Statement by Shamala Kandiah Thompson, Executive Director, Security Council Report at the Security Council Open Debate on Working Methods
Mr President, excellencies, distinguished delegates, co-chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and other Procedural Questions, my co-briefer, Loraine Sievers, colleagues in SCAD, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for inviting Security Council Report to address the Council’s open debate on working methods. It is a privilege for SCR to brief the Council on an issue that is core to the work of our organisation.
When SCR was launched twenty years ago, one of its main aims was to bring greater transparency to the work of the Security Council. Having witnessed the evolution of the Council over these two decades, I have seen first-hand how working methods—even small procedural shifts—can meaningfully shape its ability to act.
Mr President,
I will cover three areas: the appointment of subsidiary body chairs, informal meeting formats and the selection process for the next Secretary-General.
First, the appointment of subsidiary body chairs and vice-chairs.
I will not dwell on the reasons why the appointment of the 2025 subsidiary body chairs and vice-chairs was delayed until 29 May 2025. That story is well known to all of you. Suffice to say this led to a serious disruption in the work of the subsidiary bodies this year. While this was the latest this decision has been made, members have never been able to agree by 1 October, the date proposed in Note 507.
Reaching agreement on the allocation of chairs is affected by the composition of incoming members, their level of interest in chairing particular bodies, and, of course, which subsidiary bodies are available. It appears that in some years the mix of available subsidiary bodies and incoming members make for easier choices than in others. Further complicating matters, the permanent members, who still play a central role in the appointment process, often have strong views about the suitability of particular members to chair certain committees.
What can be done to improve the appointment process? I would like to offer some ideas that come from talking to members over the years as they were going through this process:
- Providing the I5 with an early understanding of the respective roles of the Informal Working Group chair and the P5 coordinator, who help to facilitate the appointment process, would be useful.
- P5 coordinators change in line with their 3-monthly cycle. Having just one P5 member throughout the process makes it easier.
- A briefing by the Secretariat immediately after the Security Council elections in June could provide incoming members with information that would be useful in deciding which subsidiary bodies to chair.
Possible options for allowing subsidiary bodies to function when there is no agreement by 31 December, include:
- Moving away from the allocation of subsidiary bodies as a package deal. This would allow bodies that are not contentious to continue their work and chairs continuing into a second year would not be affected. (I understand that this is something Ms Sievers has also suggested in the past.)
- Have the penholders for country-specific issues, which are mostly permanent members, chair the subsidiary bodies of those files until an agreement is reached.
- Consider having in each subsidiary body at least one vice-chair that remains in the Council and have that vice-chair assume the responsibilities of the chair if there is no decision by 31 December.
Not of these are perfect but they are perhaps worth discussing as options.
I will now turn to informal meeting formats.
Rule 48 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, states that “unless it decides otherwise, the Council shall meet in public”. This has given the Council considerable freedom to create informal meeting formats when needed.
For example, in 1992, Arria-formula meetings were born because a Bosnian Croat priest had a story to tell about the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and there was no appropriate format for a confidential briefing by a civil society briefer.
In 2008, the informal interactive dialogue or IID format was created because the Council needed a way to speak with the African Union and the League of Arab States about the ICC arrest warrant against Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir. They needed a closed format that was not formal. This format was then used in 2009 for discussions on Sri Lanka, an issue that was not on the Council’s agenda but which warranted its attention.
These examples show that when there has been a need the Council has found a way. Today there is a need for the Council to build trust and better relations away from the public eye. Open meetings are useful for conveying member state positions, but they do not allow for the type of interaction that leads to solutions and stronger outcomes. While informal consultations were conceived as a format for frank discussion of sensitive issues facing the Council, there has long been criticism that members largely reiterate their public views in scripted statements behind closed doors.
It may be time to better utlise some of the informal formats available to Council members.
The IID format is one that could be used more regularly for closed door conversations with governments that are hosting UN missions or with affected parties.
Closed Arria-formula meetings would allow for more private discussions with civil society briefers, who may be more comfortable providing frank analysis behind closed doors.
Sofa talks, a format suggested at a time when tensions were high in the Council over Syria, were meant to allow members to build trust through informal meetings with no formal agenda. Sofa talks took place regularly in 2018 and 2019, but they have used very infrequently in the last few years. Members could consider reinstating sofa talks as a monthly occurrence.
In addition, members could encourage the Secretary-General to restart the Secretary-General’s annual retreat with Council members, which were held for at least twenty years but appear to have stopped a few years ago. These usually took place in May outside New York City, and once even in Sweden.
During its presidency in January 2021, Norway organised a president’s retreat focused on preventive diplomacy and mediation. Council presidencies could organise similar retreat-like meetings on specific topics. Taking members outside UN meeting rooms can stimulate real engagement, build relationships among members, and generate new ideas. Such informal settings can be a useful forum for promoting the trust and understanding so often at the heart of effective diplomacy.
Regarding the selection of the next Secretary-General, Council members are currently negotiating the joint letter from the President of the Council and the President of the General Assembly, which is expected to provide guidelines for the nomination of candidates and will mark the formal start of the selection process. If the 2015/2016 timetable is adhered to, the joint letter would be issued by the end of this year. Having followed and reported on the 2016 process closely, I would like to make the following observation.
Many of the changes implemented during the last selection process have been well documented. But some of the details of the process in the Security Council are not that well known, particularly the conduct of straw polls. In 2016, there were a number of non-papers on the modalities for straw polls that were not made public. The permanent members are, of course, likely to have them in their filing cabinets or shared drives, but the E10 are unlikely to have access to them. It would be helpful if there were a way to preserve these documents and make them available to elected members. More broadly, it would be good for elected members to have access to a comprehensive repository of documents on the selection process. In 2026, elected members have 5 of the 6 presidencies between June and December, crucial months for straw polls. An understanding of the conduct of the straw polls, including when and how to hold them, is particularly important for a presidency in the year a new Secretary-General is selected and appointed.
As the Council begins the search for the next UN Secretary-General, I wish all Council members all the best in working together to find the best person to lead the UN into its next phase.
To conclude, I believe that working methods are all the more essential as a guide for Council members as they navigate a world in flux and a multilateral system that is morphing into something new, but yet unknown. While geopolitical factors are critical in determining the Council’s effectiveness, investing in improving this body’s working methods can help inspire creative solutions for maintaining international peace and security in these difficult times.
