Philippine Presidency of the
Security Council, September 2005
REACHING FOR THE SUMMIT:
How The Philippines Organized the Third Security Council Summit
By AMBASSADOR LAURO L. BAJA JR.
Permanent Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations
WHEN THE Philippines began its second year as non-permanent member
of the Security Council, I asked my team at the Philippine Mission how
we can replicate the success of our June 2004 presidency of the Council.
The release of the High Level Report on Threats, Challenges and Change
by a panel of eminent persons commissioned by United Nations Secretary
General Kofi Annan, and a decision to hold a High Level Plenary Meeting
of the General Assembly in September to discuss what has since been
termed as UN Reform, provided us with an opportunity and inspiration—a
summit meeting of the Security Council in September while the Philippines
Months of planting the seed on the minds and consciousness of the Security
Council members followed. The first challenge we met was to overcome
wariness among them that a possible Security Council summit may have
the unintended consequences of competing, if not eclipsing, the General
Assembly summit. We assured them that the theme of a Council Summit
would be focused and confined to the mandate of the Security Council
under the charter of the United Nations.
By June we felt confident that we have generated enough interest to
issue a concept paper on our theme: "The Role of the Security Council
and the New Consensus on Collective Security." We advocated that
the twenty-first century has ushered in an urgency to revisit the concept
of collective security. The threats to peace and security now include
not just international war and conflict but civil violence, organized
crime, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. They also include
poverty, deadly infectious disease and environmental degradation since
these can have equally catastrophic consequences.
International peace and security therefore demands the collective determination
and unified purpose of the international community to tackle each source
of threats facing the world today. The realities of the twenty-first
century call for the new consensus to achieve for everyone the freedom
from fear. This new consensus challenges the Security Council to define
anew its role in the collective security system established under the
United Nations Charter, and to reflect on the most effective use of
the powerful tools in its arsenal to rid the world of the scourge of
war and conflict.
The Council sits at the apex of the UN security system. It plays a
potent role in responding to threats to peace and acts of aggression.
Its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace
and security is unquestioned. To continue to command the respect of
the international community, however, it must be equipped to carry out
its responsibility under the UN Charter and must prove relevant to the
security requirements of the new millennium. A meeting of the Security
Council at the level of the Heads of State or Government is a good opportunity
for the Council to assess its need to adapt to the demands of the new
consensus on collective security in the twenty-first century.
The Russian Federation and China—two permanent members of the
Security Council—gave our initiative a big boost by expressing
their support. Secretary General Kofi Annan showed interest and eventually
valuable encouragement. But there were still the United States, the
United Kingdom and France and some non-permanent members to cajole and
convince on the wisdom of a Council summit.
The US, the superpower, is key to a successful summit, which could
send a powerful message to the world through an outcome document. But
the US Mission had been without a Permanent Representative since Ambassador
John Danforth resigned in January. But by June we were already determined,
"almost obsessed" with the idea of a Security Council summit
during our Presidency. To the non-permanent members, we impressed upon
them that even "tourists" in the Council are capable of preparing
and holding a summit. They hooked on to this line.
We issued a paper on the elements of a possible outcome document of
a "planned" Security Council summit. The five Permanent Members
(P-5) began to meet on the Philippines proposal. (The reality, though
uncomfortable, is that the P-5 must agree to any initiative before this
could take off.)
Our proposal had taken off!
On 7 July, London suffered a series of terrorist bombings. Terrorism
was again prominent in the agenda of the United Nations. I learned from
the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, that Prime Minister
Tony Blair would consult with President George Bush on the Philippine
Ambassador John Bolton was subsequently appointed Permanent Representative
of the US. When he called on me, he committed to recommend to President
Bush his attendance to a possible Security Council summit. The Philippines
initiative is airborne!
The next big challenge was to find a date and time which will meet
the schedule and convenience of 15 heads of states or governments. Late
afternoon of 13 September or the morning or afternoon of 14 September
were considered. After intensive negotiations—including bilaterals
with 14 Permanent Representatives of the Security Council—I was
able to obtain an "emerging consensus" for a Council summit
on 14 September at 11 am.
During the first meeting of the Philippine presidency of the Council
to adopt its program of work for September, a difference between those
who want a focus on terrorism and those who want a more enlarged scope
threatened to derail an emerging agreement. France stated that it could
only attend the summit if there is agreement on the theme. After another
round of negotiations and as a compromise, I was authorized to issue
the following statement to the media:
"The President has consulted members of the Security Council and
they have agreed that they should take advantage of the presence of
heads of State and Government in New York to hold a meeting of the Security
Council at that level on 14 September 2005. The subject of this meeting
will be "Threats to International Peace and Security".
In this regard the Security Council is now considering a draft resolution
on prevention of incitement to terrorism and a draft resolution on prevention
of conflict, particularly in Africa."
We are now on negotiations on an outcome document even as we ensure
that the agreement to convene a summit holds.
It is difficult enough to prepare one summit; it is overwhelming to
organize two summits. Aside from presiding over the Security Council
summit, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will also preside over an
Informal Summit of Leaders on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace on 13
September from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. How we succeeded in this initiative
will be the subject of another article.
In all these endeavors, I was fortunate to have the continuing and
invaluable support of Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto G. Romulo and
the hard work and dedication of a team composed of Ambassador Bayani
S. Mercado, our Deputy Permanent Representative; Minister Anacleto Rei
Lacanilao III, Political Coordinator; and Alternate Representatives
Leslie B. Gatan, Ma. Teresa Taguiang, Meynardo Montealegre, Ma. Rosario
Aguinaldo, Patrick Chuasoto, Elmer Cato, Yvette Banzon-Abalos, Emma
Sarne, and Jimmy Blas and our efficient staff.
There are lessons learned on this odyssey.
First, a heavy layer of patience and dedication is essential to navigate
Second, in international negotiations, one has to give a little to
get a little.
Whenever there is an impasse, it pays to let others have your own way!
Third, it is important to cultivate personal bonds with colleagues.
These bonds oftentimes are stronger foundations to achieve results.
It is also essential to go into negotiations with adequate preparations