Vol. 418 No. 5
13 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the Government consider that the present structure of the Security Council of the United Nations is satisfactory, particularly with regard to the permanent members which include three European States and which do not contain any Third World countries or states from the southern hemisphere; if he intends to bring forward any proposals for reform; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
As the Cold War recedes into history, a new chapter has opened in the evolution of the United Nations. The momentous changes in the international policital climate in recent years have transformed and revitalised the organisation, and in the process greatly enhanced the stature and role of the Security Council. There has been an impressive renewal of confidence in the United Nations, as evidenced by the additional responsibilities conferred on the organisation by the member states and a significant increase in the number of member states, from 159 two years ago to 175 today.
These developments have given rise to discussion on the desirability of revising the Charter so as to enable the United Nations to meet more effectively the challenges confronting the international community. The suggestion has been made that the membership of the Security Council should be expanded by increasing both the permanent and nonpermanent seats to make it more representative and to allow for wider participation in its decision-making process.
The Charter has proven itself to be a durable and flexible instrument. It is worth nothing that the decisions of the Security Council over the past two years or so, which have greatly strengthened the organisation's capacity to maintain international peace and security, were all taken within the framework of the existing Charter.
No organisational structures, of course, are immutable and a periodic review of the existing structures of the United Nations to ensure that it works as effectively as possible would be a useful undertaking.
Any proposal to restructure the Security Council would however require an amendment of the Charter. Any such amendment would require the support of two-thirds of the member states, including all five of the existing permanent members of the Security Council. The reality is that the required degree of support for amending the Charter in that way has not yet emerged.
A further important development to which I would draw attention was the meeting of the Security Council which took place for the first time ever at Head of State or Government level on 31 January this year. The Council members decided on that occasion to invite the Secretary-General to submit his analysis and recommendations on ways of strengthening the capacity of the United Nations for preventive diplomacy, for peacemaking and peacekeeping. Ireland and our EC partners intend to make a substantive contribution to the Secretary-General's report, which is to be available by 1 July. It would be prudent to await that report before taking any decision on whether to bring forward proposals for reform.
The current position with regard to the Security Council is that there are only representatives on it from the northern hemisphere. Three out of five on the Security Council are NATO members, three are European members and there are none from South America. Will the Minister agree that there is a serious imbalance therefore with regard to how the Security Council might address crises that will arise and that, given the change in the political situation in the world, the likelihood is that the crises will arise in the future in the southern hemisphere?
The Deputy is saying that the Security Council does not represent the international community as a whole and does not fairly reflect the new realities. It is not unreasonable to point out that existing institutional arrangements provide for representation on the Security Council from each of the five geographical regions into which the UN is for electoral purposes divided, namely Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Western Europe. That has for long been the case, with the ten nonpermanent seats rotating on a two year cycle within each region. Any proposal to alter the existing allocation of seats, so as to increase the number of permanent members would require amendment of the Charter. It is unlikely that the necessary support for that exists at present.
Will the Minister not agree that a more far reaching reform of the Security Council should be made at this stage? Surely, what we should be working towards is a situation where there are no permanent members, where all 15 members are elected by the General Assembly and where the right of veto is taken away?
The Deputy has a point. That is a matter that might be addressed. Ireland and our EC partners intend to make a substantial contribution to the Secretary-General's report which is to be available by 1 July. It would be prudent to await that report before taking decisions in relation to these matters. If the Deputy wishes to table a question thereafter I will be glad to attempt to respond.
Does the Minister expect that the committee on foreign affairs will be in place in time to enable them to discuss whatever submission the Government may make to the Secretary-General's report or to discuss before then the reform of the United Nations?
The Government have already set in train a committee on foreign affairs. It is a matter for the Whips to see how it may be properly structured. The Government are anxious that a committee on foreign affairs be instituted and that the work begin as soon as structures are agreed. In the context of the new committee the Deputy's question might be raised by some member of his party who may also be a member of the committee.
The Maastricht Treaty states that members of the United Nations Security Council will keep the other member states fully informed and that member states who are permanent members of the Security Council——
Deputy Taylor-Quinn will remember my admonition about quoting at Question Time.
Yes. It states that they will in the execution of their functions ensure the defence of the positions and interests of the union, without prejudice to the provisions of the United Nations Charter. What exactly is meant in that section of the Maastricht Treaty? Does the Minister foresee the possibility of conflict between the position of members who are permanent members of the UN and the general interests of the union? Does he foresee a possible conflict between the union and the membership of the United Nations?
I could not see that. Regarding countries who are members of the new union and members of the UN, I could not see any conflict in areas of common interest. One would not be exclusive or intrusive of the other. I would think they would be complementary.
