A/65/PV.48 General Assembly

The Dominican Republic is grateful to Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom and President of the Security Council during the month of November, for the thorough presentation of the report of the Security Council (A/65/2) before the Assembly. We also greatly appreciate the sister delegation of Nigeria for its role in the preparation of the report. The Dominican Republic particularly appreciates the follow-up by the Security Council to the continuing difficult situation in the neighbouring Republic of Haiti. We are particularly grateful for its swift action after the tragic earthquake in Haiti on 12 January, when it approved an increase in the military and police contingent of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti. The Dominican Republic trusts that the Council’s follow-up on the situation in Haiti will lead, sooner or later, to strengthening the capacity of the Haitian people themselves so they can assume the management of their own destinies. We trust there will be a successful transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding, with secure institutions that solidify the rule of law and provide a basis for the restoration of the confidence of all in a future of prosperity and social justice, generating jobs in Haiti for all Haitians. We therefore welcome the adoption of the Security Council’s presidential statement on transition and exit strategies (S/PRST/2010/2), by which a view was adopted of peacekeeping as a partner with, rather than an alternative to, political strategies on the ground. The Dominican Republic thus trusts that peacekeeping will have more clearly defined goals and a specific timetable for returning to territories in conflict conditions allowing them to live in peace, irreversibly overcoming the causes of the conflict and thus making it possible to dismantle the peacekeeping operation once the mission is accomplished. Despite the efforts of members of the Security Council, the annual report continues to lack an analytical perspective, with detailed information on both public meetings and informal consultations that enables us to absorb with greater benefit its 223 pages, including 27 pages of introduction on the Council’s work, 21 on subsidiary bodies, and 186 containing nothing more than reference information on documents that have been adopted, considered or received. There is a lack of pointers enabling us to understand why conflicts that are key for international peace and security — for example, the situation in the Middle East — continue without resolution. However, the Dominican Republic welcomes the efforts of Council members to intensify transparency and responsibility in their important work. In that connection, we recognize the constructive nature of the note approved under Japan’s chairmanship of the Informal Working Group on Documentation (S/2010/507), which will undoubtedly contribute to improving the Council’s working methods and provide greater possibilities for all Member States to better understand the work of the Security Council and to participate in issues and concerns of common interest on its agenda. True improvement in the working methods of the Security Council can come about only if the Council is reformed. We therefore rely once again in the wise leadership of Ambassador Zahir Tanin, Permanent Representative of Afghanistan. The Dominican Republic supports a comprehensive reform of the Security Council covering the five key issues set out in the important General Assembly decision 62/557, namely: categories of membership, the question of the veto, regional representation, the size of an expanded Council and its working methods, and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. As the position of the Dominican Republic in relation to each of those issues is already known, I will take this opportunity to express once again our conviction regarding the imbalance in the current membership structure of the Council. New countries must have the opportunity to serve on the Council. That includes small island developing States, which play a role in the resolution of regional political conflicts and in the promotion of joint responses to new challenges to security such as climate change or the prevention and mitigation of and response to natural disasters. Regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, moreover, do not have the kind of participation in the Security Council that they deserve in light of the political realities of the twenty-first century. That is why the Dominican Republic hopes that the recent outcry that we have heard for an effective, efficient, credible and legitimate Security Council will now be matched by the political will and the commitment of the Member States to the reform demanded by our times.

The Republic of Belarus has always advocated a constructive approach to the issue of Security Council reform, which we have repeated during the negotiation process. We believe that the fundamental goal of Council reform should be to further enhance its effectiveness. We commend the activities of the Permanent Representative of Afghanistan to the United Nations, Ambassador Tanin, as Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. Belarus is keen to see Security Council reform leading to a more balanced, more equitable distribution of the Council’s power. We support increasing the number of Council members by giving additional seats to all regional groups. We draw attention to the underrepresentation of the Eastern European Group among the non-permanent membership. We affirm our position on the need to expand the representation of that group of countries among the Council’s non- permanent members. On the issue of the working methods of the Security Council, we note the importance of involving in the Council’s work delegations that are not members. Here, we welcome the practice established in recent years of the Council holding regular briefings for such delegations. We also commend the regular contacts on the exchange of information between the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council and sharing information on those contacts with Member States. Belarus supports involvement of non-Council Member States in the decision-making process in decisions of interest to them. We also support expanding the practice of holding open meetings and the organization of close interaction among the sanctions committees with States that are subject to sanctions. We also believe that the Council should avoid expanding its agenda to include issues falling within the purview of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. We believe that attempts to bring before the Council updates on the developments of the internal political situations of Member States that are not linked to threats to international peace and security do not have any legal grounds and undermine the Council’s reputation. The Republic of Belarus is in favour of preserving and strengthening the role of the Security Council as the main element of the system for maintaining international peace and security.

First of all, I would like to sincerely thank His Excellency the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant, President of the Security Council for the month of November, for his detailed briefing on the annual report of the Security Council in document A/65/2, which we are reviewing under Article 15, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter. My delegation fully endorses the statement by the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement on this item (see A/65/PV.48). We should note that it is useful for the General Assembly to study the two items on the agenda before us together — the report of the Security Council, and the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters — due to their close links. Doing so allows us to do a meaningful evaluation of the Council’s work in a relevant manner through an assessment that has been arrived at over the years, given the importance that this issue holds for Member States. It goes without saying that despite the importance of the review of the Council’s annual report in itself, it is in the General Assembly an important opportunity for Member States to make observations on the Council’s valuable work during the period covered by the report, given that the Council is the principal United Nations body vested by the Charter with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. In our view, the review of the report, important as it is, can be truly significant only if we consider the report’s preparation and substance, which clearly details the working methods and manner in which the Council addresses the issues before it. I wish to make a number of observations that we believe are necessary. The preparation and discussion of the report, an annual practice, is an opportunity for Member States’ comments and observations on the activities and decisions of the Security Council. They concern us all, because Member States, as we have seen in recent years, believe that this annual debate could be much more useful if the report contained more analytical, detailed information that would allow Member States to keep up with the deliberations that have taken place in the Council, with a view to arriving at better decisions. That could be facilitated by the provision of more information on the Council’s work and by holding more open meetings and briefings, while at the same time limiting the number of closed consultation meetings. Important and vital as the Council’s work is, and great as the expectations of the international community and Member States are in terms of its performance — which we must all bear in mind — for its part, the Council must make more sustained efforts to address the serious issues that undermine stability so that peace and harmony based on considerations that interest the international community and that stem from the Council and the resolutions it adopts can reign. It is also important to explain the circumstances under which the Council is sometimes unable to find the right solution to certain important issues before it, so that Member States can identify weak points and shortcomings and propose appropriate solutions for such issues. My delegation highly appreciates the work of the Council and the missions that its members carry out. We realize the scope of the responsibility it assumes vis-à-vis the increasing number of issues on its agenda, since primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security rests with the Council, and that things must remain that way, as envisaged by the Charter. However, that responsibility should be shouldered in the most effective way possible in order to ensure appropriate solutions to the issues. We can say that the Security Council has shown great responsibility and addressed many questions with great seriousness. My delegation thus welcomes the attention it has paid to Africa, the scene of many conflicts which the Council has tackled positively and attentively. The same goes for many other international issues, which leads us to say how much we appreciate the Council’s activities. Nonetheless, the Council has not been able to find appropriate solutions to extremely important issues, such as the Palestinian cause, which to this day does not receive the attention and seriousness it deserves. The fact is that the States that are involved in that debate on the Council, particularly those that are fundamental stakeholders in all issues concerning them, could be useful and fruitful if that approach is adopted in an effective manner. It could help us find rapid solutions that all Member States would like, since we are all striving for the same goal, which is to find settlements to international conflicts that require the international community’s attention. We therefore should strengthen relations between the General Assembly and the Security Council so that, as stipulated by the Charter, responsibility can be assumed properly. That can help consolidate the founding principles of the United Nations. Intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform had a successful beginning during the Assembly’s sixty-third session, in step with Assembly decision 62/557. The membership has since welcomed those developments, based on their profound conviction of the importance and urgency of reform, because the Security Council does not reflect current geopolitical realities. As a result, there is a need to improve representation in order to allow the Council to fully discharge its mandate effectively. Ongoing intergovernmental negotiations must be based on transparency and realism, in order to arrive at feasible proposals on the basis of a broad political agreement among Member States. In order to meet the demands of world leaders during the 2005 World Summit with regard to the importance of early Security Council reform, that reform must be comprehensive, balanced, transparent and cohesive and must be based on equitable and balanced geographic representation. Moreover, we need to increase the number of Security Council members and improve its working methods. The Council’s agenda must reflect the aspirations and needs of both developed and developing countries. There is also a need to grant a seat to the League of Arab States, which could be occupied sequentially by its members, as is the practice within the League. It is also important that the respective powers of the main bodies of the United Nations be respected so that they will not be encroached on. The Security Council has primary responsibility for issues that threaten international peace and security, in keeping with the Charter. Relations between the Council and the General Assembly, which represents the legislative authority of the Organization, must be characterized by a spirit of partnership and a sense of responsibility. We would like to reaffirm the importance of refraining from recourse to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. That Chapter should be invoked only as a last resort, after all diplomatic solutions provided for by Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter have been exhausted. The right of veto must also be restricted, as it is an obstacle to taking vital decisions on which a majority of Council members should agree. Furthermore, the Council’s rules of procedure should be made official, because we cannot accept that they remain merely provisional more than 65 years after the creation of the United Nations. Moreover, it is utterly unjustified. The Kingdom of Bahrain attaches particular importance to this issue. It urges the Security Council to take into account the interests and concerns of Member States and to faithfully reflect geopolitical realities. It also encourages all Member States to participate in innovative and creative solutions to complex international issues that affect their stability and security. We also hope that the reformed Security Council will be able to reflect the aspirations of all peoples.

