A/75/PV.27 General Assembly

I am very pleased to address the General Assembly today for a debate that I find extremely significant  — intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. The work that the Assembly has done so far and the work ahead will shape and define the future of the Organization, including its legitimacy and effectiveness. This year, on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, Member States commemorated the achievements of the United Nations across the three pillars of peace and security, development and human rights (see A/75/PV.3). There is no other global organization with the legitimacy, convening power and normative impact of the United Nations. There is no other organization that can shape the future of humankind like the United Nations. The demands that we put on the Organization are enormous — they span the globe. We expect the United Nations to take action on the most pressing issues confronting humankind today, from pandemics to peace and security and from climate change to humanitarian emergencies. The unexpected scale of the challenge presented by the coronavirus disease pandemic and the United Nations response leave little doubt that there is no other option but to reform. The United Nations must be fit for purpose so that we can address issues, including crises, with greater effectiveness and urgency. The Security Council is the main organ of the United Nations for addressing peace and security challenges, but the Council has on many occasions failed to carry out its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Competing interests among its members and the frequent use of the veto have limited the Security Council’s effectiveness. Even in some of the most urgent humanitarian crises, the Council could not provide a timely and adequate response. That is a serious setback to the founding principles of the United Nations and our common efforts to build a peaceful world. While the United Nations needs much deeper reforms, it is evident that the reform of the Security Council is an unavoidable imperative — one that is both challenging and essential. In carrying out its duties, the Security Council acts on behalf of all Member States. Member States conferred on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The success or failure of the Security Council therefore pertains to all States Members of the United Nations. The reform of the Council ultimately depends on Member States. It is a member-driven process. The commitment of members to negotiation is crucial. Any reform that is not Member State-driven is unlikely to make the Organization and its pillars more effective or deliver the results we expect. True reform can therefore be achieved only if we strive for the widest possible political acceptance among Member States, if not unanimity or near unanimity. In its decision 62/557, the General Assembly requested that Member States focus on five key issues: categories of membership, the question of the veto, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Security Council and the working methods of the Council and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. Over the years, we have seen convergence among Member States on certain issues. Through active engagement and a pragmatic approach, I believe we can make meaningful progress on this agenda, and I am encouraged by the discussions I have led with many Member States. I urge delegations to seek the broadest possible consensus on the comprehensive reform of the Security Council and continue their efforts to resolve the main differences among the membership. This process can and should be an opportunity to correct the problems of the structure and functioning of the Council. It should not create new privileges and new problems. I look forward to this session and its discussions, with the aim of narrowing divergences in an inclusive and transparent manner. I would like to warmly thank Her Excellency Ms. Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Her Excellency Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar, for having assumed the responsibility of co-chairing the intergovernmental negotiations. The early appointment of the co-Chairs allows for consultations to start in a timely manner. I urge Member States to continue to explore ways to safely conduct all meetings mandated to the General Assembly in order to ensure that the General Assembly performs its duties. My team and I will support the co-Chairs and Member States along the way. I also stand ready to explore, in coordination with the co-Chairs, an informal dialogue on the programme of work of the intergovernmental negotiations before the end of the year. I request that all Member States extend their support and cooperation to the co-Chairs and engage in discussions in good faith, recalling our collective aim to ensure that we have the United Nations we need to achieve the future we want.

On behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important debate. Thanks to your leadership and commitment to advancing the Security Council reform process, we are confident that we will be able to achieve significant progress during the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations. The UFC group is ready to support and work alongside you, Sir, and we thank you for appointing early in the process two extremely competent, skilful and experienced co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations  — Ambassador Joanna Wronecka and Ambassador Alya Al-Thani. We look forward to cooperating with them in full transparency and with an honest willingness to make progress. We believe that in their new capacity they will help Member States get closer to the common goal of a reformed Security Council. As coordinator of the UFC group, I would also like to take advantage of this occasion to thank Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh for the excellent work that she conducted as co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations over the past three years. The UFC group feels strongly about the need for progress in the negotiations. At the beginning of the year, the coronavirus disease  — an unexpected and unprecedented challenge  — severely affected all of our work at the United Nations, including the previous session of intergovernmental negotiations and its calendar. We had made a good start, with two positive meetings, and were looking forward to having more in-depth discussions on all clusters and their interlinkages, as mandated by the rules of the intergovernmental negotiations. Unfortunately that was not possible. We are ready to approach the next intergovernmental negotiations in a constructive spirit, confident that we can build on the fruitful discussions we held on regional representation in March and the positive gains achieved during the previous full session of intergovernmental negotiations. We have made progress on many issues that have been underpinned during the negotiations, such as the support for increased representation on the Council for developing countries, Africa, small island developing States and small States, along with strengthened language on improving the Council’s working methods and enhancing the interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly. That progress was duly reflected in the revised elements paper. The Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), adopted in September, is a further important step towards the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Its call to instil new life in the process should stimulate the participation of all Member States in the discussion. Taking all voices into account is crucial. Inclusivity is key. For the UFC group, instilling new life means first and foremost focusing the discussions of the intergovernmental negotiations on substantive issues. We all know where the obstacles are; let us openly discuss them. Instilling new life means listening carefully to one another and focusing on the bridges that can be built to connect us in a true spirit of flexibility and compromise. Instilling new life does not mean forcing a change to the setting or its procedures. The intergovernmental negotiations are the only process and venue agreed by the entire membership that can lead to a consensual reform of the Security Council. To achieve such a goal, all Member States should approach the Security Council reform process in good faith and show more flexibility. We are all quite ready to ask for something, but if we genuinely want to succeed in this endeavour we must be ready to concede something. The UFC group is eager to do that. We are not asking for anything for our individual members. We are not aspiring to permanent membership. We are working for the common good  — a reform for all, a reform of the Security Council that is beneficial for all Member States and for the United Nations itself. We are convinced that our idea of reform serves the entire membership. Everyone benefits under the UFC group’s proposal. No one is left behind or left out, and everyone gains better access to the Council. Our proposal is also the most detailed and pragmatic on the table, as has been repeatedly acknowledged by several Member States from various regional groups. Our proposal is a demonstration of flexibility. It has been adjusted over the years so as to take into consideration the position of all negotiating groups. We propose to create longer-term non-permanent seats with the possibility of immediate re-election. That flows precisely from the understanding that some Member States legitimately desire to make a greater contribution to the work of the Council and have the means to do so. On the other hand, increasing the number of two- year-term non-permanent seats again is based in the understanding that a fairer system of rotation is needed on the Council. Sixty-four Member States have never served on the Security Council — one third of the entire membership. It is high time to offer better access to all. If our proposal were to be approved, the Security Council would then consist of 26 members. The nine long-term non-permanent seats would be distributed among regional groups as follows: three for Africa, three for the Group of Asia-Pacific States, two for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States and one for the Group of Western European and other States. Of the two additional two-year non-permanent seats, one would be assigned to the Group of Eastern European States and one would be a rotating seat assigned to small island developing States and small States. That rotating seat would not prevent small island developing States from running within their regional group, but would instead provide an additional path for them to gain access to the Security Council. Let me underline that this reform model would greatly enhance regional representation. Africa would constitute the largest group in the reformed Council. The Asia-Pacific region would have the highest percentage increase. Both Latin America and Eastern Europe would double their representation. Our proposed distribution would also allow an increased and more stable representation for cross-regional groupings, such as the Group of Arab States. A reformed Security Council would enjoy increased legitimacy in the eyes of both the general membership and the world’s citizens. It would have enhanced authority and be more fit to face new global challenges and realities. It would therefore also help to foster the long-standing values of multilateralism. A reformed Security Council that fulfils that aspiration would be more transparent, representative, accountable, democratic and effective. More transparent means a Council in which decisions are taken not by a few but by all of the Security Council’s members in a full, transparent and inclusive way. More representative means going beyond a simple increase in the number of Security Council members and increasing the opportunities for all Member States to sit periodically on the Council so that all regions and all voices are heard, including those of small, insular and more vulnerable countries. More accountable means that every new member of the reformed Security Council would need to answer to the entire membership. It also entails a containment of the number of States with permanent seats, while at the same time reducing some of those countries’ prerogatives, such as the use of the so-called veto. More democratic simply means that every new member of the reformed Security Council must be elected. More effective means a more legitimate Council  — one that enjoys more credibility in the eyes of all Member States because it is transparent, representative, accountable and democratic, and whose decisions are fully observed and implemented, thereby better delivering on its mandate. Looking to the next intergovernmental negotiations, we reaffirm our openness to constructive discussions, bearing in mind that there are no procedural shortcuts to consensus on Security Council reform. That is one of the main lessons we have learned over the years. The reform process can succeed only if it is reflected as an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations that every Member of the United Nations can approve and ratify, including the five permanent members. To achieve that goal, we believe it is of paramount importance to help the co-Chairs set a clear work agenda, so that when the intergovernmental negotiations begin the entire focus will be on substantive issues and not procedural ones. That means agreeing in advance on a predefined number of meetings, an intergovernmental negotiations calendar and the topics to be discussed at each session. Let me conclude by reiterating that here all Member States are equal. Therefore, an approach to reform that only serves a few cannot be a solution for the entire membership. The Uniting for Consensus group stands ready to cooperate with you, Mr. President, as well as the new co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations and the entire membership in order to advance this process in earnest.

