Statement by

H.E. Mr. Frank Majoor

Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the United Nations

Security Council's open debate in connection with the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507)

27 August 2008



Mr. President,

I very much welcome this opportunity to participate in today’s debate on Security Council working methods. This debate is timely, even though the broader subject of Security Council reform has already been actively discussed at various levels since the 2005 World Summit. Many of us have played a role in moving the issue forward and I had the privilege of taking up the subject of the Council’s working methods as facilitator to the PGA. Some members have been particularly active within the Security Council and deserve to be commended for their work, notably the Chairmen of the Informal Security Council Working Group concerned, the Ambassadors of Japan, Slowakia and now Panama.

The importance of Security Council reform cannot be overemphasized and I believe there is broad consensus that during the sixty-third General Assembly, we should start negotiations on the various options and proposals on the table.

Mr. President,

Following your suggestion, I will focus in this debate on the particular aspect of Security Council reform that concerns the involvement of states and other parties not members of the Security Council in the Council’s work. This is merely one aspect, but an important one nonetheless. Options for reform in this area should be pursued without delay in view of their importance for the legitimacy of the Council’s deliberations and decisions in specific cases. Access to the Security Council by non-members can ensure an important infusion of credibility.

The Group of Small Five has made very useful proposals in this regard. Others have made suggestions as well, some more radical than others - including by NGOs such as Independent Diplomat that has called for the introduction of a “Universal Right of Address”.

These proposals and suggestions have to be seen in the light of an already developing practice in the Security Council to be more accessible to non-members and their views. For instance, and this should be recognised, access to the Council for Member States with specific responsibilities in the Peacebuilding Commission has considerably improved. Also, as has been pointed out in the Belgian Presidency’s concept paper, it has become more common for countries directly concerned by a particular agenda item to take the floor before Council members.

But more can be done, and there is a need for clear guidelines. I would suggest that the Security Council considers providing increased access to its work along the following lines.

First, as a general rule, state and non-state parties to a conflict on the Council’s agenda, affected states, relevant regional organizations and interested non-governmental actors should have the right to be heard by the Council whenever it discusses this conflict and especially in the early stages of its consultations. “To be heard” should mean, as a minimum, that these entities should have the right to submit their views to the Council in writing and at their own initiative; such contributions should then be distributed as Security Council documents.

Secondly, all state parties to or directly affected by a conflict on the Council’s agenda, as well as relevant regional organizations, should have the right to speak before the Council. They must be able to exercise this right by making a simple request to the Council as appropriate and subject to the Council’s agenda. Such a request should be granted automatically. This right should extend beyond the Council’s subcommittees and involve the Security Council’s plenary discussions, either in closed or open sessions, but these should not pertain to closed consultations on Council declarations or resolutions.

Thirdly and similarly, non-state parties to a conflict should also be given the possibility to address the Council at their request. However, in these cases it must remain the Council’s prerogative to decide which of these requests it is to grant and in which specific situation. The Council may limit access to its deliberations to written contributions, which as pointed out should be all parties’ basic right. This basic right can only be denied to those parties who have been blacklisted by the Council as terrorist organisations.

With these few important measures, the Council can ensure the necessary ‘democratization’ of its working methods; most importantly, these measures can ensure that all parties are heard that can be part of a political solution to a particular conflict. I am talking explicitly about the right and need to be heard; it should be clear that the right to decide must remain exclusively with the members of the Security Council. But their decisions will gain more weight and credibility once all relevant parties have been given the opportunity to make their inputs at the early stages of the decision-making process.

Thank you.



Comments/Questions? Email netherlands@un.int