At the outset, let me express my warm appreciation to Ambassador Joy Ogwu for her hard work in preparing the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly (A/65/2). I would also like to thank Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant for introducing the document, as well as all the Security Council members for their intense activity during the reporting period. It really is commendable that the initiative to have an informal meeting with the Member States in order to exchange views on the report materialized for the third year in a row. It has thus turned into a very useful tradition. Romania welcomes the continuing trend towards greater openness and transparency in the Security Council’s work. That is made possible by multiplying the number of open debates, briefings and meetings with troop-contributing States. The trend was reinforced, at the conceptual level, through the adoption of revised presidential note 507 (S/2010/507), the interaction between members and non-members of the Security Council, and the regular dialogues held between the Presidents of the General Assembly and the Security Council. We praise the Security Council’s efforts to increase openness and transparency, for they provide all Member States with the opportunity to make a more significant contribution to matters at the heart of the Charter of the United Nations, such as the maintenance of international peace and security. The report before us mirrors the wide range of actions undertaken by the Council on our behalf, revealing that during the reporting period there were a significant number of issues that the Council had to deal with as efficiently as possible. In our view, the largest number of those activities were geared, quite correctly, to bringing resolution to the most challenging situations around the world, such as in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iraq, the Sudan — including Darfur — or Timor- Leste, to mention just a few. At the same time, we have to recall that there are instances, such as the situation in Georgia, that should not be allowed to drop off the Security Council’s radar, as they may have a critical impact on regional and international peace and security. Romania also takes keen interest in the Council’s substantial work and the considerable attention paid to thematic debates of comprehensive relevance. Those include nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in Central Africa, peacebuilding and peacekeeping, the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, and, of course, women and peace and security. We the peoples of the United Nations agreed that the Council acts on behalf of the entire United Nations membership for the maintenance of international peace and security. While some would claim that the report does not provide a comprehensive picture, many countries, including my own, deem that the document could and should depart from mere statistical information and develop an even more analytical assessment, thus providing a reflective profile of the Council’s activities. Let me now turn to the second item on the agenda today, which is the reform of the Security Council. I would like to express to you, Mr. President, my delegation’s appreciation for the inclusion of Security Council reform among your priorities as President of the General Assembly. In addition, my delegation welcomes the reappointment of Ambassador Zahir Tanin as facilitator of the intergovernmental negotiations. His elegant mastery, resolution and perseverance guided us through five rounds of negotiations, and for the first time in 18 years of debates on Security Council reform, we are in a position to negotiate on the basis of a comprehensive document. We are looking forward to starting the sixth round of negotiations as soon as possible, as that document needs to be streamlined and trimmed of redundancies. Romania acknowledges the special contribution made by the members of the Security Council. We strongly believe that it is of utmost importance for all Member States of the United Nations with the capacity to serve on the Council to be provided with the opportunity to do so. Hence, we feel that the enlargement of the Council is a real must that should be given careful and swift consideration in order to ensure that that main body of the United Nations better reflects the political realities of the current international stage. As my delegation has stated time and again, we will be able to build a solid political foundation for reforming the Security Council if, and only if, both categories of membership are expanded. At the same time, for enlargement to work, it is of critical importance that none feel excluded and that the principle of equitable geographic representation prevails. In that vein, Romania supports the requests for better representation voiced by the Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean, African and Asian Groups of States. Expanding the number of Security Council members is just one side of the coin; improving its working methods is the flip side. Both are of equal relevance in order to make that United Nations body more transparent, inclusive, accountable and effective. And while a higher number of seats would allow a more frequent, yet still time-limited, presence on the Council for the rotating members, by improving working methods we could make sure that all States eligible for non-permanent membership have access to the Council’s activities at practically any time. The discussion we had during the intergovernmental negotiations indicated the clear interest of many delegations concerning an intermediate formula. My delegation believes that we should continue to explore the merits of such an option, if that formula could be of help in furthering the reform. In conclusion, let me express my conviction that it would be a tremendous loss if the energy invested by the vast majority of Member States during the previous five rounds of negotiations has been invested in vain. Let us hope that the next round of negotiations will provide a decisive boost to Security Council enlargement. And of course I want to assure you, Mr. President, that you and Ambassador Tanin can certainly count on Romania’s unwavering support in pushing forward the Security Council reform process.

The United Kingdom has already made a statement on the annual report of the Security Council (A/65/2) in its capacity as President of the Security Council for the month of November. The Assembly will have heard in that statement that we have tried to move away from a standard reiteration of the Council’s annual report. Instead, we have used this opportunity to assess honestly the Council’s work and to look ahead to some of the issues on its agenda. In that way, we hope that the debate can reflect more on the Council’s work and less on the drafting of the report itself. So I would like to thank others for their comments today in response to the statement and the acknowledgement that efforts are being made to improve the Council’s work. We should aim to have a genuine debate about the Council’s work and move away from a fixation with the report itself. For all its faults, it is purely a tool that records the work of the Council from August to July. Turning now to the issue of Security Council reform, I am pleased to reiterate the United Kingdom’s ongoing commitment to reform. During the month of November, we are using our presidency to bring some small innovations to the Security Council’s working methods. Those include greater use of videoconferencing and more interactive consultations within the Council. For example, this morning I chaired a meeting of the Council with troop and police contributors to the United Nations Mission in the Sudan, at which we were joined by videoconference by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, the Force Commander and many other members of their team both in Juba and in Khartoum, as well as the Secretariat here in New York. That gave rise to a much more interactive, valuable and productive discussion than those meetings have often produced in the past. On the Council’s structure, we continue to support permanent membership for Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, as well as permanent representation for Africa. We look forward to working with many of those countries next year when they join the Security Council. Since intergovernmental negotiations began in February 2009, the collective desire to move the process of Council reform forward has been clear. While progress may not have been as fast as some might wish, under Ambassador Tanin’s skilful chairmanship there has been concrete progress. The compilation paper sets out the positions and proposals of Member States. As the negotiation process continues, we remain ready to work with Ambassador Tanin and others here today to determine how the compilation paper can best be used to deliver real progress. As ever, the responsibility for that progress remains with Member States. We therefore hope that all will rally behind Ambassador Tanin. In addition, the United Kingdom continues to advocate consideration of alternative options. An intermediate model could provide for a new category of seats with a longer mandate than that of members currently elected. On completion of the intermediate period, a review should take place to convert the new seats into permanent ones. Some have asked what the details of that model are. We expect that the actual modalities, including the duration and the number of seats, will emerge through the course of the negotiations. We hope that further discussions on the various intermediate models will take place as the negotiations continue.

At the outset, I would like to thank the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant, for presenting the report of the Security Council, contained in document A/65/2. Mongolia commends the Council for its critical work in discharging its function of maintaining international peace and security. Over the reporting period, the Security Council has delivered quite a few momentous decisions, including resolution 1887 (2009), adopted at its summit meeting in September 2009 on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. We also welcome the increased frequency of open debates in the Council on matters pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security. The efforts made by the Security Council to improve its cooperation with the Secretariat and the troop-contributing countries, and particularly the work of its Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, have helped to promote both cross-cutting and mission- specific issues, increase the common understanding of policy issues, and address the existing gaps between mandates and their implementation on the ground. While recognizing those positive developments, we wish to emphasize that there is still room for the further enhancement of the Council’s work in that area, including through providing all available political support to peacekeeping operations and ensuring the active participation of all stakeholders in setting achievable mandates. My delegation has also taken note of certain measures aimed at improving the working methods of the Security Council since the last report (A/64/2). In that respect, we welcome the open debate held in the Council on 22 April 2010 (see S/PV.6300) on the issue of improving its working methods, including in the area of documentation and other procedural questions. While expressing our appreciation of the efforts to enhance the access of non-Council Member States to the work of the Council, my delegation calls for fuller implementation of the revised presidential note (S/2010/507). While the activities of the Security Council were indeed extensive during the reporting period, as in previous years its annual report lacks a substantive analysis of those activities and their impact. The provision of an analytical annual report is essentially one of the Council’s obligations to the larger membership of the Organization. As for the question of Security Council reform, since the adoption of the historic decision 62/557, five rounds of intergovernmental negotiations have taken place in the informal plenary of the General Assembly under the skilful stewardship of Ambassador Tanin, whom we sincerely congratulate on his recent reappointment. We had the opportunity to listen to Member States reiterating their principled positions, as well as some new proposals, on the five key issues of comprehensive reform of the Security Council. As we approach the next round of intergovernmental negotiations at this session of the General Assembly, my delegation wishes to strongly echo the position expressed by many previous speakers that, in order to move the process forward, we need a short, manageable text in order to engage in genuine negotiations on Security Council reform. We remain hopeful that the Chair will produce such a text prior to the next round. Mongolia’s stance on Security Council reform is well known. We have consistently stood for a just and equitable enlargement of the Security Council by increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members alike, while ensuring the due representation of developing and developed countries. Here, Mongolia wishes to reiterate its support for Japan, Germany and India as permanent members, along with the equitable representation of Africa and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States in a reformed Security Council. Our stance on the enlargement of both current categories is guided by and based on the legitimate composition defined by the Charter and the political realities of today’s world, as well as the principles of justice and equality, so as to ensure greater and enhanced representation of developing countries, particularly the unrepresented and underrepresented regional groups. Our position is also clear on what has been called an intermediate model. Inasmuch as it entails the creation of a third tier of Council members, my delegation finds it difficult to support. We are in favour of restricted use of the veto power in the Security Council, in particular with regard to Chapter VII-based decisions, and we support its eventual abolition. As long as the veto right exists, it has to be extended to the new permanent members so as not to create a new category of membership of the Security Council. In that regard, we also support the clearly expressed position of aspirants to have a voluntary moratorium on the use of the veto until the proposed Security Council review conference. We strongly believe that, in order to make the necessary breakthrough in the reform process, we need primarily to take a decision on the categories of Security Council enlargement. In that respect, we share the view that the overwhelming majority of Member States have expressed, in no uncertain terms, their preference for increasing the membership of the Security Council in both current categories, and we expect that reality to be reflected in a negotiating text. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to welcome your decision to make Security Council reform one of your priorities, and to express my delegation’s sincere hope that, with your strong leadership, the General Assembly will make meaningful progress at this session towards a timely reform of the Security Council, as mandated to us all by world leaders at the 2005 World Summit.