Allow me to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of Four — Germany, India, Japan and my own country, Brazil. It is a pleasure to be back in the General Assembly Hall to exchange views on Security Council reform. We trust that under your leadership this will be a fruitful session. Allow me to also congratulate you, Sir, on the appointment of Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. Your decision to name the co-Chairs early in the session is a positive sign, which we hope will translate into the immediate resumption of meetings in whatever format may be deemed safe and appropriate under the current circumstances, as well as meaningful engagement and effective negotiations. In your letter dated 30 October, you encouraged Member States to consider increasing the number of meetings and reminded us that the General Assembly should be ready to meet under any given circumstance. We reiterate both of those calls, especially after the frustrating experience of the previous session, when our discussions were interrupted after only two meetings. We are counting on the skills of the co-facilitators and their creativity. We cannot allow the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic to cut short the intergovernmental negotiations process. We are ready to hold physical or virtual meetings or engage in a written process at any time. We are in your hands, Sir, to steer the intergovernmental negotiations towards a tangible outcome. The Group of Four is confident that the co-Chairs will guide Member States to instil new life in the process of Security Council reform, as pledged by all Heads of State and Government on 21 September, and ensure that the intergovernmental negotiations finally live up to their original mandate, according to which genuine negotiations based on a text will pave the way for the early reform of the Security Council, as first called for more than 15 years ago. The Assembly and the co-Chairs can rest assured that we stand ready to lend our full support in that endeavour. The question of equitable representation in the Security Council was included on the General Assembly’s agenda more than 40 years ago, in 1979. It is regrettable that intergovernmental work on the issue has yielded precious little to show after four decades. Consequently, the Council still does not reflect the current geopolitical landscape. In contrast, many other major international institutions have made strides to change and adapt. There is simply no reason to leave the Security Council out of that process. It is also important to bear in mind that during the general debate of the General Assembly at its seventy-fifth session, more than 60 Heads of State and Government underlined that reforming the Security Council should be one of the highest priorities during this session, confirming the relevance and urgency of this topic. That happened in spite of the lack of meaningful results in previous years. The longer the reform of the Security Council is stalled, the greater the deficit in its representativeness  — an inescapable precondition for its legitimacy and effectiveness. It is high time to bring the Council in line with its responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations to act on behalf of the entire membership, which will not be achieved without relevant actors being able to offer meaningful contributions to its deliberations and decisions and help it manage the ever-growing and complex challenges it faces today. The Council is slowly losing its credibility, authority and legitimacy. The only way we can change that is by reforming it. Many lessons can be drawn from the seventy- fourth session of the General Assembly. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted our calendar and changed our way of working. Nevertheless, most United Nations bodies managed to adapt to the new scenario and continue their deliberations, including on entirely new issues, such as negotiations on COVID-19 resolutions  — themselves very complex issues, yet agreed upon within a period of weeks rather than decades. The General Assembly showed the world that it works. It continued to function. Unfortunately that was not the case for the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. It is hard to accept the fact that our previous intergovernmental negotiations meeting was held at the beginning of March, more than eight months ago. We allowed the intergovernmental negotiations to sit idle for months, while the rest of the United Nations family was actively engaged in coping with the many challenges that the world and the United Nations continued to face. That disruption of the activities of the intergovernmental negotiations came at a time when our discussions seemed to be gaining some traction. Let me recall two main issues that were at the centre of our debates. First, there is unequivocal and growing support from the majority of Member States, including the Group of Four, for the Common African Position, as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. It is unfortunate that wide support for the Common African Position was not duly reflected in the rollover decision adopted during the previous session (decision 74/569). Secondly, a diverse number of Member States voiced their concern at the lack of openness and transparency in the intergovernmental negotiations, underlining the need for enhanced working methods and the definition of applicable rules of procedure for the process. That demand was not properly recognized either in the rollover decision. Not acknowledging those gradual signs of progress poses a risk to the intergovernmental negotiations themselves. It is an indication that the intergovernmental negotiations are being used not to enable real negotiations but to prevent any concrete outcome. The very purpose of their creation 12 years ago — to launch genuine negotiations — is being voided by the lack of activity, the absence of a negotiating text and the unwillingness of some to truly engage in substantive negotiations. In the light of those setbacks, the intergovernmental negotiations need to change — and change quickly. We have been consistently asking for a single consolidated text and renewed working methods so as to bring about an open, inclusive and transparent process, with webcasting, record-keeping and the application of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Some argue that the intergovernmental negotiations are an informal process, but that does not mean we should operate in the shadows, losing track of what we discuss here year after year. “Informal” and “inconsequential” are not synonymous. We risk that the intergovernmental negotiations will be seen as a convenient smokescreen to block any effective reform of the Security Council, which will in turn lead pro-reform countries and groups to seek alternative and legitimate solutions in other settings, including in the plenary of the General Assembly. A single consolidated text, preferably with attribution, is the only means to move away from the cycle of repetition of the well-known positions that have been a trademark of the intergovernmental negotiations in the recent past. It is also the best way to identify commonalities and promote a give-and-take approach that may ultimately result in proposals that garner ample support from Member States. As we know very well, other negotiations at the United Nations are carried out exactly in that way, starting with a draft and moving gradually to a final text. Given that we held only two meetings during the previous session, we must make up for lost time. The intergovernmental negotiations should therefore start as a direct continuation of the previous session before the end of the year, make full use of the General Assembly’s calendar and hold as many meetings as are necessary to reach an acceptable result. We are ready to start right now. The position of the Group of Four on the substance of the reform is well known. We uphold the need for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, with the expansion of seats in both categories of membership, equitable regional representation, more transparent and inclusive working methods and an enhanced relationship with other United Nations bodies, including the General Assembly. Our support for the Common African Position has also been clearly voiced. We are aware that other Member States have different proposals and diverging perspectives on how to reform the Security Council, but we are convinced that almost everybody would agree that the Security Council is in dire need of reform. That is why the intergovernmental negotiations were set up in the first place: to allow us to sit down and discuss how to bridge the gaps in our positions. Reaching a consensus before negotiating was simply never the plan. It cannot be a plan, because that would be an attempt to start the process from the end point. Any agreement on contentious issues can emerge only after in-depth text-based negotiations. The time is ripe now. The Assembly and the co-Chairs can rest assured that the Group of Four is eager to collaborate in bringing about a results-oriented process, as mandated by the General Assembly. Being faithful to the original purpose and mandate of the intergovernmental negotiations is the only way to ensure the ownership of that process by all Member States and its preservation as an adequate setting for our efforts. In that regard and depending on the results of our work, the Group of Four also reserves the right to revert to this item of the General Assembly’s agenda during the current session.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the 14 member States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). At the outset, CARICOM takes this opportunity to thank the Permanent Representatives of Poland and the United Arab Emirates for their stewardship of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy- fourth session. We are pleased to have Ambassador Wronecka back as a co-Chair. We believe that will ensure a degree of continuity in the intergovernmental negotiations. We are also pleased to welcome Ambassador Al-Thani as the new co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations. CARICOM will remain engaged in the intergovernmental negotiations under the stewardship of the two co-Chairs, and we pledge our full support to them in the execution of their mandate. CARICOM thanks you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting to give Member States an opportunity to reflect on the long-standing and important issue of Security Council reform. CARICOM hopes that, as we observe the seventy-fifth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations during this session, we will also all work together to achieve some tangible progress on the reform question. Our work on Security Council reform was abruptly cut short during the seventy-fourth session owing to the restrictions occasioned by the coronavirus disease pandemic. While we have had to adjust our working methods as a result of those restrictions, we have managed to ensure that the work of the United Nations continues. On that note, CARICOM looks forward to a full schedule of engagements during this session and is prepared to be active in the intergovernmental negotiations. As we reflect on the years spent discussing the issue of Security Council reform, it behoves us to observe that every session that concludes without achieving any of the goals envisaged in the reform process is a stark reminder that the existing imbalances on the Council will continue to be perpetuated if the current status quo is maintained. Those imbalances include the exclusion of entire regions, specifically Africa and my own region of Latin America and the Caribbean, from the permanent category of membership. The perpetuation of those imbalances has effectively meant that nearly 50 per cent of the current membership of the United Nations remains excluded from the permanent membership of one of its principal organs. It also means that the composition of the Security Council has not kept up with the evolution in the membership of the Organization, thereby raising concerns about its representativeness. In fact, when the General Assembly established 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 in 1993, its decision was based on the recognition of “the need to review the membership of the Council and related matters in view of the substantial increase in the membership of the United Nations, especially of developing countries, as well as the changes in international relations.” (resolution 48/26, fifth preambular paragraph) The perpetuation of the status quo also means that the work of the Security Council continues to miss out on the benefits of important perspectives and experiences. As the Assembly is aware, CARICOM advocates for the guaranteed presence of small island developing States on the Council. We believe that, given its unique experiences, that group of Member States has important contributions to make to the maintenance of international peace and security. However, with the continuing lack of progress on reform, CARICOM’s advocacy has not yet achieved that desired end. CARICOM noted with appreciation, Mr. President, your address to the General Assembly at the inauguration of its seventy-fifth session on 15 September (see A/75/ PV.1), in which you committed to working with the membership to successfully implement the mandate on Security Council reform. We believe that the key to implementing that mandate is recognizing that the Security Council must adapt to new political realities. The affirmation of the value of multilateralism and equitable involvement in decision-making necessitates a restructuring of the Security Council in a way that provides an opportunity for equitable involvement in the questions of peace and security of which the Council is seized. As we approach the intergovernmental negotiations during this session, CARICOM takes this opportunity to share its expectations going forward. First, we hope to have continuity and build on that which has already been achieved. We believe that the paper entitled “Revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration” should be one of the principal bases for our work during this session. While the paper captures many of the perspectives expressed on the five pillars of negotiation, we believe that there is still scope to further shape its substance. CARICOM underscores the need for responsiveness to the expressed wishes of the membership and, in the spirit of transparency, to avoid the exclusion of ideas in future revisions of the paper. Secondly, CARICOM emphasizes the importance of respecting the voice and views of every Member State. The reform of the Security Council is a particularly sensitive issue, and there are many divergent positions on the process and substance of its reform. However, CARICOM believes that every one of us can contribute meaningfully as sovereign States to the dialogue on the reform of the Security Council and that maximum participation should be encouraged as a means of enhancing the legitimacy of the process. Thirdly, and finally, CARICOM hopes that the meetings this year can achieve some concrete and actionable outcomes. We have spent many years elaborating our positions, and CARICOM hopes that we can find a way to go beyond that in the coming months. In conclusion, CARICOM again thanks you, Sir, for organizing this important debate and wishes to assure the Assembly of our full commitment to an early and urgent reform of the Security Council.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important debate. I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. At the outset, we would like to express our gratitude to Ambassador Wronecka of Poland and Ambassador Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates for having led the previous session of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform under very difficult circumstances. We welcome Ambassador Al-Thani of the State of Qatar as the new co-Chair, together with Ambassador Wronecka of Poland. We look forward to resuming the intergovernmental negotiations during this session. The upcoming session of intergovernmental negotiations comes at an important time, with the world navigating new waves of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The pandemic has tested our multilateral institutions’ ability to act rapidly and collectively at a time of crisis and urgency. The crisis has underscored the importance of an effective Security Council that is better positioned to address current and future global challenges. We must collectively address the security implications of the pandemic, which may exacerbate conflicts, divisions and inequalities across the globe. We have seen how the most vulnerable are often hit the hardest — civilians in war-ravaged countries, refugees and others displaced by violent conflict. We also see that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a potential driver of conflict that needs to be mitigated. To adequately respond to the current and future global challenges, the Nordic countries seek a more transparent, effective, accountable and representative Security Council that can support a coherent United Nations response  — one that reflects today’s global realities. The seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations is a critical year for ushering in and consolidating the reform of the United Nations system, not only because the world is looking to the United Nations to deliver results but also because we need to maintain the momentum of reforming the United Nations, including the Security Council. That was highlighted by many delegations in the context of the previous session of intergovernmental negotiations and reaffirmed by the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, in which Member States committed to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council” (resolution 75/1, para. 14). We need a United Nations that is rooted in delivering for “we the peoples”, as reflected in the Charter of the United Nations, now and beyond the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations. In that respect, this may be the right time to reflect on and rethink the working methods of the intergovernmental negotiations in order to reflect on the benefits and potential new avenues for capturing the progress made in the intergovernmental negotiations and efforts to ensure greater transparency. We welcome the guidance that the 2015 framework document and the revised elements paper provide as the basis for our ongoing work in the intergovernmental negotiations sessions. Yet we continue to reiterate our call for advancing towards more substantive discussions, which in our view would be best harnessed through text-based negotiations. The Nordic countries see that as essential for securing progress. We also welcome the letter dated 29 July from the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy-fourth session of the General Assembly, which sets out the discussions that we were able to undertake before COVID-19 halted our in-person meetings, and we welcome the rollover of that work into the seventy-fifth session. The world has changed since the previous expansion of the Security Council in 1965. The Council no longer reflects the world that it is supposed to represent. The Nordic countries support the ongoing efforts to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Security Council’s work in its existing format and call for a balanced expansion of the Security Council for all regions, including increased representation for developing countries and improved opportunities for small States to serve as elected members. In ensuring a representative Council, it is vital to ensure that Africa take its rightful place on the Council through an expansion in both permanent and non-permanent seats. We recognize that, by seeking the reform of the Council, we must also carefully consider the impacts of the use of the veto. Permanent members’ veto power has limited the Council’s ability to act and caused the Council to fail to live up to its Charter obligations. The use of the veto power should therefore come with greater accountability and transparency. In particular, the use of the veto in situations of mass atrocities is not in line with the spirit of the United Nations Charter. The Nordic countries therefore urge all Member States to join the code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as the political declaration on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity, which was launched by France and Mexico. The Nordic countries remain committed to a reformed and strengthened United Nations, and we will continue to reaffirm our strong voice for tangible action towards a reformed Security Council that is more accountable, coherent, transparent and representative. We stand ready to engage in constructive dialogue during this session and support the co-Chairs on our common path towards ensuring continuing progress in the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform.

I am honoured to deliver this statement on behalf of the L.69 group, which is a diverse, pro-reform group of developing countries that are in favour of justice, sovereignty and equity in the reform of the Security Council, both in process and in outcome. At the outset, allow me to welcome the timely convening of this meeting. Despite the aborted intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy- fourth session, the L.69 group now looks to the pledge made in the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), which was adopted by our leaders earlier this year and committed Member States to instilling new life in their efforts to reform the Security Council. We also look to you, Sir, as the seventy-fifth President of the General Assembly, to lead the way in making that commitment a reality. We join other delegations in welcoming the early appointment of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations and offer our felicitations to Her Excellency Ms. Joanna Wronecka and Her Excellency Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representatives of Poland and the State of Qatar, respectively. The L.69 group looks forward to supporting both of them in their work and expresses our hopeful expectation of decisive action and forward movement under their leadership during this session. It is clear that, now more than ever, the eyes of the world are on the United Nations. During a time of crisis, we are being judged and have often been found wanting. It is therefore imperative that we do not further erode confidence in this institution and that we live up to the trust that was placed in us when our leaders issued the call for, and recently re-emphasized the necessity of, early and comprehensive reform. In order to accomplish the goal of reform, the L.69 group is of the view that it is necessary to greatly improve that process, which has been ongoing for more than a decade. We would like to offer the following recommendations in that regard. First, we are pleased by the willingness, as expressed in the letter dated 30 October from the President of the General Assembly, to commence the intergovernmental negotiations early in 2021. Utilizing the calendar more fully will enable us to more effectively use the time allotted to us and encourage more meaningful engagement. The meetings for the session should also fully incorporate the tangible progress made in the two meetings held earlier in 2020, allowing us to build on the advances made during the seventy-fourth session, particularly the overwhelming support that was expressed for the Common African Position, as espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. Secondly, many members were in agreement during the previous session that the application of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure to the intergovernmental negotiations process had become necessary. It was also widely agreed that the maintenance of records and the holding of meetings via webcast would enhance the openness, inclusivity and transparency of the intergovernmental negotiations process. Without the General Assembly’s rules of procedure, the intergovernmental negotiations are inevitably reduced to serving merely as a discussion forum, and are held back from progressing as a genuine negotiations process. Finally, and most important, there must be agreement on a single text that can serve as the basis for negotiations. That could be achieved, for example, by updating after each meeting the paper on revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration and by introducing attributions of Member States’ positions in the paper. That is a crucial component for the credibility of the intergovernmental negotiations process. In conclusion, we should recall that during the post-war founding of the United Nations and the creation of the Security Council as one of the most powerful institutions of international relations, a vital component of the discussion, as evidenced in the Dumbarton Oaks conversations, was that that power would be underpinned by legitimate authority in order to maintain international peace and security. In a year that has been characterized by remarkable upheaval, the Council’s legitimacy is today falling into disrepute. In the light of unprecedented challenges, we are called upon to display a spirit of compromise and to work together towards the common good. The L.69 group hopes that spirit can be harnessed and applied in preserving multilateralism, which begins with protecting multilateral processes. We must chart a new course of progressive action that rejects the status quo. That is the only way we will achieve our own landmark changes for the better future we want. In that quest, the Assembly has the full support of the L.69 group, and we look forward to empowering the co-Chairs in order to facilitate a productive session that befits this moment in the history of the United Nations.

