throughout the world. The significant contribution of Argentina is proof of Argentina’s commitment to international peace and security. We would add that, when it has been necessary to restore peace, Argentina has contributed with military units to United Nations efforts in conflicts between Iraq and Kuwait and, more recently, in Haiti, to whose democracy my delegation has always been committed. Also within this framework can be found the various measures adopted by Argentina in the field of disarmament. For example, in a bilateral framework with Brazil, we have taken action for the utilization of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; regionally, we have ratified the Tlatelolco Treaty and, more broadly, we have participated in a moratorium on the sale of anti-personnel land-mines that was decided on by the Government of Argentina. The period covered by the report before us could be considered to be the most active in the entire history of the Security Council. During this period, 87 resolutions were adopted and 68 presidential statements issued. At the same time, the Security Council met on over 400 occasions, if we include both the formal meetings and the plenary consultations, not to mention the meetings of the Council’s subsidiary bodies, which were also active, especially the seven sanctions committees. The Council’s work focused on 19 conflicts, some of them extremely complex and far-reaching. Eight of these were located in Africa, four in Asia, four in Europe and two in the Americas. During the same period, the Council oversaw 17 different peace-keeping operations involving approximately 75,000 personnel throughout the world. It As we said at the outset, this should serve as an occasion for the Members of the United Nations to engage in a dialogue with the members of the Security Council, whether permanent or non-permanent. In this context, the Argentine delegation feels that certain fundamental issues of the Council’s work during the period in question should be raised. As to global matters, we would raise the following issues. It is unquestionably clear from the report that the Security Council and the entire United Nations machinery are today deeply involved in resolving those conflicts that threaten peace and security. It is not yet clear, however, whether the present balance in the international system is stable. In spite of this, we cannot very well wait for the system to reform itself or to adapt to whatever new balance may emerge before we decide to act. The magnitude of the problems, such as those in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, to mention but these two, requires immediate action by the Security Council. The various mechanisms of the Secretariat are speedily adapting to suit the new requirements. At the same time, however, certain unwieldy restrictions remain, arising from a lack of human and financial resources. One gets the impression, though, that resources do exist and that what is really involved is an absence of commitment or political will on the part of some Member States, or of appropriate channels for dealing with or resolving the issues. The Council, in turn, is making use of a series of instruments provided for by the Charter, such as economic sanctions. These require a thorough and innovative analysis in terms of results and effects. In particular, consideration must be given to the impact of these sanctions on the weaker segments of societies upon which they are imposed. In certain cases, it is clear that the sanctions can respond and be adapted to the objective sought; in others, certain doubts remain. These sanctions, though, are an instrument without which resort to the use of force — which should be a matter of exception — would be more frequent. That is why we need to assess the way in which they are used without minimizing their importance. In this context, we also believe that we must continue to try to implement, in a realistic but effective manner, the provisions of Article 50 of the Charter. In connection with the Security Council’s work, I should like to point out the following. For a little more than a year now, the Council has been working systematically on its procedures. To some extent, this has been in response to demands by the general membership that have been heard time and time again in various forums, but also in response to the Council’s own needs. Here, we would refer to the activity of the Council’s Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Matters — which has suggested a whole series of changes aimed at achieving greater transparency in the Council’s work. An example of this effort is precisely the new format of the report before us, in which there remains room for improvement. Meetings are now being announced in the Journal, which I recall was a proposal originally made by the delegation of Cuba. There has also been a recent unofficial decision of the Council that its President should report periodically to the general membership on discussions held in informal consultations. I might mention the action recently taken by the United Kingdom to promote this procedure. Another demand that should be heeded is that for greater communication between the Council and the general membership in specific matters that call for it. This debate is a clear example of such communication, but there are other matters of equal importance. In this context, the Council, at the initiative of the delegation of New Zealand and my own, is at present working on the imminent implementation of stable and predictable machinery that will allow for a better flow of communication between troop-contributing countries, members of the Council and the Secretariat. We hope that significant progress will be made on these matters in coming days; this will begin to respond to a need frequently expressed by the Members of the Organization. The Council generally meets these days in informal meetings that are not explicitly provided for in the Charter. In spite of this, these meetings are clearly indispensable if there is to be a fluid exchange of opinions and views enabling speedy and efficient decision-making. Having mentioned these specific problems, we should like, lastly, to raise a more general issue, albeit one which is related to what we have already discussed. I am referring to the differing perceptions that sometimes arise between permanent and non-permanent members of the Council regarding certain procedural matters. My delegation believes that it would make the Council’s work much more efficient if each side made a genuine effort to understand the other’s point of view, within the context of paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Charter. We said at the outset that the work of the Council is extremely complex. We have therefore referred only to some aspects of it which we feel require a greater exchange of opinion between the General Assembly and the Security Council. This is a joint undertaking. The appropriate forums are already available, and it is possible to create any new channels of communication that may be considered necessary. In this context, the Argentine delegation is working actively in the organization of the Summit meeting of the Security Council, proposed by the Secretary-General, over which we will preside in January 1995. We are sure that this meeting will be an appropriate forum for discussing the matters that we are reviewing today. Finally, what we are discussing here is of great significance. If we do not want any one country to have to take on the task of guaranteeing peace beyond its borders, we must perfect the collective machinery, letting it evolve in the light of experience and strengthening it on the basis of cooperation.