As I am addressing the General Assembly for the first time as Permanent Representative of Colombia, I offer you, Mr. President, and all the States Members of the United Nations my warmest wishes and the renewed and ongoing commitment of my country to contributing to and participating actively in the noble cause of this Organization. The subject of this debate is of particular relevance to Colombia because of our recent election to a seat on the Security Council for the next two years. I take this opportunity to express our gratitude for the vote and confidence vested in us by 186 Member States. In thanking the current President of the Security Council, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, for introducing the Council’s report (A/65/2), I would like to express some observations about Security Council reform. There is undeniably a heartfelt need for Member States to update the composition and working methods of the Council in order to ensure better representation and more transparency. At the sixty-fourth session of the General Assembly, some progress was made and it was possible to discern new modalities for reform of the Security Council and the aspirations of the various regional groups and Member States in general. Our gratitude goes to Ambassador Ali Abdussalam Treki for his skilful conduct of that process as President of the Assembly, and to Ambassador Zahir Tanin, the chair of the informal intergovernmental negotiations. From our viewpoint, the objective of bringing greater democracy to the Security Council will be achieved by extending the category of non-permanent membership. If that expansion is based on fair geographical representation, with clearly regulated rotation, it will be possible to strengthen the political legitimacy of that organ. It will also ensure the efficiency and efficacy of its working methods and communications. We believe that such a balance can be attained with a total membership of roughly 25. Regarding the veto and its use in the Security Council, a clear framework of reference must be established to restrict its use exclusively to exceptional circumstances. The transparency of the Council’s working methods can be guaranteed by improving access to information, holding more open meetings and enhancing communication channels between the Council and all the other Members. Italy and Colombia, speaking for the United for Consensus group, presented a reform model last year that seeks to define and reconcile the various approaches and to lay the foundations for a more representative, more democratic, more effective and more transparent Security Council. The document contains specific proposals in five areas: first, categories, terms and mandates of new members; secondly, the necessary majorities for the taking of decisions and the use of the veto; thirdly, working methods and procedures; fourthly, the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly; and fifthly, a mechanism for the review of the reform. Those are the areas on which we must focus our efforts and put our ability to compromise and innovate to the test. As a member of the Security Council, Colombia will be in the vanguard of those efforts.

I am honoured to address the General Assembly on behalf of my country on the report of the Security Council (A/65/2) and the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. We thank the delegation of the United Kingdom for introducing the annual report of the Security Council for the period 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010. We would also like to thank the delegation of Nigeria for its efforts in preparing the introductory section of the report. My delegation would like to place on record our appreciation to the delegation of Uganda for convening an informal meeting with Member States on 21 October for the preparation of the report. At the outset, let me state that we align ourselves with the statement to be made by the Permanent Representative of Jamaica on behalf of the L.69 group on Security Council reform. In our view, the report of the Security Council is an important means for facilitating interaction between the members of the most representative organ of the United Nations and its most empowered brethren. The United Nations Charter itself bestows on the report a profound gravitas, as is evident from the fact that it has a separate provision mandating such a report, rather than including it with the provision for reports from other United Nations bodies. It is therefore imperative that the annual report of the Security Council inform, highlight and analyse the measures that it has decided upon or taken to maintain international peace and security during the reporting period. The membership of the General Assembly has repeatedly requested that the report be more analytical and incisive, rather than a mere narration of events. It is important that the General Assembly be aware not only of what decisions were taken but also of the rationale, efficacy and impact of the Council’s decisions, in terms of crystallised takeaways for the membership of the General Assembly. At the same time, however, let us give credit where it is due. I refer in particular to resolution 64/301 on the revitalization of the work of the Assembly. Operative paragraph 9 of that resolution refers to the improvements that have been made in the quality of the annual reports of the Security Council and encourages the Council to make further improvements as necessary. Like other delegations, we are also of the view that while we may have covered a few yards, we still have miles ahead of us. The United Nations membership must recognize that the lacunae in the report are a manifestation of the underlying problems of the representation and working methods of the Council, which remain opaque and non- inclusive. The report, this year too, continues to be a statistical compilation of events — a bland summary and listing of meetings and outcome documents. There is no other option but to recognize that the real solution not only for a more credible, legitimate and representative Council, but even for a more thorough report lies in the comprehensive reform of the Council, including an expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, and its working methods. In this context, it is important to note that an overwhelming majority of Member States have clearly expressed their preference for such a reform during the five rounds of intergovernmental negotiations held so far on the issue of reform of the Council. Mr. Al-Jarman (United Arab Emirates), Vice- President, took the Chair. We are enthused by the fact that the President of the General Assembly has undertaken a number of quick and commendable steps, thereby ensuring that the Assembly remains faithful to the central directive of its decision 64/568 of 13 September 2010 to immediately continue intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in informal plenary meetings of the General Assembly at its sixty-fifth session. At the earliest instance — on 1 October, to be precise — the President reappointed Ambassador Zahir Tanin as the chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Council reforms. On 21 October, he convened a meeting of the entire United Nations membership on this important issue. My delegation welcomes these steps, which reflect the resolve of the vast majority of the United Nations membership to achieve early reform. These actions, we hope, bode well for the process. There exists sufficient basis for optimism that, by the end of the current session of the General Assembly, we will be able to achieve concrete results on Security Council reform under his stewardship and guidance. We are equally happy that, with each passing day, countries and leaders around the world are publicly articulating their support for India’s candidature as a new permanent member of an expanded Security Council. Most recently, India received affirmation of support from the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama. The Indian delegation takes this opportunity to thank the United States for this kind gesture. We also call on other nations to extend their valuable support to us. We also hope that the Secretary-General will complement the initiative and enthusiasm of the Assembly President in the context of Council reform. This issue without a doubt will acquire salience in the coming year as the Secretary-General prepares for his second term. Both in our individual capacity and as a member of two groupings devoted to early reform of the Council — the Group of Four (G-4) and the L.69 group — India would like to highlight certain salient features of the various proposals and positions as captured in the negotiation text. First, the overwhelming majority of Member States have expressed their clear preference for expansion of the Council in both its permanent and non-permanent categories. Secondly, on the size of the Council, there is convergence on the need for expansion from the current 15 to a figure in the mid-twenties. Also, most of the positions have called for a mandatory review after a period ranging from eight to 15 years. Thirdly, the G-4 position on the question of the veto is unambiguous and constructive. We stress the need for an outcome that ensures the democratization of decision-making within the Council. India is willing to engage with all concerned with an open mind on this key issue. Fourthly, India associates itself with the growing clamour for the early reform of the working methods of the Council. Fifthly, on the issue of regional representation, we lay great store by the principle of equitable geographical distribution. India supports a Charter- based distribution of seats that addresses the lack of representation of African, Latin American and Caribbean countries; the lack of adequate representation of Asian countries in the permanent membership; and the lack of adequate representation of developing countries, including least developed countries, landlocked countries and small island States, in the non-permanent membership. Finally, India calls for the General Assembly and the Security Council, as two principal organs of the United Nations, to respect each other’s distinct roles, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter, so as to secure the effective functioning of the United Nations as a whole. In conclusion, we are both ready and willing to reach out to other countries and to work in close cooperation with them towards the goal of achieving urgent reform of the Council, in keeping with the changing realities of the current times. We need to shorten the negotiation text and then proceed wholeheartedly into real negotiations. This is the view of the overwhelming majority of the United Nations membership, besides being the only logical course of action for anyone even remotely committed to reform. Let me assure the President of the Assembly and the rest of the United Nations membership of our willingness to remain constructive and reasonably flexible on all issues on the table in the months to come, and urge other delegations to do likewise.

At the outset, allow me to thank the President of the Assembly for having organized this joint debate, which provides Member States with an opportunity to address both the content of the annual report of the Security Council (A/65/2), of which Mexico has been an elected member since 2009, and the reform of the Council, a matter to which my country attaches particular importance. I would also like to thank the President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, for having presented the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. Allow me to start by addressing the question of the reform of the Security Council. I will not reiterate here Mexico’s position on each of the issues concerning reform, as it is already well known and we have referred to it frequently during the negotiations process. Rather, I will confine myself to commenting on the negotiating process and the prospects for future rounds. Since the adoption of decision 62/557 and the start of intergovernmental negotiations, the reform of the Security Council has assumed particular significance. We have participated in five negotiating rounds and have heard proposals from Member States, some of which are novel and others better known. These have been compiled into the document submitted by Ambassador Tanin, whom we congratulate on his work as facilitator of this process. It is now up to Member States, using that document as a basis, to display the necessary political will to achieve significant progress towards a comprehensive reform of the Security Council with the broadest possible support of Member States. Mexico has always been prepared to negotiate in all seriousness. We have displayed this in our flexibility in considering alternatives and innovative proposals and in our desire to continue to improve the document of the facilitator. But we cannot negotiate on our own. It is surprising that to date more States or groups have not been willing to negotiate, but rather prefer to maintain their original positions. Also surprising are unilateral pronouncements by States claiming the exclusive right to determine the composition of the Security Council, flouting the will of the General Assembly and prejudicing the result of the reform process. Recent statements of this type hamper the negotiating atmosphere and exacerbate divisions among the various regional groups. Security Council reform cannot be imposed by a small number of States or decided upon in alternative forums. It must be the outcome of the broadest possible agreement of Member States. We must aim not at distributing more privileges to a few, but rather at improving the representativeness, efficiency, transparency and accountability of the Security Council. Hence, Mexico does not support expanding the category of permanent membership, which would restrict access to the Security Council and its ability to adapt to the changing realities of the world. We can continue to improve and further refine the facilitator’s document in forthcoming rounds, but comprehensive reform will be achieved only if we have the political will necessary for serious negotiation. In that context, Mexico stands ready. As an elected member of the Security Council, Mexico participated actively and constructively in drafting this year’s report to the General Assembly, ensuring that the information contained therein is as objective and substantive as possible and faithfully reflects the actions of the Security Council in the period under review, in particular during June 2010, when Mexico was President of the Council. This exercise in transparency and analysis is particularly evident in the introduction of the report. In that regard, we acknowledge the work of the Nigerian delegation in drafting the annual report through a process of open consultation with the General Assembly, promoting Security Council transparency and making the report more analytical and substantive. However, despite the progress made, my delegation notes that the annual report still has room for improvement. During the period covered by the annual report, the Security Council was faced with serious challenges. To note but a few, in Haiti the Council had to address the devastating consequences of the earthquake that aroused the sympathy of the entire world. In Somalia, internal instability and its regional repercussions called for measures to preserve security and strengthen capacities to address the problem of piracy and to ensure the survival of the Transitional Federal Government. In the Sudan, given the continued humanitarian crises, the United Nations monitoring capacity was enhanced and the foundations laid to implement the Doha agreement and to continue to focus attention on the preparations for the referendum scheduled for 2011. In Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist attacks and insurgent groups had to be dealt with and efforts pursued to improve security and strengthen national institutions. In Kyrgyzstan, a humanitarian crisis was avoided and regional stability preserved. In Gaza, the attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla was addressed, opening the way for the investigation of the incident and for the partial lifting of the restrictions imposed on those living in the Gaza Strip. However, as we all know, the agenda of the Security Council is burdened with conflicts that continue to threaten international peace and security. The Middle East in its various aspects provides a good example of this. Perhaps the most noteworthy achievements of the Security Council are to be found in the cross-cutting challenges that have become part and parcel of its agenda. The Council has enhanced capacities to monitor, demobilize and reintegrate minors recruited in armed conflict, by means of initiatives introduced in the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, chaired by Mexico over the past two years. The adoption of resolution 1882 (2009) and the presidential statement on that subject in June (S/PRST/2010/10) are significant achievements that will have a direct impact on the protection of children. With respect to the protection of civilians, benchmarks have been established to monitor the protection of women and children, taking into account in particular the re-emergence of sexual violence, particularly in the African continent. The bases were also laid to focus greater attention on post-conflict situations by means of the review process of the Peacebuilding Commission, in which Mexico played an active part as a facilitator in the process. In the past, the review of the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004), the Committee established pursuant to which I chaired, was a significant step forward in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction among non-State actors. Mexico’s participation in the Security Council has been guided by its firm belief in the importance of elected members playing their part in maintaining international peace and security, which is a shared responsibility pursuant to obligations under the United Nations Charter. By participating in the Security Council in 2009-2010, we have once again demonstrated our commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security and the preservation of the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. As a permanent member of the General Assembly, my country shall continue to play an active part in the negotiating process on the comprehensive reform of the Security Council in order to adapt it to the reality of our times and to meet the challenges facing the international community.