I am honoured to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Arab States. At the outset, I would like to convey to you, Mr. President, the Arab Group’s support for your efforts to guide the work of the General Assembly during its current session, in particular within the framework of reforming and expanding the Security Council, which is of special importance to all States Members of the United Nations, including the members of the Arab Group. I also wish to congratulate Her Excellency Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, and Her Excellency Ambassador Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, on having been appointed co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for the current session. I wish them every success. I also sincerely thank Her Excellency Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, for her much-appreciated efforts while chairing the intergovernmental negotiations during the previous session. In the light of the difficult global situation caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the repercussions of which have pervaded all aspects of life, it has become clear that international multilateralism is in need of genuine and comprehensive reform in order to strengthen cooperation among States in the face of shared challenges that do not discriminate among us. All of humankind is currently in a common trench facing a mutual enemy. In that connection, the issue of Security Council reform and equitable representation in its membership is one of the fundamental pillars of comprehensive United Nations reform. That makes us more resolute and determined to bolster our efforts to achieve a substantive and comprehensive reform of the Security Council  — the organ entrusted with maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations  — so that the Council becomes more competent and effective in confronting challenges within a more representative, transparent, impartial and credible framework. In that regard, the Arab Group reiterates that the intergovernmental negotiations within the framework of the General Assembly represent the only forum for reaching an agreement on the expansion and reform of the Security Council, in accordance with decision 62/557, which the General Assembly adopted by consensus and which sets forth the practical basis of the negotiations process. The Arab Group also underscores the interdependence of the five key issues of the negotiations and their common elements, which should be addressed in a manner that preserves their interdependence and achieves the comprehensive reform of the Council. As we have previously underlined, the position of the States members of the League of Arab States regarding the reform of the Security Council is to demand permanent Arab representation, with all the legal powers of the permanent seats, in any expanded Security Council that may materialize in future. In addition, equitable representation requires proportional Arab representation in the non-permanent membership category of an expanded Security Council. There are many challenges pertaining to the issue of Council reform, most notably the right of the veto. The frequent arbitrary use of the veto has contributed to undermining the credibility of the decision-making process of the Security Council and in some cases has rendered the Council unable to shoulder its responsibilities and take the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. It is regrettable that the vast majority of the uses of the veto, especially in the past three decades, have been on issues that concern the Arab region. The primary and overarching goal of Security Council reform and expansion is to ensure that all geographic and regional groups are represented fairly and appropriately in an expanded Council. In that context, I wish to emphasize that, owing to its political, cultural and heritage characteristics, the Arab Group deserves representation as a stand-alone group in an expanded Council. The Arab Group represents nearly 350 million people and 22 States in its membership — about 12 per cent of all States Members of the United Nations. Moreover, a large part of the Council’s work and many of the issues on its agenda relate to the Arab region, so that the equitable and proportionate representation of the Arab world is required in an expanded Council in order to ensure that the Arab perspective is taken into account, thereby preserving the credibility of its actions and the legitimacy of its decisions. In connection with the improvement and development of the working methods and procedures of the Security Council, we believe it is necessary to ensure greater efficiency and transparency in the Council’s work, including by taking into consideration the need to agree on permanent rules of procedure to replace the provisional rules that have been in place for several decades. Due consideration should also be accorded to increasing the number of Security Council meetings that are open to all members. In addition, States concerned with the issues being discussed by the Council should be given a role in the decision-making process, and meetings should provide genuine opportunities for non-Council members to participate in Council discussions. The number of closed meetings and informal consultations should be reduced to a minimum, so that holding them would become the exception and not the rule. Furthermore, resolutions and statements considered by the Council should be made accessible to the States concerned, which should be consulted and able to participate in meetings that concern them, in accordance with Article 31 of the Charter of the United Nations. The Arab Group calls on the Security Council’s subsidiary organs and other committees to provide all relevant information on their activities to the entire United Nations membership. We also stress the need for the Council to strictly adhere to its mandate as stipulated in the Charter. The Arab Group underscores its support for upholding the unity of the general membership and its opposition to undermining the credibility of the intergovernmental negotiations by imposing any steps that do not enjoy consensus among Member States. Deadlines that may impede genuine and comprehensive reform should not be set hastily. In that context, I would like to stress that it is important for all documents issued within the framework of the negotiations process to accurately reflect the views of all Member States and groups, including those of the Arab Group, in order to guarantee that States’ positions and proposals are the basis for negotiations, in line with decision 62/557, and to uphold the principle of Member States’ ownership of the intergovernmental negotiations. The Arab Group welcomes the progress made during previous sessions in identifying the common elements among States’ positions and proposals and identifying the areas of divergence that warrant further discussion. There is much convergence among States and groups of States on the five negotiation issues. Achieving further progress will therefore require continuing the discussions in a positive atmosphere with the aim of finding common ground in order to reach consensus on a solution that enjoys the widest possible political acceptance and achieves a genuine, comprehensive and acceptable reform of the Security Council. In conclusion, the Arab Group remains determined to continue to participate effectively and positively in the upcoming round of intergovernmental negotiations. We are open to carrying out consultations with all other negotiating groups with the goal of achieving a genuine and comprehensive reform of the Security Council in a transparent and constructive spirit.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of African States. We thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s debate on agenda item 127, “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council”. We acknowledge your opening remarks and wish to reiterate our commitment to achieving progress on this very important issue. At the outset, let me extend our sincere condolences to all States Members of the United Nations for the loss of life caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. It is our hope that the pandemic will soon be a thing of the past, as no country is safe until every country is safe from the virus. Let me also take this opportunity to once again congratulate you, Sir, on behalf of the African Group, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its seventy-fifth session  — the diamond jubilee anniversary of our Organization. We look forward to working with you, Sir, and all Member States in order to achieve the widest possible consensus on the reform of the Security Council. We express our sincere congratulations to Her Excellency Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar, and Her Excellency Ms. Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Poland, on their appointment and reappointment, respectively, as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations. We would like to assure them of our support in building on the gains made so far in the reform process. We would also like to thank the outgoing co-Chair, Her Excellency Mrs. Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, for her stewardship of the intergovernmental negotiations process between the seventy-second and seventy-fourth sessions of the General Assembly. Africa remains convinced of the need for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system, which will significantly contribute to upholding the principles, objectives and ideals of the Charter of the United Nations for a fairer world based on universalism, equity and regional balance. To that end, we remain true and faithful to decision 62/557 and other relevant General Assembly decisions for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council on all five clusters, taking into account their interconnectedness. We therefore reject any piecemeal or selective approach, which would contradict and violate the spirit of a comprehensive reform. As Coordinator of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on the Reform of the Security Council, the Vice-President of Sierra Leone, His Excellency Mr. Mohamed Juldeh Jalloh, reiterated during the high-level general debate in September the concerns of Africa regarding its lack of representation in the permanent category and its underrepresentation in the non-permanent category of the Security Council. Let me echo the Coordinator’s statement: “As Coordinator of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on the reform of the Security Council, I should underscore that the people of Africa are convinced now more than ever before that the present geopolitical realities and the current global health pandemic are compelling for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to make way for the representation of Africa in the permanent category and to address its underrepresentation in the non-permanent category of the Council.” (A/75/PV.9, annex XVI) Africa remains the only region without representation in the permanent category of the Security Council, and it is also underrepresented in the non-permanent category. Africa’s demand for two permanent seats  — with all the rights and prerogatives of current members, including the right of the veto — and two additional non-permanent seats is a matter of common justice and of the right to have an equal say in decision-making on issues of international peace and security, in particular on matters that affect the African region. It is time that we address that long- standing injustice and imbalance, which is perpetuated in the current configuration of the Security Council, without any further delay. The Common African Position, as articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, is well known to the Assembly. However, for the purposes of clarity and precision, let me reiterate that Africa demands “not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership, including the right of [the] veto, and five non-permanent seats. Even though Africa is opposed in principle to the veto, it is of the view that, so long as it exists and as a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council.” Our call for the immediate redress of the African demand for an equitable representation of Africa on the Security Council continues to garner broad support from States Members of the United Nations. In particular, it was noted by the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations in their letter to the President of the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session, in which they detailed their assessment of the session and commented that they had “heard the growing support being expressed to redress the historical injustice against Africa and to ensure better African representation in a reformed Council, in line with the Common African Position”. That development further reinforces the credibility and viability of the Common African Position on the reform of the Security Council. It builds on the broad support that our position continues to garner from the United Nations membership and signifies that the Common African Position remains unchallenged in its claim to redress the historical injustice of not being represented in the permanent category and underrepresented in the non-permanent category of the Security Council. In view of the foregoing and with regard to the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations, let me highlight the following on behalf of the African Group. First, the African Group requests a discussion during this session on the working methods of the Security Council, in particular how it impacts on the work of the United Nations, especially with respect to the inequity in the composition of the Council and the disadvantaged situation of non-permanent seats in terms of institutional knowledge and decision-making. Secondly, the African Group requests a dedicated meeting during this session to discuss the status of the various intergovernmental negotiations documents and what needs to be done going forward. That is critical to making progress in the intergovernmental negotiations in order to rationalize the various views and positions of Member States. Thirdly, we are concerned by the fact that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted discussions during the seventy-fourth session. We therefore hope that Member States will be able to make up for lost time during this session. We are hopeful that in-person meetings will continue despite the ongoing pandemic and that there will be no disruption of the upcoming session. In fulfilment of the forthright vision of our leaders at the 2005 World Summit, we reiterate that we will work with all Member States in an open, transparent, inclusive and membership-driven process with a view to achieving progress that will lead to the ultimate realization of making the Security Council more broadly representative, democratic, effective and transparent in order to enhance the legitimacy of its decisions. We encourage you, Sir, as the guarantor of this process, to use your good offices to appeal to Member States to own the process by actively participating in a constructive manner. At this juncture, the African Group would like to express its profound appreciation and gratitude to Member States and interest groups for clearly and unambiguously expressing support for the Common African Position, as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. As we work to instil new life in the reform agenda this year, let me conclude by reiterating that Africa remains firmly united in our commitment to a comprehensive reform, as stipulated by decision 62/557 and other relevant General Assembly decisions. We are ready to work with Member States in canvassing support for the Common African Position in order to correct the historical injustice done to Africa and achieve our collective quest for a Security Council that reflects the world as it is today.

