외교부

Statement by H.E. Ambassador Cho Tae-yul

Informal meeting of the General Assembly

The intergovernmental negotiations on the question

of equitable representation on and increase in the

membership of the Security Council and other

matters related to the Council

1 February 2018 

Co-Chairs,

Twenty five years have passed since we started our deliberations on the Security Council reform with the establishment of the ‘Open-ended Working Group’ in 1993. This year also marks the 10th anniversary of the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on this critical issue, which was fuelled by the urgent need to transform the Council into a more effective and responsible body that is better equipped to cope with increasingly complex challenges to international peace and security.

Unfortunately, however, we have not yet seen any meaningful progress in the negotiations. Divergence among Member States seems to have been further magnified rather than diminished and we have only agreed to disagree on the structure of the reformed Council, the most critical issue among others. With all the frustration we may have felt, however, our shared commitment to moving forward remains as firm as ever. It is against this backdrop that I find it a timely and meaningful exercise to reflect on the past 10 years of negotiations, identify perceived gaps and divergences, and suggest a way forward for negotiations including how to narrow them as much as we can.

The statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Italy has presented the common view of the UfC Group in this regard, and I would just like to add the following three points in my national capacity.

First, let us not shy away from acknowledging the wide gaps existing between our differing positions. These gaps have understandably arisen as a result of our fundamentally different perspectives on how to reform the Security Council. 

We all agree on the need for an expanded Council to make it a more representative and democratic one. But when it comes to the question of ‘how’, the distance between both ends of the spectrum seems to be too far to bridge the gap. At one end stands a group of countries arguing that the current geopolitical reality can be duly reflected by simply enlarging the current Council without addressing the root causes of its structural problems. This is based on the conviction that rectification of the existing imbalance in the structure of the Council should be the heart of the reform, which could be achieved only through the addition of new permanent members. At the opposite end, there is another group of countries sharing the view that an enlarged Council that is a mere mirror image of the current one will in no way lead to the more effective, accountable, transparent, representative, and democratic entity that we all aspire to. It will only magnify the existing structural problems.

We firmly believe that creating a new category of long-term re-electable seats is the best way of addressing the current structural problems as it not only fits for purpose, but is in line with democratic principles. It also better reflects the ever-evolving geopolitical realities of the world, while providing the aspiring countries, especially those in Africa, with additional and more equitable opportunities to be democratically elected to the Council for longer-term seats and to play greater roles in discharging the Council’s primary responsibilities. 

Second, let us do more to narrow these fundamental differences. One of the main reasons why we have failed so far to create any convergence on the basic approach to the category issues is because no serious and candid discussions have been undertaken on the guiding principles which should serve as the bedrock for reform. Although we may still end up taking different positions on the details, our shared understanding on the underlying reform principles will surely facilitate substantive debates. 

Now is perhaps a good time to take a step back and think about why we are so divided and how we can move closer together. When our differing views on these principles converge, then tangible progress can finally begin.

Third, let us resist any temptation to resort to simpler solutions such as evoking ‘the number’ in the negotiations. No one would deny that we need to have a text for negotiations eventually. However, under the current circumstances where Member States hold polar opposite views on the most substantive issues, it seems unlikely that a text would be anything but divisive. 

Building consensus on this politically charged issue is no small task. We must revisit the wisdom of decision 62/557. The reason why the decision refers to the ‘widest possible political acceptance’ rather than a simple or two-thirds majority vote is because Security Council reform will bring about a sea change in the international political landscape. Indeed, this change to the architecture of global governance will eventually affect all people around the world, in both this generation and the next.

The Republic of Korea will continue to work closely and constructively with others to work out a solution that the entire membership can support. As a more practical approach towards this end, we may need to consider focusing more on issues of less divergence to turn the tide towards more convergence. I hope and expect that your able co-leadership will take us to a more fertile ground for reform that is right, just, and sustainable.  

Thank you. /END/