It is an honour to address this Assembly under agenda item 119, and my thanks go to the President of the Assembly for convening this meeting. My delegation aligns itself with the statement of the Group of African States delivered by the representative of Sierra Leone. The item under consideration has become one of the most important intergovernmental processes in the United Nations. It is a process characterized by the broad interest of the varied constituents of the United Nations in the fact that the current balance of power tilts towards a small circle constituting 3 per cent of the membership. This, on its own, is a parody that does not say much about the turn of history, the irrelevance of the patron/client relationship and the evolution of consensus in the twenty-first century. Without prejudice to the mandate of the Security Council and the inherent intricacies that uphold it, contemporary history has taught us that the 3 per cent who run the show have relied heavily on the cooperation of the larger membership in many of its undertakings. This simple fact indicates the breadth of awareness of the need for the reform of the Security Council, over and above the fact that the organ was established on a foundation of control before its mandate was subsequently glossed over. Few can dispute the notion that, in modern times, the need for this control has faded. The advent of globalization, with all its faults, has mandated a redistribution of the spoils as the whole interface of challenges has mutated. However, without much consequence, the Open-Ended Working Group commissioned some 15 to 16 years ago has not made any tangible headway in collating thoughts on where the vital players lay their beliefs. If there are any thoughts at all, they are usually a caricature of the demands of the disenfranchised. The Kingdom of Swaziland encourages the informal plenary negotiations currently under the guidance of Mr. Zahir Tanin, Permanent Representative of Afghanistan, whom we thank for his continued partiality to progress. We have witnessed a bare- knuckled exchange of views, and we hold out the hope that these exchanges will transform into a real negotiation with real trade-offs. The intergovernmental process has revealed a horde of differences that are daunting. Some are interregional and some are based on the continued prevalence of narrow interests and the desire to perpetuate the status quo. It is a known fact that some are preoccupied with the notion of reform by proxy. Some have divided the forces of negotiation by introducing cumbersome approaches to reform. Unreservedly, my delegation rejects outright the intermediate approach widely held in the African Group. This is a clear divide-and-rule strategy, and the approach comes in many forms and manifestations — a chameleon that would take years if not decades to disentangle. It also adds to the apathy of the permanent five and their slow response to the reform process. The Kingdom of Swaziland reiterates its full support for the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. Without repeating the contents of either, which are known to all, they remain our lodestar and we encourage those who set out to distort their principles to consider the many motivations put forward by any State member of the African Group. The historical injustice and regional bias within the Security Council are unmistakable. More than half of the Security Council agenda is laden with items relating to Africa. Does that not indicate a need for the institutional memory of Africa? Without prejudice to other disenfranchised groups or regions, the Security Council’s preoccupation with Africa legitimizes such a question. The need for no less than two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats can never be overstated. Africa needs to find a voice within those ranks and the sooner that need is internalized, the better will be the prospects for the region to deal with its peace and security dynamics. We will not venture to analyse the need for some to keep Africa out of the Security Council establishment, because my country has no interest in that prospect. In closing, Swaziland urges the chairperson of the informal plenary meetings to remain loyal to decision 62/557, which enabled the intergovernmental negotiations. We also urge him to maintain his impartiality to positions and to employ the relevant strategies conducive to a quick and fruitful conclusion of the process.

To begin, I note Cuba’s full support for the statement made by the representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Cuba appreciates the presentation of the annual report (A/65/2) of the Security Council. We recognize that efforts have been made to improve the quality of the report. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. The report remains basically a descriptive document that lacks the analytical and substantive approach needed by Member States to assess the work of that organ. Cuba calls on the Council yet again to work in that direction. On the other hand, we again wonder why the Council never submits to the Assembly the special reports stipulated by the Charter in its Articles 15 and 24. Such reports would be very useful as a complement to the annual report. Regrettably, they remain absent. Cuba underlines the responsibility of the Council to duly account to the General Assembly. In conformity with the Charter, we have entrusted that organ of very limited membership with the prime responsibility to act on behalf of Member States, although not autonomously, to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council needs urgent and deep reform. The United Nations cannot truly be reformed without reform of the Security Council. That reform cannot continuously be postponed or disregarded. The demand of the majority cannot continue to be ignored. Cuba has participated actively in the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council, which have been conducted in an exemplary manner by the Permanent Representative of Afghanistan, Ambassador Tanin. Unfortunately, there has been no clear progress in this process. Despite the interest of the vast majority, in reality it has not been possible to hold true negotiations. And there is a growing risk that we will end up repeating the process of endless deliberations without concrete results, which for more than 15 years took place in the General Assembly Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council. We must move to real negotiations as soon as possible. Cuba considers that genuine reform of the Security Council must include seven basic elements. First, the number of members of the Council must be increased to no less than 26. With that figure, the proportion between the number of members of the Council and of United Nations Member States would at least approach that existing when the United Nations was founded. Second, the main purpose cannot be to enlargement for its own sake, but must rather be to rectify the unjustifiable underrepresentation of developing countries in the Council. Cuba will not support any partial or selective expansion or any enlargement of the composition of the members of the Council to the detriment of developing countries. Third, the increase in Security Council membership must occur in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. The majority supports that position. Increasing only the number of non-permanent seats would further widen the huge gap that already exists between permanent and non-permanent members. There can be no equitable representation in the Security Council if developing countries, including entire regions, remain totally underrepresented in the category of permanent membership. How is it possible to justify, for example, the fact that while over half of the Council’s agenda items refer to problems in Africa, that region still has no representative among the permanent members? Fourth, the new seats to be established, including those in the category of permanent membership, must enjoy exactly the same prerogatives and rights as those attributed to the current seats, without establishing selective or discriminatory criteria. Fifth, the veto is an anachronistic and antidemocratic privilege that must be eliminated. As long as the veto exists, at least an appropriate proportion of developing countries must also be able to exercise it. The entry of new permanent members without veto power would be equivalent to creating a new category of Council members, which is not favoured by Cuba. Sixth, the main increase in the number of both permanent and non-permanent members must go to developing countries. Permanent membership must be granted to at least two countries from Africa, two developing countries from Asia and two countries from Latin America and the Caribbean. Seventh, a profound transformation of the Council’s working methods is required. Although some modest changes have been made in recent years, most have been more formal than substantive. The truth is that, at present, the Security Council is not transparent, democratic, representative or efficient. It is our collective responsibility to change that unacceptable reality. We advocate a Security Council in which closed- door consultations are the exception. We aspire to a Council that addresses the matters under its purview and does not encroach upon those of other bodies, as occurs with alarming frequency with respect to issues before the General Assembly. We want a Council that takes genuinely into account the opinions of all Member States before making decisions and that ensures the real access of non-members to that body. Before concluding, allow me to comment briefly on a matter of procedure that we believe to be important. In Cuba’s opinion, in the future we must seriously consider whether it is appropriate for the General Assembly to continue debates on agenda items 29 and 119. Given the time restrictions and the fact that we are compelled to address two extremely relevant and far-reaching items in only one statement, delegations must omit many important facts and the sorely needed in-depth review is not achieved. While we acknowledge their interrelationship, we believe that both the annual report of the Security Council and the reform of that organ are matters that, given their importance, scope and implications, deserve to be discussed separately by the General Assembly. I would like to conclude by congratulating the delegations of Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal and South Africa on their election to the Security Council and to wish them every success in their important responsibility.