Colombia is grateful for the convening of this plenary meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the reform of the Security Council  — a matter of paramount importance for the entire membership. I would also like to congratulate the Ambassadors of Poland and Qatar, respectively, on their appointments as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations that will be held in the first half of 2021. In that regard, my delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Ambassador of Italy, Mrs. Mariangela Zappia, on behalf of the countries of the Uniting for Consensus group. I would now like to make the following remarks in my national capacity. As one of the founding Members of the United Nations, Colombia participated in the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations at San Francisco. Since then, my country has consistently played an active role in the Organization based on a firm belief in multilateralism and strict adherence to international law with a view to building an equitable and rules- based international order. In that connection, my country reiterates that the intergovernmental negotiations are the only legitimate platform for debate on the reform of the Security Council. We trust that progress will be made in 2021 in the substantive discussions on the five thematic clusters established by decision 62/557 in 2008 — the categories of membership, the question of the veto, regional representation, the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods, and the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. In that regard, I wish to emphasize that a text-based negotiation is not acceptable to Colombia, given that we must continue to focus on discussing substantive issues rather than concentrating on procedural matters. For that reason, my delegation cannot accept any proposal that seeks to establish new rules or a change in format that differs from the current intergovernmental negotiations. My delegation also believes that consensus is the only possible way to achieve that goal and that we must persevere in seeking to accomplish it, taking into account the concerns and aspirations shared by all for a more representative, democratic, transparent and effective Security Council, with clear mechanisms of accountability for carrying out its mandate. In order to achieve a constructive and comprehensive reform of the Security Council, Colombia believes that the most appropriate path is to create new seats in the category of non-permanent members with the traditional two-year term, as well as new non-permanent seats with a term greater than two years and the possibility of immediate re-election. Longer-term seats would respond to the legitimate interest on the part of some States Members of the United Nations to make a greater contribution to the Council’s work during the exercise of their mandate and at the same time would promote a fairer system of rotation for the entire membership. For Colombia, any future expansion of permanent seats with the right of the veto would not only hinder the prospects for a just and comprehensive reform but also contradict the democratic principles, equity and rights of all Member States to participate in collectively building international peace and security. That would serve only to deepen the existing imbalances and difficulties. We wish to make it clear that Colombia does not support initiatives that seek to extend privileges and different rights to new members, and we do not see how expanding those prerogatives could increase transparency in the Security Council’s working methods. The model proposed by the Uniting for Consensus group opens the door to developing countries from all regions of the world so that they have an opportunity to work towards, and contribute to, the maintenance of international peace and security on an equal footing. In that regard, we reaffirm the principles of democracy and representativeness by ensuring regional balance. As we strive today to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and face challenges such as overcoming the repercussions of the coronavirus disease pandemic, climate change and the emergence of information and communication technologies, among many other challenges, we cannot ignore the fact that the global governance regime that we intend to reform is necessarily based on strengthening the capacities of the United Nations as a whole. That is why the Security Council cannot simply remain a forum that is anchored in the past and fosters an isolated competition of interests among its members, to which access is granted exactly as it was seven decades ago. It must instead serve as an epicentre of cooperation that is highly attuned to the challenges confronting international peace and security today. In conclusion, I would like to quote former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who, in his report entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”, stated: “Collective security today depends on accepting that the threats which each region of the world perceives as most urgent are in fact equally so for all” (A/59/2005, para. 79). A reformed Security Council must therefore represent a robust platform for the participation of all Member States. It is high time to dream and build the United Nations of tomorrow. It is incumbent on us to respond to current challenges and needs and build a better future for the next generations. We dream of a Security Council that is based on the five principles that we have been promoting through the Uniting for Consensus group: transparency, representativeness, accountability, democracy and effectiveness.

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting. I would also like to congratulate Ambassador Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Ambassador Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, on their appointments as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly. They can count on China’s full support in carrying out their mandate. I also thank Ambassador Nusseibeh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, and Ambassador Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, for their contributions to advancing the discussions on the reform of the Security Council as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during the previous session. Under their able leadership, the intergovernmental negotiations delivered important results under the extremely difficult circumstances caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic, ensuring the continuity of our work and laying the foundations for the intergovernmental negotiations during the current session. We recently commemorated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations. Seventy-five years ago, the peoples of the world accomplished a great victory against Fascism through battles that took a heavy toll of human lives. The United Nations was founded and a decision was made on the current structure of the Security Council. For 75 years, the Security Council has been actively performing the sacred duty entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations, and it plays an irreplaceable role in the maintenance of the international peace and security. We are now at a new turning point in history. China supports the Council in keeping pace with the times and evolving through necessary and reasonable reform so that it may better shoulder the responsibilities entrusted to it by the United Nations Charter, better serve the interests of the peoples of all countries and benefit us all. The key to undertaking a reform that benefits all is to ensure a clear direction, without which the reform will be less effective and will contradict the original intentions and expectations of Member States. The reform must be fair. The collective rise of developing countries are the defining feature of today’s international landscape. The lack of balance between the North and the South in the composition of the Council, with an overrepresentation of developed countries, is a significant driver of the current round of negotiations. The only way to ensure fairness is to increase the representation and voice of developing countries, especially African countries, and to address the historical injustice endured by African countries. Any reform must include equality. All countries — whether big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor — should be able to benefit from the reform and participate more meaningfully in the Council’s work. There are today still more than 60 countries that have never served a term on the Council. Some small and medium-sized countries sit on the Council on average once in every five decades. The reform must therefore prioritize opportunities for small and medium-sized countries to sit on the Council and participate in its decision-making processes. The reform must not be made at the expense of equal opportunities for those countries and must not cater to the self-interests of a select few. That type of reform is not what is needed for the majority of countries and will not help generate the results we need. The reform must also be based on consensus. The reform of the Security Council involves the fundamental interests of each and every State Member of the United Nations, and it is only through consensus-based reform that we can ensure the Council’s legitimacy and authority, yield results that will stand the test of time and history and make the Council’s work more democratic, transparent and efficient. That is the only way we can avoid division and confrontation. According to decision 62/557, the intergovernmental negotiations are the only legitimate platform for Member States to discuss the reform of the Security Council. China supports the current session of intergovernmental negotiations as a means of pursuing a Member State-led process and holding in-depth discussions on the five key issues through informal plenary meetings in order to reach a comprehensive solution. We need to take the reform forward through the intergovernmental negotiations process. At the same time, we need to face the reality that there is a wide divergence of views on the direction of, and approach to, the reform of the Council. Based on past experience, until the right conditions have been met, rushing into text-based negotiations, merging documents into a single text, setting artificial timelines and forcing through premature reform proposals are not conducive to the healthy development of the reform process and will instead serve to intensify opposition, trigger confrontation and undermine the intergovernmental negotiations process. China is strongly opposed to that. The scheduling of the intergovernmental negotiations meetings should be consensus-based, drawing on extensive prior solicitation of views from all parties. The number of meetings held should be linked to the effectiveness of our discussions, and we should avoid holding meetings simply for the sake of meeting. Given the complexity and sensitivity of the reform process, China supports the position of the President of the General Assembly, which is supported by many other countries, that in-person meetings are still the most appropriate format for the intergovernmental negotiations because they facilitate more direct communication in order to forge consensus and dispel any misunderstandings. The intergovernmental negotiations are informal plenary meetings of the General Assembly. Live webcasting, maintaining meeting records and the application of the General Assembly’s rules of procedure, as requested by some States, are clearly not appropriate for informal meetings of the General Assembly, since they contradict decision 62/557 and well-established General Assembly practices. The United Nations Office of Legal Affairs expressed its unequivocal view in that regard. Under the current circumstances, our priority should be to hold substantive discussions on the five key issues. China calls on all parties to demonstrate the necessary political will and to participate actively and constructively in the intergovernmental negotiations so that, through consultations and understanding, we can build consensus and steer the reform in a direction that serves the common interests of Member States and the long-term development of the United Nations, while ensuring that the reform of the Security Council benefits all.

At the outset, I should like to echo others in congratulating our colleagues from Poland and Qatar on their appointments as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, as well as to thank our colleague from the United Arab Emirates for her contribution during the previous session. This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council. Much has changed since 1945. The United Nations membership has expanded from 51 to 193 States, and together we face new and complex global challenges ranging from rapid technological advancement and disruption to unprecedented security, economic and health challenges, such as the coronavirus disease pandemic. Against that backdrop, we need to think about what the next 75 years will look like for the United Nations and how we can ensure it continues to deliver for all nations. Australia has long been a supporter of meaningful reform that seeks to ensure that the United Nations is fit for purpose, effective, open and transparent and accountable to Member States. The Security Council needs to evolve in order to ensure that it can act swiftly and decisively in a rapidly changing security environment. Australia has been consistent in urging for the reform of the Security Council on three points. First, in order to be relevant and effective, the Council needs to better reflect contemporary geopolitical realities, with greater representation for Asia, Africa and Latin America. Secondly, it must be more accountable to Member States. The Council’s working methods must be improved, including through better coordination with the General Assembly, the Peacebuilding Commission and other partners; ensuring greater use of coherent analytical information across the United Nations system; and better consultation with troop- and police-contributing countries. Thirdly, better standards need to be developed on the use of the veto so that its use is more transparent and limited. Despite many years of discussions, progress on the reform of the Security Council has been incremental at best. We urge the intergovernmental negotiations to move to text-based negotiations, which would build the momentum needed to effect change. The intergovernmental negotiations held during the seventy- fifth session should be a direct continuation of those held at the previous session, so as to avoid repetition. We should make the intergovernmental negotiations a more open and transparent process to which the rules of procedure of the General Assembly apply. The urgency for reforming United Nations institutions is clear. We urge Member States to unite in our commitment to making tangible progress towards Security Council reform so that the Council may be better equipped to maintain international peace and security and better address the challenges of today and tomorrow.

At the outset, allow me to congratulate Her Excellency Ms. Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Her Excellency Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, on their appointments as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council for the current session, as well as to assure them of my delegation’s support and cooperation throughout the process. The seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations offers a unique opportunity to keep the international system on the path of dynamic and effective multilateralism and a rules-based international order, thereby upholding the principles and ideals of the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirming the central role of the Organization in global governance. We cannot afford to ignore the realities of the twenty- first century. Therefore, a meaningful reform of the United Nations system to make the Security Council more representative, relevant and responsive to peace and security challenges is now more necessary than ever. To that end, we remain true to decision 62/557 and reaffirm the relevance of the intergovernmental negotiations as the only legitimate negotiating forum to advance our collective endeavour on the issue of Security Council reform, encompassing the five main clusters and taking into account their interlinkages. Any disaggregated or selective approach is likely to jeopardize the ultimate objective of comprehensive reform. We would also like to reaffirm our support for the framework document circulated on 31 July 2015, which accurately reflects the positions of Member States and interest groups, in particular the Common African Position on the reform of the Security Council, which is widely recognized by the Assembly. We welcome the fact that such broad support was rightly reaffirmed by the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations at the previous session in their letter dated 29 July. As long as it is not represented in the permanent category and underrepresented in the non-permanent category of the Security Council, Africa continues to endure a historical injustice that must be redressed along the lines of the continent’s legitimate demands  — as proposed in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration  — by granting the African continent two permanent seats and two additional non-permanent seats on the Council. As long as it exists, the veto must be extended to the new permanent members on the basis of the principle of equity and sovereign equality, which are the bedrock of the Charter of the United Nations. Despite the unfortunate situation caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic, which led to the interruption of the intergovernmental negotiations process during the seventy-fourth session, the current session should be an opportunity to sustain momentum and — beyond the mere preservation of the gains made so far — to address some of the most intractable issues underpinning the process. We can no longer afford to pursue our discussions without achieving concrete results or progress. It remains critical to engage collectively towards achieving a comprehensive reform that is likely to garner the broadest possible consensus. We encourage the co-Chairs to reflect the views of Member States with clear attribution in any document that they may produce at the end of the intergovernmental negotiations at this session. Such an approach is likely to enhance trust in, and the credibility of, the process. We share the view that Member States, in conjunction with the President of the General Assembly and the co-Chairs, should agree at the start of the intergovernmental negotiations session on the number of meetings, the type of outcomes sought and the timing of the release of documents. Given the importance of the discussions on the reform of the Security Council, my delegation is of the view that in-person meetings remain the ideal format for the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations meetings. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize the importance of building on the progress already made with the aim of fulfilling the vision of our leaders at the 2005 World Summit  — to make the Security Council more broadly representative, democratic, effective, legitimate and accessible. As a member of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government, Algeria stands ready to engage constructively in the intergovernmental negotiations process, which must be membership-driven, inclusive and transparent in order to be successful. My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone and Kuwait on behalf of the Group of African States and the Group of Arab States, respectively.

