A/72/PV.104 General Assembly

Members will recall that, pursuant to decision 71/553 of 19 July 2017, the Assembly continued intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in informal plenary meetings during the current session. We have come to the end of another session of intergovernmental negotiations. At our first meeting in February, I called for a credible process that could lead us to a meaningful outcome. Today, I would like to reflect on whether we have achieved that. In doing so, I shall focus on three key areas. The first is inclusivity and credibility. One is usually linked to the other. I want to start by pointing out the vast range of Member States we have heard from — big and small, developing and developed, from the global South and the global North, countries with different languages, cultures and positions. I believe that it was truly an inclusive process and that its credibility lay in the dialogue. It seemed clear to me that the process is one we still believe in. I am not saying that there was no cynicism or that everyone saw eye to eye, but I heard genuine efforts to understand each other’s points. Creative proposals were made across all five key areas, and flexibility was shown as Member States looked for common positions that could move the process along. If there is space for dialogue, progress is possible. I thank you all for maintaining that space. The second thing I want to reflect on is our outcome. In February, I expressed hope that we would arrive at a meaningful outcome. Now we are here, at our last meeting, and we do have an outcome. It is different from former documents. We did not start from scratch in drafting it. But only you can judge whether it is meaningful or not. It is your product, and you will be the ones to decide upon its significance going forward. All I can say is that I hope we can find a way to build on our work. Thirdly, I want to comment on the importance of the process, and maybe “importance” is an understatement here, because it does not quite capture the urgency of our task. The process is about the Member States. They drive it, they participate in it and they decide where it goes. But beyond this Hall, the entire world is watching. That is one of the major lessons I have learned as President of the General Assembly. Everywhere I have travelled, from South-East Asia to Africa, I have faced questions about the reform process. What will happen next? When will we see change? What will a new Council look like? Those are not questions for me to answer. Where we go, how we get there and the speed at which we travel  — all those matters are up to the Membes. One thing this experience has shown me is that the United Nations is judged by the performance of its Security Council. That means that everything the Organization does, from humanitarian response to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, is as stake, because if people lose faith in the United Nations, they will also lose faith in its work, no matter the results on the ground. That could undermine our entire system. The future of the Organization lies in the hands of its Members. Before I conclude, I would like to express my deep gratitude to our co-Chairs, Ambassador Imnadze and Ambassador Nusseibeh. The level of work required from them and their teams was like taking on a second day job. Yet they carried out their roles with commitment and good humour, while always maintaining the highest level of transparency. As we close the intergovernmental negotiations session, my final message is this. Throughout everything we do, there are two major elements at stake, and they both begin with the letter “p”. The first is process. This is one of the most sensitive international processes going on today. Every word matters. We need to do it right. We cannot steam-roll through it, because only a strong process can have a strong outcome. The second element is people. They are the reason why the United Nations and its Security Council were created. It is people who stand to benefit from what we are doing here, and it is people who stand to lose if we go nowhere. So this is a political process, but it should never be at the expense of people. They are out there — they are watching, and they are counting on us. I thank everyone again, and I wish them luck in the work ahead. In a letter dated 28 June 2018, I circulated a draft oral decision on this issue. May I take it that the General Assembly, first, decides to reaffirm the central role of the General Assembly concerning the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council; secondly, also decides to immediately continue intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in informal plenary of the General Assembly at its seventy-third session, as mandated by Assembly decisions 62/557, of 15 September 2008; 63/565 B, of 14 September 2009; 64/568, of 13 September 2010; 65/554, of 12 September 2011; 66/566, of 13 September 2012; 67/561, of 29 August 2013; 68/557, of 8 September 2014; 69/560, of 14 September 2015; 70/559, of 27 July 2016; and 71/553, of 19 July 2017, building on the informal meetings held during its seventy-second session and on the revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration, circulated on 14 June 2018, as well as the positions of and proposals made by Member States, reflected in the text and its annex circulated on 31 July 2015, and using the elements of convergence circulated on 12 July 2016 and the elements of commonality and issues for further consideration circulated on 27 June 2017 to help inform its future work, while welcoming the active engagement, initiatives and intensive efforts of the President of the General Assembly, and noting with appreciation the active role and concrete efforts of the co-Chairs undertaken in a consultative manner with a view to an early comprehensive reform of the Security Council; thirdly, decides to convene the 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 during the seventy-third session of the General Assembly, if Member States so decide; and, fourthly, decides to include in the agenda of the seventy-third session of the General Assembly the item entitled “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council”? The draft oral decision was adopted (decision 72/557).