We are meeting today to discuss two important items that have been on the agenda for many years. Our consideration of those two items is a sign of our commitment to achieving a positive and successful outcome to the Security Council reform process, which we consider to be a basic prerequisite for the reform of the United Nations as a whole. Let me take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Zahir Tanin, Permanent Representative of Afghanistan, for presiding over the intergovernmental negotiation process and for his skilful management of it. While we agree with and support the entire contents of the statements made by the representative of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the Group of African States, and the representative of Egypt, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, my delegation would like to make some observations regarding what we believe to be important for Security Council reform. Member States have made tremendous efforts in past sessions to achieve concrete progress in reforming the Security Council and expanding its membership. For our part, we are determined to maintain our support for the reform efforts and are committed to cooperating constructively with all parties in order to reach a genuine reform of the Security Council that will make it more reflective of today’s realities and, consequently, more able and effective in performing the duties entrusted to it by the Charter. However, at the same time we stress the need to correct the historic injustice done to the African continent by denying it representation in the permanent membership of the Security Council, to seek redress and recognition of its historic rights, and to end its marginalization by giving it the opportunity for equitable, permanent representation in the Security Council. In that regard, Libya believes that the immediate granting, before the end of the intergovernmental negotiating process, of one of the two permanent seats that Africa has been seeking would be a legitimate response that would contribute to the success of those negotiations, since Africa would then stand on equal footing with other regional groups. If we seek genuine reform of the Council, we must all work together to break the moulds set by its permanent members, which would necessarily entail comprehensive reform of all the United Nations organs. To that end, we believe that there is no alternative to granting the General Assembly full mandates and to making its resolutions binding on all Member States and all United Nations bodies, as the General Assembly is the genuine representative of the peoples of the world. Thus, the Security Council would become a tool for the implementation of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly. We should also seriously consider the idea, put forth earlier by Libya, to replace permanent membership of States with permanent membership of regional groups. In this context, the privilege of the veto would either be granted to all or withdrawn from all. We believe that Security Council reform should include a genuine reform of its working methods, activities and procedures. Transparency and openness in the Council’s work should be taken into consideration, as should the need to ensure the participation of non-member States, particularly those involved in issues under consideration, in the meetings of that organ. Closed meetings and informal consultations should be abolished. Consultations should be restricted to the consideration of draft resolutions and presidential statements. All meetings and discussions should be open. There should be no restriction to participation of United Nations Member States in any meeting. Reports of the Security Council to the General Assembly, including that before us today (A/65/2), do not provide a clear picture of what takes place in the Security Council or reflect the Council’s commitment to the contents of the resolutions of the General Assembly. There is also a need to abandon the narrative approach and to include analysis of the deliberations on the basis of which the Security Council resolutions are adopted. Indeed, the various positions of States, particularly permanent members, are not described in the reports, nor are any reasons offered to explain the Council’s powerlessness to address serious crises that threaten international peace and security. We hope that future reports of the Council will be more useful, more analytical and more explanatory in detailing the reasons for its failed performance in maintaining international peace and security. We also express the hope that the General Assembly will act at the right time to correct the shortfalls of the Security Council, whether they be resort to double standards or to the use or threat of use of the veto, which have been pervasive in recent years.

The annual Security Council report before us today states very clearly: “The Security Council, in discharging its function of the maintenance of international peace and security, was engaged in yet another year of intensive activities.” (A/65/2, p. 1) It convened 191 formal meetings, most of which were public; it adopted 54 resolutions — one more than last year — and 27 presidential statements; and issued 42 statements to the press. This is a consistent production that illustrates the immense workload of the Security Council and its working groups in the sixty-fourth session. My delegation appreciates that hard work, and we also appreciate that during the reporting period, the Council’s work was characterized by an increase in the number of open debates and briefings. In this context, one should not forget that the Council has made significant strides in improving its working methods and in increasing the transparency of its work. For the sixty-fifth year, the Security Council will continue to act on behalf of all Members of the United Nations. Therefore, it is a matter of legitimate concern to the entire membership that the composition of the Council should appropriately reflect the geopolitical realities of today, and not those of 1945. At a time when countries, and certain groups within countries, still resort to violence or continue with conflict, it is precisely in matters of war and peace that legitimacy and resolve are most essential — legitimacy and resolve that only the United Nations and the Security Council can provide. In the view of the Netherlands, the Council’s legitimacy and continued effectiveness are both at stake. In order for the Council to remain effective, a balance needs to be struck between its legitimacy and its effectiveness. In our view, both can go hand-in-hand if there is a modest increase in Council membership. Following the announcement made by President Obama earlier this week, the eyes of world opinion are once again focused on the question of Security Council reform, giving new impetus to the process that was launched at the end of the sixty-third session. At the end of the sixty-fourth session, His Excellency Ambassador Tanin was able to successfully present a negotiation text. We should aim for tangible results by the end of this session of the General Assembly. The Netherlands Government would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its appreciation of and strong support for the judicious work that Ambassador Tanin, as chair of the intergovernmental negotiations, has done so far. The membership should build on this solid work. The negotiation text, as presented by the chair this summer, should be drastically shortened into a condensed and consolidated text. To this end, Ambassador Tanin has submitted some valuable proposals that merit further discussion. If Member States do not manage themselves to come up with a shorter text, we should explore other ways to achieve this. The Netherlands is ready to play an active role in this regard. Having listened carefully to the statements of the membership, my delegation noted that the so-called intermediate solution has been mentioned more frequently than in the past. There is a momentum building for such a temporary and transitional solution that should be a crucial step towards a more permanent solution. Naturally, this transitional solution can take many forms and shapes, and this is a debate that has yet to begin. Let me close by quoting our former Prime Minister, who said in this very Hall: “[I]t is clear to the Netherlands that there should be more room for more countries to join the discussions and exert influence: room for large countries that in 1945 were not yet large enough or were not yet Members of the United Nations; but also room for smaller nations that, as troop- supplying countries or as interested parties in a particular region, should have the right to speak. I would add immediately that countries that want influence should realize that this entails financial, political and moral obligations. Or, in the words of Winston Churchill, the price of greatness is responsibility.” (A/65/PV.16, p. 29) Our declarations today create expectations and obligations; consequently, doing nothing leads to the conclusion that the United Nations cannot deliver. It is up to us to prove the United Nations pessimists wrong.

We thank the Security Council for the submission of its annual report (A/65/2) and the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, for his introduction of the report to the General Assembly. I take to heart the suggestion of Ambassador Parham earlier that we should not obsess about the report, as opposed to the work of the Council itself. So I will restrict myself to welcoming the report, which is as good as any of its kind that we have seen. However, we continue to believe that, fundamentally, the Council should commit to a vision of active accountability and deliberate transparency, and that this should be reflected in a more analytical report, perhaps in parallel with the existing procedural report. Turning now to the other subject of today’s debate, Security Council reform, Australia maintains that reform of the Council is one of the most important issues we are seized of here at the United Nations, something in which we all have a stake. Yet little progress has been achieved, and substantive negotiations have yet to really commence. We should not shy away from the difficult questions. Reform of the composition of the Council is clearly long overdue. In particular, the absence of permanent membership from the African and Latin American and Caribbean regions is a striking injustice. My delegation has said before that the impasse on forging consensus on composition and size of a reformed Council should not serve as an obstacle to achieving meaningful reform of the Council’s working methods. It is vital to enhancing the credibility of the United Nations and its capacity to fulfil the goals set out in the Charter. We welcome the revisions reflected in the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2010/507), issued in July following the Security Council’s open debate on working methods in April (see S/PV.6300). But we also agree with the remarks of the group of five small nations, delivered this morning by Ambassador Seger of Switzerland, who pointed out that a significant oversight in the note is the absence of implementation mechanisms. We would also like to join with the calls by our Pacific neighbours this morning for the Council to take up the issue of the implications of climate change and security, following the historic passage of General Assembly resolution 63/281. We request the Council to place that matter on its agenda in 2011 and to urgently deliberate on action to address that existential threat. In conclusion, we thank Ambassador Tanin for his continued efforts as Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations. I cannot put it better than Her Excellency the Ambassador of Romania did this afternoon in describing his “elegant mastery”, perseverance and persistence. I assure Mr. Tanin of Australia’s continued support and confidence.

I would like to thank the Security Council President for this month, Ambassador Lyall Grant of the United Kingdom, for his introduction of the Security Council’s annual report (A/65/2) to the General Assembly, and Ambassador Ogwu and the Nigerian delegation for their preparation of the annual report during their presidency of the Security Council in July. The annual report provides non-Council members with a transparent and comprehensive review of the intensive work of the Security Council. We hope the report does indeed facilitate the exchange of information and enhance the cooperation between the Assembly and the Council, two co-equal principal organs of the United Nations. The United States takes seriously the importance of making sure that all Member States are informed of and appropriately involved in the Council’s work. The Council has made a distinct effort to ensure that more of its meetings are open, and we welcome the participation of all Member States in Council proceedings during such sessions. During our presidency of the Council next month, the United States will be continuing the practice of providing a briefing to non-members on the Council’s programme of work. Turning to our other topic today, we welcomed the reappointment of Ambassador Tanin to chair the sixth round of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. We support Ambassador Tanin’s efforts to shepherd these negotiations forward, and we hope Member States will approach the next round with pragmatism and flexibility. While we know that genuine disagreements remain on certain aspects of the issue, we hope the talks can lead to a reform process that is Member State-driven and enjoys broad consensus. As we stated during the first five rounds of the negotiations and will continue to discuss in the current round, the United States believes that the long- term viability of the Security Council depends on its reflecting the world of the twenty-first century. We support expansion of the Council in a way that will diminish neither its effectiveness nor its efficiency. Let me briefly summarize key elements of my Government’s position. The United States is open in principle to a modest expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members. We strongly believe that any consideration of an expansion of permanent members must be country- specific in nature. In assessing which countries merit permanent membership, the United States will take into account the ability of countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and other purposes of the United Nations. As we stated in our national security strategy earlier this year, my Government is committed to engaging emerging Powers in the international architecture. The United States supports a Security Council membership that upholds human rights and the rule of law at home and abroad, and makes significant contributions to the implementation of Security Council decisions, especially through their enforcement, as well as through financial, personnel, and political support. As we have previously stated, the United States is not open to an enlargement of the Security Council that changes the current veto structure. We remain committed to a serious, deliberate effort, working with other Member States, to find a way forward that both adapts the Security Council to current global realities and enhances its ability to carry out its mandate and effectively meet the challenges of the new century.