Spain aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy, who outlined in detail the position of the Uniting for Consensus group in this annual debate on the reform of the Security Council. I will therefore refrain from speaking about the detailed position of the Uniting for Consensus group and will simply share some brief and complementary reflections on the reform of the Security Council. Before doing so, let me join previous speakers in welcoming the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, the Permanent Representatives of Poland and Qatar, who can rest assured of Spain’s support as they carry out their duties during the upcoming round of intergovernmental negotiations. This is a Member State-led process in which the leadership of the co-Chairs is essential. At the outset, allow me to renew Spain’s support for the framework of intergovernmental negotiations. Strengthening multilateralism and the rules-based international order underpinning it necessarily involves strengthening the United Nations. In order to strengthen the institution, we must reform the Security Council based on consensus, which is the only guarantee for broad and shared support for any such reform. It is true that progress has been slow. It is only logical that should be the case, because we aspire to a comprehensive reform that is agreed upon by consensus. Spain does not want partial reforms or reforms without consensus. If the intergovernmental negotiations have not made swifter progress, it is because there is no agreement on some of the central elements of the debate, and also because of the intransigence of the positions held by some States. However, we must not let that slow progress hide the fact that progress has been made on specific issues and there is consensus on some elements of the five thematic clusters. For Spain, the only way to achieve consensus around a proposal for the comprehensive reform of the Security Council is for all of us to review our initial positions, show flexibility and demonstrate the ability to listen and respond to the points raised by other Member States. The evolution of the position of the Uniting for Consensus group is a practical and clear example of that capacity and flexibility and our desire for dialogue and to forge agreements. We aspire to a session of intergovernmental negotiations in which there is more dialogue and further progress. With regard to the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations that will begin next year, Spain requests the co-Chairs to ensure predictability by providing a complete schedule of meetings and a clear indication of the thematic cluster or issues to be discussed at each one of those meetings. That is the best way to ensure a fruitful discussion. As a member of the Uniting for Consensus group, Spain remains convinced that the reform of the Security Council must be based on the principle of the sovereign equality of States so as to move towards a more democratic, representative and transparent Security Council  — one that enjoys greater legitimacy and is more effective. As the Assembly is aware, we advocate a reform model that bolsters regional representation in a more democratic and transparent manner, without preventing those that legitimately aspire to take on greater temporary responsibilities from doing so. We will continue to strive to avoid the dynamics of a zero-sum logic based on seeking profit at the expense of others. We believe that falling into the trap of such logic would undermine the negotiations and necessarily lead to a negative outcome, which would weaken the Organization and cause us all to lose out in the long run.

I wish first of all to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate on one of the most important issues on the agenda of the General Assembly and for your opening remarks. My delegation fully aligns itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group. We also greatly appreciate your decision, Sir, to appoint Her Excellency Ambassador Alya Al-Thani of Qatar and Her Excellency Ambassador Joanna Wronecka of Poland as the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process, and we wish to congratulate both of them on their appointments. We have full confidence in their proven experience and skills to guide the intergovernmental negotiations process towards a positive outcome. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates for her contributions as co-Chair during the previous sessions of the General Assembly. Let us acknowledge at the outset that the multilateral system, including the United Nations even as it embarks on its seventy-fifth anniversary, is at an inflection point in history. The commitment of those who conceived the United Nations has weakened, although there is light at the end of the tunnel. On the one hand, the Security Council has accumulated all of the power and authority of other United Nations organs, including the General Assembly. On the other hand, owing to the tensions among its permanent members, the Security Council is in virtual paralysis in addressing the existing and emerging threats to international peace and security. The reform of the Security Council must be part of a broader revival of the multilateral system, as was conceived under the Charter of the United Nations. The Council must be made more representative, responsive, democratic and transparent. At the same time, the balance among the Council and the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and other United Nations organs must be restored so as to reinvigorate the entire multilateral system. The proposal of the Uniting for Consensus group for Security Council reform reflects the most suitable basis for an agreement on the comprehensive reform of the Council. To supplement what was stated by my Italian colleague and other UFC representatives, let me cite the following reasons to endorse the UFC proposal. First, our proposal is fair and equitable. It respects the principle of the sovereign equality of States and does not discriminate between States. Secondly, the changed reality of the General Assembly is that today there are 193 States Members as opposed to 100 when the Council was last reformed. The UFC group therefore wishes to increase the opportunity for all Member States, including small and medium-sized States, to secure larger and more frequent representation on the Council. Thirdly, our proposal would enhance the accountability of Council members through the democratic mechanism of periodic elections and, if agreed, re-elections. Fourthly, our proposal is simple. It proposes a direct amendment to the Charter of the United Nations for the Assembly to approve. Fifthly, the UFC proposal is realistic. If approved, it will obtain the largest possible support in the General Assembly and the essential ratification of all five permanent members of the Security Council. Finally, the UFC proposal is flexible. It can, through variable arrangements, accommodate the aspirations and interests of the majority of the United Nations membership, including Africa and other regional groups, such as the Group of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The UFC group does not endorse the bid of some countries to become permanent members of the Council, for several good reasons, as follows. First, the problem cannot be the solution. The oft-cited deficiencies of the Security Council flow primarily from the increasingly frequent inability of the five permanent members to agree on early and equitable responses to conflicts and disputes. Adding new permanent members would multiply the possibilities for paralysis. We should not throw oil on fire. Secondly, the acceptance of a few States as permanent members would run contrary to the Charter’s principle of sovereign equality. The provision in the United Nations Charter for five permanent members was an aberration with regard to the principle of sovereign equality. We could not change that upon admission to the United Nations, but that does not imply that we as a sovereign equal State should accept the further compromise of that principle at a time when we would now be a party to any decision to approve such a provision. Thirdly, the proposal to endorse new permanent members would reduce the possibilities for the rest of the United Nations membership to be equitably represented on the Council, because five or six new permanent members would mathematically reduce the number of the additional 10 or 11 seats for the 180 or more other States Members of the United Nations. Fourthly, the proposal to add individual new permanent members would not command the widest possible support of the General Assembly and would not be endorsed by the five permanent members, thereby rendering the proposal infructuous and consigning to oblivion the prospects for Security Council expansion. Let me add that we respect the achievements and contributions of some of the members of the Group of Four, but in their regions and beyond there are other States with equally good credentials for serving international peace and security. Their self- identification as candidates for permanent membership is arbitrary and self-serving, if not arrogant. The one country that is most insistent on permanent membership for itself comes from our region. That country has a proclivity for the use or threat of use of force. It has waged 20 wars since its independence. It has fomented terrorism and instability across our region, especially against Pakistan. We have clear and ample evidence of that State-sponsored terrorism. It stands in violation of Security Council resolutions that call for the final disposal of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir, based on the exercise of the right of self-determination, through a fair and free plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. It has deployed 900,000 troops to crush the legitimate struggle for freedom of the Kashmiri people. It is committing massive human rights violations, which are recorded in United Nations documents, and it threatens aggression on a daily basis against Pakistan and violates the ceasefire by killing innocent civilians across the Line of Control in Pakistan’s territory. The UFC group sees the African position differently from the bid of the Group of Four for permanent membership. The African Group is seeking to correct a historical injustice to the continent. It is seeking a larger number of non-permanent seats and two empowered permanent seats for Africa. The UFC group is prepared to explore with the African Group how its regional approach could be adapted to enable all regions to be able to select their own candidates for membership in an expanded Security Council. We hope to clarify and promote convergence on several issues emanating from the African position. That is an exercise and example of our flexibility. To those who have expressed support in the Assembly for the African position, including the Group of Four, I would like to ask: are they prepared to accept the African regional approach to the expansion of the Security Council? The General Assembly decided unanimously that Security Council reform should be achieved with the largest possible agreement, in other words, through consensus. Consensus can be built through an interactive process in the intergovernmental negotiations. That interactive process can be best pursued through in-person meetings, as in the past. We hope that the co-Chairs will be able to provide a schedule for the intergovernmental negotiations meetings for this session and indicate the issues to which each meeting will be devoted. In that process, we will need to reach broad agreement on each of the clusters of issues involved in the comprehensive reform of the Council and the interlinkages between them. Only then can we attempt to articulate those areas of agreement. The two documents before the intergovernmental negotiations indicate the wide differences that exist among Member States. Clearly, it is too early now to consider text-based negotiations in the light of those wide divergences. A consensus can be built through mutual accommodation and flexibility. Positions are strongly held and reflect core national security interests. No one should expect that others will be obliged to compromise their positions through coercion or threats or threats to resort to other formats and procedures. Any resort to voting will be contrary to the agreement to promote the widest possible agreement. It would kill the negotiating process and deal a fatal blow to the hopes for the early reform of the Security Council. Similarly, webcasts and records of the negotiating process are likely to diminish rather than enlarge the prospects for compromise and convergence. The informal nature of the intergovernmental negotiations is essential for productive negotiations. Let us proceed constructively. Let us proceed cautiously and deliberately in the intergovernmental negotiations so as to explore and build areas of convergence. That is the only avenue to an early and comprehensive reform of the Security Council.

We thank you, Sir, for convening today’s meeting, and we welcome this important annual debate on Security Council reform. We also look forward to the next round of intergovernmental negotiations. I would like to start by offering my personal congratulations to my colleagues the Ambassadors of Poland and Qatar on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for this session. They can rest assured that they will have our full support and cooperation throughout. From a personal standpoint, I previously worked for many years on issues of constitutional reform, not only in my home country of Canada but in many other countries as well. It is a complex and difficult task, with many stakeholders, many key constituencies and very high stakes. In the case of the Security Council, its power to compel States on issues of peace and conflict requires us to be deliberate and prudent and to ensure that a reformed, expanded Council is both legitimate and effective. Canada is very proud to be a member of the Uniting for Consensus group. The Assembly has already heard today from several representatives of our group. I fully endorse the statement that was made today by my Italian colleague, Ambassador Zappia. She explained very clearly how our group is committed to a reform- based process that draws on the principles of consensus, transparency and inclusivity. (spoke in French) The Uniting for Consensus proposals have certainly evolved over time. We have taken stock of the positions of other Member States and groups throughout several negotiation cycles. Canada will continue to do its best to achieve the broadest possible consensus, given that Security Council reform is of the utmost importance. It is necessary and will require a sustained effort. The aspirations and legitimate expectations of many Member States are at the heart of the issue, as are national interests and fundamental principles, in ensuring that the Security Council is representative, responsible, democratic, transparent and effective. (spoke in English) Canada will work together with Member States from Africa, small island developing States, small States and all developing countries, as well as cross- regional groups, in order to ensure that they have expanded representation on the Security Council. But it is not just about the size and form of the Council. Its methods, the veto and longer terms for non-permanent members are all elements for deliberation and for which we must also strive for the largest possible consensus. Again speaking from a personal point of view, I can say that, on behalf of my delegation, I am ready to listen carefully to all in the Assembly. I am ready to carefully consider Canada’s positions in the light of what we hear. And I am ready to work with the co-Chairs to create the space that will allow those first two aspects to come to fruition.

