31 Aug 2020
1 I thank you, Mr President, for convening the meeting today. And I also thank the President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of Indonesia, for presenting the report of the Security Council on behalf of all members of the Council.
Mr President,
2 This debate is an important exercise in accountability, transparency and legitimacy. The Security Council acts on behalf of all member states and therefore has the corresponding duty to report back to the General Assembly, as highlighted in Article 15 and Article 24 of the UN Charter. And as members of the General Assembly, we have the responsibility to carefully scrutinise the Council’s report and to engage in a serious discussion on the activities of the Council.
3 The annual report brings transparency to the work of the Security Council, as it catalogues all its documents and decisions. The Security Council demands accountability from the wider membership on compliance with the Council resolutions. Likewise we, the wider membership of the General Assembly, must also demand accountability from the Security Council for its actions and activities.
4 It is important to keep in mind that the Security Council benefits greatly from this debate in the General Assembly on its annual report. Through such a debate, the Security Council gains greater legitimacy for its work and for its role as an important organ of the United Nations. At the same time, an inclusive debate like this contributes to strengthening the multilateral system. And I might add that I am very heartened today to see so many delegations asking for the floor. I hope that members will look at my statement today as a constructive contribution and not as a criticism or a protest about the work of the Security Council.
Mr President,
5 I would like first to comment on the content of the report. The key part of the report is the introduction. The first-ever introduction was included in the report in the year 2002, and it had then contained an excellent and concise analysis of the Security Council’s work. But the level of analysis has varied since then. In fact, the introduction of the latest report is devoid of any analysis. We think there is room for improvement and we have three specific suggestions with regard to the content of the report.
6 First, we have to analyse not just what the Council has achieved in the year, but also what it has not been able to achieve. The introduction gives an overview on the number and type of Council products that were adopted. That is good. But it is not clear what kind of resolutions were not adopted or could not be adopted, in particular those that involved the use of the veto. We propose that the annual report should give a summary of the votes cast throughout the year and the vetoes used during that year. The veto is a special privilege, and it must be wielded with special responsibilities, including accountability. Aside from the veto, we also propose that the report should contain an analysis of non-consensual decisions, and of decisions that failed to be adopted. This is not with the intention to shed negative light on the work of the Council or to criticise its performance, but to provide greater transparency on the challenges faced, such that the Council and the wider membership can work together to build on those issues with a view to finding convergence.
7 Secondly, the report should provide an analysis of the statistical trends on the Council’s products. Some of this data is already available in the annual “Highlights of Security Council Practice”, and could therefore be easily incorporated into the annual report. More details could also be given on the voting patterns for specific resolutions, especially if there have been notable changes. For instance, it would be worth highlighting any resolutions that are typically adopted unanimously, but have now been adopted by a vote. Conversely, it would be worth highlighting the resolutions that typically do not enjoy consensus but have now been adopted unanimously. Once again, the goal is not to cast a negative light, but to allow all members of the General Assembly to understand trends in the Council so that all of us can work together to build convergence on the most important issues of the day.
8 Thirdly, the report should give more details on the issues discussed to improve the working methods of the Council. We commend Kuwait for its leadership of the Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which resulted in the adoption of eight Notes by the President in December last year, and we look forward to further proposals by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Any improvements to the working methods of the Council, even if they are seemingly minor, are welcome and should be mentioned in more detail in the Council’s report.
Mr President,
9 I now wish to make some observations about the process of considering the report in the General Assembly.
10 First, I would like to commend the drafter of the report, namely the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation, for introducing the report earlier this year despite the many challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The adoption of the report in mid-July is the earliest in recent years. So, we do commend the Russian Federation for their leadership. However, we believe that there is still room for improvement. We note that Presidential Note S/2019/997 stipulates the new timeline to take effect from 2021 onwards. While it maintains the deadline of 15 March for the Secretariat to submit the draft report to the members of the Security Council, the new deadline is specifically brought forward for the adoption of the report to be no later than 30 May. This is a positive step, as it replaces the previously vague timeline that was, and I quote, “no later than spring”, which introduced a lot of ambiguity about the timeline. So it is a good thing now that we have a specific date that has been documented. And we hope that Council members will adhere to the new timeline going forward. If they fail to do so, their credibility will be affected and the legitimacy of the Council will also be weakened.