After decades of paralysis caused by the ideological bloc confrontation, the increasing dynamism of the Security Council today and its decisive action in certain conflicts over the past three years suggest that the prospects are better for the smooth functioning of the collective security system established by the Charter. The My comments, which complement those made by the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement, of which Ecuador is a member, will be preliminary, as my Government has not had time in the few days since this report was published to carry out an exhaustive analysis of such a voluminous text. My delegation therefore supports the proposal by the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement that this matter be kept open on the agenda. The basic objective of the presentation of the Council’s report is to enable the Members of the Organization to assess the work done by the Council, representing the entire membership, and to express their views on how the mandate has been discharged. Regrettably, the text that we have been given does not make it possible for us to carry out this important task. As other delegations have said, both at this session and in past years, a mere compilation of resolutions and presidential declarations in the Council and a list of documents on various issues does not give enough information for the complete analysis that we need to carry out. The international community needs to know clearly what criteria were used to guide the Council during particularly difficult times. The report, despite recent requests, lacks the information that would enable us to understand the political and legal foundations for the Council’s taking a certain course. We are living at a time when concepts are being redefined. Sovereignty, self-determination, security and sustainable human development are terms that are discussed time and time again in various bodies in this Organization in attempts to clarify their significance and adapt our actions to changing realities. For that reason, while the basic documents and principles of the United Nations remain in force, the international community must know the exact criteria followed by the body with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, on behalf of the entire membership, when it takes decisions. The increased financial cost for States resulting from the growing activities of the Security Council has become well known over the past two years. Our peoples and Governments have a right to know the exact reasons for these new demands. There has been criticism of lax interpretation of legal norms. The Council has a tendency to use Chapter VII of the Charter frequently. There is a lack of clarity over what matters lead the Council to determine that there is or is not a threat to international peace and security. There is a perception that the Council involves itself in matters within the jurisdiction of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). For these and other reasons, various delegations, including the delegation of Ecuador, have suggested at various times that we should consider establishing a mechanism of constitutional control over this organ. This option, whose possible negative implications my Government is well aware of, will acquire special relevance if the Security Council continues to present reports lacking any analysis of its actions or of the criteria used in its deliberations, especially in informal meetings. The serious challenges that face the international community must be tackled with clear norms and a consistent, responsible practice by all United Nations bodies. Many of the ideas expressed in this debate and in the debates on equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council point in this direction. Ecuador hopes that the members of the Council will give due consideration to these questions so that the next report makes it possible for us to view the work of our Organization with renewed optimism.

A tentative programme of work and schedule of plenary meetings for the months of November and December will be issued tomorrow morning in document A/INF/49/5/Add.2. This addendum supersedes document A/INF/49/5/Add.1. The list of speakers for the items that were not already listed in document A/INF/49/5/Add.1 will be open tomorrow morning. I should like to point out that this schedule is being issued as early as possible in order to assist delegations in planning their work. For its part, the Secretariat will endeavour to ensure that the relevant documentation is available to delegations ahead of the discussion of any given agenda item. The scheduling of agenda items not reflected in document A/INF/49/5/Add.2 will be announced in due course. I will also keep the Assembly informed of any changes. Further, I should like to inform members that the announcement of voluntary contributions to the 1995 programmes of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East will take place on Tuesday morning, 6 December. As I mentioned to the Assembly earlier, I hope to follow this schedule as closely as possible so that the Assembly can discharge its responsibilities in an orderly fashion. I therefore appeal to those representatives that wish to submit draft resolutions to do so sufficiently in advance of the date fixed for consideration of items to give members adequate time to examine them. I should also like to remind representatives that additional time is needed for those draft resolutions involving changes in the programme of work or additional expenditures, since these will require the preparation of a statement of programme budget implications by the Secretary-General. Furthermore, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions and the Fifth Committee will need adequate time to review the programme budget implications of a draft resolution before it can be acted on by the Assembly.

