Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Workshop on Security Council Reform, Fall 2010

August 16, 2011 On August 1 st , United Nations (UN) Ambassador Jarmo Viinanen of Finland submitted the report of the workshop for newly elected and present Security Council members held last November. As UN Pulse reports, it is among the few official documents on the working methods of the Council. As a review of the structure and qualitative work of the Council, it presents diverse ideas for reform from three basic perspectives. The first concentrates on the core principles and guidelines of the Council; the second examines its forums for negotiation and decision-making; and the third analyzes the roles of relevant actors, both within and without the body. They are summarized below.

I. Principles & Guidelines Should the changing conflicts of the 21 st century change the nature of Council work?

Keynote speaker Sir Brian Urquhart, former UN Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs, began the workshop by recounting the changing nature of Council activity over the decades. The late 20 th century, he observed, gave rise to complex, unconventional conflicts featuring insurrections, refugee situations, and civilian hardships that differed markedly from interstate feuds of the past. Increasing global problems such as climate change and water scarcity also, have considerable potential for future security implications. The Council must adapt to these new developments accordingly.

Participants agreed that the Council was adopting new responsibilities in managing crises and tackling an expanding set of cross-cutting issues. Others added the proviso that the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security has not changed, though the means of executing it has. Like Sir Urquhart, they were confident in the dynamism of the Council, even calling it the most productive and dynamic body in the United Nations.

Yet their optimism quickly dissipated on the subject of the Council agenda. Council work is bound by the calendar, participants explained, so reviews are scheduled long in advance and appear deaf to events developing in real-time. Such a rigid schedule leaves insufficient time for reflection and strategic planning on unexpected crises. However, members simultaneously urged each other to address the long-term problems in Middle East and Western Sahara which are overshadowed by these very exigencies. To balance the Councils short- and long-term work, scheduled meetings could be reviewed beforehand to ensure they accurately reflect the relative importance of each item as best as possible. Here the Council President could play an essential outreach role, perhaps in hosting monthly brainstorming sessions over lunch and

1/5

Workshop on Security Council Reform, Fall 2010

initiating strategic discussions on the monthly program.

Participants devoted particular attention to peacekeeping as a response to the novel security threats mentioned earlier. The recent trend of host countries requesting the pullout of UN forces led some speakers to call for improved relations; others desired greater communications with the countries providing forces. Several members lamented the dire consequences of inadequate mission reviewsthe Council often decides operations without adequate financial estimates or military means. The Council severely lacks military expertise and procedures in general, one member observed, especially in contrast to an organization such as NATO.

Members were struck by the sheer number and longevity of peacekeeping missions. Several complained that in practice, peacekeeping mandates crumble into a multitude of scattered tasks with little to no focus. As a remedy, they suggested a standard mandate template entailing concrete irreducible minimum tasks, such as in terms of monitoring human rights, to be applied with consideration of unique situations on the ground. The development of widely accepted qualitative benchmarks to assess progress would also help ensure accountability.

The group considered expanding Council responsibilities altogether to long-term oversight of missions. This could entail not only briefer peacekeeping missions, but also reconfiguring them with an eye to a second phase of peace-building mechanisms. Conversely, instead of waiting for the outbreak of hostilities and deploying peacekeepers after the fact, the Council might anticipate and take concrete measures to avoid conflict in advance. Such measures, however, may lie outside the Councils purview, others cautioned. Does its scope consider only fully formed crises, or potential ones as well?

II. Forums for Debate and Discussion How can the Council be made more productive and dynamic?

The Security Council can be defined in one sense in terms of its goals. Alternatively, it might be distinguished as the sum of the multitude of negotiations, informal talks, assessments, and consultations which compose its daily operations. In this vein, too, members affirmed the need to reinvigorate and restructure Council practices.

2/5

Workshop on Security Council Reform, Fall 2010

Consultations and negotiations on released texts were judged as sedate and underproductive. Several disappointed members commented that consultations tend to be neither interactive nor focused. Some suggested ending the use of prepared statements and the speakers list, features which purportedly make other forums at the UN efficient, informative, and dynamic. One participant claimed this type of atmosphere would produce negotiations rather than consultations, which would in turn require revised terms of strict confidentiality. Members likewise criticized text negotiations, where permanent members often decide results beforehand and leave other members to talk pointlessly over pre-cooked texts.