Before giving the floor to speakers in explanation of position, may I remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the States members of the African Union. In doing so, let me congratulate you, Mr. President, on your exemplary leadership of the General Assembly at its seventy-second session. I wish to express our sincere appreciation for your unwavering commitment and dedication to the reform of the Security Council. We remain steadfastly committed to a comprehensive and meaningful reform of the Council. We also appreciate the efforts of co-Chairs Ambassador Kaha Imnadze of Georgia and Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates. Let me take this opportunity to commend the efforts of all Member States in our collective commitment to an inclusive and transparent process, leading to a roll-over decision adopted by consensus. The Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government of the African Union has joined this consensus in the spirit of preserving unity and mutual trust among the membership and of moving forward the reform of the Security Council, in conformity with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. We take note of the efforts of the co-Chairs to integrate the Common African Position into the final revision of the elements of commonality and issues for further consideration paper. However, we are concerned that the document does not adequately and accurately reflect the Common African Position. We hope that the documents rolled over to the Assembly’s seventy-third session will be built upon in a transparent manner through a membership-driven process that will ensure the accurate reflection of our position on all five clusters of the intergovernmental negotiations. We had also called for the harmonization of all documents rolled over from the sixty-ninth, seventieth and seventy-first sessions, which proved to be difficult for the co-Chairs to achieve. Going forward, however, we will continue to work with all Member States with a view to achieving the much-needed progress on the reform of the Security Council. We remain committed to a comprehensive reform of the Security Council on the basis of all five clusters outlined in decision 62/557 and to the intergovernmental negotiations process in good faith and with mutual trust. Let me conclude by thanking all Member States that came out openly to unequivocally support the Common African Position espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We look forward to working with the Assembly to build on the gains made in favour of the Common African Position. We hope that those Member States, especially countries friendly to Africa, will join in support of redressing the historical injustice done to the African continent and its people.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the L.69 group — a diverse group of countries made up largely of small States from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia and the Pacific that are united by the common cause of achieving lasting and comprehensive reform of the Security Council. We appreciate your opening remarks and your efforts, Mr. President, in organizing today’s meeting and for the swift adoption today of decision 72/557, on the roll-over of our work this year. We would like to thank you for your leadership and stewardship of the process and for your guidance to the co-Chairs. We congratulate the co-Chairs on providing Member States with opportunities for substantive and interactive discussions in this session, which took place in a frank and cordial atmosphere. We would like to express our appreciation to Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates and Ambassador Kaha Imnadze of Georgia for their tireless efforts during this session in facilitating our discussions in the intergovernmental negotiations and in revising the Elements of Commonalities and Issues for Further Consideration paper in a Member-States- driven process. The document we adopted today is an important contribution of the co-Chairs to this process, based on the active participation of Member States over several meetings. It has the full support of our group and, in our view, the entire membership. Nevertheless, we are ending the session with mixed feelings. We began this round of deliberations with the positive development of attempting to harmonize and build on the work of the previous three years and the noble quest to establish a credible process. However, we did not quite achieve what we set out to do. Despite overwhelming support for attribution and the reflection of the Common African Position in the commonalities section of the paper, we did not see the inclusion of those requests in the final revised elements of commonalities and issues for further consideration paper. We also asked for an extension of the timeline of this session. Yet here we are today, ending the session two and a half months before the end of this year’s session of the General Assembly. Our work must continue in the next session. We thank you, Mr. President, for your decision and for highlighting that we need to build on the work done in this one. We believe that to be a positive development that breaks from the repetitive copy-and-paste roll- over decisions that we have seen in sessions past. However, we are disappointed to see that the work of the seventieth and seventy-first sessions is still reflected in the decision. The documents generated in those sessions were completely incorporated in this year’s document. Why do we have that repetition? What does “build on” really mean? Will that part of the decision be redundant, as is the reference to the Open- ended Working Group? We do need to reflect on those questions and contemplate the answers honestly if our quest is indeed to establish a credible process with meaningful progress. As we close another session of deliberations, we wish to remind the Assembly that in 1979, just 14 years after the first expansion of the Security Council, a request for a second expansion of the Council was made to the General Assembly. The process for consideration in the Assembly of the agenda item relating to Security Council reform finally began in 1992. To mark the twenty-fifth year of the consideration of this agenda item by the Assembly, the L.69 group decided to embark on a commemorative project to collect as many documents as possible on the issue of Security Council reform in a book, entitled Handbook on Security Council Reform: 25 Years of Deliberations. That was a mammoth undertaking. We have also collected on a USB drive supplemental material that, because of its sheer volume, could not be placed in one handbook. That exercise underscored to our young representatives who worked on the project the depth and breadth of the discussions that have already taken place over the past 25 years and the time spent. The L.69 group hopes that the Handbook will be a useful contribution to Member States and to our ongoing deliberations on this crucial issue. We look to the seventy-third session with anticipation and with hope that we can build on the work done in this session, even as we continue our quest for a still-more-credible process, now ever mindful of time spent, documents created and costs incurred over the past 25 years.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the members of the group of four (G-4): Germany, India, Japan, and my own country, Brazil. First, allow me to thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in the process of Security Council reform during the seventy-second session of the General Assembly. You have made your commitment to this task clear since the beginning. I also would like to thank the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates and Ambassador Kaha Imnadze of Georgia, for their hard work in guiding us during our meetings this year. As we all know, during this session the co-Chairs elaborated a document called “Revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration”, based on the past three outcome papers of the intergovernmental negotiations and interventions made from the floor. Despite all the efforts in that harmonization exercise, the outcome of the intergovernmental negotiations during this session falls short of our expectations. We were hoping for more progress this year because we believe that reform of the Security Council is long overdue and the world cannot afford further delays. More specifically, we were sincerely expecting the final version of the document to include more of the proposals made by different groups, including our own, the G-4. Some of those suggestions clearly received overwhelming support from Member States but even so were not taken into account. Among other points, we believe that the document should have included the identification of countries supporting the various options contained in the text — or the “attribution of names”, as we called it. An overwhelming majority asked for that, and we had the widest possible support for that measure of transparency. Moreover, the reference to the African Common Position still needs to be accurately and adequately reflected. Furthermore, the G-4 continues to believe that restructuring the document using the five main clusters of the intergovernmental negotiations as its basic axis will contribute to more clarity. Allow me to recall that we were able to completely subsume into it the outcome documents produced in 2016 by Ambassador Sylvie Lucas of Luxembourg  — as the elements of convergence paper — and in 2017 by Ambassador Ion Jinga of Romania and Ambassador Mohamed Khaled Khiari of Tunisia  — as the elements of commonality and issues for further consideration paper. The revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration are far from perfect, as I mentioned before. A lot was left unfinished. Clearly, that paper requires more work, and we will be ready to begin that work at the start of the next session. However, the co-Chairs were able to guide us to a document that indeed contains some improvements when compared to last year’s outcome document. Having said that, we also want to acknowledge that a large number of countries suggested changes to the paper and shaped that document. The paper therefore belongs to all of us — the Member States. What we should guarantee now is the continuity of our efforts. The roll-over decision we just adopted (decision 72/557) leads us forward. We have agreed to build on the revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration and on the framework document prepared during the sixty-ninth session by the Permanent Representative of Jamaica, Ambassador Courtenay Rattray. During the next session of the General Assembly, we will need to continue advancing the process and concentrate on improving this year’s revised document. Our objective is precise. We should continue harmonizing and updating the paper so as to move towards our goal of achieving text-based negotiations to expeditiously reform the Security Council. After 25 years of discussion on Security Council reform and 10 years of the intergovernmental negotiations themselves, we cannot afford to witness during the next session the same stagnation that we have seen for years. We should break the cycle and begin real negotiations. The credibility of the intergovernmental negotiations process and the United Nations as a whole is at stake.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Arab States. At the outset, allow me to express the Group’s appreciation to you, Sir, for focusing during your presidency of the General Assembly on one of the most important items on our agenda, “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council”. I would also like to thank the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassador Kaha Imnadze of Georgia and Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates, for their appreciated efforts to bring together different points of view of various States and groups during the negotiations. The Group of Arab States believes that the paper reflects the progress made by Member States during the current session, and clarifies many elements of commonality between the positions taken by the States and various groups pertaining to the five issues of negotiation. At the same time, it refers to the presence of substantial divergent views requiring the continued dialogue among Member States during subsequent sessions to find common ground. In that regard, I would like to emphasize that, as stated in decision 62/557, the positions and proposals of the Member States are the basis for the negotiation process. The Group of Arab States congratulates you, Mr. President, on the adoption by consensus of decision 72/557. However, I underscore once again that the Group is keen to see any step taken in the intergovernmental negotiations enjoy the greatest possible level of political acceptance, thereby allowing Member States to continue to move forward so as to ensure a comprehensive and equitable reform of the Security Council. I would like to emphasize that the Arab position calls for maintaining cohesion among the general membership and for not discrediting the intergovernmental negotiations by imposing steps that do not enjoy consensus among Member States. Following the adoption of today’s decision, the Group of Arab States looks forward to continuing the deliberations during the seventy-third session of the General Assembly in order to build on the achievements of previous sessions. In conclusion, the Group of Arab States renews its commitment to participating effectively and constructively in the process and to working with all other Member States towards finding common ground leading to a solution that enjoys consensus with regard to a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, in order to meet the aspirations of all Member States.

On behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership during the seventy-second session of the General Assembly. I would also like to thank the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassadors Nusseibeh and Imnadze, for their efforts. We have just agreed to continue intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, building on the results of the informal meetings held during the current session of work. Among those results, discussions among the membership allowed the co-Chairs to revise the elements of commonality and the issues that deserve further consideration, which were compiled in the document of last year’s co-Chairs. We welcome the document’s evolution — what is now the revised elements paper  — as a further step towards consensual reform. The revised elements certainly represent a new building block of the reform process. At the same time, they continue to be a work in progress that Member States might or might not decide to use during the next stage of the intergovernmental negotiations. Much of that decision will depend upon the ability of the future intergovernmental negotiations Chairs to preserve the consensual nature of the document. Our reform must be built upon solid foundations  — elements that are truly shared by all Member States. We cannot afford to leave any room for ambiguous language in the reform process and its related documents. There are neither linguistic or procedural shortcuts to Security Council reform, and our experience has shown that any attempt in that direction only results in pulling us further from our goal. Therefore, the United for Consensus group will pursue its work to ensure that the bedrock of a reformed Council remains genuinely consensual, as mandated by decision 62/557. During the latest intergovernmental negotiations meeting, on 7 June, focusing on how to best advance the negotiations, the Uniting for Consensus group recalled that the prerequisites for tangible progress towards an early Security Council reform are political will, flexibility and a spirit of compromise. Those elements are of the utmost importance to overcoming what all evidence shows to be the obstacle to reform, the only truly contentious aspect hindering our advancement in the reform process — the proposal by some to increase the number of permanent seats. We are convinced that there is common ground on which to make a collective effort to finally unlock the reform process. Political will, flexibility and a spirit of compromise can lead the General Assembly to the consensual and sustainable reform of the Security Council that we have been striving for. The Uniting for Consensus group is looking forward to engaging in future negotiations and building on those crucial elements, hoping that they will help inform our future work, with the sincere conviction that Security Council reform remains possible. Allow me several final words, as this will be my final intergovernmental negotiations meeting after five years. Through your person, Sir, I would like to thank all the Presidents of the General Assembly with whom I had the honour to work. Through Ambassadors Nusseibeh and Imnadze, I thank all the co-facilitators with whom I had the honour to work. I would like to thank every colleague independently according to their individual position, constituency, aspirations and ideas. Sometimes we had very strong and hard, but always very honest discussions. Some here might find it hard to believe that the Italian Permanent Representative and Deputy Permanent Representative will be leaving in the next few days or weeks. Consider that an expression of the Italian way of life, our capacity to organize the timing. Although some Italians are leaving, Italy remains firmly here, convinced and involved in this exercise, trying to find the only possible solution — the consensual one.