Quite properly, the report of the Security Council to the General Assembly is the It is our view that, if there is a central point to be made from this report, we should acknowledge that in recent years, there has been a growing and expressed concern about the need to improve the briefing procedures, working methods and practices of the Security Council. There have been many calls for improved mechanisms for communication and consultation between the overall membership of the United Nations and the Security Council. It is right, therefore, to ask, in the face of so many calls: What has happened? What does this report reflect in answer to that question? My delegation can say that there have been some improvements. We see positive examples of instances in which the Security Council has listened to Member States and has sought to respond to calls for change. Accordingly, some initial steps have been taken by the Council to improve the transparency and accessibility of its deliberations. These have been constructive steps. Indeed, these efforts should be seen in the context of the unprecedented number of situations to which the Council is called upon to respond, and in the context of the increasing frequency - indeed, the virtually continuous nature - of its deliberations. In our view, it is simply courteous, as a consequence of these facts, to give recognition to the progress that has been made over the last year by the Council in adopting some changes to its working methods. In that sense, the old principle that credit should be given where credit is due should be applied on this occasion. We hope that this positive experience will lend support to further and continuing efforts to reform the practices of the Council and to foster further improved mechanisms of communication between the Council, Member States and the General Assembly. Many delegations have made the point that more is needed in this respect. One obvious example of where progress has occurred is in the availability and the substance of this year’s report of the Security Council to the General Now what can be said more specifically of this year’s report? In its present form, it provides a useful and comprehensive compendium of documents relevant to the Security Council deliberations and of action then taken by the Council. As others have pointed out, this is certainly useful and of academic interest. But it could be made more than that, and there are many calls for it to contain a greater degree of analysis, for it to move beyond being a document of record, no matter how precise or how full. Those calls should be addressed. In addition, a new and significant chapter has been added to part II of the report, entitled “Other matters considered by the Security Council”. Chapter 28 of the report, entitled “Documentation of the Security Council and related matters”, is clear and further evidence that the Security Council has given consideration, over the past year, to how to improve some aspects of its working methods and mechanisms for communicating its deliberations to the General Assembly. My delegation welcomes these developments, and we would strongly encourage further action in the same direction. By comparison, however, we would call attention to part III of the report, dealing with the work of the Military Staff Committee. Last year’s report contained the following explanation of the activities of the Military Staff Committee: “The Military Staff Committee, established pursuant to Article 47 of the Charter of the United Nations, functioned continually under its draft rules of procedure during the period under review. It held a total of 26 meetings and remained prepared to carry out the functions assigned to it under the terms of Article 47”. (A/48/2, p. 421) That is, at best, hardly a revealing statement. But what is truly fascinating about this year’s report is that precisely the same statement is repeated under the heading, “Military Staff Committee”. If all the report can tell Member States about the Military Staff Committee’s activities is that the Committee is prepared to carry out its functions, then we cannot be chastised for being too demanding when we ask ourselves how to improve the functioning of the Military Staff Committee and its relationship to the Council and to the wider purposes of the Charter. In our review of the report of the Council, this very important area of the life of our United Nations, it must be remembered that, according to Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council acts on behalf of Member States — all of us. It therefore makes good sense for the Council to be responsive to the views of Member States on its operations. Let it be clear: Article 24 clearly implies a two-way flow of information. More information should flow out of the Security Council to the wider membership on all aspects of the Council’s work, but there must also be a flow into the Council from the whole community it serves. The Council should be prepared to listen to, receive and act upon such information, because its role as an effective body representative of us all demands no less. A key example of a procedural form that would be effective is the establishment of an early-warning system to draw the Council’s attention to emerging global crises and threats, military or non-military. It should be possible for the Council to meet periodically to consider situations, in the words of Article 34 of the Charter, “which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute”. Under such a reform, the Council could then look at potential problems not covered by the existing Council agenda. Matters for consideration could be determined by relying on Articles 11, 12, 14, 52 and 99 of the Charter, as well as on the proposals of the Council and of Member States. An early-warning procedure of this sort, on this or similar lines, would enable the Council to take action to assist the peaceful settlement of disputes before problems escalate into armed conflict or a complete breakdown of law and order. A truly modern Security Council would then, in this sense, become much more involved in preventive diplomacy than ever before.