First of all, I would like to express our gratitude for the outstanding work carried out by the Ambassadors of the United Arab Emirates and Poland in the difficult task of co-facilitating the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform during the seventy- fourth session of the General Assembly, under the extraordinary circumstances caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic. I also wish to congratulate Ambassador Wronecka of Poland and Ambassador Al-Thani of Qatar on their appointments as co-facilitators for the current session and to assure them that Argentina will continue to cooperate constructively in pursuit of tangible progress on this important issue. Notwithstanding the fact that Argentina aligns itself the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group, I wish to underscore a number of specific points. Barely two months ago, in the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), we committed to instilling new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council. We all know that will be possible only if we renew our political will to move towards a solution that enjoys the broadest possible political agreement. The UFC group is convinced that we must take determined steps towards the comprehensive reform of the Council and that its reform must not be a priority only for the foreign policy of those that aspire to be permanent members. Argentina reiterates its commitment to a negotiating process that is governed by the principles of transparency and inclusiveness and a spirit of flexibility and reaffirms its deep-rooted multilateral vocation to achieve a successful outcome. Together with the Uniting for Consensus group, we stand ready to continue to strive for a viable and realistic reform, exploring interim and alternative formulas that will enable us to reach the broadest possible consensus while respecting the equality of States and an adequate rotation of membership. Argentina believes that, in order to make concrete progress during the current session of the General Assembly and achieve the broadest possible political support for Security Council reform, it is essential to find a common denominator that is capable of bringing positions closer together and finding an agreement that is acceptable to all. We need to continue our substantive discussions and work towards reaching greater convergences. Far from achieving that, seeking procedural shortcuts or diverting discussions towards issues that are outside the mandate granted to us by decision 62/557 will only entrench the positions of which we are all aware and drive us further from reaching the political agreement that we all agree we need to achieve. The Uniting for Consensus group has shown flexibility and a willingness to work towards reaching a solution of compromise, based on new non-permanent members with longer terms and the possibility of immediate re-election. That responds to the fact that the proposal to increase the number of non-permanent members is unanimously supported by all Member States. As stated by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, there is also consensus on the need to correct the underrepresentation of certain regions, in particular the African continent. The Uniting for Consensus proposal addresses that concern and is the only compromise proposal submitted in recent years that aims to address in a balanced and fair manner the aspirations expressed by the various groups taking part in the deliberations. The Uniting for Consensus proposal aims to achieve a reform of the Security Council that is equally satisfactory for the Organization’s entire membership, without placing national aspirations above the common good. The sovereign equality of States  — a principle defended by Argentina even before the founding of the Organization itself — will be honoured only by ensuring the conditions to enable all Member States to have access to non-permanent seats on the Security Council, avoiding privileges for a select few countries and giving greater priority to equitable regional representation. The issue of the veto should be better debated in view of its scope, its implications for reform and its consequences for the credibility of the Organization. Argentina believes that the veto restricts, diminishes and limits the Council’s actions, and we therefore support abolishing it. As long as that is not possible, Argentina will adhere to the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as the French- Mexican initiative. Improving the working methods of the Council continues to be an issue of the utmost importance for Argentina. We have taken every opportunity to advocate for a Security Council that works in an open and transparent manner and is accountable for its actions to the entire Organization. In that regard, Argentina hopes that the principles of democracy and accountability will continue to guide the process during the coming round of negotiations, thereby fostering the broadest participation of Member States. The year ahead will undoubtedly present challenges to our work. The Assembly can count on our collaboration and flexibility in order to achieve concrete results that reflect the commitment of all and not the imposition of a few.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this meeting. We greatly appreciate your commitment to the Security Council reform process. Turkey aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. I will make the following remarks in my national capacity. The challenges we have faced recently serve to underline the importance of international cooperation. Today the need to strengthen global solidarity and cooperation is greater than ever before. That effort will start here at the United Nations — the very heart and soul of multilateralism. Unfortunately, even in these difficult times the Security Council has failed on several occasions to carry out its mandate and respond to crises in an adequate manner. There is a growing gap between the Council’s responsibilities and its performance. The Council’s lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the public around the world is staggering. We all agree that the Security Council must be more transparent, representative, accountable and effective, and we all agree that the current composition of the Security Council’s membership does not reflect the realities of our time. It is a historical relic from the end of the Second World War. But the remedy for those problems cannot be found in repeating the same mistake by according privileges to a select few. The reform of the Security Council is an issue with broad implications for the national interests of Member States as well as the work of the United Nations. Our approach must therefore be comprehensive and inclusive and aimed at achieving consensus. If all Member States are equal, then any reform that serves only a minority cannot be imposed on the entire membership. We need to focus on the common good and not on narrowly defined national interests. The insistence on increasing the number of permanent members on the Council for the benefit of a few Member States has been the major reason for the lack of progress made in the reform process. We support increasing the number of elected seats and the chance for all Member States to be represented in the Council. No matter how big or small and whether they be developed or less developed, all Member States deserve a better chance to sit on the Council. The power of the veto, on the other hand, has served only the national interests of those who hold it. Adding more of the same power to the Council will not serve the common good. On the contrary, that is a recipe for greater dysfunctionality and less accountability. If we are serious about making progress in the reform process, we need to focus on the attainable objectives that serve the common good. Turkey firmly believes in the virtue of the membership-driven nature of the reform process within the intergovernmental negotiations. We strongly believe in the power of dialogue and oppose any procedural shortcuts. We have full confidence in the Permanent Representative of Poland, Ambassador Joanna Wronecka, and the Permanent Representative of Qatar, Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, to steer this process as co-facilitators. They can count on our full cooperation and support. We call on all Member States to work together constructively for the common good in order to achieve the widest possible agreement.

Mexico aligns itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. We thank the President of the General Assembly for convening this important debate on the reform of the Security Council. We welcome the co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations for 2021, Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka of Poland and Alya Al-Thani of Qatar, to whom we offer our full support in successfully carrying out their work. The need to reform the Security Council is of particular relevance in the context of the commemoration of its seventy-fifth anniversary, amid the challenges of the current pandemic and the calling into question of multilateralism. Solidarity, international cooperation and assistance for sustainable development must be strengthened like never before. Those are concepts and principles of enormous value, not only in the ideological sphere but also, and above all, on the ground. We cannot achieve global well-being if only local, isolated and selfish solutions are pursued, insofar as they seek only to ensure the well-being of a nation or group of countries. The current framework therefore prompts us to recall the conditions that led to the creation of the Security Council, with a view to soberly evaluating its achievements and recognizing its shortcomings. The intention expressed in the Charter of the United Nations to designate five permanent members of the Security Council emanated from the conditions at the end of the Second World War. The unanimous vote of those five members in the Council’s decision-making was implemented as a means of avoiding the stalemate that afflicted the League of Nations. The joint declaration issued by the permanent members during the San Francisco Conference on 7 June 1945 is underpinned by the fundamental principle that the so-called veto is more of a responsibility than a privilege. Nevertheless, that provision of the Charter did not enjoy the full agreement of the United Nations membership. The use of the veto calls into question the sovereign equality that must prevail among States. It does not foster unity, and neither does it promote the pursuit of understanding. As we have seen over the years, the veto fosters division among Council members and undermines its credibility, legitimacy and transparency in the eyes of the international community. For those reasons and many others that have already been voiced, Mexico reiterates that increasing the number of permanent members on the Security Council would not represent true reform. On the contrary, it would only reinforce the conditions that have led the Council to paralysis and it being absent when most required. The reform must result in an organ that above all benefits us collectively. The maintenance of international peace and security  — an essential mandate of the Council — cannot be subject to national interests, and even less to the perpetual privileges of a select few. In order to make progress in the negotiations, Mexico and the Uniting for Consensus group submitted a compromise formula, as outlined by the representative of Italy, representing an alternative path to achieving a comprehensive and realistic reform based on the principles established in decision 62/557. A Security Council in those terms would be more democratic, representative, effective and transparent. A comprehensive reform of the Council would involve the expansion of seats for democratically elected non-permanent members. But that is not enough; its working methods must also be decidedly improved. While the elimination of the veto has been a legitimate aspiration of many countries  — including Mexico  — since the Organization was founded, we recognize that limiting its use is a proposal capable of precipitating immediate and tangible effects. Support for the French-Mexican initiative to limit the use of the veto to avoid mass atrocities already has 105 signatories. That proves beyond objection that a majority of the United Nations membership wants the Council to correct its working methods and permanent members to act with greater responsibility. The right to the veto cannot be considered an award or privilege, whetting the appetite for an expanded number of permanent members of the Security Council. Such an approach would lead us away from the democratization of the United Nations and the quest for an improved balance and greater representation of the countries and regions within the Council itself. In short, Mexico today issues the following call with a view to working constructively in the coming round of intergovernmental negotiations. First, it is necessary to generate agreements in order to advance the process. We already have several matters of convergence. For instance, there is no opposition to expanding the category of non-permanent elected members, in particular with regard to greater representation for Africa, as is legitimately required. Secondly, as long as there is no agreement on a specific proposal for comprehensive reform, it is essential to continue our dialogue, but in a spirit of greater commitment and less confrontation. Thirdly, we must listen to the proposals of the negotiating groups with open-mindedness and political will. We should not dismiss proposals out of hand, but instead treat them with interest and respect, as befits any multilateral negotiation at the United Nations. Fourthly, it is important to review our positions with self-criticism and update them where appropriate. The Uniting for Consensus proposal is continually being amended, and we stand ready and willing to continue to do so. Fifthly, and finally, we all want a Security Council congruent with modern needs and challenges. Reform should not be seen as an end in itself, but rather as a means to guaranteeing a safer and more peaceful world, based on international law and cooperation. Mexico undertakes to contribute to the reform process in that way and to work to achieve the greater efficiency and transparency and enhanced accountability of the Security Council, which we will do as an elected member of that organ in 2021 and 2022.

I thank you, Sir, for convening today’s annual General Assembly debate on the important issue of Security Council reform. My delegation warmly welcomes the appointments of Ambassador Joanna Wronecka of Poland and Ambassador Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani of Qatar as co-Chairs of the forthcoming session of intergovernmental negotiations. I have strong confidence in their ability and leadership to facilitate this process in the spirit of transparency and fairness, and I assure them of my delegation’s full support. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my delegation’s sincere appreciation to Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh of the United Arab Emirates for her excellent work over the past three years as co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations. My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) group. I should now like to make the following points in my national capacity. First, we must approach Security Council reform not through the lens of national or group interests, but through deliberations on what best serves the future of the Council and the world. We all witnessed the way in which the Council responded to the global pandemic crisis. The long delay in producing a resolution to support the Secretary-General’s call for a global ceasefire demonstrates how the veto power or the threat of the veto can undermine the Council’s work. That is why an overwhelming majority of the membership consistently criticized the veto during past intergovernmental negotiations discussions. It is difficult to imagine how the addition of new permanent members with veto powers could make a new Council more effective and more responsive to international crises. Any reform must address the problem at hand, not aggravate it. Furthermore, the world will never remain static, and the composition of any reformed Council must be as flexible as possible in order to reflect the changing nature of global geopolitical dynamics. The UFC proposal aims to do precisely that. Let us consider an analogy: if we were all flying in one aeroplane, the privileged few permanent members of the Council could be compared to those seated in first class. What we need is not more first-class seats but a reform that embraces the aspirations of the wider membership towards a more democratic, representative, efficient, transparent and accountable Council. Secondly, we must strive for a democratic reform that benefits all Member States, not a select few. While we may have our differences, we all agree on a few issues: that non-permanent members should be democratically elected; that all 188 Member States that are not among the five permanent members of the Security Council aspire and deserve to serve on the Council; and that we need to improve the representation of developing countries, including Africa, small island developing States and small States. The UFC proposal to add more non-permanent members  — to be democratically elected and with full representation for each group based on equitable geography  — is a plan firmly grounded in those agreements. That is why I believe it is the most viable and democratic formula that would enjoy the widest possible support. Thirdly, we reaffirm the central role of the intergovernmental negotiations as the sole legitimate setting for the discussions on Security Council reform. In pursuing Council reform, it is imperative that we do not opt for a quick fix but work instead towards a durable reform based on the consensus of Member States. What matters more is the direction in which we are heading, not the speed at which we make progress. That is precisely why the intergovernmental negotiations that allow for frank and in-depth discussions in an informal setting are the most suitable forum to negotiate and advance Security Council reform. In that vein, it is concerning to have witnessed the recent over-emphasis by some members on procedural aspects rather than discussions of substance. We hope that the discussions in the upcoming session of intergovernmental negotiations will focus on substance and an expansion of our areas of convergence, building on the hard-won advances of previous sessions. The Republic of Korea, together with the UFC group, reaffirms our strong commitment to working with the Assembly and all groups and Member States with a view to achieving our common goal of reforming the Security Council.