My delegation is grateful for the report of the Security Council contained in document A/65/2. We also welcome the convening of a new General Assembly meeting on Security Council reform, providing another opportunity to ascertain the points of view of United Nations Members on reform and how progress can be made on the subject. I would also like to pay tribute to the work done by Ambassador Tanin towards our shared goal. We must remember that Security Council reform is an extremely important matter, owing to its implications for the Organization. It must, therefore, enjoy the support of all Member States. It cannot be a process in which each side competes for a specific number of followers, but rather one that leads to a solution accepted by all Members, since it will permanently change the shape of a body with lofty responsibilities. Furthermore, Council reform is not limited to a single aspect, although there is one that seems to take centre stage. Ambassador Tanin’s informal document identifies five issues: categories of members; the veto question; regional representation; the size of the Security Council and its working methods; and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. All of those elements are intimately related and demand reform, which, in order to achieve the goal of all Members for the Council — which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security — will transform it into a more representative, transparent, inclusive, democratic and effective body. In some of those five issues my delegation sees possibilities for consensus, since they have not been the subject of major disagreements among Members. For example, it is generally accepted that appropriate measures must be adopted to improve the working methods of the Council and that the interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly must be improved. There is also potential for consensus on the number of Council members. We must not see the strongly divisive matter of categories of membership as an obstacle to the wider issue of reform itself, which is necessary. The achievement of progress towards a successful reform is imperative, which is the consensus view of all Members. Argentina reiterates that the type of solution that could generate that level of support among United Nations Member States will not come from a so-called interim approach, which could entail the possibility of crystallising a particular position — especially if that position does not enjoy the support of a consensus of Members — but rather from an approach that seeks an intermediate or compromise solution. The intermediate solution that we envision would mean, basically, an increase in the number of non-permanent seats. It would permit the many countries that have not yet had the chance to participate as Security Council members to do so. Argentina believes that a solution of that kind would lead to a more representative Council, because it would correct the lack of representation of some regions and of developing nations. At the same time it would bolster the legitimacy of the Council, making it more democratic. The argument that to increase the number of non-permanent members of the Council would just perpetuate the status quo is, in fact, fallacious. Actually, it is increasing the number of permanent members that would not only maintain the status quo — which is an imbalance whereby a few countries permanently enjoy a privileged position — but in fact exacerbate it. The permanent member category is not based on the concept of democratic representation but rather, as we all know, is the product of a particular moment in history. Further, it contradicts the explicit recognition by Members of the Organization of the role of non-permanent members of the Security Council. An intermediate solution would also contain in itself the germ of durability, because it would mean a Council that not only reflected the dynamic of today’s world but also was adaptable to future changes on the international stage. Lastly, elections would foster a sense of the Security Council’s accountability. I want to reiterate my delegation’s support for the proposal in that vein presented by Italy and Colombia on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, of which Argentina is a member. I want to emphasize the group’s desire for negotiation. It has not only propounded the idea that reform must be based on proposals that could realistically garner the support of the majority of States but has also demonstrated genuine flexibility to the end of achieving a compromise solution. We trust that the dynamism of the President of this session of the Assembly will inspire all delegations to confront the issue with realism and flexibility, keeping in mind that the viable solution is one based on compromise. Argentina wants to make progress through a transparent and predictable process, fundamentally driven by the States. In that regard, I wish to voice our disagreement with the suggestions made this morning that the President of the Assembly and Ambassador Tanin should promote a truncated version of Mr. Tanin’s document, via consultations with groups of Members. I want to underline Argentina’s belief that negotiation on a matter of such importance must not be approached as a process of elimination of positions in an unofficial document, merging them in various ways without the participation of the entire membership. Transparency is essential to such participation, and only open consultations can provide the appropriate framework for discussions of this very important issue. The search for a compromise that would enjoy a consensus among all Members depends, as one delegation stated this morning, on dedication and open- mindedness. Allow me to point out that the latter is essential in order to identify realistic compromises that all Members can accept for a reform that is vital to the United Nations. Argentina has faith in the wise leadership of the President of this session and will support his efforts in the matter.

I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver the following statement on behalf of the Ghanaian delegation on these two important agenda items. My delegation associates itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and wishes to make the following remarks in our national capacity. My delegation joins other speakers in thanking the President of the Security Council for the month of November, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, for presenting the report of the Council to the General Assembly (A/65/2). My delegation also thanks the Nigerian delegation for preparing the introduction to the report. The role of the Secretariat in the preparation of the report is also appreciated. Ghana attaches great importance to the role of the Security Council, as enshrined in the Charter, in the maintenance of international peace and security, and that explains why, as a non-permanent member from 2006 to 2007, our country contributed actively to the work of the Council. When not a member of the Council, my delegation has, both in the past and in recent times, endeavoured to participate in the deliberations of the Council through its thematic debates, including the recent open debates on preventive diplomacy and on women and peace and security, among others, as well as in informal briefings on the work of the Security Council. The interaction of the Security Council and the General Assembly should be informed by a need for those two principal organs to strive, while respecting each other’s mandates, to complement their activities with efforts to achieve the shared objectives of the Organization concerning peace and security, human rights, development and the promotion of international law, including respect for the principles and purposes of the Charter. Indeed, there are certain areas of the work of the United Nations, such as post-conflict peacebuilding, where the need for complementary, collaborative and coordinated approaches to its work is mandated by the relevant concurrent founding resolutions. Such an approach will be a sure way of strengthening and enhancing the effectiveness of the Organization. Given the importance of regional organizations, such as the African Union, in the attainment of the objectives of the Organization, my delegation calls on the Council to assess the impact or effectiveness of initiatives aimed at enhancing cooperation between the Council and regional organizations. In fact, that evaluation should be a two-way matter, in which inputs from regional organs, such the African Union Peace and Security Council, become or remain desirable. Despite the significance of the work of the Council, Ghana is convinced that the current position of the Council will be strengthened through reform of that organ. The United Nations that was born in 1945 with some 50 Member States is different from today’s United Nations, 65 years later, with 192 Member States, in a changing world, requiring the Organization to adapt and be responsive to the changing times. Thus, the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council and other related matters must be given renewed urgency. Ghana will therefore continue to support the facilitator of the negotiations, the Permanent Representative of Afghanistan, His Excellency Ambassador Zahir Tanin, in expediting the process to an early and successful end. Like other African States, Ghana looks forward to an outcome of the negotiations that will lead to the creation of additional permanent seats to be allocated to African States. In conclusion, I wish to stress that amending the Charter to allocate permanent places to African States on the Security Council is long overdue. Addressing the imbalance in the composition of the Security Council, in particular in the permanent seat category, in which African States are not represented at all, will ensure greater equity in the application of the principle of unanimity and give more substance to the principle of equitable geographical representation in the membership of the Council. To conclude, the Ghana delegation will, therefore, also count on the leadership and commitment that the President has demonstrated so far, in particular the interest he has shown in the issue of Security Council reform, in reaching that goal.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the so-called L.69 group of countries (see A/61/L.69). The L.69 group comprises a diverse group of countries from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific that are united by a common cause, namely, to achieve lasting and comprehensive reform of the Security Council. The report of the Security Council (A/65/2), covering the period of 1 August 2009 to 31 July 2010, represents a factual record of the activities undertaken by the Council with respect to the various countries and situations on the agenda. We have also taken note of, and indeed welcome, the greater level of engagement between the Council and the African Union (AU), in particular, its Peace and Security Council. The full engagement of Africa in finding a solution to long-standing conflicts is critical to ensuring that hard-won peace is transformed into lasting peace, security, stability and sustainable development throughout the continent. We look forward, therefore, to more frequent and in-depth engagements between the Council and the African Union and further emphasize the need to equip the African Union through capacity-building and resource mobilization so that it can be at the forefront of solving conflicts on the continent. While the efforts of the Council to improve its working methods and enhance transparency are indeed important, they must be viewed solely as one element in its overall reform process. Improved working methods, though necessary, cannot substitute for the comprehensive change that is required in the composition of the membership of the Council to render it more reflective of contemporary global realities. In that context, the L.69 group is pleased to note the efforts of the facilitator and Chairman of the intergovernmental negotiating process, which has resulted in a text-based document. It is our hope that, through further discussions and negotiations, we will be able to condense the document into a more manageable text as the negotiating process moves forward. Allow me to reiterate the guiding principles that have underpinned our collaboration within the L.69 group. The L.69 group supports expansion in the Council’s permanent and non-permanent categories of membership. It is only through such an expansion, which addresses the lack of representation of the African, Asian and Latin American and Caribbean countries, that we can achieve a more representative, legitimate, credible and effective Council. The L.69 group also supports a Charter-based distribution of seats that addresses the non- representation of some regions in the permanent membership and the underrepresentation of developing countries in both categories of membership, including small island developing States in the non-permanent category. New permanent members should be selected based on the criterion established in the United Nations Charter. The L.69 group supports an increase in the Council’s membership from its current 15 to some 25 members. The L.69 group supports the conduct of a review of the composition of the permanent membership after a period of 15 years to ensure that it continues to reflect the global realities. As we have previously stated, the L.69 group calls for a comprehensive improvement in the Council’s working methods, which is necessary in order to ensure greater access and transparency to non-Council Members and the full implementation of Articles 31 and 32 of the United Nations Charter. We are also of the view that the Council must become more accountable, fair, inclusive, open and consistent in its actions. The group is also of the view that there must be restrictions on enlarging the scope of Article 24 of the United Nations Charter; formalization of the Council’s rules of procedure; improved and enhanced consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries; reasonable restrictions on the use of the veto; more open debates, meetings and briefings by United Nations officials; and a wider and earlier circulation of draft resolutions and draft presidential statements. There must be rational use of sanctions and rationalization of the Council’s agenda. Also, we support changes to the decision-making process and the scope of decision-making as one means of making the Council more effective and more relevant. The L.69 group also calls for an improved relationship between the Council and the General Assembly, including through improved reporting, regular consultations between the Council and the Assembly, and strict adherence to their respective mandates defined in the Charter. In closing, allow me to recall paragraph 30 of the Millennium Declaration (resolution 55/2), in which world leaders, inter alia, resolved to intensify the efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects. I would also recall the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1), in which leaders further resolved to support early reform of the Security Council as an essential element of overall efforts to reform the United Nations in order to make it more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thereby further enhance its effectiveness and legitimacy and the implementation of its decisions. The L.69 group is committed to playing its part in ensuring that comprehensive reform of the Security Council is not left to future generations. We must work together to realize a reformed, more representative and more accountable Security Council, in order to ensure that future generations are able to live in a safer and more secure world.

