General Assembly Security Council

 Statement by Hon'ble Mr. Bhartruhari Mahtab, Member of the Indian Delegation and Member of Parliament  at the Open Debate of the UN Security Council on 'Working Methods', October 20, 2015

 

 

 

 
Mr. President,
 
Thank you for organizing this open debate.  Given the paucity of time, I will come to the substance directly.
 
Firstly, we do think that the openness of this debate is constricted by imposing a time limit of three minutes on non members and no time limit for members. 
 
Secondly, one of the more important issues before the UN in the coming year will be the selection of the next SG.  There is a great deal of debate on the prerogatives of the Security Council and the GA in this matter.  At the heart, however, is the question of the prerogatives of the P5 and the rest of the membership of the UN.  And, that is, to a large extent, determined by something as seemingly innocuous as the working method of the Council. 
 
My delegation has pressed for the Council to recommend two or more names to the General Assembly.  While the pronouncements of the General Assembly do not specifically provide for this, there is - in our view - no legal impediment for the Council to do so
 
An important step would also be to do away with secret straw polls using different coloured slips that allow the P5 to exercise the veto without even taking ownership of it.  Discussions should be held in official meetings of the Council, preferably open ones but not necessarily so.  The Secretary General should issue reports, as is usual, summarizing the proceedings.
 
Except for April, June and October, it will be elected members who will preside over the Council in every month of the coming year.  It will be for them to decide on whether the selection of the Secretary General will remain the sole preserve of the P5 or not.
 
Thirdly, in this debate about transparency we need mention that the most non transparent of the subsidiary bodies of the Security Council is the 1267 Al Qaida Sanctions Committee.  No information is shared on the criteria of listing or not listing individuals and organizations on whom sanctions are applied.  It is our apprehension that there may, in fact, be no criteria at all.  And that any of the 15 members may be allowed to exercise a veto without assigning any reason and without the wider membership being informed of their having done so.
 
In April this year, the new Chair of the 1267 Committee organized a briefing for the wider membership of the UN and said that he would do so periodically.  No meeting has, however, since been held.  His predecessor had also kept the work of the Committee cloaked in secrecy.
 
Fourthly, Article 44 of the Charter requires that consultations be held with troop contributing countries before mandates of peacekeeping operations are finalized.  Regrettably this has never happened.  Again, we look towards the elected members of the Council to make a beginning.
 
Fifthly, there should be transparency in determining the list of speakers in open debates.  In our view, priority should be given to member states rather than organizations with consultative status.  With regard to non members, there would be merit in  beginning with Ministers followed by plenipotentiary envoys   and then others.
 
Mr President,
 
We do appreciate that the outcome of this debate will be adopted after all speakers have spoken.   We would request that on the next occasion of an open debate, an informal discussion be also arranged with non members of the Council on the content of the outcome.  That will go a long way in enhancing its acceptability.
 
In conclusion, I must say that the problems afflicting the Security Council go deeper than its working methods.  While a focus on working methods is useful, it can in no way be a substitute for reforming the Council in a manner that would give its decisions legitimacy and acceptability.