At the outset, I would like to say what a privilege and interesting challenge it was to co-Chair the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform during the seventy-second, seventy-third and seventy-fourth sessions of the General Assembly. I am pleased to see my co-Chair from last year, Ambassador Wronecka of Poland, taking up the baton once again this year and providing some much-needed continuity and wisdom in the process. I wish her and Ambassador Al-Thani of Qatar all the best in shepherding the intergovernmental negotiations this year. The annual general debates on Security Council reform serve as an opportunity to look at this issue as one big picture, highlight our shared belief in the urgent need for Security Council reform and assess where we stand today. I will be sharing a few thoughts on those points based on my experience as co-Chair. The world of the twenty-first century is decidedly multipolar, and the multilateral system of today needs to better reflect that reality. The seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations has been an opportunity to reflect on the relevance of the multilateral system. One of the key takeaways from the statements made by our representatives during the high-level week of the General Assembly was the critical need to better reform the Organization in order to better address the challenges of the present and, of course, the future. And there is no denying that today’s world is very different from that of 1945, and that the tools and mechanisms that were set up for a bipolar world are no longer suited to maintaining international peace and security in a world that is multipolar and increasingly fragmented. That fragmentation that has made efforts aimed at reform more challenging in recent years. The call for the reform of the United Nations is sometimes dismissed as unrealistic or an irrelevant waste of time, but the opposite is true. If we as States Members of the United Nations fail to align the Organization with the realities of the multipolar world outside of these walls, then the United Nations will lose its relevance in the real world. It is not radical change but natural evolution that the system needs today. That is not to say that no progress has been made. Member States have made considerable efforts in recent years to make the United Nations fit for purpose. Thanks also to the leadership of the Secretary-General, we have put in motion substantive reforms of the United Nations development system, including its management structures and the peace and security architecture. The reform of the Security Council needs to be seen in the context of those broader efforts to ensure the relevance of the United Nations and its ability to function effectively and legitimately. The Security Council  — the guarantor of international peace and security  — has not kept pace with the fundamental developments in the global landscape over the past 75 years. Anyone wondering what a multipolar world without effective multilateral tools and mechanisms might look like need look no further in history than Europe on the eve of the First World War. The question of how to make the reform of the Council a reality has been on our agenda for more than 20 years, but where exactly are we in that process, and how do we move forward? If we narrow in and focus on where we are in our work, we can see that over the years, as many in this Hall have stated today, incremental progress has been made in advancing reform, and that can be built upon. First, we collectively took a decision to move away from a model of drafting new outcome documents year after year. As a result of substantial streamlining by Member States and some deep dives into the various clusters on reform, we now find ourselves with just two documents that serve as the basis of our work: the framework document and the paper on revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration. In an Organization in which the evolution of text is at the heart of our work, that denotes more convergence than divergence in our approach. Secondly, there has been a renewed focus in recent years on enhancing the working methods of the Council. The rationale is straightforward: enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council does not have to wait until the new composition of the Council is reformed. Many impactful practices can be implemented and will go a long way to making the Security Council in its current form more legitimate. Thirdly, we adopted the practice of having the co-Chairs guide the discussion by proposing focused questions for Member States to consider. That has helped our meetings move from the reiterated stating of well-known positions to a more direct dialogue among delegations with a view to opening new avenues for agreement, or at least acquiring a better understanding of each other’s positions and their underlying rationale. We believe that those innovations have prepared fertile ground for further advances to be made in the coming years. Since our work during the previous session was cut short owing to the unprecedented nature of the coronavirus disease pandemic and the majority of Member States felt that the digital format would not work for the intergovernmental negotiations process, the two meetings that we were able to hold included valuable discussions that can be further built upon and advanced this year, in particular with regard to regional representation in an expanded Council. Some Member States say that the intergovernmental negotiations are simply a venue for repeating established positions, or even stalling the reform process. There is not a more process-oriented Organization in the world than the United Nations. However, the current format allows for the genuine exchange of ideas and positions until Member States decide that the time has come to conclude the negotiations on reshaping the Security Council into the organ that we want to tackle the challenges that we collectively face. Ultimately, Security Council reform has been an uphill battle because it is largely seen as a zero-sum game, in which the gain of some means a loss or a direct threat to the core national security interests of others. If we take a step back, we must recognize that a system that risks becoming irrelevant and illegitimate, inter alia, will increasingly struggle to maintain a rules- based international order, which would be a loss for all of us. Accordingly, our advice would be to lower the temperature of the process so that we can move forward and pursue a clear-eyed and pragmatic approach that benefits all. The onus is therefore on us to build bridges in our work this year, identify areas of convergence and forge agreement on a vision for a reformed Council that provides for the equitable representation of regions and reflects the multipolar nature of the world we live in. I wish the co-Chairs well in that important task.

My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by the representatives of Sierra Leone and Kuwait on behalf of the Group of African States and the Group of Arab States, respectively. I would like to add the following remarks in my national capacity. At the outset, I would like to congratulate Ambassador Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, on co-Chairing the current session of intergovernmental negotiations. I also express my appreciation to Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, for her able leadership of the intergovernmental negotiations over the past three years. It is worth noting that it has become customary in recent years for women to lead the most important negotiation processes at the United Nations. We highly value, appreciate and strongly support that because it firmly establishes the role of women in the international arena. As our discussions on the reform and expansion of the Security Council get under way for this session, and since the Security Council is undoubtedly a cornerstone of our multilateral international system, we must consider what it has achieved in recent months, including its handling of the coronavirus disease pandemic and the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. In fact, now is the time to reflect and consider our situation. What have the United Nations and the Security Council done to address one of the most serious threats humankind has faced since the establishment of the Organization? Did the Security Council unite us to confront an enemy that does not discriminate between elected and permanent members? Did our multilateral system achieve what we desire of it with regard to international cooperation? We all know the answers to those questions. We lack the collective political will to undertake bold measures to address the weaknesses in our international system. Egypt is therefore convinced that achieving genuine and comprehensive Security Council reform as a fundamental pillar of wider United Nations reforms would energize the multilateral system and promote the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. It would also enable us to respond to the realities of our contemporary world and its unprecedented challenges by seeking to achieve the legitimate aspirations of developing countries and correcting the historical injustice suffered by the African continent. We must therefore continue to advance the intergovernmental negotiations, in line with decision 62/557. It is imperative that we work in a manner that is transparent, inclusive and Member State-driven in order to reach a solution that enjoys the broadest possible political support, including the five key negotiation issues. In that regard, Egypt believes that no true reform of the Security Council is possible without first addressing its structural weakness. The Council in its current form includes five permanent members that enjoy the exclusive right of the veto, yet the Charter of the United Nations enshrines the principle of equality among all States. That shortcoming makes it clear that the Common African Position, as outlined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, is fair and rational. It requests that the veto be abolished in principle, but that if it is not abolished the new permanent members should enjoy the same rights and privileges, including the veto, so as to ensure fair representation and effective reform. Egypt once again reiterates its commitment to the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, especially given that they provide a comprehensive vision for the five interrelated clusters of issues. I should like to speak frankly and clearly about the intergovernmental negotiations, in which the degree of polarization has been increasing recently. When the intergovernmental negotiations process was established, in 2009, it was based on dialogue in good faith as well as mutual respect, openness, transparency and inclusiveness, with a view to achieving a genuine reform of the Security Council. We believe that remains the only path to achieving reform of the international system. However, we have observed that the intergovernmental negotiations have been transformed year by year from a constructive dialogue for Council reform into a competitive race for Council membership, with no regard for the substance and genuine feasibility of the reform process. In that regard, we reject the attempts by some to tactically exploit the Common African Position as a kind of Achilles heel, while pursuing self-interest and making no sincere effort to secure all elements of the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration for the benefit of African States. In accordance with the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), I call on all Members to instil new life in the intergovernmental negotiations  — by understanding and not competing against each other; discussing the five reform clusters instead of wasting time on marginal and useless dialogue on the mechanisms of the negotiation process itself; and seeking solutions based on mutual understanding as opposed to a document that reflects the current balances. I would like to pose this direct question: Would the veto issue find us a solution for the reform process of the Security Council? In conclusion, I hope that the efforts made during the current session will focus on finding the collective willpower to achieve real progress and build consensus among various States and groups in order to reach a solution that enjoys the widest possible acceptance. I emphasize once again that Egypt is committed to working with all States Members of the United Nations with a view to achieving comprehensive reform, leading to a Security Council that is more transparent, credible and fair — one that is capable of effectively playing its role in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Japan aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Brazil on behalf of the Group of Four. Allow me to add few remarks in my national capacity. Japan commends the early appointments of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassador Joanna Wronecka of Poland and Ambassador Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani of Qatar, and we are grateful to the outgoing co-Chair, Ambassador Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, for her contribution. Japan also welcomes your strong leadership, Mr. President, in increasing the number of intergovernmental negotiations meetings during this session. Please rest assured, Sir, that you and the co-Chairs will have Japan’s full support throughout the session. On 21 September, Heads of State and Government, representing the peoples of the world, adopted the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy- fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), in which the States Members of the United Nations committed to instilling new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council. Now is the time to reinvigorate our work in the intergovernmental negotiations. Japan firmly believes that it is now more urgent than ever to enhance the role of developing countries and major contributors to the United Nations in order to make the Council more legitimate, effective and representative. In that context, I would like to reiterate our support for the Common African Position, as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. Japan expressed its clear support for the Common African Position at the seventh Tokyo International Conference on African Development, held in Yokohama in August 2019, and during the intergovernmental negotiations meetings of the seventy-fourth session. Japan also deems that new permanent seats in a reformed Security Council should be allocated to Member States that have the capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. In order to instil new life in our discussions, I would like to make three concrete suggestions. First, given that we held only two meetings of the intergovernmental negotiations process during the previous session, Japan kindly requests that the co-Chairs convene this session’s first meeting immediately, before the end of the year, as a direct continuation of the two previous meetings held during the seventy-fourth session. If in-person meetings cannot be held, we must show flexibility and explore ways to continue our work. The co-Chairs are also kindly requested to establish a well-focused, annotated agenda so as to avoid the repetition of well-known positions by Member States in their general statements. Secondly, the modalities of the intergovernmental negotiations should be improved so that the process becomes more open, transparent and inclusive. Specifically, we should apply the General Assembly’s rules of procedure to the intergovernmental negotiations process. Official records should be kept and live webcasting should be introduced. The intergovernmental negotiations must be transformed from a discussion forum into a legitimate negotiations process. Thirdly, the intergovernmental negotiations discussions should be outcome-oriented and, to that end, text-based negotiations should begin without delay. We should aim to agree, by the end of this session, on a single document that will serve as the basis of our intergovernmental negotiations. That could be done by updating the revised elements paper after each round of meetings and indicating in the text the attribution of the positions of each Member State. As mentioned today by our colleague the Ambassador of Brazil, reaching consensus before negotiating would mean starting the process from the end point — and that cannot be the plan. In conclusion, let me emphasize that the coronavirus disease pandemic should not be used as a pretext for stalling the discussions on Security Council reform. The divergences of positions among Member States should and can be resolved through negotiations. That is what the United Nations is for. Japan trusts that your leadership, Sir, and that of the co-Chairs will translate into more intergovernmental negotiations meetings as well as results-oriented and in-depth discussions during this anniversary-year session.

We thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate. You have the support of my delegation in striving for a successful seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly. India aligns itself with the statements delivered by the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the L.69 group and by the representative of Brazil on behalf of the Group of Four. We also endorse the statements by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the Group of African States and the representative of Barbados on behalf of the Caribbean Community. We welcome the early appointments of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations and offer our felicitations to Ambassador Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Ambassador Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar. Today’s Security Council is an impaired organ. It has been unable to act with credibility, essentially owing to its unrepresentative nature. But we must also ask: What is happening with the intergovernmental negotiations process to which we seem to be wedded? Nothing has moved forward in that process in more than a decade, and all we hear are passionate statements on the need for reform. It has not made progress, not only because it is informal but also because it has no rules of procedure and no records. It has remained that way for a decade. We are forced to keep our own notes, which places a tremendous burden on all small and medium States. The countries that shed crocodile tears for small and medium States are the same ones that deny them even the basic courtesy of helping them maintain official records of discussions. That means that anything we achieve is not recorded and we start afresh the following year as if nothing had happened previously — and we do not even have a single negotiating text. The intergovernmental negotiations have become a platform for debate in a university context rather than a serious, results-oriented process at the United Nations consisting of sovereign Member States. How did that come to pass? Because a handful of countries do not want us to proceed. They have prevented the intergovernmental negotiations from progressing. They are using the intergovernmental negotiations as a smokescreen in order to prevent themselves from being identified, including by paying lip service to Security Council reform. The condition they have laid out — the full consensus of all Member States  — is impossible to fulfil. Ironically, that is happening at a time when, only last week, we were in a tearing hurry to give ourselves e-voting rights. Yet when it comes to the intergovernmental negotiations, those countries want no voting to take place, let alone e-voting, and will accept only full consensus. We in the General Assembly are even apprehensive about using the words that were unanimously adopted by our own leaders in the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1). There is no mention of the words “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council” (resolution 75/1, para. 14) in the letter from the President of the General Assembly that grants the mandate to the co-facilitators. I hope we have not started distancing ourselves from that Declaration before the ink is dry. On the subject of leaders, the Assembly heard during the general debate the chorus of world leaders calling for the urgent reform of the multilateral decision-making structures, especially the Security Council. Echoing the aspirations of more than 1 billion of my fellow citizens, Prime Minister Modi asked whether the reform process would ever reach its logical conclusion (see A/75/PV.3). The question that we are still asking here today about the intergovernmental negotiations is: When will the reform process ever begin? What would constitute progress by the time the seventy-fifth session ends? First, we wish to see the General Assembly’s rules of procedure applied to the intergovernmental negotiations in order to bring about an open, inclusive and transparent process. Secondly, we call for text-based negotiations to get under way. A text reflecting all of the positions and proposals of Member States will be necessary for us to make progress. Thirdly, let us reaffirm our unwavering support for the Common African Position, as specified in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. At the most recent Summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, 120 leaders for the first time added their voice of support for the Common African Position. Let us not sidetrack that discussion by asking for greater representation for Africa alone. Instead, we need to ask for greater representation for all countries that deserve to be represented on the Security Council, including countries from Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. For that, we need a serious and credible process. Regarding the issue of substance, while India’s position is well known, let me reiterate here for the record that we believe that the vast majority of Member States are, like us, in favour of expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of the Security Council. I do not wish to waste the time of the Assembly by responding to the irrelevant and irresponsible remarks made by the representative of Pakistan, which becomes Pavlovian whenever India is mentioned. This is a forum for serious debate, not frivolous allegations. We need to ensure decisive progress this year. Without decisive progress, I feel that those who support real reform and who wish to deliver on the commitment made by our leaders will be forced to look beyond the intergovernmental negotiations, perhaps to the Assembly itself, for results. If that happens, we must not hesitate in rethinking the intergovernmental negotiations process itself. I am confident that you, Sir, as President of the General Assembly, will make sure that the intergovernmental negotiations produce results. The previous session of intergovernmental negotiations was unexpectedly cut short owing to the onset of the coronavirus disease pandemic, yet other United Nations bodies and processes managed to adapt to the changed scenario and continue their deliberations via innovative formats. We hope that, in the current session, the excuse of the pandemic is not used to stall the intergovernmental negotiations again by insisting on in-person meetings. India will continue to work with all countries that believe in genuine progress for Security Council reform.