I have the distinct honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the 14 States members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) following the adoption of decision 72/557 to roll over to the Assembly’s seventy-third session consideration of the item on “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council”. As we conclude this session’s intergovernmental negotiations, CARICOM wishes first of all to express its deep appreciation to you, Mr. President, for your commitment to reform of the Council and for your active engagement in the process. Throughout the year, you kept your door open for consultations with all stakeholders. CARICOM  — a community of mostly small island developing States that attach the greatest importance to strengthening the rule of law in international relations and, by extension, of the organs, like the Security Council, that underpin the rule-of- law architecture — commends you for the leadership that you have shown on this important question of Council reform. CARICOM also wishes to thank the two co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations of the seventy- second session, Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh and Ambassador Kaha Imnadze. They have done an outstanding job, and we wish to place on record our deep appreciation for the active role they played and the concrete efforts they made, always in a consultative and transparent manner with a view to an early and comprehensive reform of the Security Council. CARICOM notes with satisfaction that, going forward, the intergovernmental negotiations will build on the series of informal meetings held during the Assembly’s seventy-second session and on the revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration, circulated on 14 June, as well as on the various positions and proposals made by Member States. As we look to continue our consideration in the next session of the intergovernmental negotiations of the elements of commonality and issues identified for further consideration, we wish to express our hope that Member States will come to see the value of attribution of their positions so as to lay the groundwork for real negotiations to begin on those points on which there has not as yet been convergence. In conclusion, let me once again reiterate our appreciation to you, Sir, and to the co-Chairs appointed by you, for the intensive and inclusive efforts to bring about progress in the work of the 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 at this year’s intergovernmental negotiations. We look forward to resuming during the seventy-third session our work on this question, which, we all agree, is of the utmost importance.