11 Second, we hope that the debate on the annual report could be scheduled earlier next year, instead of in August or early September. Presidential Note S/2019/997 states that the adoption of the report should be no later than 30 May, so that it can be considered by the General Assembly, and I quote, “immediately thereafter”. We think it would be good for this annual debate to be scheduled in June every year. This would provide sufficient time for member states to carefully study the report. And it is very important for the debate on the annual report to have a regular and predictable schedule and not keep changing every year so that delegations and our Capitals can be prepared to come and contribute in a meaningful way. We request, therefore, the incoming President of the General Assembly to schedule the next debate of this particular report in June 2021.
12 Thirdly, I would like to comment on the monthly assessment report contained in page 76 of the annual report. The issue of monthly assessment reports by the presidencies is also addressed in paragraphs 129 and 136 of Presidential Note 507 [S/2017/507]. We are disappointed, Mr President, to note that four members of the Security Council have still not submitted their monthly assessment report of their Council Presidency in 2019. The projections for 2020 do not look good as well, with only three members submitting their reports so far. This trend of non-submission of monthly assessment reports must be reversed. One of the challenges in issuing monthly assessments is the current practice of negotiating and adopting these reports by consensus. And I would like to point to members that in previous years, the monthly assessment reports were issued under the responsibility of the President and it was not a document adopted by consensus. We would therefore propose that the Council reverts to the earlier arrangement of producing assessment reports issued by the Presidents in their own capacity. In our view, the monthly assessment should be issued as a product that is reflective of the Council President’s own views, and not necessarily one that reflects the consensus view of all members of the Council. We hope that Council members will consider this proposal, and that they will take their monthly assessment reports seriously and not dismiss it as a mechanical exercise. Let me also add that as members of the General Assembly, it is our responsibility to scrutinize whether every member of the Council submits their monthly assessment reports. If Council members are not able to do so, they have to be accountable to the wider membership as to why they have not been able to submit their monthly assessment reports. The key point is that we in the General Assembly are watching—watching all members of the Security Council—in terms of how they perform and what they do on behalf of all of us in the General Assembly.
13 Fourthly, there continues to be a lack of effort at wider consultations in the preparation of the annual report. Paragraph 129 of Note 507 states that the drafter of the report, and I quote, “may consider organising, where appropriate, interactive informal exchanges of views with the wider membership”. However, we are not aware of any informal exchange of views with the wider membership in recent years on the annual report. There also appears to be a lack of engagement on the report even within the Council and among members of the Security Council. The only time that all 15 Council members made interventions during the adoption of the report was in the year 2002, which was a very long time ago. We would propose that there should be a discussion of the report in an open setting within the Council before the annual report is adopted. Additionally, we propose that the member of the Council charged with drafting the annual report engage with members of the General Assembly informally, before the annual report is finalised. We hope that these changes that I have suggested can be made starting from next year. And we hope also, in particular, that the elected members of the Security Council will be a catalyst to make changes in this respect. We have high expectations of the newly elected members and, in this regard, I welcome in particular the earlier statement made by the Permanent Representative of Ireland, who expressed her commitment to be a catalyst for change on these important issues.
Mr President,
14 Let me conclude with some final observations. The submission of the annual report of the Security Council and its consideration by the General Assembly is an important and serious matter. The timeliness of the report must be taken seriously. If timeliness is compromised, then we risk compromising the transparency, accountability and legitimacy of the Security Council. The annual report for 2020, which should be debated next year, will be an excellent place to start, given the new timeline stipulated by Presidential Note 997. It would not be good for the Council’s credibility if it fails to adhere to the new timeline that was set by its own members, in the very first year of its implementation.
15 I understand, Mr President, that members of the Security Council face tremendous pressures and have a very demanding schedule. We can all see how hard they work and we are grateful for the work that they do on our behalf in this august body, the Security Council. And I have every sympathy and empathy for their position, and the pressing demands placed on their time. However, it is important that they and all of us work together continuously to improve our work and improve our way of doing things. It is equally important for the Security Council and the General Assembly to work together and to support each other to achieve our common vision of peace and stability around the world. It is in this constructive spirit of improving our work that I have made my suggestions, and I hope members will take all my comments in the right spirit. I thank you for your attention.
. . . . .