While
UN SC Counsels
Secrecy,
Transparency
& Reform
Needed
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
March 19 -- Is
the UN
Security
Council
getting more
secretive or
less? It seems
some members
would like it
to become even
more of an
insiders'
club,
excluding not
only the press
and public but
even other UN
member states
which are not
among the
Permanent Five
members or
those ten
elected to two
year temporary
terms.
The
Council met
behind closed
doors on
Monday morning
about its
"working
methods." Just
outside the
Council
chamber, Inner
City Press
asked a number
of diplomats
including from
the UK and
Portugal which
co-authored
the "concept
paper" which
was being
consider, if
the paper
could be made
public. One
country said
no, the other
said perhaps a
summary could
be given.
And
so when the
Council
President for
March, UK
Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant, came
out to the
stakeout,
Inner City
Press asked
him three
questions,
about working
methods, Syria
and Sri Lanka:
Inner
City
Press: On
working
methods, was
there any
discussion of
issues that
would deal
with
transparency?
Greater
transparency
by the Council
with the press
and the
public. In
terms of
transparency,
is Mr.
Guehenno a
Deputy to Kofi
Annan or not?
And if you
could, I
wanted to ask
you one thing,
if you could
just say for
the record,
there’s the
reports that
this
Commonwealth
event that you
deemed
inappropriate,
the presence
of the DPR
of Sri Lanka,
given his
record in the
UN’s own
report. Is
that the case
and could you
say your
reason for
it?”
Amb.
Lyall
Grant: I'm not
going to
comment on the
last two
issues. On the
Mr Guehenno
point, I mean,
if there’s an
announcement,
no doubt the
Secretary-General
will make that
announcement.
But on working
methods, which
we did discuss
this morning,
yes, there was
discussion of
transparency.
A number of
members raised
that. And in
particular,
around the
annual report
of the
Security
Council’s work
in November.
There were
some
suggestions
that there
should be an
ability of the
Council to
pick up some
of the ideas
that are
raised in that
open debate in
November from
other members
of the United
Nations and to
react to that,
to have some
follow-up to
that open
debate on the
working
methods in
November. And
certainly that
was one of the
areas of
transparency.
Equally, I
have to say,
there was
quite strong
support for
the idea that
consultations
should be
confidential
and leakage
from the
consultations
room should be
contained and
that if the
Security
Council is to
do its
business
efficiently
when there are
confidential
discussions,
negotiations,
going on in
the
consultations
room, they
should remain
confidential
and not be
leaked out.
After
this answer, a
number of
diplomats came
to Inner City
Press to
emphasis the
anger of some
in the Council
about leaks,
including
information
Inner City
Press has
published in
the spirit of
transparency.
Further
description
was provided
of a meeting
last week
which was
abnormally
closed and at
which the
directive
against leaks
to the Press
was strongly
emphasized.
The
Security
Council's
topic last
Thursday
morning was
Haiti -- the
president has
eight
passports, and
UN
peacekeepers
found guilty
of raping a 14
year old boy
were sentenced
to only one
year.
Sources tell
Inner City
Press that US
Ambassador Susan Rice
declared that
only the 15
top
ambassadors and
their Haiti
experts (with
a few
exceptions)
should
stay in the
consultations
room, and
nothing would
be in writing.
The sources
say Rice
expressed
anger at leaks
to Inner City
Press, and
warned against
them.
It
is ironic,
because as
exclusively
reported by
Inner City
Press at the
beginning of
the month
Lyall Grant
proposed a
session of
"Permanent
Representatives
only." Not
only Russia
but also the
US opposed the
idea.
It now seems
the US is not
against the
one country,
on
representative
idea, only the
requirement
that it be the
top
Ambassador,
since Rice is
often out of
town.
Monday,
too, Rice was
said to be in
Washington.
One would like
to ask her
directly, but
on this it has
not been
possible prior
to the
Council's
discussion of
working
methods and
(less)
transparency.
Last week when
Inner City
Press sought
a comment from
the US
Mission's
Ambassador for
Management
Joseph
Torsella, the
answer was to
see Joe's
tweets.
Other
questions
asked were not
answered,
including on
Syria, Sri
Lanka and,
ironically,
Security
Council
reform:
I've
received
the below as a
summary of what the US
asked in
yesterday's GA
session on
Security
Council reform,
from a
participant.
If you don't
mind, is it
accurate?
United States
Q
-
How many of
the 25/26
seats will be
permanent/non-permanent?
-
How does the
L69 propose to
allocate
non-permanent
seats?
-
L69 proposal
on development
status as a
factor of
consideration,
will this
status be made
independently?
Or via a
group?
-
Will seats for
small island
nations be
rotating? Will
it differ from
other
non-permanent
seats?
-
Do all L69
members attend
SC meetings
and do they
find them
useful?
Would
USUN
want to add
anything?
The
questions were
not answered
or even
acknowledged.
As others have
also said, of
late the US
has a weak
record on
international
governance
reform,
including
opposing
reforms at the
IMF,
maintaining it
can appoint
anyone to head
the World
Bank, even
Larry Summers,
and declining
to answer
questions.
The
Council's
closed door
discussion
Monday morning
would impact
not only the
press and
public but
also other UN
member states.
Until now,
countries not
serving on the
Council come
and get
private
briefings, for
example by the
European Union
for its
members. Is
that supposed
to stop?
Monday
afternoon an
elected member
of the Council
told Inner
City Press
that it is the
Permanent Five
who have "no
responsibility
to others...
the rest of
us, we report
back to our
Groups."
This
is similar to
the issue of
the funding of
Special
Political
Mission, which
while designed
and pushed
through by the
Permanent
Five, are left
in the regular
UN budget
rather than
the
Peacekeeping
budget,
essentially
shifting the
costs of the
P5's decision
onto other
states.
Among
the other
topics in the
working
methods
meeting Monday
morning was
shifting the
Council's
translation
and
administrative
support to its
"subsidiary
bodies" on
Friday, and
not having
Council
meetings of
Permanent
Representatives
on that day.
The
UK pushed for
greater
interactivity
-- in closed
door "horizon"
consultations
-- and for
spreading
mandate
renewals out
across the
year. The
Secretariat is
proposing
producing a
calendar for
the whole
year: but
would it be
public?
A
defender of
Monday's
discussion
tried to
distinguish
between
"leaking" and
"briefing." By
this argument,
draft
documents
should never
be given out,
and summaries
of
consultations
should only
give "a sense
of the mood of
the whole
Council," not
specify who
said what.
Talk about
accountability.
Inner
City Press'
editorial line
and project,
as should be
clear, is that
more
transparency
is better than
less, and that
regular
people,
including
because they
pay the taxes
that support
the UN and the
Council's
missions, have
a right to
know what is
taking place.
Currently,
the UN won't
even say who
is getting
paid, with
global
taxpayers'
$900,000
allocated in
the General
Assembly
resolution on
Syria. Are former UN
officials
Nicholas
Michel and
Alan Doss
getting paid?
Is Jean-Marie
Guehenno a
deputy to Kofi
Annan? Who is
in Syria today
for Kofi
Annan's
mission?
The
French
Mission to the
UN drafted
a Presidential
Statement
about the
Annan mission,
which Inner
City Press obtained
and put on
line: in the
spirit of
transparency.
Watch this
site.
, 