I thank the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, in his capacity as the President of the Security Council for the month of November, for presenting the report of the Council (A/65/2) to the General Assembly today. Our thanks also go to Nigeria for its immense contribution to the preparation of the report before us. I would like to align myself with the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone and Egypt on behalf of the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement respectively. Allow me, however, to add a few remarks in my national capacity. The importance of the Security Council cannot be overemphasized. It speaks to the very formation of the United Nations. The reasons why the United Nations came into existence are known to all. Mankind had been severely marred by the scourge of war. We then resolved to: “unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace”. Naturally, therefore, it becomes clear that the responsibility to maintain world peace reposes equally on all of us. In the words of the Charter, membership in the United Nations is open to all peace-loving States that, in the judgement of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out those obligations. Consequently, there can be no doubt about the possibility of any one Member State serving in any United Nations organ, including the Security Council. In short, the Security Council should not be the exclusive domain of a few. The Council’s current membership is not reflective of the geopolitical realities of the United Nations. The time for heeding the call for comprehensive reform of the Security Council is, we wish to submit, long overdue. When the United Nations was formed in 1945 by about 50 States, all the regions of the world were represented. Africa, too, was represented by certain of its States that had attained independence then, namely, Egypt, Ethiopia, Liberia and others. Despite that fact, Africa did not make it into the Council’s mainstream. Today, the membership of the United Nations has expanded more than threefold — an important structural change in our Organization. With the end of the Cold War, a new situation emerged, which clearly dictates a radical and yet progressive reform of the Council. The Security Council has, however, remained the same as it was some 65 years ago — a grave injustice indeed. The reform process has been long and, to a certain extent, wearisome. Nonetheless, we should not lose hope. It is not too late, I believe, to reverse the situation. It is time to enter into real negotiations, and we are looking forward to doing that. The position of Africa is well known, and so too are the positions of other regions, groups of States and individual Member States in the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Council. Clearly, we are all in favour of a model that will garner the widest possible support. We wish to reiterate that the reform enveloping all the five key clusters — namely, membership categories, the veto, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and working methods — and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly will go a long way towards revamping and bringing legitimacy to the Council. Needless to say, a reformed Council should accommodate the unrepresented, underrepresented and small- and medium-sized States. Turning to the report of the Security Council, we note some considerable strides made by the Council in discharging its mandate. The agenda of the Council reflects that the Council is striving to be responsive to the current threats to international peace and security. We note that the Council had to deal with complex conflict situations throughout the world. However, we realize that the Council may not, by virtue of its exclusive nature, be able to adequately and definitively address such problems. While we note the efforts to enhance transparency in the working methods of the Council, a lot still needs to be done. A significant number of Council meetings are still held in camera. Lack of adequate consultations between the Council and the General Assembly remain a cause for concern. The rules of procedure of the Council remain provisional. Moreover, it is our view that it would be desirable for the report of the Council to be more detailed and analytical on the question of how its efforts impact on peace processes in conflict areas, whether there is variance in the level of compliance with its directives or resolutions, what the cause of that is and how the Council intends to solve that problem. I would like to conclude by reiterating that the onus is on us, as a collective, to unite our forces for a common good — that is, the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. The ideals of our founding fathers enjoin all of us to take decisive and inspiring steps to reshape the configuration of the Council. Whatever the dimensions of the problem may be, we must seek solace in the saying that, where there is a will, there is a way. If, indeed, a robust Security Council is the desire of all of us, let us run and finish the race. As we do so, let us ensure that none of us is left by the wayside.

Costa Rica welcomes the United Kingdom’s presentation of the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly (A/65/2) and is pleased that the President of the Assembly has convened this debate on the reform of that organ. We align ourselves with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Switzerland on behalf of the group of five small countries, of which we are a member. We support many remarks made by the Permanent Representative of Italy, coordinator of the Uniting for Consensus group, and by other representatives of States members of that group, to which we also belong. This debate is an excellent opportunity to reflect upon and make progress on the four central elements that should guide the process of Security Council reform. I am referring to increasing its efficiency, strengthening its transparency, improving its representativeness and consolidating its legitimacy. All of this needs to be done in order to bolster the role of the United Nations, and that of the Security Council in particular, in global governance. To that end, Costa Rica believes that we need to move forward in two crucial areas. The first is that of ensuring an appropriate balance of powers and more vigorous interaction between the General Assembly and the Security Council. The second is that of developing a comprehensive reform process that addresses not only the composition of the Council, but also its working methods more broadly. Two years ago, on an occasion such as this, my delegation expressed that, for Costa Rica, the introduction of the annual report of the Security Council before the General Assembly “should not be a mere exercise of rhetoric, nor should it become a mere statement of facts” (A/63/PV.53, p. 6). The introduction of the report should lead to a more analytical and interactive engagement that looks not only to the past but also towards the future. Both the retrospective and the forward-looking analyses require us to do more than simply give an inventory. Costa Rice reiterates the need for the Council to submit to the General Assembly, in addition to its annual report, special reports pursuant to Articles 14 and 15 of the Charter. Such reports are especially important with respect to the establishment of new peacekeeping operations, the substantive modification or termination of mandates, or the imposition of a sanctions regime or other coercive measures. Furthermore, my country, as a member of the small five, again invites and encourages members of the Security Council to hold an informal, inclusive and interactive debate with all Member States during the initial stage of the drafting of the report. In this regard, we appreciate Nigeria’s efforts and openness to dialogue with Member States during the preparation of the report presented today. However, such opportunities for openness and interaction need to become more common and more in-depth. My country knows that this is possible. For example, when we held the presidency of the Council in November 2008 and it fell to us to present the annual report for the year ending 31 July 2008, my delegation went beyond a simple description of the contents of the report, the resolutions and presidential statements adopted, and the meetings held. Costa Rica introduced a substantive innovation by speaking in its national capacity on the report being presented. That innovation was part of our efforts to improve the working methods of the Council. In our view, the presentation of the annual report should give an overview that evaluates the effectiveness of the measures adopted by the Council and the positions of its members at the time of adoption. Ultimately, it should be an opportunity to review the action taken by the Council, as has been done this year in the chapter on the Sudan. With regard to agenda item 119 on Security Council reform, Costa Rica wishes to acknowledge the interest and resolve of the President of the General Assembly to move forward on this crucial issue, and expresses its satisfaction that Ambassador Tanin will continue to lead the process. Reform needs to be undertaken comprehensively and with flexibility, pragmatism and vision, without losing sight of the overarching goals we seek to achieve, which I have already mentioned. As part of this process, we commend the holding of an open debate on working methods in April this year (see S/PV.6300), which led to the revision of presidential note S/2006/507. We also commend the work of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, chaired by Japan. However, we regret, as was stated by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the small five, that no chapter on implementation mechanisms was included. We also welcome the increase in the number of open debates held by each of the monthly presidencies of the Council, the inclusion of a chapter on working methods in the report, and the changes — announced last week by the United Kingdom at the informal meeting it held as President of the Council with members of the Assembly — to make debates less rigid and more streamlined. We support the British proposal to organize an exchange of ideas with the Department for Political Affairs and to make Council consultations more spontaneous, productive and real-time. Costa Rice urges future Council Presidents to follow this example. For Costa Rica, the forthcoming negotiations will be key for hearing and weighing up arguments, and arriving at the best results possible, ideally by consensus. The challenge before us — of reforming our bodies and, at the same time, our Organization so that it remains the political axis of global governance — is a stirring one from which we must not shy away.

At the outset, let me express my gratitude to the President of the Security Council for the month of November, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom, for his introduction of the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly (A/65/2). Ukraine has always been an advocate of a strong United Nations, with the Security Council as its principal organ entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. We therefore welcome new initiatives and developments, especially those conceived through creative, out-of-the-box thinking aimed at achieving this objective. My country considers preventive diplomacy to be an indispensable yet often overlooked instrument in the Security Council’s toolkit. My delegation hopes that the horizon-scanning exercise introduced earlier this month will help dust off this tool so as to shift the Council’s focus from conflict management to conflict prevention. We would like to hear more about the first scanning session, as well as whether it will become an established Council practice from now on. The period under review was marked by an ever stronger thematic thrust to the Council’s agenda. This tendency, in our view, bodes well for the aim of a vibrant United Nations by capturing the most challenging and far-reaching trends in international relations and bringing them to the Security Council Chamber. If there is to be a shortlist of topics that fall under the thematic category, we would like to see the traditional issue of United Nations peacekeeping and the rather recent addition to the Council’s agenda of maritime piracy at the top of that list. At the same time, we must be cautious not to overburden the Security Council with matters of a cross-cutting nature, which ought to be tackled with added value in other United Nations forums. Here, the main criteria should be the respective prerogatives and comparative advantages of the various United Nations bodies, primarily the Security Council and General Assembly. With regard to United Nations peacekeeping, we are encouraged by its constant presence on the Council’s radar screen throughout the year, with this month being no exception. My delegation also takes positive note of some proactive procedural innovations, such as videoconferencing with field commanders. Yet some troop-contributing countries (TCCs), especially those which are middle-ranked, may notice that the participation of TCCs in these debates or consultations is either statistical or confined to the top five, top 10, top 12 or other “top something” format. As peacekeeping is rightly said to be a global partnership, it is essential for the Council to expand its outreach and give TCCs a stronger voice in decision-making processes relating to peacekeeping operations. Much of what has been achieved by the Security Council can be attributed to the input of its rotating members. We believe that, with the strong and unique composition of the Council, the next few years will present an excellent opportunity to look into the most effective ways of channelling and maximizing the benefits of the contributions of non-permanent members. My delegation welcomes the newly elected members of the Council and looks forward to progress in this important area. Ukraine, for its part, stands ready to contribute to this process both outside of the Council, by sharing innovative ideas and relevant experience, and as a prospective member, should it be elected for the 2016-2017 term. In the meantime, we would like to recall the practical suggestion that the valuable but very much ad hoc practice by which the regional groups are briefed monthly by the non-permanent members they delegate to the Council be formalized. This would provide greater insight into the Council’s daily business, the need for which is widely agreed upon by non-members. In principle, we see no obstacles preventing the permanent members from engaging in such outreach as well, so as to share the benefits of their uninterrupted institutional memory. In this case, occasional ambassadorial exchanges might be complemented by more regular — at least monthly — interactions at the expert level. I am pleased to note the progress that has been achieved this year in our collective undertaking towards the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. I am referring to the creation of a compilation document which gave shape to the structure of our ongoing intergovernmental negotiation process. The negotiation text, which was welcomed and supported by Member States in consensus, reflects a general desire to move forward. We encourage the overwhelming resolve of Member States to continue along the path of text-based negotiation and call on the chairman, Ambassador Tanin, to prepare a new revision of the text that better reflects the possible areas of convergence and reduces obvious overlaps in the positions of Member States. Ukraine considers both directions of reform — enlargement of the Security Council and improvement of its working methods — to be priorities. Achieving progress in at least one of these spheres will favour our long-term interests. We support the increased representation in that body of developing countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. We also believe that an overall enhancement of the composition of the Security Council should be based on the existing regional approach. Ukraine is open to discussing all possible options and new creative approaches to Security Council reform. Still, our standpoint remains immutable: any increase in the non-permanent membership of the Security Council should ensure an enhanced representation of the Group of Eastern European States by the allocation of at least one additional non-permanent seat. In this regard, we insist on the preservation of the full version of the relevant item in the negotiation text as an inseparable part of the Eastern European Group’s position in the negotiations going forward. Ukraine remains committed to engaging actively and constructively in an open, transparent, inclusive and comprehensive Security Council reform process with a view to achieving a solution that can garner the widest possible political acceptance of Member States.