We are grateful to you, Mr. President, for the oral technical decision 72/557, on rolling over the item under consideration, on reform of the Security Council, to the seventy-third session of the General Assembly. The issue of Security Council reform is one of the most important on the Organization’s agenda. We are talking about an organ that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, is imbued with the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. However, as the current session’s discussions have illustrated, fundamental differences on many aspects remain among Member States. We must be honest with ourselves. Those disagreements are at the heart of the problems faced by the intergovernmental negotiations. Everything else, including negotiating methodology, is secondary, regardless of how some delegations might try to prove otherwise. Obviously, against the backdrop of the enormous political importance of the issue of Security Council reform, it is necessary to continue searching for a solution that would enjoy much greater support among Member States than the formally required two-thirds majority. The best-case scenario would be a consensus. Such work should be conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner, without establishing artificial timelines. In that regard, we note that progress on the reform of the Security Council cannot be achieved by imposing chairs’ texts, negotiating documents or any other initiative that fails to enjoy universal support. Previous sessions of the General Assembly have convincingly shown the futility and danger of attempts to reach a solution without considering the entire spectrum of positions. We firmly believe that the five key issues of Security Council reform must be discussed in their interrelated aspects. Any attempt to single out one particular issue risks diluting the package approach underlying the negotiations agreed upon by all. We believe that priority for membership of the Security Council should be given to the developing countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America. We are certain that those States have sufficient potential to make a substantial contribution to ensuring international peace and security. It is of primary importance to ensure that future Security Council decisions are balanced and practical. In concluding, we thank Permanent Representatives Kaha Imnadze of Georgia and Lana Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates for their work. They have ably and responsibly carried out their obligations as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process during the current session.