My delegation welcomes the report of the Security Council to the General Assembly, contained in document A/49/2. The report provides a compendium of the Security Council’s activities during the last reporting period, and also describes its tasks in the context of increasing new responsibilities. We also appreciate the response of the Council in implementing proposals relating to its working methods and procedures, including the inclusion of its provisional agenda in the Journal. It is my delegation’s view, however, that these measures do not go far enough in providing analytical insight into the Council’s work, as the general membership of the United Nations would have liked to see. In this respect, my delegation fully supports the views expressed earlier by the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement. Under Article 24 of the Charter, Member States have conferred on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. This provision is based on the understanding that in carrying out its tasks the Council acts on behalf of the membership as a whole. Hence, the Council is called upon to act in a representative manner. An appropriate mechanism for non-members of the Council to contribute their views and share information on the Council’s work would only foster the democratic character of the Council and at the same time enhance its effectiveness. We believe that formal and informal meetings as well as informal consultations should take place to facilitate wider participation of Member States before the Security Council takes decisions. Troop-contributing countries naturally have a vital interest in the assessment and analysis of a situation involving the establishment of peace-keeping operation and its extension or changes of its mandate. As one of the significant troop-contributing countries, Nepal is concerned about a clear mandate, a realistic time- frame and a correct assessment of the situation in peace- keeping operations. The safety and security of personnel involved is an equally important concern for us. The report of the Council should therefore be able to present a clear picture to help the troop-contributors make their commitments in an informed manner. Such information would be useful to all Member States, but more so to those that do not have the resources to make their own Nepal welcomes the concept of arrangements for a United Nations stand-by force to meet the increasing demands of peace-keeping operations. A more transparent manner of operation in the Security Council would help ensure further cooperation from Member States and elicit a spontaneous response from them in this matter. Member States would also like to see the extent of the involvement of regional organizations in peace-related activities at the instance of the Security Council and their impact in various parts of the globe. A periodic comprehensive report presenting the achievements and problems of peace-keeping operations would also be a welcome development. The prevailing collegial spirit in the Security Council is a welcome phenomenon. That spirit has enabled the Council to act rapidly and decisively on some issues in recent years. There are important proposals, including those in “An Agenda for Peace”, to enhance the mandate of the Council further, to enable it to meet new challenges to international peace and security. Transparency in function and representativeness in composition are important if the Council is to fulfil our heightened expectations. We are confident that further concrete measures by the Security Council to address the concerns of Member States will only strengthen its role in the maintenance of peace and security.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the General Assembly on the report (A/49/2) of the Security Council to the General Assembly covering the period from 16 June 1993 to 15 June 1994. Allow me first of all to welcome the timely submission of the report, which permits the General Assembly to consider it during the first part of its regular session. My delegation would like to thank members of the Secretariat for the hard work they put into preparing the report. The consideration of the Security Council’s report by the General Assembly provides an important and privileged occasion for the necessary interaction between these two principal organs of the United Nations. This opportunity becomes all the more important in the light of We are encouraged by the many improvements in the form and content of the present report, which takes into account many constructive suggestions made in the past by several Member States. Indeed, the report reflects the work done by the Council in responding to the problems related to the international peace and security. The voluminous content of the report is indicative of the need for continued attention and action by the United Nations to face the numerous challenges persisting or emerging on the post- cold-war international scene, challenges which pose serious threats to international peace and security. Despite several improvements, the content of the annual report of the Security Council needs to be improved even further. It remains basically a compilation of the various communications addressed to the Security Council and the decisions adopted by it. We would like to emphasize that the General Assembly, which is the body with universal representation, must be thoroughly informed of the essence of the Security Council’s focus. Article 24 of the Charter provides that Security Council acts on behalf of the Member States of the United Nations. The representative character of the Security Council gives legitimacy to its acts. The interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly must, therefore, be strengthened. The Security Council should also consider presenting the special reports provided for in Article 24 of the Charter, owing to the Council’s ever-increasing involvement in diverse international situations. My delegation is pleased that since its creation the informal working group of the Security Council to consider suggestions concerning documentation, including theannual report and related matters, has achieved considerable results. In this connection, one of the most useful results is the availability to all Members of the United Nations of the tentative forecast of the Council’s programme of work for each month. We are encouraged to note that the Council’s informal Working Group is currently considering new ways to improve the flow of information to non-members of the Council — a subject to which we attach a great deal of importance. My delegation believes that there is an imperative need, not only to improve transparency in the methods and procedures of the Security Council, but also transparency in the relations between the Security Council The Security Council must be encouraged to discuss substantive issues in public meetings. Formal public meetings should not be used merely to formalize decisions previously made in informal consultations behind closed doors. We would hope that the present emphasis on reform would lead to greater openness in the Council’s procedures. All reform efforts must be based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all States, enhancing transparency and respect for democratic principles.

