Ministry Statements and Speeches 2010

Security Council: Implementation of Presidential Note S/2006/507
(Security Council working methods)

Statement by H.E. Jim McLay, Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Thursday 22 April 2010

New Zealand welcomes the opportunity to contribute today; and thanks Japan, which has a long and commendable history of promoting reform of Security Council working methods, for convening this debate. New Zealand strongly believes that, in addition to any structural change, there needs to be wide-ranging reform to this Council’s working methods.

In that regard, New Zealand rejects, outright, the suggestion that the Council’s working methods are for the Council alone to decide. That is no more legitimate than arguing that citizens have no valid interest in the proceedings of their country’s courts, or in the rules and procedures of the legislatures they elect. This Council’s permanent members are here by agreement of the international community, as embodied in the United Nations Charter; and the remaining members are elected - elected to serve the 187 Member States who do not enjoy the privilege of permanently sitting in this council room, often behind closed doors.

For those 187 - the overwhelming majority of the UN’s membership – this Council’s working methods are vitally important. They affect our ability to understand and contribute to the Council’s work; and, in the end, like the Council’s structure, directly affect the legitimacy of the Council itself.

Over time, an opaque and insular Security Council will lose credibility and will not enjoy the support of the wider membership; and its role in maintaining international peace and security could diminish, perhaps, over time, even be usurped. Such a Council would at best be viewed as irrelevant, at worst illegitimate.

Furthermore, such is the over-riding importance of the Security Council’s role in maintaining global peace and security, that its legitimacy bears directly on the very legitimacy of the United Nations itself. New Zealand believes that it’s in everyone’s interest to ensure that both the UN and its Security Council are credible, effective and strong.

Presidential Note S/2006/507 sets out over sixty concrete steps that might improve the Council’s working methods and, in turn, its legitimacy; steps that, as Japan’s Concept Note makes clear, would increase the Council’s transparency, its interaction with non-members, and its efficiency. In the interests of time, I’ll highlight just five proposals that New Zealand considers important:

• First, while we accept that (in line with Rule 48 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure) private consultations are sometimes necessary, overall, we believe Council meetings should be public whenever possible. Further, essential information should be shared at those meetings; and such meetings should be outcome-focussed, lest the issues be diluted by a day’s worth of bland statements - from Council and non-Council members alike.
• Secondly: Thanks to the efforts of Japan, France, the UK and others, the Council’s interactions with troop- and police-contributing countries have greatly improved. However, as recent discussions on Chad demonstrated, key troop contributors are still sometimes unable to participate meaningfully in timely and sustained, high-level consultations with Council members. To address this, New Zealand advocates creative use of Council meeting formats, such as Informal Interactive Dialogues. As Council President during the Rwandan crisis in 1994, New Zealand organised regular, morning, informal meetings with TCCs. Our experience in that case, and others, convinced us that such informal meetings can allow very useful communication, and that they should be used more regularly. And, of course, they better reflect the spirit of our Charter.
• Third: Member States with which the Council is dealing should also be able to participate meaningfully in high-level Council consultations. The Informal Interactive Dialogue format used last year in discussions on Sri Lanka, and more recently on Chad, worked well. This format should become a standard Council tool for sustained interaction with non-members whose cooperation is sought by the Council. It would provide opportunities for prevention of conflict and better use of the Council’s Chapter VI role. However, while recognising that such issues often require private discussion, the Council also needs to remember the need to maintain a balance of transparency.
• Fourth: New Zealand would like to see draft Council documents shared with non-Council members, sooner and with more frequency; and believes that interested parties should have greater influence in the preparation of those documents. Such sharing could be part of wider efforts to revitalise the way the Council and its Secretariat make use of information technology. Websites, such as used by Slovakia during its Council tenure, and by Security Council Report, are good current examples, but more systematic sharing through email and other modern media sources would be welcome.
• And finally: As France and others have pointed out, more effective discussions between Council members are desirable. New Zealand recalls that, during its last term on the Council, informal consultations were both interactive and strategic and allowed for substantive discussion and negotiation. Interactive engagement would improve Council effectiveness and collegiality, and should be encouraged.

Those are just five of the many changes that could improve this Council’s working methods. As a next step, New Zealand looks forward to Japan, as Chair of the Working Group [on Council Documentation and Other Procedural Questions], issuing a revised version of Presidential Note [S/2006/507], and urges that this be accompanied by a concrete implementation plan; and we call for regular, annual debates to assess that implementation.

For the Security Council to maintain international peace and security, it must have the support of the Member States from whom it derives its authority. Those Member States - the 187 non-permanent members - deserve increased transparency, they are entitled to better interaction and, above all, they seek a more effective United Nations Security Council. Such outcomes may be in the hands of the members of this Council - but they are in the interests of all Member States.

back to 2010 speech index

top of page