The General Assembly just adopted a short technical oral decision (decision 72/557) by consensus to roll over the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform into next year’s session. This year there were five informal meetings of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. The co-Chairs of the negotiations, the Permanent Representatives of the United Arab Emirates and of Georgia, performed their duties under the mandate of decision 62/557, respecting the Member State-driven principle and hearing a broad range of views. Member States have had candid, in-depth and patient discussions and have increased mutual understanding of the five key issues and their interlinkages in an effort to reach the broadest possible consensus. China commends the President of the General Assembly and co-Chairs on their positive role in the process. The revised elements of commonalities and issues for further consideration paper is the personal working document of the co-Chairs. It has no official status accorded by the Member States. All documents proposed by the Chairs and co-Chairs of intergovernmental negotiations in recent years in the light of ongoing discussions have reflected the efforts of Member States to advance Security Council reform, providing facilitation and reference for discussions among Member States. China believes that the four documents are equal in status and should not be treated differently. The intergovernmental negotiations process is an important mechanism for Member States to discuss Security Council reform. Therefore it must be driven by the Member States to achieve stable development. For years, Member States have been engaged in negotiations and laid out positions, proposals and recommendations that serve as an important basis for the parties to patiently conduct discussions and build consensus. Any attempt to artificially expedite the process or set timelines in that regard will lead to serious disagreement among Member States, which will only serve to aggravate divisions and to undermine efforts and results accumulated over the years, and will contribute nothing to the healthy development of the reform process. China looks to the next session of the General Assembly to continue to engage in the intergovernmental negotiations in line with the mandate of decision 62/557, to maintain the Member State-driven principle and the package-solution approach and to continue to have broad-based and patient discussions. The goal is to build consensus and keep the intergovernmental negotiations on the right track to achieving the broadest possible consensus and serving the common interests of all Member States and the long-term interests of the United Nations.

It is my pleasure to speak today on behalf of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. At the outset, let me join delegations in expressing their appreciation to the President of the General Assembly at its seventy-second session for his guidance and leadership during the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. We greatly value the trust and confidence that President Lajčák placed in Ambassador Imnadze and me as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for this session. Secondly, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank all delegations, not just for their proactive and constructive engagement in the intergovernmental negotiations and the continued support they have shown for the work of the co-Chairs throughout the session, but also for their commitment to working constructively throughout to achieve progress in the process and to do so in a consensual manner and with respect for each other’s positions. Throughout our time as co-Chairs, we have been reminded that the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform are like no other process in the United Nations. The Security Council, as the body charged with maintaining international peace and security, is oftentimes the most visible measure of the impact of the United Nations in the world as the key organ in the global peace and security architecture. The dynamics of the process need not be explained to anyone in this Hall. Member States harbour no illusions about the complexity, sensitivity, and strategic importance of this issue. But that is precisely the reason we all collectively continue to be committed to the process, knowing that a reform process that enjoys the widest possible support can arise only from careful, considered progress that builds on convergence among all States, one step at a time, towards our end goal. Acknowledging the complexity of this endeavour, at the outset of our work for this session President Lajčák asked us to achieve meaningful progress and engage in genuine dialogue with all Member States. Throughout our five meetings held this year, we as co-Chairs strived for inclusivity and transparency by regularly consulting with Member States and groups. We aimed to ensure interactivity by establishing the practice of holding interactive segments on the second days of our meetings, structured around a series of questions circulated by the co-Chairs. We believe that that format was helpful in breaking down the cut-and- paste statements of the past. During those sessions, Member States also had opportunities to respond to ideas raised by each other, fostering dialogue that we believe led to a deeper understanding of positions. The co-Chairs approached the process with no set agenda or pre-cooked solutions for the way forward. We had no preconceived notions as to whether producing another document by the end of the session was the best solution for moving the process forward. At the same time, an overwhelming call was made for the co-Chairs to guide an exercise in the intergovernmental negotiations, whereby we examined the documents referred to in decision 71/553 with a view to identifying necessary improvements and filling in any perceived gaps. We believe that the document we arrived at represents meaningful progress. The document produced during the seventy- second session builds on the paper, entitled “Elements of commonality and issues for further consideration” from the seventy-first session, while taking into account the relevant positions and proposals made by Member States and reflected in documents circulated during the seventieth and sixty-ninth sessions. It makes an imperfect but first attempt to harmonize that work in one place. We also listened closely to proposals from the floor that aimed to ensure a better reflection of Member States’ positions in the paper. We have heard today Member States express diverging views on the ways and means in which the paper can be further improved, and we fully agree that the work is not done. The road ahead must be pursued with energy and unity of purpose. However, it is the conviction of the co-Chairs that this document is a step in the right direction. It is one that has the potential to bring Member States’ positions closer together and to identify pathways for narrowing differences and controversial elements. We trust that the document will aid the work of the co-Chairs to be appointed for the seventy-third session. Kaha and I will do our utmost to ensure the proper continuity of that work and hand- over. Let me reiterate what a pleasure and honour it has been to serve at the helm of this process. Mr. President, we thank you again for all your support and trust in us as stewards of this process during the seventy-second session. We also thank our colleagues for their support and trust, and we apologize for any shortcomings. Lastly, I would like to thank Ambassador Mudallali of Lebanon for supplying the chocolates that kept my son quiet during my speech.

