Canada & the UN >  Canada on the Security Council (1999-2000)

Canada and the Security Council: Options and Opportunities

Session I -- Council Transparency
Presentation: H.E. Mr. Anders Liden, Deputy Permanent Representative of Sweden to the UN

In the public discourse surrounding Security Council reform, the theme of increased transparency has received a great deal of attention. However, the interventions made in this session demonstrated that the issue of transparency is more conceptually nebulous and morally ambiguous than is typically supposed. Speakers in this session stressed two facets of this ambiguity: first, the difference between transparency and "openness" or "access" to the Council; and second, the need to balance the goals of transparency and openness against those of efficiency, stealth, and timely action.

In his opening comments, Mr. Liden drew on his country’s recent experience as a non-permanent Council member. He began by noting that transparency should not be confused with openness: the former term refers to a lack of secrecy, whereas the latter denotes a condition in which outside entities including non-Council member states, NGOs, and other UN bodies have access to Council deliberations.

While taking note of recent improvements in the Council’s transparency, Mr. Liden contended that many of its closed, informal consultations could readily be held in the open. However, he also pointed out that open meetings tend to be more politicized and cumbersome. This is particularly problematic when the Council’s deliberations concern delicate crisis politics, and when the situation requires the Council to act with speed and stealth (as in cases involving the imposition of financial sanctions, for example).

Mr. Liden suggested that a compromise might sometimes be achieved between these conflicting imperatives by allowing all delegations present at those meetings to brief other member states, NGOs, and the news media immediately following their closed-door consultations. This would overcome the current problem of "content-free" consensus statements issued by the Security Council president, while acknowledging the fact that the closed deliberations of the Council are eventually leaked in any event.

With regard to the issue of access, Mr. Liden argued that the complexity of Security Council-mandated missions demands input from parties which are sometimes not consulted under the current procedures, including NGOs, state contributors to peace operations, and belligerents in civil conflicts. He suggested that Canada should consider calling open, informal meetings at appropriate times, even in the absence of Security Council consensus behind such a meeting. Given that states are loath to be "left out of the loop", relevant delegations would likely attend such a gathering even if they did not support it initially. However, as Mr. Liden and subsequent speakers recognized, this idea raises two controversial questions: who to exclude from "open" meetings in order to prevent such gatherings from becoming unwieldy, and how to engage rebel groups in dialogue without conferring upon them an undue (and politically untenable) degree of legitimacy. These issues must be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

In the discussion which followed Mr. Liden's presentation, there was a broad consensus surrounding his analysis of the relative merits and drawbacks of informal meetings. One speaker added that developing states on the Council often lack specific guidance from their capitals regarding how to proceed in a crisis situation. As a result, these states may be unlikely to put forth a formal position in an open meeting, whereas they might advance a conditional position during informal discussions. This, ironically, presents a situation in which more transparency could have the effect of impairing the influence of states which are already under-represented on the Council.

However, participants generally agreed that the perception of an "opaque" Security Council is

harmful to the credibility of the UN as a whole, and that Canada should strive to implement policies and procedures which would counteract this impression. In this spirit, it was suggested that Canada provide regular briefings for non-Council member states.

It was also generally agreed that an effective and accountable United Nations requires a greater degree of transparency on the part of the UN Secretariat. Participants called for regular, informal briefings by the Secretariat to interested member states and NGOs, and urged that the Secretariat be required to share documents (such as those pertaining to the enforcement of sanctions regimes) with interested parties.

Much of the discussion held under the rubric of "transparency" concerned the related theme of "access". Participants agreed that the perception of the Council as a closed shop has fostered the cynical view that the UN is fundamentally unaccountable to the bulk of its constituents: the member states. Participants expressed the hope that non-permanent members such as Canada would use their voting power in the Council as leverage to insist that the voices of non-Council members be given a hearing on vital issues. It was also hoped that Canada would act as a conduit or proxy for these voices, should the Council prove reluctant to hear them directly.

Several speakers reiterated earlier suggestions made by Prof. von Riekhoff and Mr. Liden that the Council must regularize its consultations with troop contributors, interested non-state parties, NGOs, and outside experts. One speaker noted that such consultations, apart from their salutary political effects, would provide the Council with valuable intelligence concerning the situation on the ground in crisis environments.

Finally, several participants argued that the institution of the Security Council presidency could be of tremendous value, if it was given creative leadership. There was enthusiastic support for the proposal that representatives from a "rolling trio" consisting of the past, present, and incoming presidents of the Council meet regularly in order to contribute a degree of continuity to the presidency. Speakers also urged that the president of the Council make a point of meeting with non-Council member states upon assuming the presidency, particularly those states involved in incipient or ongoing crises. In addition, several speakers emphasized the importance of more substantive monthly reports from the country holding the presidency of the Council, and urged that these reports be issued -- and indeed, posted on the Internet -- soon after the end of a given presidency.