UN Security Council reform: DIRCO briefing, with Deputy Ministers

Meeting report

Briefing by Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) on reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
Mr Zaheer Laher Acting Chief Director: UN, DIRCO, stated that the focus of the briefing was on the status of reform within the UNSC and on SA’s candidature as a non-permanent member of the UNSC.

Reform of the UNSC
The UNSC consisted of 15 members: five permanent members (United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) who had the right of veto and 10 non-permanent members who were elected on a two year term and who did not have the right of veto. The continents of Latin America and Africa did not have a permanent member. Reform of the UNSC was necessary. The world had changed since the inception of the UNSC in 1945. In 2005 an attempt at reform of the UNSC was suggested by the then Secretary General of the United Nations Mr Kofi Annan. This led to the formation of different groupings with varying degrees of demands and interests on the process of reform eg. G4, Unity for Consensus and the African Group. The African Group position was based on the African Common Position as contained in the Ezulwini Consensus. The Consensus outlined proposals on reform to the United Nations in general and its Security Council in particular. The Consensus proposed two permanent seats with veto rights and an increase from three to five non-permanent seats. In principle Africa was opposed to the right of veto but as long as it existed it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council. Ideally there should be no veto rights. The Committee was informed that negotiations on reform in the General Assembly were a misnomer. From 2008 to 2018 there was no progress on reform. The reality was that some countries did not wish for reform to take place. The United Nations Charter had a safe mechanism which protected permanent members. Permanent members had to agree to any reforms.

SA’s candidacy for non-permanent membership
SA had presented its candidature for the non-permanent seat on the UNSC that would become available to the African Group for the period 2019 - 2020. SA had previously served two terms on the UNSC in 2007/08 and in 2011/12, during which it actively participated in the work of the UNSC and its subsidiary bodies. The January 2018 Summit of the African Union endorsed SA’s candidacy. This endorsement formed part of the broader strategy to secure SA’s election to the UNSC as a non-permanent member. The African Union’s endorsement essentially meant that SA would be presented as Africa’s candidate within the context of the agreed rotation between East and Southern Africa. Ethiopia was currently serving as non-permanent member of the UNSC, and SA would succeed Ethiopia as per the rotation. Whilst the candidacy of SA was a clean slate for one of the three non-permanent membership seats allotted to Africa on the UNSC for 2019 to 2020, to be elected to the UNSC by the General Assembly, SA would have to secure 128 out of the possible 192 votes in the General Assembly (ie two thirds of the total membership of the United Nations). For the previous two terms SA had generally received an average of 95% of the General Assembly’s support for the UNSC’s seat.

SA’s vision for its new term would be guided by its national experience of peacefully dismantling apartheid and achieving a negotiated settlement, accentuated by the symbolism behind the centenary of the legacy of President Nelson Mandela. SA would use its experience to promote a more effective multilateral approach to addressing issues related to international peace and security in order to ensure global sustainable peace. SA’s theme for its tenure would be ‘Continuing the legacy: Working for a Just and Peaceful world’. Madiba’s vision and principles would inform SA’s approach in the UNSC to address injustice and inequality through collaboration, cooperation and the building of partnerships. During SA’s tenure priorities would be pursuing the African Agenda, peaceful resolution of conflict, strengthening of multilateralism and respect for international law. Key hotspots areas included South Sudan in Africa, Palestine/Israel in the Middle East and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in Asia. Some thematic issues to be looked at were terrorism/extremism, women peace and security and children & armed conflict. SA was expected to hold the rotating presidency of the UNSC during its tenure. The first was expected to be in September 2019 which would allow President Cyril Ramaphosa to preside over the UNSC.

Discussion
Ms T Kenye (ANC) asked if there was perhaps a strategy that was aimed at increasing the membership of states to the United Nations. There were at present 193 member states. She also asked what the possibility was in negotiating two permanent seats for Africa was. What was the rationale for Latin America and Africa having no permanent members? She felt that it was time to re-evaluate the need for veto power. She further asked what the criterion to become a permanent member was. She was pleased that Africa supported the candidacy of SA for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). What progress was made by SA on its lobbying efforts?
Mr Laher, on SA’s lobbying efforts, said that SA wished to secure as many votes as possible. SA had to get the most support.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) commented that she did not foresee any problems around SA’s candidature on the UNSC being endorsed. The African Union had already endorsed it. SA in its previous two terms serving on the UNSC had represented the African continent well.

Ms S Kalyan (ANC) got the sense that the United Nations was a toothless body. It was long past its sell by date. Several attempts had been made to reform it but to no avail. The countries that had the power were not willing to relinquish it. She asked whether the Ezulwini Consensus Report was taken seriously. Was its recommendations taken seriously? What was the threat or resistance to reforms? She too appreciated the African Union resolution to support SA’s candidacy. The African Union was calling for the cancellation of debt of poor countries. Was it realistic? She asked who would then take responsibility for the debt if cancelled. She noted that for the last 10-12 years a lobby group was trying to get a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to be formed. She asked DIRCO to comment.