Switzerland thanks you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting. I would also like to thank former co-facilitator Mrs. Nusseibeh, Ambassador of the United Arab Emirates, for her work, and congratulate the two new co-facilitators, Ambassador Al-Thani of Qatar and Ambassador Wronecka of Poland, and wish them every success in their vital work. We welcome the high level of commitment and interest shown by States Members of the United Nations to work towards more equitable representation within the Security Council, as well as within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations. Switzerland views the enlargement of the Security Council in a positive light. The expansion of the Security Council should provide better representation for certain groups of countries, in particular the Group of African States. In seeking to achieve that, we must take care not to impose the current world order, which has been in place for decades. Switzerland is against additional veto rights and pleads for voluntary constraint of the existing right of the veto, namely, in situations of genocide and other violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. In that regard, my country is fully committed to the promotion, extension and implementation of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which is currently supported by 121 Member States. There is no obvious way to overcome the current deadlock in the face of the clear divergences within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations. In order to remedy that, Switzerland believes we should consider a third category consisting of a very limited number of non-permanent but renewable seats. Such a category would allow major regional actors to occupy a longer-term mandate on the Security Council. Each term should be sufficiently long to enable institutional knowledge-building and avoid interminable campaigns for re-election. An expanded Security Council must of course adapt its working methods to new realities, but we believe that improving the functioning of the Council in its current composition is even more urgent. Switzerland will therefore continue to make a determined commitment to promoting the working methods of the Security Council so as to ensure that the functioning of the Council is as efficient, transparent and inclusive as possible and to strengthen its instruments of accountability to the General Assembly.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate Her Excellency Ms. Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, on her renewed mandate as co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations process on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. I also congratulate Her Excellency Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, on her appointment as co-Chair of the process. I wish to assure them of Morocco’s full support in fulfilling their mandate. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the outstanding work accomplished by Her Excellency Mrs. Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, Permanent Representative of the United Arab Emirates, during previous sessions. My delegation endorses the statements delivered by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the Group of African States and the representative of Kuwait on behalf of the Group of Arab States. I wish to underscore the following points in my national capacity. The Security Council is designated by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Its mandate is clear and unambiguous. In that regard, we reaffirm that every organ should discharge its respective mandates and powers as defined by the Charter of the United Nations. We also reiterate our position to advocate for a greater strengthening and modernization of the United Nations and to reform the Security Council so as to make it more effective, efficient, transparent and representative. The reform of the Security Council must be comprehensive and not incremental. It must also take into account the five clusters of issues without exclusivity or distinction, in accordance with the framework established by decision 62/557, while taking into account the interlinkages that exist among the five clusters in order to guide the reform process. We cannot discuss the size of an expanded Security Council without mentioning the categories of membership. In that respect, the size of an enlarged Council would have an impact on the question of equitable regional representation. The Security Council should be more representative, and its expansion should not be to the detriment of its effectiveness, efficiency or accountability. For Morocco, the enlargement of the Council is an absolute necessity, but it is also a thorny issue that must be carefully considered and undertaken. Given the current international context, it is unacceptable that Africa remains the only continent on the Council to be unrepresented in the category of permanent membership and underrepresented in the category of non-permanent membership. Those historical injustices against Africa call on us all to rectify them by ensuring increased representation for Africa in a reformed Security Council, with at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats. In that regard, I would like to reiterate that Morocco subscribes to the Common African Position. The Ezulwini Consensus continues to enjoy broad support from the majority of Member States and remains a viable option for the reform process. My country supports Africa’s fair and equitable representation in both categories of seats, as previously stated, in order to ensure that justice is granted to our continent. It will subsequently be up to Africa to decide on its representatives in the reformed Security Council. Like the African Group, the Group of Arab States also deserves increased representation in the expanded Security Council. The absence of permanent representation for Arab countries is highly regrettable, especially as they are heavily affected by the issues being dealt with in the Security Council. In that regard, a permanent Arab seat with full prerogatives and adequate representation in the category of non-permanent membership would enable the legitimate demands of the Arab Group to be met. Furthermore, we believe that the question of the veto should be more widely debated owing to its scope, implications for reform and consequences for the credibility of the Organization. In the interest of justice, we believe that as long as the right of the veto exists, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my delegation’s support for the two co-Chairs in the hope that this session of intergovernmental negotiations can make up for the delays suffered as a result of the coronavirus disease pandemic during the previous session. I also renew my delegation’s determination to continue to participate constructively and positively in the coming round of intergovernmental negotiations and our readiness to exchange views with all Member States with the aim of achieving the true and comprehensive reform of the Security Council in a constructive and transparent spirit.

We thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting. At the outset, we would like to congratulate the Permanent Representatives of Poland and Qatar on their appointments as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council. We hope that their actions will be based on the principles of impartiality and give maximum consideration to the views of all States taking part in the process. We thank the Permanent Representatives of the United Arab Emirates and Poland, who, despite all of the challenges caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic (COVID-19) during the previous session, were able to bring the negotiations to a logical conclusion, culminating in the adoption of decision 74/569 on 31 August. The reform of the Security Council is not only one of the most important but also one of the most complex issues on the agenda of the Organization. That is because the Council is an organ that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, bears the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. In the year in which we are commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, we are all looking to the future of the Organization and attempting to establish the best way forward for its development, which is impossible to envisage without reforming the Security Council. At the same time, it should be recognized that discussions on this issue have been ongoing for several years. States Members of the United Nations have made some progress towards reform, but a universal solution capable of satisfying the majority of States is not yet in sight. The approaches of the main players in the reform arena continue to show significant divergences and are sometimes even diametrically opposed. Under those conditions, we see no alternative than to pursue patient, incremental work towards achieving a convergence of negotiating approaches during the current session of the General Assembly. Our position is well known. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia notes the need to make the organ more representative, primarily by granting greater representation to developing States from Africa, Asia and Latin America. We are in favour of redressing the historical injustice suffered by Africa, whose number of seats on the Council does not correspond to the continent’s current role in international affairs or to the total number of African States. At the same time, any efforts to expand the Council should not affect its ability to effectively and promptly respond to emerging challenges. In that context, we are in favour of maintaining the compact nature of the Security Council’s composition. Its optimal number of members should not exceed the low 20s. Any proposals leading to the infringement of the prerogatives of the current permanent members of the Security Council, including the institution of the veto, are unacceptable to us. It should be recalled that the institution of the veto is an important factor in stimulating Council members to seek balanced solutions. The use or threat of use of the veto has, on more than one occasion, prevented the United Nations from being associated with dubious ventures. We remind the Assembly that the process of Security Council reform is a matter that affects all Member States, without exception, so that its final formula should therefore enjoy the broadest possible support. We are convinced that the issue of Security Council reform cannot be resolved through mere arithmetic, by putting certain models to a vote with a view to obtaining the minimum number of votes required. Any outcome achieved in that way would hardly add credibility to the Security Council and certainly would not strengthen the Organization. At the same time, we stand ready to consider any reasonable option for expanding the composition of the Security Council, including a so-called interim compromise solution, as long as it is based on the broadest possible consensus within the United Nations. We hope that the efforts of the President of the General Assembly and the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations will be centred on facilitating the negotiations to the maximum possible extent, based on the understanding that the process should be Member State-led. Making progress on Security Council reform cannot be achieved by imposing negotiating documents or initiatives that are not agreed upon by all participants in the process. Previous General Assembly sessions have shown the futility and danger of attempting to forcefully resolve the reform issue without due regard for the broad support of Member States. Negotiations should be conducted in a calm, transparent and inclusive manner, without arbitrary timelines. It is important that we bear in mind that there can be no place for artificial timelines in this process, neither should there be attempts to solve this complex problem with a mere stroke of the pen. We must take into account the current situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is Member States alone that have the right to determine the format in which the negotiations should be held in the coming round of discussions. In any event, every effort should be made to ensure that Member States are provided with all the necessary tools, especially the services of interpreters, in order to fully participate in the discussions. Our commitment to achieving results within the existing format of discussions remains unchanged. The platform for intergovernmental negotiations has both unique and universal legitimacy for the entire spectrum of reform issues. Deviating from that platform could lead to the disintegration of the entire negotiations architecture, setting the process back many years. Moreover, we do not want the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform to create new divisions or deepen existing divisions among States Members of the United Nations in the light of the current difficult situation.

At the outset, We would like to thank you, Mr. President, for presiding over this important meeting on discussing the issue of the Security Council reform at a critical time. We would also like to congratulate Ambassador Wronecka and Ambassador Al-Thani on their appointments as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process. We also thank Ambassador Lana Nusseibeh for her good management, along with all delegations, co-Chairs and Secretariat staff who participated in the previous negotiations. My country’s delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of the Republic of Sierra Leone on behalf of the Group of Ten (G-10), which represents the Common African Position on the reform issue. We also endorse the statement delivered by the representative of Kuwait on behalf of the Group of Arab States. We hope that a new phase of intergovernmental negotiations will commence during the current session of the General Assembly, following the difficulties in convening meetings during last session due to the coronavirus disease pandemic. As representatives know, States Members of the United Nations have emphasized once again the main role of the General Assembly in achieving equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council. Undoubtedly, this requires us to work seriously in order to achieve progress that leads to logical consensus, which cannot happen unless we are forthright and make every effort to understand our concerns. We must also endeavour to accomplish the desired goals through the intergovernmental negotiations process, which has gone on for too long. There is already consensus on a number of points, and it is possible for us to reach common ground. In that regard, we wish to stress the importance of starting serious negotiations while taking into account the urgent need to reform the Council in a way that develops its working methods in a transparent and efficient manner that contributes to achieving international peace and security. All the relevant stakeholders must participate in all discussions held in the Council. This year we commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Charter of the United Nations, which aims to govern the relations among States through the maintenance of international laws and regulations in order to prevent crises and wars arising from their behaviour. That purpose is based on preventive and deterrent diplomacy, which depends primarily on the will of all Member States to act in good faith according to the principles of the United Nations. The world has seen significant new developments that do not resemble those of the 1940s and 1950s and compel us to take important steps to adapt to those new circumstances and undertake the reform of the most important organ in the United Nations, which is entrusted with the task of maintaining international peace and security, namely, the Security Council. Such reform must be comprehensive and above all must ensure equitable representation, especially with regard to the African continent, which has 54 Member States  — nearly one third of the entire membership of the United Nations. It is hard to believe that the African continent continues to have no permanent representation on the Council even though more than 70 per cent of its agenda relates to African issues. Everyone knows that the time has come to end the historical injustice against the African continent and to recognize Africa’s demands as legitimate and realistic. Those demands have been expressed by Africa on many occasions through its Common Position, as espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. That position calls for two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, with all privileges including the right of the veto, as well as two additional non-permanent seats. The intergovernmental negotiations process on the reform of the Security Council requires us to look at all the various facets of reform in a comprehensive manner, taking into account the need to accelerate its realization. As the Assembly is aware, that can be achieved only by showing collective will, bearing in mind the past injustices concerning the issue of representation on the Security Council, as well as its methods of work, which have proven to be undemocratic and some would say dictatorial. Those methods have made certain States a sword dangling over the remaining States of the world. I think all in the Assembly have seen how Libya, over the past 10 years, has been a direct victim of the Security Council’s disputes and acute divisions. We therefore believe that there is a need to develop the Council’s relationship with the General Assembly, which represents all States Members of the United Nations, in order to harmonize the work of the two organs and ensure that they do not contradict each other as if they were two separate organs belonging to two separate organizations. In conclusion, Libya emphasizes that it stands ready to participate in the resumption of intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council through the G-10 Group and the Arab Group. We hope that those negotiations will begin before the end of the year and by any means possible. If the Security Council is able to hold its meetings virtually to discuss issues of international peace and security, then holding meetings on the reform of the same Council should not be difficult. We also express our hope that the resumption of intergovernmental negotiations will mark the beginning of a serious process without any procrastination, in which the positions and points of agreement of the negotiating delegates of all groups are compiled and documented. That would enable us to start a genuine dialogue in this Hall, thereby contributing to achieving an effective reform that would seriously contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.