At the outset, allow me to associate myself with the statements delivered by the Ambassadors of Egypt and Sierra Leone on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and Group of African States, respectively. We also wish to thank the Permanent Representative of Jamaica for his statement on behalf of the L.69 Group. We thank the President of the Security Council for the report (A/65/2) outlining the activities relating to all questions considered by the Security Council under its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security. My delegation welcomes with appreciation notable improvements in the working methods of the Security Council. These include meetings with troop- contributing countries ahead of Council consultations, regular briefings by envoys of the African Union and by the chairs of the various country-specific configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission. Regular field missions of the Security Council to countries on its agenda and the outreach of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations to troop- contributing countries are encouraging developments that should be further strengthened and enhanced. Additionally, an increasing number of formal meetings were held in public, providing greater transparency to the Council’s work. Since the Security Council is mandated under Article 24 of the Charter to act on behalf of the entire membership of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security, South Africa continues to call for greater engagement with non- members of the Security Council, especially those that are directly affected by or involved in specific conflict. We are therefore especially pleased to see that document S/2010/507 commits the President of the Security Council to provide “substantive and detailed briefings to Member States in a timely manner” and that these briefings should take place “shortly after informal consultations of the whole” (S/2010/507, annex, para. 3). Our delegation views this as a positive and concrete commitment by the Security Council to be more transparent in the execution of its mandate, and we encourage the general membership to take full advantage of these consultations. We are also satisfied with the informal and innovative measures adopted by the Security Council over the past few years to engage with relevant parties to conflict situations in an interactive manner, and we support the further development of these practices. The Security Council must adopt creative and flexible practices if it is to be well informed about developing security situations and efficient in its decision-making processes. This will allow the Council to choose more appropriate responses from the range of tools at its disposal, as mandated by the Charter. The Security Council remains the primary global body tasked with the maintenance of international peace and security. In fulfilling this Charter mandate, the Council cannot abdicate this role to smaller contact groups that are unaccountable to the wider United Nations membership. Any action related to international peace and security should be addressed by the Council as a whole. Additionally, the Council cannot shirk its responsibility by failing to address long-standing conflicts, such as that in the Middle East and the situation in Western Sahara. These conflicts are being addressed by the Council regularly without any meaningful action. Lack of action by the Council on these issues undermines its credibility. Accordingly, the Security Council must redouble its efforts to deal squarely with the situation in Somalia. The general population in these sisterly countries deserves greater and better attention from the international community. My delegation is of the view that sustainable peace can be achieved only by addressing both the security and development challenges confronting countries afflicted by conflict. In this regard, we welcome the increasing attention paid to thematic discussions on peacebuilding and the nexus between peacekeeping and peacebuilding. We reiterate our view that peacebuilding and peacekeeping are not linear processes but should be carried out in an integrated manner to ensure the sustainability of peacekeeping efforts. We also welcome other thematic debates, including on the protection of civilians and sexual violence against women in armed conflict. The United Nations should be at the forefront on the issue of the protection of civilians, especially women and children in conflicts, lest it lose its credibility in the eyes of those vulnerable groups. South Africa further welcomes the increased cooperation between the Security Council and the Peace and Security Council of the African Union. The establishment of the enhanced United Nations Office to the African Union in Addis Ababa is a positive step towards creating greater synergy between the Security Council and the Peace and Security Council. Furthermore, the establishment of a joint task force to further elaborate strategic and operational issues between the two secretariats is welcomed. Despite these very positive developments, South Africa maintains the view that more needs to be done in terms of ensuring flexible and predictable financing for peacekeeping operations undertaken by the African Union on behalf of the international community. The reform of the Security Council remains a top priority. We believe that the membership should rally towards making definitive progress during the sixty- fifth session of the General Assembly and achieving tangible outcomes. We welcome the reappointment of Ambassador Tanin as facilitator of the reform process, and we encourage him to persist in his intention to structure concrete, text-based negotiations around the five key issues, during which members will be encouraged to undertake more informal drafting exercises, as he proclaimed in the last round. While the last rounds registered limited progress, we believe that important and irreversible strides have been made to place us firmly on a steady course towards text-based negotiations. There is no going back into the open- ended working group mode of endless consultations. The time for restating and rehashing well-known positions is now truly over. Now is the time for meaningful give-and-take negotiations, with a firm view to concluding them and achieve the vision of our leaders, as contained in the 2005 World Summit Outcome document (resolution 60/1). For this to happen, we believe that there are three conditions that must be met. First, we require a streamlined text that identifies, or at least begins to identify, areas of convergence. We believe that the first step in preparing such a text should be the identification and deletion of repetition and redundancies, which are an unfortunate characteristic of the current text. Secondly, we need to identify and discard those proposals that offer no prospect of providing an outcome. And finally, we need to identify and consolidate those proposals that offer the best prospect for providing a solution. We remain firm in our view that the outcome of the process as outlined above would lead us to produce a text with real options as requested by an overwhelming majority of the membership of the United Nations in their letter of 23 December 2009. It is our firm view that progress could be achieved based on a convergence of views that fundamental reforms would require the expansion of the Security Council in both categories, while building on the convergence of views on working methods and on the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Similarly, there is general support for increasing the size of the Council. In conclusion, my delegation stands ready to continue to participate in the intergovernmental negotiations, which should lead to a transformed, democratic, representative, accountable and more credible Security Council. With the necessary political will, the sixty-fifth session could deliver on this vision.

I thank the President of the General Assembly for having convened this important meeting. I also thank the President of the Security Council for having presented the annual report of the Security Council (A/65/2). The report makes it clear that a wide variety of complex and important issues, both geographic and thematic, that continue to be of concern and relevance to the general membership of the United Nations remain on the Council’s agenda. Canada welcomes the opportunity to share its views on these issues, as well as on discussions regarding Security Council reform. The past year witnessed a number of critical issues that required urgent action by the Council. Only 10 months ago, a devastating earthquake hit Haiti, gravely affecting the people and the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH). The scale of the destruction required the international community to come together to bring relief and aid in reconstruction as quickly as possible. The Council played its part by ensuring that MINUSTAH was sufficiently bolstered to provide security and assistance to the Haitian Government in the immediate aftermath. Much work remains to be done, however, and Canada encourages the Council and the broader international community to continue providing much-needed support to the people of Haiti. Canada welcomes the information provided in the report on the Council’s activities with respect to other critical geographic areas, including the situations in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and peace operations in a number of African countries such as the Sudan, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report of the Council also outlines the progress made in consulting troop-contributing countries (TCCs) and police-contributing countries (PCCs). Canada strongly supports this outreach to TCCs and PCCs, as effective and timely consultations are essential in order to broaden support for peacekeeping operations. Given the importance of these operations, Canada hosted a series of informal discussions on different aspects of peace operations. Canada urges the Council to continue to enhance its consultations, both on specific mandates, as well as on broader thematic peacekeeping issues, with the broader United Nations community. Canada will continue to promote such dialogue, in particular in its role as chair of the Working Group of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. The past year has also been important with respect to peacebuilding. Canada welcomes the increased interaction between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). As Chair of the Sierra Leone configuration, Canada has appreciated the mutually reinforcing role that the Council and the PBC can play in advancing peacebuilding in a post-conflict country. The lessons learned to date with respect to peacebuilding will be all the more relevant as more countries come on to the PBC agenda. I would therefore encourage the Council to engage even further with the Peacebuilding Commission in the year to come. Canada welcomes the progress made in improving the working methods of the Council, including the revision of presidential note S/2006/507. However, considerable work is still required to enhance the transparency of the Council. For example, while the report of the Security Council details the scope of the actions taken by the Council, it still falls short of providing analysis of how and why those decisions were made. Although producing such a report may be difficult, it would be a tangible step towards improving both the transparency and accountability of the Security Council to the broader membership. (spoke in French) Canada’s position on Security Council reform is well known. My country strongly believes that democratic, accountable and transparent reform requires an increase in the number of elected, non-permanent members. An expansion in the number of elected members would allow for a better representation of all the world’s regions — most especially those that have long been underrepresented, such as Africa — and would afford Member States greater opportunities to serve on the Council at regular intervals. Yet, even with an increased number of seats, the Security Council must remain of a reasonable size that would allow it to take swift and effective action. In addition, serious consideration needs to be given to improving its working methods and to placing some restrictions on the use of the veto, in particular on issues related to crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. At the same time, Canada recognizes that neither its position nor any other traditional position enjoys the very broad support of the Assembly that will be required for such an amendment, and it is unlikely that they will in the near future. For that reason, Canada urges all States to look towards potential compromises. For example, in our country’s view, the intermediate option put forward by Colombia and Italy attempts to bridge the various positions and therefore may form the basis of consensus. There may be other approaches that are possible as well. Canada remains open to considering and discussing them, and urges all parties to the negotiations to work together to find a compromise solution that is in the clear interest of all States Members of the United Nations.