22 Apr 2010
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR VANU GOPALA MENON, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AT THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL OPEN DEBATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF S/2006/507 (ON WORKING METHODS), 22 APRIL 2010
Mr President,
1 Thank you for convening this open debate on the Implementation of Note S/2006/507 (on Working Methods). It was in August 2008 when Member States last had the opportunity to express their views on this important topic. Singapore fully subscribes to the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the S-5 group. Amongst the areas of Security Council reform, we believe that the issue of Working Methods is the one that commands widespread support and resonance with Member States. It is also an area that is objectively logical to develop, but has been practically mired in the reluctance of the Council to open itself up to scrutiny by fellow Member States.
2 The provisional rules of procedure for the Council state that meetings shall be held in public. This premise of transparency, unfortunately, has been eroded over the years in favour of so-called effectiveness and functionality - it is supposed to be easier to broker deals to save the world in back rooms rather than boardrooms. Yet it strains the bounds of credulity for Member States to hear each year, in the face of constant threats to regional peace and human dignity, that the Council has discharged its responsibility for maintaining peace and security. It is absolutely true that the Council has to manage serious global complexities with less than adequate resources, but it is also true that the Council is sometimes prey to its own practices, which adds to the complexities rather than solve them. Thus it was significant that the Council adopted S/2006/507, signaling a recognition of the need to improve how it functioned. Document 507 contained many measures to address the three areas identified by the President for possible discussion during this open debate, namely: (i) transparency; (ii) interaction and dialogue with non-members; and (iii) efficiency. In practice, however, implementation of the contents in the document has been uneven.
Transparency
3 Transparency is one area that is of great interest to Singapore, as this promotes the sense of accountability in this organisation. However, we should not mislead ourselves into believing that reports and briefings alone can ensure greater transparency. The notion of openness extends to developments as simple as an explanation for the sudden shift in the date for this open debate, or the provision of adequate notification for important meetings of the Council. It should also extend to the access that non-members, the Secretariat, and even members of the press have to Security Council members, and where relevant, their deliberations. In this connection, there has been some concern over the perceived curtailing of this access, ostensibly due to the limitations imposed by the relocation of the Security Council Chamber as part of the Capital Master Plan (CMP). This is an issue of transparency and needs to be addressed.
Interaction and Dialogue with Non-Members
4 We acknowledge that there has been some improvement in the opportunities for interaction and dialogue between the Council and non-Council members. This includes interactions with Troop and Police Contributing Countries, as well as with regional organisations; consultations between the Security Council with Member States in the preparation of the annual report; and briefings by Security Council Presidents of each month's programme of work. However, much more could be done, particularly on issues of interest and concern to Member States. For example, countries directly affected by a particular issue being considered by the Security Council should be given every opportunity to participate in the deliberations. Beyond interaction and dialogue, the Council should also not fear opening up its proceedings to non-members. Ultimately, it is in the interest of the Council to create a climate of trust, which is only possible if Member States are better able to appreciate and understand the decision-making considerations, processes of and challenges faced by the Council.
Efficiency
5 The scorecard is middling in the area of Council efficiency. The Security Council, in S/2006/507, had undertaken to maintain regular communication with the General Assembly and ECOSOC, for better coordination among the principal organs of the United Nations. However, its implementation has been cursory when it could easily be a catalyst to streamline processes within this organisation and demonstrate the Council's commitment to promoting greater efficiency within the United Nations system. As a simple example, when the Security Council decides to establish a Special Political Mission (SPM), it makes sense to ensure that the Fifth Committee is notified without delay and provided with as comprehensive a picture as possible, enabling the Committee to factor such information into its considerations for the overall resource requirements necessary for such missions.
6 Without this basic coordination, unnecessary complications can arise and precious resources wasted. In December 2009, the Council had taken decisions on three SPMs. At the same time, the Fifth Committee had been considering the SPM's budget for the coming 2010/2011 biennium. Even though the Council decisions had been taken before the Fifth Committee concluded its work for the main session, information on the three SPMs that would have affected the outcome of the Committee's deliberations was not forthcoming. While the appropriate course of action is for the Fifth Committee to be notified through a report of the Secretary General, accompanied by recommendations of the ACABQ, this process takes time. As a result, the resource requirements for these three SPMs had to be taken up separately when the Fifth Committee resumed its work in March 2010. This led to difficult negotiations as some countries were resistant to the idea of increasing the overall SPMs budget to accommodate these additional resource requirements, while others were concerned that absorbing this cost under the overall SPMs budget would negatively impact on existing Missions. While a solution was eventually found, much of the complications could have been avoided if a system had been in place to better facilitate the flow of information between the Security Council and the Fifth Committee from the inception of these SPMs. It is incumbent upon Member States to see what we can do to improve such working methods to enhance the efficiencies of both the Security Council and the General Assembly.
Mr President,
7 Singapore appreciates the opportunity of this open debate. We are encouraged by the Security Council's willingness to continue its engagement on this issue, and its efforts to better implement the contents of S/2006/507. Singapore looks forward to continuing our discussions with the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions later this year, and at further open debates.
8 Thank you.
. . . . .