by Rita Emch in New York, swissinfo.ch

Paul Seger, Switzerland's ambassador to the UN, says the draft resolution struck a nerve (Keystone)

The “Small 5” group (S5) – Switzerland, Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein and Singapore – submitted the draft resolution in March; it included an annexe with 20 recommendations.

Wednesday’s withdrawal of the text in New York was mostly the result of pressure exerted by the powerful five permanent members of the council: China, France, Russia, Britain and the United States.

Among other things, the draft proposal had recommended that those five permanent members refrain from using their veto power to block action aimed at preventing or ending genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

“In substance nearly everybody was agreeing with our proposals,” said Paul Seger, Switzerland’s ambassador to the UN. However, there were growing concerns of procedural problems raised by member states.

Contested legal opinion
The five permanent members of the Security Council (P5) “told us clearly that they would not see favourably any kind of resolution regarding working methods of the Security Council”, Seger added.

While saying they were willing to continue improving the working methods, they were of the opinion “that this is the sole and exclusive domain of the Security Council”, the Swiss ambassador explained in a meeting with the media after the S-5 had withdrawn its draft.

Added to this came a legal opinion by the UN’s top legal advisor, Patricia O’Brien. She had concluded that the draft resolution was to be considered under the aspect of comprehensive reform of the council and should therefore be submitted to a qualified two-thirds majority of all member states.

Seger, who used to be the Swiss government’s legal advisor does not agree with the conclusion. “I do not share this interpretation and cannot understand it,” he stated.

“Our reform proposals were concrete and pragmatic steps designed to improve the work of the Security Council and its cooperation with the General Assembly. They could be implemented today without the need for any amendment of the UN Charter,” Seger said.

The Swiss ambassador noted that the UN Charter provided that the assembly could make recommendations to the council, and that it was in this spirit that the S5 had submitted its text. The language was respectful of the roles of both bodies and recognised the council as “master of its own procedures”.

However, in order to avoid an “intense and politically complex” procedural battle in the assembly, the sponsor states eventually decided to withdraw their project.

“If common sense is indeed the common denominator of this Assembly, then this resolution would pass with ease,” said Seger as he introduced and withdrew the resolution on behalf of the members of the S5.

read more here:

Note by the editor: Well, the Swiss do sometimes have a ‘superiority complex’ and think that they may make a difference. ‘The big five’ Veto powers in the UN security council showed the Swiss that they have absolutely nothing to say, just as say Zimbabwe. – The Swiss proposed resolution however was in fact very good and essential. Now that they were forced to withdraw it may I suggest another solution: The Swiss should spearhead a withdrawal of all nations from the UN! The League of Nations was closed down so that a somewhat better UN could be born. Now it is time for the UN to close down so that a better version can be established. (just my personal opinion).