We have heard the last speaker in explanation of position. May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 122?

The General Assembly will now consider the reports of the Fifth Committee under agenda items 133, 136, 148 to 154, 156 to 159, 160 (a) and (b), 161 to 165 and 134. I request the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee, Mr. Felipe García Landa of Mexico, to introduce the reports of the Fifth Committee before the General Assembly in one intervention.

I thank the Rapporteur of the Fifth Committee. Before proceeding further, I would like to emphasize to delegations that, as the Fifth Committee concluded its work this afternoon, the relevant reports before the Assembly today are available in English only. It is my understanding that they will be issued in all the official languages as soon as possible. I thank members for their understanding. If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Fifth Committee that are before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations on the recommendations of the Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that: “When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee.” May I further remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Fifth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Committee, unless the secretariat is notified to the contrary in advance. That means that, where recorded votes were taken, we will do the same. I also hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Fifth Committee.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.32. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 133.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.52. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Special subjects relating to the programme budget for the biennium 2018-2019”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 136.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.34. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 148.

The Assembly has before it four draft resolutions recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 12 of its report and a draft decision recommended by the Committee in paragraph 13 of its report. We will now take a decision on draft resolutions I through IV and the draft decision one by one. Draft resolution I is entitled “Rates of reimbursement to troop- and police-contributing countries”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.33. The Fifth Committee adopted draft resolution I without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

Draft resolution II is entitled “Financing of the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe, Uganda”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.48. The Fifth Committee adopted draft resolution II without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

Draft resolution III is entitled “Financing of the United Nations Logistics Base at Brindisi, Italy”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.49. The Fifth Committee adopted draft resolution III without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

Draft resolution IV is entitled “Support account for peacekeeping operations”, the text of which, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.55. The Fifth Committee adopted draft resolution IV without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The draft decision is entitled “Effective date of resolutions relating to the peacekeeping budget and special political missions”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 149.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.47. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 150.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.54. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 151.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.51. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 152.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.38. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 153.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.41. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 154.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.36. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 156.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.42. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 157.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.50. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 158.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.40. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 159.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.39. I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

