The first two rounds of the intergo

The first two rounds of the intergovernmental
negotiations took place between March and
June 2009. The first round focused on getting
the various Member States’ proposals and options
on the five main topics under discussion on
the table, while the second round aimed at discussing
the reform topics in more depths. For
the large part, meaningful deliberations eluded
the negotiations, partly because some Member
States simply repeated their reform positions or
others brought forward too many different proposals,
cloaking the system. There was, however
some movement in the strongly contested area
of Council enlargement.
Many delegates charged that the majority of
Member States spent much of the negotiations
repeating their already well-known reform positions,
particularly in discussions on the enlargement
of a reformed Council and its categories of
membership. Indeed, while UN Member States
widely agree that the Council has to expand in
order to ensure better regional representation
and to be more reflective of geopolitical realities,
there is widespread disagreement on the details
of such an expansion.
Of the five main country groups that have come
together over time to advocate for reforms they
see most pertinent, the following three groups
take a particular strong stance on Council
enlargement. Seeking permanent representation
on the Council are the Africa Group representing
the African Union at the UN and the Group
of Four (G4) composed of Germany, Japan, India
and Brazil. On the other hand, the group Uniting
for Consensus’s (UFC) most vocal members,
namely Italy, Spain, Argentina, Mexico, South
Korea and Pakistan – regional counterweights or
rivals to the G4 countries - have long supported
expansion in only the non-permanent category,
arguing that additional permanent seats would
create new regional seats of power. The Council’s
five permanent members generally support
a modest expansion of the Council. Apart from
France and the United Kingdom, who are outspoken
supporters of the G4 and African Group
to join as new permanent members, the P5,
however, remain tight-lipped about details of an
enlargement.
The country groups’ opposing positions on
enlargement have for years created an impasse
in negotiations. It is therefore surprising that it is
in this area that the negotiations actually saw
some movement as members of the G4 and the
UFC faction moved closer to a possible agreement
on Council enlargement by considering the
so-called intermediate approach or transitional
solution, which exists in various forms. The intermediate
approach generally proposes that
implemented reforms, such as new permanent
members and their privileges, would be reviewed
after an agreed time period and reassessed
upon performance and feasibility. Some
models of the intermediate approach in addition
propose the option of a third membership category
of extended seats. Extended seats would
serve longer time on the Council than the current
two-year term of non-permanent members
(with proposals ranging from 3-15 years), and
could be extended once the tenure runs out.
Toward the end of the first round, Colombia and
Italy, both part of the UFC, issued a proposal
presenting the extended seat with a 3-5 year
validity as an option for an extension in Council
membership.3 In turn, Germany, member of the
G4, indicated their principle interest and support
for an intermediate model in the membership
category.4
The apparent success of the intermediate model
prompted some delegates to describe it as a

possible solution to break the stalemate in the
reform negotiations. But the intermediate approach
also has its limitations. Other Members
of the G4, most strongly India who in 2008
called the transitional solution “not a solution
but a problem,”5 reportedly do not show support
for a possible intermediate model of extended
seats. The African Group also opposes
the intermediate approach in saying that it
would create second-class permanent members
with fewer privileges than the P5.6
Major progress of the intermediate model is further
hindered by its many variations resulting in
a lack of clarity for Member States when they
are deliberating on the approach. Indeed, in the
extended seat category alone, options range
from a 3-year term that is re-negotiable to one
that is not extendable at all to the long-term
option of 15 years and everything in between.
In conclusion, what emerged from the negotiations
was that there are a wide range of proposals
and negotiables in all five reform areas. Proposal
for reforming the Council’s voting structure,
for example, vary from eliminating the veto
alltogether to extending its use to new permanent
members to excluding certain issues such
as crimes against humanity from the veto, to
giving permanent members the ability to cast a
negative vote without blocking a Council’s decision.
Equally plentiful proposals emerged to reform
the Council’s working methods. One delegate
described the amount of options as “overflowing
the system,” making it hard for delegations
to keep track. The P5 meanwhile reportedly
continue to oppose limitations or changes
in the current voting structure and also spoke
against possible changes in the Council’s working
methods to be discussed in the General Assembly.
7
One of the main challenges for Member States
in the third round is thus to narrow down the