I should like first, on behalf of the delegation of the Republic of Belarus, to express our gratitude to the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, Ambassador David Hannay, for his introduction of the report of the Security Council. Thanks to his statement, various aspects of the Council’s work, including the scope and complexity of its activities and its modus operandi, have been clarified and highlighted, at least in the view of my delegation. There is no doubt that over the past year the Security Council has done an enormous amount of work. Proof of that is the number of meetings and consultations the Council has held, as well as the announcements made in the Journal. The Council has met on virtually a permanent basis because of the need to react to quickly changing situations and to review various peace-keeping operations. Accordingly, a large amount of work has also fallen to the Secretariat offices that service the Security Council. The delegation of Belarus notes with satisfaction that the working methods of the Security Council have recently seen many changes for the better. In keeping with the wishes of delegations to enhance transparency in the Council’s work as expressed at past sessions of the General Assembly, the Journal regularly publishes a detailed agenda of Council meetings. The Council’s draft report is discussed and adopted by the Council in open session. Through the publication of documents and the participation of Security Council members in press briefings, as well as through consultations with the chairmen of regional groups, Member States receive more information about plans for the Council’s work as well as its actual activities. “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council”. We believe that situations about which decisions are taken involving financial implications that run into many millions of dollars and about which States find out after the fact should be completely eliminated from the Security Council’s current practice in the decision-making process. It is precisely in such instances that consultations with States that are not members of the Council could play a very important role, perhaps through the Chairmen of the regional groups. As a result, the members of the Security Council would have absolute confidence that all aspects of resolving a given problem were agreed to by the international community and that the decision taken and its consequences, including financial implications, would be supported by, and would elicit a favourable response from, all States Members of the United Nations. The delegation of Belarus would like to make a few points about the format of the report before us. The introduction to the Council’s report says it is a description of the work of the Security Council for the period under review. In this connection, our delegation would like to draw the Assembly’s attention to the fact that, pursuant to Article 15 of the Charter, reports of the Security Council to the General Assembly “shall include an account of the measures that the Security Council has decided upon or taken to maintain international peace and security”. As we understand it, the words “description” and “account” are not at all synonymous. We feel that a report should not be restricted to a mere description of the facts. It should include an analysis of events described, conclusions should The desire of Member States to have an analytical part included in the text of the reports of the Security Council was repeatedly expressed at the last session of the General Assembly. Unfortunately, that wish has gone unheeded so far. As we see it, the Security Council, acting on behalf of all States Members of the United Nations, must give an account of itself to the General Assembly, and not just give it a description of its work. That is the basis of the close relationship between the two principal bodies of the United Nations and may also be a guarantee that the Security Council will act in the interest of all States Members of the Organization. In its present format, the report of the Council is a reasonably good reference document on the Council’s work, though this comment does not apply to all parts of the report. For example, Part III of the report, on the work of the Military Staff Committee — which is, I believe, the briefest one — consists in the Russian version of literally four and a half lines, and the information about the work of the Committee is limited to indicating that it functioned continually during the period under review and held a total of 26 meetings. In our view, the next report of the Security Council, as an experiment, could be drawn up in a new format. The report could consist of several interconnected parts, including a descriptive part, a section giving an analytical account and a section on conclusions and recommendations. Moreover, this year we were not entirely satisfied with the timing of the reports’s publication. This 552-page document came out literally a day before the date initially planned for its discussion in plenary. The deferral of the discussion of the question of the report of the Security Council from 26 October to 31 October took place for good reason. We are grateful that delegations got more time to study it, because it cannot be read in just one day, particularly taking into account its length. While understanding that the preparation of the report in a new, amended form and its timely publication could cause quite a few difficulties, we believe none the less that the desires of Member States should be taken into account and heeded.

We have thus concluded this stage of our consideration of agenda item 11.