The United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) was established by Security Council resolution 350 (1974), which separated the Syrian forces and the Israeli occupying forces in the occupied Syrian Golan following the war of October 1973. The main reason for the establishment and continuation of the Force was the Israeli occupation of the Syrian Golan in 1967. Since then, Israel has refused the relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions of international legitimacy with regard to that issue, which called for full withdrawal from the occupied Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967. That means that the presence of UNDOF will conclude with the end of the occupation and the implementation of relevant resolutions of international legitimacy. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic has reiterated its position several times in rejecting the attempts of some well-known delegations to politicize UNDOF’s mandate. During the two months of informal negotiations, those delegations refused to accept our legitimate proposal meant to avoid a vote and reach a consensual resolution, as we used to have in previous years in the Fifth Committee. For that reason, my delegation submits an oral amendment to add the following paragraph after paragraph 8 of draft resolution A/C.5/72/L.39, on UNDOF: “Takes note of paragraph 27 of the report of the Advisory Committee and decides to abolish two international temporary positions in the Office of the Force Commander and Head of Mission for one Special Adviser (P-5) and one Mission Liaison Officer (P-4), and further decides not to approve the five general temporary assistance positions to be converted to international posts to strengthen the Security Section.” My delegation respectfully urges all Member States to adopt this proposal by consensus, and if some delegations intend to object, I urge them once again to vote in favour of the inclusion of this paragraph. Finally, Syria emphasizes that this is not a matter of argument on functions or posts. Rather, it is an essential concern of the existence of the peacekeeping mission on Syria’s territories, which should be taken into account. The proposal submitted by the Syrian Arab Republic is based on the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of peacekeeping operations from the beginning.

The representative of the Syrian Arab Republic has submitted an oral amendment to draft resolution A/C.5/72/L.39, recommended in the report of the Fifth Committee. In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the Assembly will first take a decision on the oral amendment submitted by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Since the oral amendment submitted by the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic was not adopted, we will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended in the report of the Fifth Committee. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 160. (b) United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon Report of the Fifth Committee (A/72/905)

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 11 of its report. For the time being, the text of the draft resolution is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.31, as orally revised. We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon”. I give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to speak in explanation of vote before the vote.

My delegation joins the consensus on the adoption of resolution 72/298, on the financing of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force. Our delegation will vote in favour of the draft resolution on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, based on the confirmed principle that the responsibility for financing those two Forces must be borne by Israel, the occupying Power, which caused their establishment. Our position is in line with the basic principles contained in General Assembly resolution 1874 (S-IV), of 27 June 1963.

A single separate vote has been requested on the fourth preambular paragraph and operative paragraphs 4, 5 and 13 of the draft resolution, based on the paragraph numbers in document A/C.5/72/L.31.

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole, as orally revised. In favour: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe Against: Canada, Israel, United States of America Abstaining: Guatemala [Subsequently, the delegations of Bhutan, Montenegro and the Republic of Macedonia informed the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour.]

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 160.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.44. The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 161.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.43. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 162.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.45. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 163.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.46. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 164.

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report. The text of the draft resolution, for the time being, is contained in document A/C.5/72/L.37. We shall now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 165.

The Assembly has before it two draft resolutions recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 10 of its report and a draft decision recommended in paragraph 11 of the same report. We will now take a decision on draft resolutions I and II and on the draft decision, one by one. We shall now turn to draft resolution I, entitled “Shifting the management paradigm in the United Nations”, the text of which is contained for the time being in document A/C.5/72/L.53. The Fifth Committee adopted draft resolution I without a vote. May I take it the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly will now take a decision on draft resolution II, entitled “Progress towards an accountability system in the United Nations Secretariat”, the text of which is contained for the time being in document A/C.5/72/L.35. The Fifth Committee adopted draft resolution II without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly will now turn to the draft decision entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”, the text of which is contained for the time being in document A/C.5/72/L.56. The Fifth Committee adopted the draft decision without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 134. The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Fifth Committee before it for this meeting. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge members’ hard work and dedication. This second resumed session of the Fifth Committee handled a very important agenda of unprecedented weight. Members have shown the ability to tackle complex issues and to exercise the spirit of compromise and flexibility so as to reach consensual outcomes, and they have done so through many long days and nights. Their hard work and dedication, often well into the late night and early morning hours, are more than admirable. They have helped to strengthen multilateralism and equip the United Nations with the tools necessary for better delivery on its work. They should all be very proud. I thank them and offer my congratulations.