UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 54TH SESSION
Agenda Item 11: the Report of the Security Council
Statement by H.E. Ms Penny Wensley, Ambassador and Permanent Representative
20 October 1999
Mr President
Australia has a long-standing interest in this important agenda item. Australia believes that as the organ of the United Nations which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council in many ways is the key to ensuring the United Nations remains relevant to the international community.
Discussion on the Report of the Security Council provides an opportunity for member states to reflect upon the importance of the Security Council's role and how its efficiency and effectiveness may be further enhanced.
As is evident from the Report, the past year has been a challenging one for the Security Council due to the significant increase in the number and scale of peacekeeping operations and the crises in Kosovo and East Timor. It has become even more critical for the Security Council to reform and revitalise itself in order to respond swiftly and adequately to the renewed pressures upon it.
Mr President
Working methods are one area in which Australia feels the Council is in particular need of reform.
The Council's working methods continue to be too rigid and exclusionary. A number of member states have drawn attention to circumstances where their own interests are directly affected by an issue under discussion, yet they are excluded from informal consultations of the Council. Their only opportunities for participation are in the highly formalised environment of formal meetings.
Australia does not advocate an end to the use of informal consultations by the Council, or that all Council meetings should take place in public. We recognise that informal consultations are an indispensable tool for consensus-building and effective decision making in the Council, as they are in any multilateral process. But the Council has developed an unhealthy reliance on them, to the detriment of both transparency and, in many cases, effectiveness.
Many routine briefings and reports by the Secretary-General could and should take place in sessions open to member states. Where particularly sensitive issues are involved, these can be dealt with in camera; but the majority of reports would not fall into this category.
Australia also believes there are circumstances where the Council can contribute to the resolution of disputes or to the easing of tensions between member states by giving itself the option of direct access to the disputing parties. We see no arguments for not allowing a disputing party to appear before the Council -to present its case, to respond to questions, or to be presented with the Council's views, away from the public and media spotlight. It is a mechanism that could help inform Council decisions, and be a useful form of early warning to disputing parties.
Australia's recent experience as leader of the multinational force in East Timor has reinforced our concerns about rigidities in Council procedures. Under Security Council resolution 1264, the leadership of the MNF is required to provide periodic reports to the Council. This we are doing, with two fortnightly reports submitted so far covering the first month of the operations of INTERFET. But whereas in the case of a full UN peacekeeping operation the Council can ask questions and engage in discussion with a senior representative of that operation, there is no provision for the MNF leadership to brief the Council directly. Despite our responsibility for leadership of an MNF authorised by the Security Council, Australia's status as a non-member of Council precludes such direct briefings, even on an occasional, as needed basis.
The recent Security Council mission to East Timor is, by contrast, an example of where quick and creative action by the Council has had a positive effect on the resolution of a complex issue. The mission enabled members of the Council to see first hand the nature and extent of the problem, talk directly to the main players, and come to a more informed view about what to do next. We again commend the members of the mission -particularly the Presidency of the Netherlands and the leader of the mission, Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia -for this initiative. It is an example of the authority of the Council being used in a constructive and creative way in support of the maintenance international peace and security.
We are aware that many of these ideas have been the subject of discussion not only in the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform, but also in the Council's own informal working group. We applaud and support those delegations that have been advocating greater transparency and flexibility in the Council's working methods.
There is no question that the Security Council should remain master of its own procedures. But increasingly it is being hamstrung by the rigidities of those procedures. The need for greater flexibility and openness is overdue.
Mr President
Australia welcomes the steps that have been taken so far towards greater openness, including the organisation. of open debates where these genuinely contribute to Council deliberations. We also welcome the incorporation of transparency reforms introduced last year into the Report of the Security Council. We would like to see the Report acquire more analytical depth and include a forward-looking assessment of the emerging challenges facing the Council.
Australia would also like to take this opportunity to place on record its appreciation to all members of the Council for the contributions they have made to the complex and difficult work of the Security Council over the last year. We would also like to congratulate the newly elected non-permanent members on their election and pledge our full support for the task ahead of them when they assume their seats next year.
Thank you