Mr Laher said if the United Nations was dissolved what was there to replace it. Something similar would have to be formed. Countries could not deal with issues like climate change and terrorism on their own. Major conflicts in the world like those in Somalia and Syria did have ramifications for the rest of the world. What grouping of countries would replace the United Nations? The United Nations was the largest intergovernmental body in the world. There was no doubt that the United Nations had its flaws. Ways had to be found to deal with the flaws. Reform was part of the solution. Collective action was needed. The Ezulweni Consensus was important in this regard. The United Nations had to represent all regions of the world. Reform was being resisted because the P5 countries refused to relinquish their power. The Charter of the United Nations was such that it protected the P5 countries. An amendment of the Charter needed a two thirds majority of the General Assembly with UNSC concurrence. The 1945 Charter still referred to Germany and Japan as enemy states even though they were major contributors to the United Nations. The voice of developing countries in Africa needed to be heard. SA wished to be part of the UNSC so that it could contribute to peace and security efforts. SA was already involved in peace and security efforts and had been involved in matters like nuclear, the conflict in Western Sahara and the occupation of Palestine by Israel. He confirmed that there were attempts by civil society to create a parliamentary assembly. A global parliament was needed at the United Nations. He commented that perhaps the United Nations was a parliament in its own way. Would there not be a replication if another global parliament was created? The General Assembly after all was representing the world.

Ms N Mashabela (EFF) said five countries still dominated the UNSC. People of the global south did not see themselves adequately represented. She felt that SA did not push hard enough for things. What was SA going to do differently?

The Chairperson noted the mandate of the United Nations and the UNSC to be the maintenance of peace and security. After World War 2 Germany, Italy and Japan had been blamed for the war. The Cold War had been over since 1989. He could not understand why the P5 of the UNSC did not wish Africa to come in. Africa had not caused any major wars as some of them had. Was there thinking that if Africa was allowed into the UNSC then there would be a threat to peace and security? Africa should have been a welcomed member. He emphasised that there were instances where the right of veto was abused by the P5. For instance when the UN General Assembly had voted that it was a violation of international law when Israel had occupied Palestinian land then the USA had vetoed the decision. It was clearly an instance where the right of veto was abused. The same scenario applied to the Western Sahara conflict and other conflicts. Some felt that the conflict in Syria was almost like a second Cold War playing itself out. On the one hand was Russia and China supporting Syrian President Mr Bashar al-Assad and on the other side were the USA and its allies supporting the rebels. He asked putting aside this Cold War whether there were any geo-strategic considerations that if Africa was brought in on the UNSC the P5 would have an enemy amongst its ranks. He said that the Committee supported the Ezulwini Consensus. The Committee should also express its gratitude towards the African Union for endorsing SA’s candidature for a non–permanent seat on the UNSC. He added that even if Africa became a permanent member and SA was a non-permanent member there would be countries that would stick to their unilateralist approach. The challenge at hand was unilateralism versus multilateralism. The issue however was that unilateralism was a minority view.

Mr Laher, on the issue of veto power, pointed out that the General Assembly had adopted a resolution over the matter of Israel declaring Jerusalem as its capital but the resolution could not go through as the USA had vetoed it in the UNSC. He agreed that reform could not take place due to the fact that the P5 countries were unwilling to relinquish power. He did point out that there was a proposal by member states of the United Nations to restrict the use of veto. Surprisingly France being a member of the P5 supported the proposal. Guidelines had to be put in place for the right of veto to be used. There were initiatives intended to restrict the use of veto.

Mr Luwellyn Landers, Deputy Minister of International Relations, added that the abuse of the veto power was a huge if not the biggest concern. Reform at the United Nations was needed. The High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva had made a proposal that a code of conduct be attached to the right of veto. It was debatable whether the P5 countries would accept the proposal. Once again the Syrian conflict was used as an example. The P5 countries were divided in their support on the Syrian conflict. Russia supported Syrian President Assad and the USA supported the rebels. It had been confirmed that President Assad had used chemical weapons. If the matter was brought before the UNSC then Russia would most probably veto any resolution taken. The same situation applied in the Yemeni conflict. It was difficult for the P5 countries to relinquish power after having it for so long. More and more people were rejecting the authority of the United Nations and the legitimacy of the UNSC. When would the international community rise up? The 2005 proposal by the then United Nations Secretary General Mr Kofi Annan on reforming the UNSC was not taken seriously.

Ms Kenye was concerned that P5 members were part of conflicts that were taking place.

The Chairperson asked how the African region would represent itself at the United Nations. Other groupings included Asia and Latin America. There needed to be unity within the groupings.

Deputy Minister Landers stated that the Africa Grouping was strongly represented at the United Nations in New York and at the Human Rights Council in Geneva. He did note that the system could be refined more. In the past communication had not been too good over voter instruction. There was room for improvement.

The Chairperson at the end of the briefing spoke to processes on the Foreign Service Bill. He noted that the Committee would be travelling to Pretoria so that the Public Service Coordinating Bargaining Council (PSBC) and the Association of Former Commissioners and Ambassadors could make inputs on the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.