By contrast, the Councils open thematic debates received mixed reviews. Noting the increasing tendency for Council presidents to lead one on a chosen issue per term, the 2009-2010 annual Council report highlighted the positive impact of such talks. On the other hand, certain members judged them long, repetitive, and boring. Thematic debates should be inspired by necessity, they suggested, not the professional aspirations of a Council president hoping to leave his mark. They must be made more interactive among all member states, perhaps through allowing non-members to speak first, requesting that ambassadors not leave once they have delivered their statements, or imposing a five-minute speaking limit.

Participants were similarly undecided on Council missions. Certainly, all agreed, missions provide excellent opportunities to educate themselves and reach out to other countries. But while one member suggested the increased use of mini-missions, consisting of a smaller group of Council members, another stressed that the very significance of missions was a complete Council presence. A third speaker called for a combination of full and mini missions. Otherwise, there seems to be room for improvement regardless of mission size. One speaker cited the mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, stating that members must deliver a clear and coherent message to the host country and better prepare themselves to respond to questions. A post-mission meeting to share assessments and draw lessons would also be constructive.

Lastly, several members were dissatisfied with the undemocratic and non-transparent selection process of subsidiary bodies. Working groups and sanctions committees present a valuable opportunity to give non-permanent members leadership opportunities, they said. Yet currently, their chairs are usually chosen by permanent members at their discretion.

III. Actors and Relationships How inclusive should an effective Security Council be?

3/5

Workshop on Security Council Reform, Fall 2010

The discussion of subsidiary bodies reflected a deeper discontent with the perceived exclusivity of the Council. Ideas on the proper roles of actors relevant to the Council, and their relationships with one another, seemed to draw the most intense discussion.

Most members acknowledged the importance of working with other bodies, given the Council role to provide the mandate and to support those actors in the best position to achieve results. The UN Secretariat and regional organizations were cited as bodies with important comparative advantages. The Secretariat has the capacity to exercise preventative diplomacy where Council action would risk offending national sovereignty. Regional organizations, on the other hand, possess unique knowledge of local areas and can bolster the frequently weak presence of the UN in potential flashpoints. Participants showed particular interest in a closer relationship with the African Union. The Council has successfully worked with the Economic Community of West African States. Yet partnerships with outside bodies would carry financial and logistical obligations, as well as the risk of further convoluting the decision-making process.

Members were likewise divided on how to engage non-member states. While some believed that access to non-members had already expanded, for instance through informal interactive dialogues, others were firm that non-members needed a greater voice. They suggested the annual debate on Council reform include independent discussion on tackling the upcoming agenda, and gathering candid feedback from the broader membership. Heads of country-specific peacebuilding operations should speak in relevant consultations, while national experts could offer backup. Other speakers, however, cautioned against too much observation into the Council, emphasizing the advantages of confidentiality. Openness, they stated, should not become end in itself.

Arguably the strongest debate emerged over the divide between permanent and elected members. Certain participants urged elected members to be more proactive, countering that they must take the initiative to engage themselves and ask relevant questions that challenge the P5. Others contended that the divide was exaggerated, claiming that actual discussions do not respect such distinctions and categories between positions on the Council.

Yet the opposition accused permanent members of not always treating non-permanent ones as equals, preparing, discussing, and essentially deciding resolutions without consulting elected members. Elected members often received second-class status even to Groups of Friends, to the extent that non-members of such groups would be better informed on issues than elected members. They lamented that new members were at a substantial disadvantage, lacking the

4/5

Workshop on Security Council Reform, Fall 2010

same repository of knowledge on working methods as the permanent members. The report affirmed that it takes half a year to learn how the Council operates, especially the procedures and working methods, leaving only eighteen months for elected members to exercise them. As an aside, one participant wondered whether those elected members who felt excluded would themselves snub discussion with non-members on Council texts.

Despite the seemingly large gap between members and non-members, and permanent and elected members, the majority of participants applauded the dedication towards reaching consensus at the Council. While a single participant questioned whether diplomats can truly abandon their narrow, parochial interests, others repeatedly cited their experiences in consensus-building throughout the workshop. The atmosphere encourages cooperative attitudes, they attested, recalling extensively prolonged Council consultations where participants sought unanimous support to convey a uniquely powerful political message. Several were surprised to encounter what they described as a unity of purpose and a collective sense of responsibility which could outweigh even national interest. On issues such as human rights or protecting civilians, they said, coalitions of interest and values can cut across those of permanent and non-permanent members.

5/5

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen