A/75/PV.80 General Assembly

Members will recall that, pursuant to decision 74/569, of 31 August 2020, the General Assembly continued intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in informal plenary meetings during the current session. In a letter dated 11 June 2021, I circulated a draft oral decision on the issue. Reform of the Security Council is one of the most important, complex and sensitive processes before the Assembly. The status of this reform is important not only to Member States but to the United Nations itself. As affirmed through successive decisions, the General Assembly has a central role regarding the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership for the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. I would first like to thank the co-Chairs, Ms. Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, for ably leading the intergovernmental negotiations process during this session. I would also like to take this opportunity to once again congratulate Ambassador Wronecka on her appointment as United Nations Special Coordinator for Lebanon. Support for speedy reform of the Security Council was included in the framework of the 2005 World Summit outcome document (resolution 60/1). The framework recognized Security Council reform as an essential element in our overall effort to reform the United Nations in order to make it more broadly representative, efficient and transparent and thereby further enhance its effectiveness and legitimacy and the implementation of its decisions. It is important to ensure that the efforts to reform the Council reflect the realities of the twenty-first century, particularly the issues of membership and working methods. I fully support a more representative, effective, efficient, accountable, democratic and transparent Council. And while reforming the Council, we must ensure that we do not create new privileges for a handful of countries. At the beginning of the session, in the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), Member States committed to breathing new life into the discussions on Security Council reform. I was pleased to see that the sentiment extended to the efforts of Member States during this session’s intergovernmental negotiations, which were as thought-provoking as they were challenging. I would like to express my appreciation to the co-Chairs for the extensive and inclusive consultations with Member States and groups of States aimed at building consensus and making meaningful progress in the process. I think that the co-Chairs have done a marvellous job, and I followed the negotiations closely throughout the process and received periodic briefings. But I also gave them full authority and independence over the conduct of their work, procedurally and substantively. I focused my efforts on ensuring that the necessary conditions for the proper functioning of the intergovernmental negotiations were in place despite pandemic-related limitations. With that general perspective in mind, I announced the appointment of the co-Chairs on 13 October 2020, well in advance of the appointments in previous sessions, in order to provide an opportunity for Member States to start their consultations in a timely manner. I also encouraged delegations to explore the possibility of starting the intergovernmental negotiations early in 2021 and increasing the number of meetings during this session, with the aim of ensuring that the negotiations had sufficient time to enhance the dialogue and balance the number of meetings, which were cut short during the seventy-fourth session owing to the coronavirus disease pandemic. The measures included the use of the General Assembly Hall and the allocation of spillover rooms for meetings, which enabled representatives to closely follow the negotiations and discussions. I was pleased by the high level of engagement on the part of Member States during the five intergovernmental negotiations meetings, demonstrating the significance of the process. While I understand that Member States’ views differ on the substance of the intergovernmental negotiations process, including on the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters, only dialogue can enable us to move the reform process forward. As the President of the General Assembly, I believe that my main responsibility is to safely transfer the Member States’ joint work in this session’s intergovernmental negotiations process to the upcoming session. It was with those thoughts in mind that after my Office’s consultations with all major groups, I circulated a draft rollover decision in my letter dated 11 June 2021. Its text includes my understanding of the elements that constitute the minimum common denominators necessary for a draft rollover oral decision among Member States. I believe that the General Assembly is the only democratic platform in the world that represents 193 countries expressing their voices and sending messages to the world, and that this democratic platform, the Assembly, will of course have its say in every decision made at the United Nations. And based on my experience of 38 years, five months and 20 days in diplomacy, and 11 years in internal politics, I believe we must breathe life into our conduct of diplomacy, which is so essential. But today what we need is a political decision. Diplomacy and politics will therefore be combined in today’s draft decision. The reason that I made the draft simple is so as to follow up on what has been done at previous sessions. If we look at the oral decisions from the seventy-second session (72/557), the seventy-third session (73/554) and the seventy- fourth session (74/569), we find the same methodology presented to the Assembly and adopted by consensus. The intergovernmental negotiations have been finalized and the discussions concluded. All the requirements have been met. But this oral statement phase is not a new phase starting a new debate or a negotiations phase in which we have to include elements that were not agreed in intergovernmental negotiations and which, whether included or not, would have to be transferred into the draft oral decision. The oral statement phase transfers the intergovernmental process to the next session, and the purpose of today’s draft oral decision is to continue the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session. I therefore urge all members to think twice and not to forget that the main issue is the continuation of the intergovernmental negotiations process. If any difficulties or unexpected developments should arise and compel us to stop the intergovernmental process, that would be a pity. Indeed, it would be more than a pity and we would have a painful time explaining to world public opinion that the United Nations would not be able continue the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. From that perspective, and with all due respect to Assembly members, every country has the right to say what it thinks. Anyone can present amendments and proposals. This is the place where we will discuss all of that, but we should not forget that the main topic at issue is the continuation of the intergovernmental negotiations process at the upcoming session. I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil on a point of order.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of Four (G-4) — Germany, India, Japan and my own country, Brazil. I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting and for your letter dated 11 June 2021, by which you circulated a draft oral decision under agenda item 127, regarding the continuation of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform at the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. In a letter that I sent to you on 14 June, the G-4 proposed a draft oral amendment to the draft oral decision, which we expect Member States to consider at this meeting. Please allow me to clarify the reasons that led us to present this draft amendment. First, we regret the fact that very little time was allowed for substantive consultations on the proposed draft oral decision commensurate with the importance of this agenda item. The draft oral decision was circulated last Friday and this meeting is being convened after only two full business days. Let me also underscore that we still have three months until the closure of the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly. What is the rush? If this is truly a Member State-driven process, our request for more consultations should have been heard. Otherwise, the very essence of multilateral diplomacy is negatively affected. All previous decisions on the rollover of the intergovernmental negotiations have usually been proposed only after the President of the General Assembly has identified their general acceptance, which is certainly not the case now. Secondly, what the draft oral decision under consideration actually amounts to is a simple technical update of last year’s rollover of the intergovernmental negotiations. As it stands, it does not adequately reflect the important progress achieved during the five rounds of the intergovernmental negotiations held this year under the able leadership of the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar. While the draft oral decision is proposed by the President of the General Assembly, it should reflect the aspirations of Member States, given the fact that it is to be taken on behalf of the membership. Nevertheless, Sir, we are holding this meeting, despite the fact that in addition to many other countries, as I understand it, the countries of the G-4 have already conveyed to you our disagreement on the draft oral decision. Our concerns were not taken into consideration, and no time was allowed for efforts to find an acceptable solution. We were therefore left with no option but to formally present our draft amendment directly to the Assembly. In an effort to chart an acceptable way forward, I would now like to introduce the draft oral amendment. The first element of the proposal is to include in paragraph 1 a reference to the commitment to “instil[ling] new life in the discussion on the reform of the Security Council”, as per the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1). It came as a surprise to us that this important commitment, adopted by our Heads of State and Government, was completely ignored in the draft oral decision. Our view is that the draft should reflect the most recent dynamics of our discussions, and that disregarding the reference to this topic in the Declaration runs counter to the very spirit of the Organization. Let me also stress that it is not up to us to leave out directives given to us by our Heads of State and Government. The second and most pertinent element of the draft oral amendment aims to make it clear that during the seventy-sixth session, the intergovernmental negotiations will be based on the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences. Our proposal was inspired by the letter of the co-Chairs dated 12 May 2021, in which they underlined that they were “therefore recommending that at this stage our work be rolled over to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly, based on the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”. Therefore, with our draft oral amendment, the second half of paragraph 2 would read as follows: “[B]uilding on the informal meetings held during its seventy-fifth session, as reflected in the letter dated 12 May 2021 from the co-Chairs, based on the document entitled “Co-Chairs’ Elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”, circulated on 29 April 2021, and informed by the positions of and proposals made by Member States reflected in the text and its annex circulated on 31 July 2015”. Although we are not completely satisfied with the document prepared this year, we fully agree that the coming session should be based on it. We simply need a basis on which to start. Anything else is a recipe for continued and endless frustration. Member States can devote themselves to discussing the text in good faith and improving its content. Having one document as the basis for our discussion is a natural and logical step in the intergovernmental negotiations and also an indication that we are gradually moving forward. The intergovernmental negotiations will also continue to be informed by the so-called framework document of 2015, which remains a valuable reference for the positions of Member States and groups. The intergovernmental negotiations process was created 13 years ago and is still very far from fulfilling its mandate to promote the speedy reform of the Security Council. It is not even a normal process within the General Assembly, since it lacks records and webcasts and has no formal institutional memory. The draft oral decision we have before us will not help us to move an inch towards addressing those various deficiencies in terms of process and substance. It simply mirrors the text that was adopted in 2020, a year that was virtually lost due to the interruption of our debates by the pandemic. However, the amendments we have just presented can improve the text and render it more reflective of the work we have done this year. It could also at least bring about a more focused process, without prejudging any possible outcome. All we ask for is a more productive, transparent and open process, as is the standard in our discussions in the General Assembly. Anything else would not reflect well on the Assembly itself. It would support the delaying tactics that have been pursued by too many for too long. Our challenge here is to break away from the endless cycle of repetition that has taken over the intergovernmental negotiations process since its inception, which in turn leads to a palpable sense of frustration among many Member States. The very legitimacy of the process is more than ever at stake here. We are ready to discuss our proposals and sit with you, Mr. President, or with other Member States, but we cannot accept seeing our concerns completely dismissed and the consideration of this draft rushed in order to avoid any updates of its content. As per our letter dated 14 June, we therefore request that our draft amendment be considered by the Member States.

I call on the representative of the Russian Federation on a point of order.

Indeed, Mr. President, I would like to speak on a point of order, in order to state for the record that when you invited the representative of Brazil to speak on a point of order, I did not interrupt my colleague Ambassador Costa Filho during his statement, out of respect. However, I want to say for the record that it was not a point of order. It was a statement on the substance of the issue.

Delegations wishing to make general statements may do so during the period devoted to explanations of vote or position before the voting. Before giving the floor for explanations of vote, I would like to remind delegations that explanations are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of African States on the important subject of reform of the Security Council. We align ourselves with the statement to be made by Mr. Alie Kabba, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations, in his capacity as Chair of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform in New York. At the outset, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to you, Mr. President, for your unwavering commitment and dedication to reform of the Security Council and for organizing today’s plenary meeting of the General Assembly, dedicated to adopting the draft oral decision on Security Council reform, as well as for your insightful opening remarks. We are equally grateful to the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during this session, Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka and Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani of Poland and Qatar, respectively, for providing their elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. I would like to affirm Africa’s strong commitment to advancing the important issue of reforming the Security Council in order to better reflect current geopolitical realities, including correcting the acknowledged historical injustice that Africa continues to suffer from. We take note of the co-Chairs’ commendable efforts in reflecting the Common African Position in their elements paper. We particularly appreciate their effort to indicate, in the paper’s section on elements of general convergence and divergence, the wide recognition and broad support of Member States for Africa’s legitimate aspirations to its rightful role on the global stage, including through an increased presence on the Security Council, as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus, adopted by the African Union, as well as for the paper’s accurate reflection of the view that redressing the historical injustice against Africa is seen as a priority. However, I want to register the disappointment of the African Group with the co-Chairs’ failure to fully reference the core documents — the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration of the Common African Position — in their paper. In that regard, the African Group calls on them to ensure that the Consensus and Declaration are accurately referenced in their elements paper, given that the two are mutually reinforcing. We should note that the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration are products of a common consensus reached by African Heads of State and Government representing the aspirations of the African people. They champion our demand for the full representation of Africa in all the decision-making processes and organs of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ on matters relating to international peace and security. To that end, it should be noted that referencing the Ezulwini Consensus without the Sirte Declaration is a clear contravention of the Common African Position, and that is totally unacceptable to the African Group. We therefore continue to implore the co-Chairs to urgently address that concern in their elements paper. The African Group remains committed to comprehensive reform of the Security Council on the basis of all five clusters outlined in decision 62/557, and we will continue to engage in the intergovernmental negotiations process in an honest and constructive manner. We anticipate that the documents rolled over to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly will build on mutual trust, respect and inclusivity through a membership-driven process. In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm the full commitment of the African Group to the vital issue of the urgent need to reform the Security Council. Africa’s position on the issue is well articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We therefore look forward to working honestly and constructively with all Member States and interest groups to make decisive progress on the reform process by accurately referencing the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration in all outcome documents of the intergovernmental negotiations, including the co-Chairs’ elements paper.

I thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the floor and for convening today’s meeting. I have the honour to speak today on behalf of the L.69 group, a diverse, pro-reform group of developing countries in favour of justice, sovereignty and equity in reform of the Security Council, both in the process and the outcome. I would like to commend the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka of Poland and Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, for their leadership and hard work during this session. Over the course of the past five months, we have engaged in comprehensive discussions, including four meeting rounds that covered the clusters in an integrated and interactive manner. Member States and co-Chairs alike highlighted the commitment made by world leaders in the Declaration for the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1) to instilling new life into the proceedings. It is therefore disappointing that a reference to this was not included in the draft oral decision. Additionally, while we recognize the improvements in the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters, it still requires further streamlining to better reflect the positions of Member States and the reality of the discussions. It is therefore imperative to ensure that the decision enables the paper to be carried forward into the seventy-sixth session as a basis for future discussions, in order to safeguard and continue to build on what has been accomplished. Considering those factors, I must regretfully convey that the L.69 group cannot join the consensus on the draft oral decision submitted to Member States on 11 June. The rollover decision has not evolved substantially in recent years and it has become clear to us that an amendment to the rollover is necessary for a change in the process to take place. We are therefore supportive of the amendments introduced by the Group of Four in accordance with rule 78 of the Assembly’s rules of procedure. In our view, the amendments do the necessary job of addressing gaps while also contributing to our ability to progress towards a more results-oriented process. We also express our full support for the proposal made by the Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform in New York to have an amendment to include the Common African Position, as espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. That omission was brought to the co-Chairs’ attention by both the Committee of Ten and the L.69 group during our discussions, and our calls for a simple correction were not heeded. We are deeply disappointed that the calls for a simple correction to accurately reflect the position of the Heads of State of 54 countries, in what is purportedly a Member- State-driven process, were simply ignored. The L.69 group remains committed to the goal of achieving Security Council reform. It is our objective to make progress in the seventy-sixth session, and we believe we can do so based on a revised rollover decision incorporating the amendments we have referenced, setting the tone for the new session.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of Luxembourg, the Netherlands and my own country, Belgium. As we consider the draft oral decision on Security Council reform and the proposed amendments, I would like to take this opportunity to present the position of the Benelux countries once again. It is unchanged. A reformed and enlarged Security Council should reflect the diversity of the world as it is today. At the same time, the Security Council should also be able to act quickly and effectively whenever peace is at stake. Today I would like to focus on three points. First, as we mentioned in our common statement during the meeting in May, our delegations were hopeful that the recently distributed elements paper on convergences and divergences would lay out a basis for text-based negotiations. Although the paper could be further improved, we feel it would be an important step forward if the future work of the intergovernmental negotiations could be based on the elements paper, while, of course, also being informed by the framework document of 2015, as recommended by the co-Chairs of the most recent intergovernmental negotiations session. Secondly, it is our view that the current, purely informal nature of the work of the intergovernmental negotiations is unhelpful in achieving concrete progress. It appears that we are not alone in that belief. There seems to be wide support for enhancing the institutional memory of working methods by applying the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Finally, in September 2020, our heads of State adopted the Declaration for the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1) by consensus. The Declaration calls for instilling new life into the discussions of Security Council reform. It is now our duty to effectively implement that political commitment. Our delegations are therefore in favour of the amendments proposed by the Group of Four.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Arab States. At the outset, I am pleased to convey the sincere appreciation and support of the Arab Group to you, Mr. President, and to the two co-Chairs, Ambassadors Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, and Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, for their wise leadership of the intergovernmental negotiations in the current session. They have focused on listening to the views of the general membership while gearing the discussions towards the comprehensive reform of the Security Council that we all wish for. With regard to the President’s letter dated 11 June addressed to Member States on the draft oral decision before us today, as a prelude to moving the negotiation process on expanding and reforming the Security Council forward to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly, I would like to emphasize the Arab Group’s support for the draft decision. We must ensure a smooth transition so that Member States can work together during the upcoming session on achieving a common understanding that provides common ground for reaching a consensus-based solution bringing about genuine and comprehensive Security Council reform. The Arab Group believes that the intergovernmental negotiations process on Council expansion and reform is a fairly difficult one. It attempts to find points of convergence among States and groups of States at a time when there are differences and disparities on many positions and proposals. We must therefore demonstrate flexibility, full transparency and consensus. In that context, the position of the Arab Group remains that the intergovernmental negotiations are the only platform for reaching an agreement on Security Council expansion and reform, pursuant to decision 62/557, which among other things calls for a solution that enjoys the broadest political acceptance of Member States. We would like to stress that the basis for negotiations depends on the positions and proposals of States pursuant to that decision, and any process merging Member States’ positions and proposals must enjoy the consent of the States and groups concerned. In conclusion, the Arab Group reiterates its readiness to make a positive and effective contribution during the intergovernmental negotiations in the upcoming session in order to achieve genuine and comprehensive Council reform. We also emphasize the importance of maintaining consistency and flexibility within the general membership in order to achieve a consensus among Member States. We once again thank the President and the co-Chairs for their leadership and valuable efforts in guiding our discussions during the current session.

I thank you so much, Mr. President, for giving us the floor here to deliver this statement on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform and, indeed, on behalf of the Group of African States here in New York. We wish to once again convey the African Group’s disappointment at the absence of a full reference to the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration in the elements paper. The Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration constitute the fundamental pillars of the Common African Position. They are decisions adopted by Africa’s Heads of State and Government, representing the voice of the African people, which must be defended in its entirety. It should also be noted that they champion our common aspiration for Africa’s full representation in all decision-making organs of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ on matters relating to international peace and security. They also serve as the only viable option reflecting Africa’s legitimate right and aspirations to rectify the historical injustice it has endured. It is therefore important to note that referencing the Ezulwini Consensus without mentioning the Sirte Declaration clearly contravenes the Common African Position, totally undermining the decisions reached by our African Heads of State and Government. In that regard, we once again reiterate our strong call for their full referencing in the elements paper, while also imploring you, Mr. President, to use your good offices to annex these particular remarks to the elements paper immediately, as part of our primary concerns about it, and to bring the matter to the attention of all Member States for their information. I also want to reiterate that in our view, the issue of the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration reflects the solemn declaration of our Heads of State and we would like to make sure that any outcome document of the intergovernmental negotiations reflects those two pillars of the African position on Security Council reform. Regarding the proposed amendments, the Committee of Ten in New York and the African Group have deliberated on the issue. We know that without a correction or the full referencing of the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration in the elements paper, it is difficult for us to support an amendment to a document that does not reflect what our Heads of State and Government demand that we defend here in New York. We therefore fear that as we go forward with this specific proposal, the African Group, in particular, will find it difficult to support a document as the basis for future negotiations when the document does not clearly and fully reflect the reference to the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. That remains our primary concern, which we expressed to you, Mr. President, at our meeting, as well as in a letter to the co-Chairs on 3 May. In both instances, we reiterated our demand for the full referencing of the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. To reference the Consensus without mentioning the Declaration simply amounts to removing one fundamental leg of our Common African Position. It is our understanding that during the intergovernmental negotiations, Member States clearly expressed support for the Common African Position, as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We therefore hope that that can be fixed to enable us to move forward in future negotiations. Finally, we fear that the language based on the elements paper, as expressed in the amendment, is something that we will have difficulty in supporting because it references a document that we are seriously concerned about, as I have said, because we see no clear reference to the Sirte Declaration in it. That is the clear position of the African Group. Sierra Leone, speaking on behalf of the African Group and the Committee of Ten here in the Hall, would like to reiterate that we are fundamentally committed to the intergovernmental negotiations as the legitimate forum for Security Council reform. We hope that our main concern, expressed to you, Mr. President, and the co-Chairs, will be addressed as soon as possible.

On behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, I want to first express our gratitude to you, Mr. President, for your steady leadership on the Security Council reform process during the seventy-fifth session. We greatly appreciate the fair and balanced approach that you have consistently maintained. At the same time, we fully concur with the summary of the process that you outlined in your opening statement, including your view that this is the most important and complex issue before the General Assembly and should be regarded as such at every stage of the process. We would also like to reiterate our full appreciation for the work of the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Wronecka and Al-Thani, who managed the substantive intergovernmental discussions under your guidance. Thanks to their earnest stewardship of this very delicate process, Member States had fruitful and focused conversations on the five clusters and their interlinkages, as per decision 62/557. Uniting for Consensus, I would like to recall, has consistently engaged in the process with a proactive and constructive approach, corroborated by an open and inclusive dialogue with all negotiating actors. Beyond our firm beliefs about the substance of the reform, we are of the opinion that the common goal of the entire membership should be to ensure the widest possible support on the issue of reform of the Council. That is the only way to increase public trust in this institution, which we love, and to strengthen multilateralism. In that spirit, the Uniting for Consensus group fully supports the oral draft decision, which, in our opinion, would enable these important negotiations to make a smooth transition to the seventy-sixth session in a fair and balanced manner. Using your words, Mr. President, this is the minimum common denominator on which we could all agree, and it is totally consistent and in line with the methodology and practice followed over the past few years. This occasion should not be used as an opportunity to start new negotiations on issues that were not agreed on during the intergovernmental negotiations meetings. For those same reasons, we can only regret the amendments just presented in this Hall by the Group of Four. That initiative goes against the consensus-oriented approach that we believe should inform these negotiations. It is an unfortunate, last- minute and divisive action that undermines the role of the President of the General Assembly, questioning his credibility without foundation, and that also endangers the prospects of future discussions on this highly important matter. Looking at the content of the proposed amendments by the Group of Four, we note that they combine a reference to the Declaration for the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), which, I would like to stress, is already included in the co-Chairs’ document, with two other edits that were not agreed on by consensus during the five sessions of the intergovernmental negotiations discussions  — not only with regard to the position stated by the Uniting For Consensus group, but also the position stated by other groups and Member States. The Uniting for Consensus group looks forward to a smooth continuation of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy-sixth session as the best way to find more and more convergences, narrow down our differences and find a formula for a reformed Council that can benefit us all. For that reason, we urge the proponents of the amendments to reconsider their initiative and to allow the draft decision to be adopted by consensus, particularly in consideration of the fact that if followed to its extreme consequences, their action might set a very negative precedent for the future. I also want to say that while we understand the point made by the Group of African States and the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, we also understand that it relates more to the co-Chairs’ documents than to the draft decision submitted for the attention of the General Assembly. The point has been discussed at length in the past within the intergovernmental negotiations and we wonder if this is the right platform to reopen the discussion in this case. At the same time, we note that the Committee of Ten and the African Group stated that they would not support an amendment or, to use the right words, that it would be difficult for them to support an amendment that introduces the term “based on” in the text of the draft decision. I will stop there for the time being.

To be very honest, as I always am, Mr. President, I have to say that I was shocked when we received your rollover decision last week before consultations with the Group of Four (G-4) countries at the very least — I do not know about the others. It contradicts the practice of your predecessors who, before issuing the draft decision for a rollover, sat down and discussed it in order to come to an agreement. I think the predicament we are in today, which we have not experienced in the past four years, is due to the fact that there were no consultations about the draft decision. I was also shocked that there was no mention in the draft decision of the mandate given you by 193 Heads of State and Government. As you rightly said, the General Assembly plays a key role with regard to Security Council reform, but you did not mention that mandate to instil new life into the rollover decision. While it is true that it is included in the elements paper, as our Italian colleague just mentioned, we are talking about a decision by this organ in which the mandate to instil new life has to be acknowledged because it was given by our Heads of State and Government in the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1). They did not say that the most important task was to safely transfer the intergovernmental negotiations from one period to the next but that it was important to instil new life. In addition, I was shocked that you ignored the co-Chairs’ proposal. In their paper, which was transmitted to you and everyone else, they clearly stated that future discussions should be based specifically on the elements paper while of course referring to the framework document and others that are key to understanding the process. Furthermore, by referring to several documents, you ignored the African position, which was clearly presented during the intergovernmental negotiations and according to which the African countries would like to have “a single consolidated text”. Mr. President, perhaps I misunderstood your introductory remarks and you can clarify what you said about this exercise not being about extending privileges to a handful of Member States. If that is indeed what you said, I would ask you to please retract it, because it is not the task of the President of the General Assembly to represent the position of one group. Moreover, saying that this is not about extending the privileges to a handful of countries is disrespectful to the G-4 and to the African countries, which are asking for a permanent seat on the Council for two countries. We have received a text message from one delegation that is always very active on the issue claiming that “the G-4 is against the African position on Security Council reform”. I want to firmly reject that. The G-4 has been very clear on this. In fact, I myself stated clearly from this rostrum last year that Germany fully supports the African position (see A/74/PV.33). During the previous session of intergovernmental negotiations, we also asked for the African position to be comprehensively represented in the elements text, including the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. I fully understand our African colleagues’ disappointment that the Sirte Declaration is not included in the elements paper. I would like to ask you, Sir, to give the Assembly more time to reflect on how to rectify that. I think there is a huge majority that is in agreement with the demand and proposal by the Chairs of the Group of African States and the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform that an annex to the elements paper be agreed on. Another possibility would be an amendment to the amendment that we have proposed saying that the next intergovernmental negotiations should be based both on the elements paper and the Common African Position. Another possibility is that you or the General Assembly as a whole could issue a separate declaration on the matter. I would therefore like to ask that you give us more time. I believe my colleague from Brazil mentioned earlier that there are three months left of this session. As I said, in the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, the Heads of State and Government said that instilling new life is an important task. We cannot simply go back to them and say that we concluded three months early because we wanted to go on vacation and did not have time to discuss this very important subject anymore. Why is it so important? Perhaps my colleagues will ask why I am criticizing the President of the General Assembly in this way. I should say that I personally like the President very much and we are old friends. I am criticizing him because Germany is committed to the United Nations and wants it to thrive. We want the Security Council to reflect the realities of the world as it is today. We must not make it possible for the United Nations and the Security Council to lose their legitimacy and relevance. Otherwise the people of the world, especially its young people, will turn away and say, “Well, these guys in New York are just talking. They are not doing anything. They represent the world as it was two generations ago.” We are for a United Nations that stands for the rule of law. We are for the strengths of the rule of law, not the law of the strongest.

We thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting. Japan is grateful to Ambassadors Wronecka of Poland and Al-Thani of Qatar for their leadership and dedication. I also want to thank you, Sir, for starting the process earlier, with the quick appointment of the co-Chairs, and ensuring that we could have five meetings with extra room. Japan aligns itself with the statement made by Ambassador Costa Filho of Brazil on behalf of the Group of Four (G-4) countries, and I would like to add some remarks in my national capacity. I want to make two points, one about where we are, and one about where we are heading. First, as the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations made clear in their letter dated 29 April, our work in the negotiations during this session has been guided by the spirit enshrined in the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations by our Heads of State and Government (resolution 75/1), that of instilling new life into the discussion of reform of the Security Council. More than 80 Member States actively participated in the intergovernmental negotiations during this session, and we have heard an overwhelming majority of them express their strong desire to move forward. As we all know, over the past 13 years the intergovernmental negotiations process has compelled Member States to repeat the same positions year after year, as if the previous sessions had never taken place. It has become abundantly clear that until we have a document to focus our discussion on, it will continue to go around and around and get nowhere. In that regard, the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences, with attribution, was a small but significant step forward. That leads me to my second point. Japan deems it imperative that our work in the intergovernmental negotiations, as the co-Chairs recommended in their letter dated 12 May, should be rolled over to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly based on the co-Chairs’ elements paper. That document must serve as the basis of our future discussion to instil new life into our work. It is unfortunate that the draft oral decision that you circulated on 11 June, Mr. President, lacked sufficient consultation with Member States and failed to reflect the progress made in the intergovernmental negotiations and the recommendations of the co-Chairs. Japan believes that the amendment proposed by the G-4 is necessary in order to put on record the fact that meaningful progress was made in our discussions on the critical issue of Security Council reform during the session over which you presided and to accurately roll that progress over to the next session. With regard to referencing the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, as put forward by our colleague from Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, we fully support that and are ready to work to accommodate it if we are given more time. I align myself with my German colleague in that regard.

I am taking the floor in support of the amendment to the draft oral decision under consideration that has just been proposed by Brazil on behalf of the Group of Four countries. At the outset, I would like to thank the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka and Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representatives of Poland and Qatar respectively, for their leadership and hard work and for providing us with an opportunity to have a very rich discussion in the final intergovernmental negotiations meeting on the revised elements paper that they prepared based on the proceedings of this year’s intergovernmental negotiations. It was a welcome change from what we are used to. I also want to say that we continue to have reservations about the revised elements paper. For instance, we would have liked a clear, complete and full reference to the Common African Position, as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. In that context, we support the call by the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform to further revise the revised elements paper to include a reference to the Sirte Declaration. It cannot be that once the elements paper is presented, no Member State can touch it. That goes against the very grain of what we do. We would also like to have attributions introduced for positions listed under each of the clusters. Notwithstanding those reservations, we believe that the revised, restructured paper represents a new beginning and an opportunity to honour the commitment of our leaders to instilling new life into our long-stagnant discussions. The paper has the potential to become a basis and a starting point for future negotiations, provided that we all give ourselves the chance to focus our work on it and improve on it in future sessions. We had therefore expected you, Sir, to carry forward what the two co-Chairs had in fact set out to do and explicitly mentioned in their letter to you. That sentiment is also at the heart of our amendments today. We believe that under your stewardship, it is important that we do not squander the gains made in the revised elements paper. Let us signal to the world that as we carry our work into the seventy-sixth session, we do so with a vision for moving forward and not backwards into the repetitive cycles of statements. That is not an unreasonable expectation. In fact, it is the least that our leaders have mandated us to do. It is the only way we can prove to the world that for the past 13 years we have been using our time at the United Nations purposefully and have not been indulging in an academic debate, wasting United Nations resources and time. I would like to make a few simple points about the amendments we are proposing. First, our amendment does not introduce any new elements into the rollover decision. We are only reaffirming what our leaders said in the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), which is at the core of the notion of instilling new life. Those who do not want to instil new life will be against that phrase, of course, but for my delegation it is our mantra, since it has been agreed on by all leaders. I do not think the draft text should ignore it. Secondly, our amendment also only echoes what the co-Chairs themselves so explicitly mentioned in their letter to you, Sir, with regard to the revised elements paper becoming the basis of future discussions. It is there for every one of us to see. They have put in those words with due care and deliberation. How can they be dropped under a technicality? Thirdly, to those who fear that the amendment diminishes the status of the 2015 framework document in any way, that is simply not true. They should read it in the text for themselves. Just as in the previous rollover decisions, the framework document will continue to inform the intergovernmental negotiation discussions. Unlike some delegations here, including those against the Sirte Declaration, which do not want the framework to inform the discussions for reasons that are best known to themselves, we attach great value to the framework document. After all, my own delegation’s position is reflected in it too. Fourthly, and most importantly, the amendment is not motivated by any substantive positions that we may have. The decisions we are taking are procedural, designed to ensure a better and more focused discussion rather than repeating what we have already known for the past decade or more. The effort here is to safeguard, in a small way, the progress we have made during this session. That simply cannot be done with a mere technical update to the rollover decisions of last year. Focusing our future discussions on the elements paper and improving on it will allow all groups to have their positions discussed and debated in a structured manner. It is that procedural step forward that we are seeking. I would urge all Member States to support the amendments to the draft oral decision in order to have a consensus rollover, as has been the practice. The intergovernmental negotiations cannot continue to be a smokescreen for hiding those who are against Security Council reform. Those calling for a vote on our amendments are those who are against reform of the Security Council and who owe the world an explanation of their position. We should remember that in the eyes of the world, those who are opposed to our leaders’ pledge to instil new life and to a transparent and results-oriented process are effectively against the very idea of Security Council reform itself. We call on all Member States to support their own leaders’ call in the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations to instil new life. I hope that is the message the Assembly sends out today.

China would like to thank you, Mr. President, for holding today’s meeting. China fully supports the rollover draft decision on the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform that you have distributed and supports the introductory remarks that you have just made. During the past year, under your leadership and that of the Polish and Qatari co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Member States have conducted candid and in-depth exchanges on the issue of Security Council reform, achieving positive results and improving consensus. We appreciate the excellent, serious and responsible work that you and the two co-Chairs have done. The draft decision you have proposed is in full compliance with the practices that have evolved in previous years and is an objective reflection of the discussions and results achieved in the current session of intergovernmental negotiations. It also aligns with Member States’ expectations. As regards the rollover decision, you have listened carefully to the views of Member States, Mr. President, and on that basis and in accordance with past practices, you proposed a procedural and technical rollover decision. China supports the adoption by consensus of the draft oral decision, as it will help us to continue to advance the intergovernmental negotiations while maintaining the continuity of the Security Council reform process. China is firmly against the practice of proposing last-minute amendments, as the Group of Four countries has done, just as the Assembly is about to adopt the draft decision, and we also oppose the amendment’s content. First of all, the current core task of the General Assembly is to achieve the rollover rather than discuss substantive or controversial issues. As you said, Mr. President, the major task at present is to guarantee the rollover and ensure that the Assembly can continue its discussion of this important and sensitive topic. As for substantive issues, especially those of a contentious nature, they must be left for future discussions in order to improve consensus and narrow differences in that regard. The Group of Four, by forcing the introduction of controversial content by proposing substantive amendments to the President’s draft decision and especially by ignoring serious divergences among Member States, is demanding that the co-Chairs’ elements paper be the sole basis for the intergovernmental negotiations. That approach, based on the narrow self- interest of a minority of countries, shows no respect for you, Mr. President, or for the interests of other Member States. It is not in line with past practices, the basic previous consensus among Member States or the current situation in the intergovernmental negotiations. It is not conducive to making progress in the right direction or keeping us on track in the context of the intergovernmental negotiations. Secondly, the 2015 framework document is also an important reference document for the intergovernmental negotiations. China opposes the draft amendment, which undermines the previous consensus and deliberately diminishes the status of the framework document by proposing the co-Chairs’ elements paper as the basis for future discussions or negotiations instead. Here I would like to point out that both documents are important references for the intergovernmental negotiations. Thirdly, the co-Chairs’ elements paper was presented by the co-Chairs themselves in their own name, and we respect their hard work. At the same time, the paper’s content represents and reflects the co-Chairs’ views of the intergovernmental negotiations and their personal understanding of the positions of all the parties. There is still a lack of consensus on the status and use of the co-Chairs’ elements paper. That document therefore cannot be the only basis for future negotiations. The Chinese delegation calls on Member States to firmly maintain the intergovernmental negotiations as the main channel for Security Council reform. China supports the continuation of discussions within their framework. We also call for support for your proposed draft decision, Mr. President. As China has always emphasized, we need something that will benefit all countries rather than a limited number of interests. We do not need that kind of reform. What we need is to increase the voices of developing countries, especially African countries, and give them greater representation. We need a package solution for reform of the Security Council. Some countries are deliberately blocking the Assembly’s adoption of the rollover draft decision in an attempt to end the intergovernmental negotiations process. That is not in line with the expectations of a majority of Member States and will lead only to further confrontation and disagreements. China firmly opposes that approach, which we do not believe will have the support of Member States. We once again underscore that we are in favour of the adoption at today’s meeting of the draft decision you have proposed, Mr. President, without any amendments or revisions.

At the outset, my delegation would like to stress its continued support for 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, its appreciation for any progress made in the context of the intergovernmental negotiations in order to achieve balanced and equitable representation in the membership of the Security Council and its support for the Council’s role in maintaining international peace and security. The Syrian Arab Republic has been at the forefront of countries supporting and encouraging reform of the Security Council for 29 years. We participated actively in the first meeting of the Open-ended Working Group with a view to creating a Security Council that reflects the current state of international relations and takes account of the divergences and developments that we have seen in the years since the establishment of the United Nations. In that regard, during past rounds of negotiations, my delegation has suggested to the Working Group, in full sincerity and transparency, that previously formulated texts should be avoided, as should efforts to urge Member States to negotiate them, since discussions of this sensitive issue continue to reflect deep divisions among Member States on the very principles of reform. Genuine reform of the Security Council should begin with a refusal to impose any non-consensus texts on Member States as a basis for any negotiation process or to impose artificial and unrealistic schedules or deadlines, especially since that is outside the scope of the mandate of the two co-Chairs. The issues of Security Council enlargement and reform must be given ample time in order for us to arrive at a unified text that can be adopted by consensus. Presenting substantive non-consensus amendments to the draft decision at the last moment will not contribute to the proper functioning of this process, particularly because those amendments compel Member States to rely on a previous non-consensus text to be negotiated during the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. My delegation therefore cannot support them. Syria stresses the need to conduct negotiations concurrently on the five pillars of reform and in a balanced manner so that no pillar receives more attention than any other. For example, we cannot focus our discussion on membership categories and regional representation without discussing the relationship between the Council and the Assembly, in accordance with decision 62/557. My delegation continues to consider the intergovernmental negotiations to be the sole forum for discussing the reform process. We therefore call for continuing in-depth and inclusive negotiations without compromising the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations  — freedom, justice, equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of Member States — along with ensuring that the Security Council is not used as a cover or tool for States to justify military aggression against any other Member State. My delegation therefore encourages adequate, thorough discussions on the five points, with a view to reaching consensus, and emphasizes that it is futile today to undermine the collective negotiation mechanism by announcing and adopting unilateral or non-consensus positions.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for your efforts to help the work of the General Assembly succeed. I also want to thank the two co-Chairs for their efforts during the intergovernmental negotiations. We align ourselves with the statements made by the representatives of Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States, Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, and Kuwait, on behalf of the Group of Arab States. We hope that during the next session of the Assembly we will be able to launch regular negotiations that achieve results and break the impasse that has characterized them in past years. On this occasion, we would like to stress that the Common African Position is included in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We have noticed that the elements paper distributed to members — not the first of its kind, because many other such papers have preceded it in recent years — includes a reference to the African position as referred to in the Ezulwini Consensus, but without any reference to the Sirte Declaration. We would like to stress that this is unacceptable to us. We emphasize that the Common African Position, which enjoys the support of every member of the General Assembly, is the same as the position included in the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration together. It is not permissible to refer to either without the other when mentioning that position, especially considering that the Sirte Declaration has been officially adopted by the entire African leadership. For our part, we confirm that under any circumstances and regardless of motive, we will not accept attempts to ignore this historic fact, some of which appear to be deliberate. Nor can we support any other amendments before this issue is seriously considered. That would, unfortunately, ignore the position of an entire continent and introduce a new phase of the injustice to which our people have been subjected for hundreds of years. If we are really talking about achieving justice, peace and security in the world, the time has come for this to end. (spoke in English) We will not accept the removal of the reference to the Sirte Declaration from any text. We do not blame this year’s intergovernmental negotiations co-Chairs, because they have simply built on the documents of previous years, which contained the same mistake. This injustice to Africa, which happened at home, cannot continue in the General Assembly. We therefore ask those who oppose the inclusion of a reference to the Sirte Declaration to speak up and sit with us so that we can understand what their concerns are. For us, the Common African Position is the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, just as oxygen and hydrogen make up water. I hope that is clear and taken into consideration. We need to have it fixed.

I would first like to thank you, Mr. President, for the text of the draft oral decision on the rollover of the issue of Security Council reform to the seventy- sixth session of the General Assembly. We also thank you for your leadership in the process. We believe that the accusations about you that we heard today from the Permanent Representative of Germany are entirely inappropriate. In our view, the draft oral decision accurately reflects the discussion this year on the subject under the leadership of the co-Chairs. Year after year, the oral decisions have always been balanced, sufficient and short texts, just as with the document we are considering today. Two documents are being rolled over to the next session of the General Assembly, the revised text submitted by the co-Chairs and the 2015 framework document, which is very worrying to a majority of Security Council members. We support adoption without any amendments. We find it unfortunate that the Group of Four (G-4) decided to deprive this draft of its consensus by amending it. In our view, that not only puts the discussion in confrontational territory, but it could threaten the entire intergovernmental negotiations process. That is irresponsible. The adoption of the draft oral decision has been brought almost to the edge of collapse because of a small group of countries. It is time for us to protect the intergovernmental negotiations and support the oral decision in the form in which you presented it, Mr. President. That is the only way we will be able to preserve a consensus on a process that is so important to all of us. And consensus is key to success in the reform process. What is at stake is preserving not just what we have achieved this year, but in every year preceding it. Let us work to ensure that our disagreements about the reform process are not allowed to lead to the loss of something more important, which is our format for negotiations. We find it strange that the G-4’s desire to get the result it is striving for is expressed in attempts to compromise and delegitimize the intergovernmental negotiations process, which is essentially what the G-4 amendments are about. Unfortunately, the fact is that the G-4 is either not listening or does not want to hear that its amendments do not have universal support. In any case, we believe that delegations that submit amendments to an oral procedural decision from the President of the General Assembly are breaking the rules. We are not negotiating a draft resolution or decision submitted by delegations. What we have before us is a draft procedural decision from the President of the Assembly, which must either be adopted or rejected. The President is the author and sponsor of the proposed text. We call on the authors of the draft amendments to withdraw them and join the consensus. We want to stress that the G-4’s proposed amendments could undermine the entire reform process. We also call on all delegations to support the unchanged version of the President’s draft oral decision, without the amendments proposed by the G-4, and hope for the Assembly’s support.

We thank you, Mr. President, for the draft oral decision on the technical rollover of the intergovernmental negotiations on reform of the Security Council to the next session. You can count on our full support. We are categorically against the accusations that certain delegations have made against you. The draft oral decision being presented today accords with established General Assembly practice and is the logical result of the discussions that have taken place this year. It is balanced, concrete and procedurally adequate to ensuring that the intergovernmental negotiations can continue into the next session. We agree with you, Mr. President, that this decision is crucial to ensuring the continuity of the process with regard to extremely important issues concerning the reform of the Security Council. We believe that any attempt to upset the balance that has continued through the adoption from year to year of this oral decision damages the integrity of the reform process, introduces divisions into States’ positions and undermines the various parties’ mutual trust. The amendments presented today are none other than an attempt to undermine that balance, which only harms intergovernmental negotiations. We cannot accept attempts to confuse the priorities that the negotiation process is based on or to impose the co-Chairs’ elements paper as the basis for our negotiations as if to supersede other important documents, such as the 2015 framework document. We note that these amendments were made at the last minute, less than 24 hours before the Assembly was to consider the draft decision, without giving delegations adequate time necessary to agree on their positions. Ultimately, the amendments do not correspond to the declared aim of the Group of Four, which is to achieve positive results in our work. Belarus is against these amendments and calls for the draft oral decision to be adopted in its original form by consensus, as it was presented by the President of the General Assembly.

Egypt associates itself with the statements made by the Ambassadors of Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States, Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform (C- 10), and Kuwait, on behalf of the Group of Arab States. I also want to commend and appreciate the efforts of the President and the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Wronecka and Al-Thani. I would now like to add some remarks in my national capacity. I want to begin by saying that I have called for lowering the temperature in the General Assembly Hall. The air-conditioning is now working very well and efficiently, thanks to Conference Management staff, but I would still like to ask that we lower the temperature of the conversation. The spirit of reform is a spirit of consensus and common action. If we were to take the current prevailing mood to the Security Council Chamber, would it be conducive to collective action, efficiency and effectiveness or to more tension, isolation and paralysis? First, with regard to principles, the intergovernmental negotiations are a process driven by Member States and based on consensus. That is how we established it, starting in the sixty-second session, and it should continue to follow the same path, as enshrined in decision 62/557. Secondly, this consensual nature was not created to complicate the process. On the contrary, the collective wisdom at the time established the principle of ensuring the widest possible political acceptance because it was well understood that reform cannot be forced or enforced. We cannot vote to have a new Security Council. It is not only the procedural angle, reflected in the required approval of 128 Parliaments, including those of the five permanent members of the Security Council. It is also the political context. How can we have a Council representing a general membership that is not united behind it? Thirdly, my delegation has emphasized more than once that the current circumstances, with a world recovering from a devastating pandemic, make this a time to be constructive, build on commonalities and avoid issues that could divide the general membership and the consensus nature of the intergovernmental negotiations. It is our firm belief that regardless of our different positions, we all share a common goal  — a reformed, more effective Security Council. In that context, my delegation stresses that what is happening now is threatening the intergovernmental negotiations and will push us off the track. Unless they are wisely addressed, the political realities will re-emerge in any process, regardless of its time, shape or content. On the substance of the proposed amendments, we remain firm on the totality of the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration and reject piecemeal approaches, including moves to put forward the Consensus and the Declaration as a basis for text-based negotiations. The African position is formulated and decided on at the level of Heads of State and Government. With regard to this, the latest African Union (AU) Summit decision, in January 2020, “[r]eaffirms that the Common African Position espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration shall continue to serve as the only viable option that reflects Africa’s legitimate right and aspiration to rectify, inter alia, the historical injustice endured by the continent as the only viable option for Africa’s full representation at the United Nations Security Council.” In that AU Summit decision, the mandate is clear on the African Group and its position in its entirety, including the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. However, nothing in that decision mandates the African Group to deviate and now engage in text-based negotiations. If it had, it would also have been clearly stated, as was done in the Common African Position. And if and when that happens, all Africans will have to follow it. We must respect the decisions of the African Union Summit and not deviate from them or impose a new path that is not clearly mandated. Based on that, we support the rollover decision proposed by you, Mr. President, because it preserves the 2015 framework document, which best captures the African Common Position for the upcoming session. As reflected in the letter dated 3 May addressed to the President of the General Assembly by the Ambassador of Sierra Leone, Coordinator of the C-10, our position encompasses both the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We cannot separate them from each other. The proposed amendments would give priority to the co-Chairs’ elements paper — which is limited to the Ezulwini Consensus and does not capture the Sirte Declaration  — over the 2015 framework document, which includes both. That is why we do not agree with the proposed amendments, as they would undermine the African Common Position, as well as the consensus nature of the intergovernmental negotiations and, eventually, the whole reform endeavour.

Ecuador supports the procedure through which you have presented the draft oral decision to roll over the intergovernmental negotiations process to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. It is important to protect and preserve that procedure. Through you, Mr. President, I would also like to congratulate the co-Chairs on leading the process in the most inclusive and transparent way possible and for making important progress in their elements paper on convergences and divergences. In my first statement in February, during the intergovernmental negotiations, I expressed my delegation’s desire that the process be conducted diplomatically and in good faith and that we avoid widening the gap that separates our delegations on a number of issues. I then insisted, above all, on the importance of avoiding crossfire among delegations and building the necessary trust in order to achieve progress in a process that might not be a short one. That is why Ecuador would have preferred to defer this meeting, in order to allow for more consultations among Member States, Mr. President, in recognition of your full authority to propose an oral decision that from the point of view of the presidency, and based on more consultations, would be better able to garner the necessary consensus. Following the intergovernmental negotiations process that began in February, in which  — in my delegation’s view — trust was built among the delegations, and the disagreements and hostile environment that often emerge during the process were greatly minimized, Ecuador regrets that we are now at this point. As I said, we would have preferred more time to consider the adoption of the draft oral decision and for more consultations among the interested delegations, and not just with the main groups but also with delegations like mine, which have shown interest and made contributions independently throughout the negotiation process. In substance, the need to take a decision on a proposed amendment, whether for or against, does not reflect the position of my country. Ecuador will continue to support the Declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1) and its implementation. We nevertheless regret that the inclusion of a fundamental part of the Declaration, such as its call to instil new life into the discussions of reform of the Security Council, does not enjoy full consensus today. Ecuador would like to make it clear that we can support the draft oral decision as proposed by you, Mr. President, and we could have supported amendments if they had been the result of broader consultations over a reasonable period of time. In our opinion, quite apart from the content of the oral decision, we should continue this process on the basis of the work that has already been done, including the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences. I am grateful for the opportunity to express my delegation’s opinion and position. It is more important to consider opinions that we can arrive at by consensus than to merely take account of delegations’ positions.

I would like to join my colleagues in thanking you, Mr. President, for convening this plenary meeting to discuss the draft oral decision on the question of equitable representation on, and increase in, the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council. My delegation is grateful for the constructive manner in which the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations led the process during the most recent session. We align ourselves with the statements made by the representatives of Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States, and Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, respectively, and would like to add a few points in our national capacity. Namibia would like to acknowledge the positive direction that the negotiations have taken, as this builds on the foundation we have established aimed at realizing increased and more equitable representation on the Security Council. We have a long tradition of adopting the rollover draft oral decision by consensus, so it is regrettable that we have arrived at our current position owing to disharmony brought about by the shortcomings of the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences. We are fully cognizant that the process is cumbersome, and as we try to balance a wide array of interests, we are inclined to encourage more flexibility on the part of all Member States. Furthermore, we appreciate the support for the Common African Position. However, we have concerns about the fact that the reference to the Common African Position in the co-Chairs’ elements paper is an incomplete reflection. Notwithstanding the overwhelming support expressed by Member States, we note that the elements paper fails to reference in their totality the core documents that underpin and contain the Common African Position, as adopted by Africa’s Heads of State and Government. While making specific reference to the Common African Position, taking into account the Ezulwini Consensus, the document contains no references to the Sirte Declaration, which is a critical component of the Common African Position. In principle, we support the draft oral amendments presented here today, but we wish to put on record our strong reservation that we cannot support a position whereby the co-Chairs’ elements paper will form the basis for future negotiations if it is not reflective of the Common African Position in its totality. As we are a member of the Committee of Ten, our mandate to advance, promote and solicit support for the Common African Position is inextricably linked to what is articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. In our view, therefore, direct references to both those documents would have strengthened the elements paper and the basis for future negotiations. Had we had more time to discuss the proposed amendments submitted here today, I am sure many of us would have found that there are elements in them that we could have supported.

Zimbabwe aligns itself with the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Eritrea and Sierra Leone on behalf of the Group of African States and the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, respectively. However, I would like to add some remarks in my national capacity. Zimbabwe welcomes your draft oral decision, Mr. President, which we firmly believe is in line with previous practice and reflects the outcome of the previous session in a balanced manner. Our hope is that that delicate balance will be maintained in the oral draft decision adopted by consensus. The Common African Position continues to enjoy broad support from most Member States, as it is the only option that reflects Africa’s legitimate right to rectify the historical injustices endured by the continent. As many speakers before me have said, the intergovernmental negotiations should be driven by Member States. In that context, my delegation believes that reform of the Security Council should be based on consensus, taking into consideration the interests of all Member States. The proposed oral amendments, which seek to introduce into the oral draft decision issues that Member States have not agreed on, are therefore not conducive to a consensus outcome, a point, Mr. President, that you clearly underlined in your opening remarks. We also believe that the co-Chairs’ elements paper is a summary of the understanding of Member States’ positions on Security Council reform, a position that the co-Chairs have confirmed. The document therefore has no status and cannot be a basis for future negotiations. In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that any decision on reform of the Security Council should garner the widest possible political acceptance, or a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly, in accordance with resolution 53/30.

We are grateful for the holding of this meeting and for your letter of 11 June, Mr. President, containing a technical update of the oral draft decision on this item that Mexico finds acceptable. We would like to reiterate our support for the course of action that you have presented, Mr. President, and for your draft oral decision. The intergovernmental negotiations have served as a legitimate forum for discussions on positions and points of view, which is a dialogue that we must continue. Based on those discussions, the co-Chairs produced a document in line with the responsibility conferred on them that reflects the outcome of the discussions and on which there is no consensus. From what we understand, the rollover of the draft oral decision to continue the intergovernmental negotiations constitutes the lowest common denominator agreed on by the vast majority of delegations in order to pursue that dialogue. We do not deem it appropriate to turn the draft decision into a pretext for further discussions in addition to the intergovernmental negotiations. The intergovernmental negotiations process is led by the Member States. We appreciate the consultations, Sir, that you have held with negotiating groups, as well as the delegations concerned, in a transparent, inclusive and substantive manner. We regret that some delegations have submitted draft oral amendments to your proposed oral draft decision, thereby creating further divisions on an issue on which we have failed to reach the consensus necessary to achieve reform of the Security Council. Mexico therefore finds those draft oral amendments unacceptable. The co-Chairs’ elements paper cannot be construed as a basis for the future work of the intergovernmental negotiations. Mexico will continue to advocate for the comprehensive reform of the Security Council, which will make it more representative, transparent, democratic, efficient and accountable, and above all will ensure that it serves the interests of the whole international community, not just a few States.

Costa Rica appreciates the convening of this meeting and your letter of 11 June, Mr. President, which contains a technical update of the oral draft decision that Costa Rica supports. Costa Rica is also grateful for your tireless work, with countless hours spent consulting with all the negotiating groups and delegations concerned. Costa Rica acknowledges your efforts to ensure that your impeccable work has been done in an inclusive, transparent and impartial manner. We support the course of action you have presented and your oral draft decision. The intergovernmental negotiations are the legitimate forum for continuing discussions on the five clusters of reform outlined in decision 62/557. As you affirmed earlier, the updated elements of the oral draft decision aimed at continuing the intergovernmental negotiations constitute the lowest common denominator necessary for the adoption of a rollover draft oral decision among Member States. Costa Rica joins Mexico in affirming that it does not deem it appropriate or applicable to use the draft decision as a pretext for conducting further discussions in addition to the intergovernmental negotiations. We should not forget that in line with the responsibility conferred on them, the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations have produced a document on the state of the negotiations. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that the process is conducted by Member States. Costa Rica regrets the submission of the last- minute draft amendments to your draft oral decision, Mr. President. Many delegations were taken by surprise. The situation has not only caught States off guard, but it has also contributed to further dividing the membership on an issue on which we have clearly failed to reach the necessary consensus. For these reasons, Costa Rica is not in a position to accept the draft oral amendments. Moreover, they are substantive amendments, not merely procedural, to the draft oral decision, which, according to past practice, has been presented by the President and has always been adopted by consensus. Costa Rica therefore calls on States to adopt the draft oral decision as submitted by the President. In conclusion, I want to remind the Assembly that the purpose of the intergovernmental negotiation process is to work towards achieving a more democratic Security Council that better represents every region of the world and that is more transparent in its work, more accountable to the Member States it serves, more legitimate in its composition and more effective in providing collective responses to the multiple and complex challenges facing the multilateral system.

Colombia would like to thank you for the technical update of the oral draft decision that you presented earlier, Mr. President, which clearly lays out the goal of ensuring the continuity of dialogue and deliberations on the substantive aspects of Security Council reform. Colombia also acknowledges in particular the efforts of the co-Chairs, whose leadership has made possible the circulation of their elements paper, which reflects the various and diverse positions of States and groups with regard to Security Council reform. My delegation believes that amendments to the proposed technical rollover oral draft decision are not necessary, and that we should adopt the document as you have submitted it, Mr. President, and by consensus. Colombia is of the view that the next cycle of deliberations of the intergovernmental negotiations should maintain wide-ranging discussions on the subject and should not be constrained by specific documents. The debate must continue to be comprehensive and free-flowing, in strict accordance with the framework established by decision 62/557, of 2008. Colombia also reaffirms its conviction that the conditions necessary to move forward with text-based negotiations are not in place and reiterates that the intergovernmental negotiations are the sole legitimate forum for advancing discussions on equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related issues. Our goal is to build a more democratic, transparent, representative and effective Council that is broadly and accessibly accountable for its actions. Any change in its composition must enjoy the broadest consensus, in keeping with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. We are confident that in 2022 we will be able to resume a comprehensive dialogue on the reform of the Security Council, in our determination to strengthen the work of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security.

I would like to begin my statement by thanking you, Mr. President, for your commitment to and support of the Security Council reform process and your letter of 11 June, in which you presented for Member States’ consideration the draft oral decision on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. I also want to thank you, Sir, for convening this very important meeting. In addition, I would like to acknowledge and thank the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ms. Joanna Wronecka, Permanent Representative of Poland, and Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, for their leadership throughout this session. Equatorial Guinea fully aligns itself with the statements made by the Permanent Representatives of Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States, and Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform. We would like to add the following remarks in our national capacity. At every meeting on reform of the Security Council, Africa has reiterated its position on the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, calling for three additional non-permanent seats and no fewer than two permanent seats, with all prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership, including the right of the veto, as set forth in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We welcome the fact that the positions and proposals developed by Member States, which are reflected in the framework document and its annex, circulated by the President of the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session, and the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters, will be carried forward to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. However, despite our clear message, sent with one voice, and the increasing support of Member States and stakeholders during the most recent cycle of intergovernmental negotiations, the Common African Position was weakened by its inadequate reflection in the co-Chairs’ elements paper. We urgently request that references to the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration be included, especially as both documents contain decisions by Africa’s Heads of State and Government that represent the aspirations of the African people and must be upheld in their entirety. The Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declarations are two mutually reinforcing documents. The mere mention of the Ezulwini Consensus without mentioning the Sirte Declaration, as is the case in the co-Chairs’ elements paper, clearly contravenes the Common African Position and undermines the decisions adopted by our African Heads of State and Government, especially as the latter reflects Africa’s legitimate right and aspiration to rectify the historical injustice suffered by the continent. It is therefore very important for us that the Common African Position, which enjoys the broad support of Member States and stakeholders, be taken into account in order for us to move forward with the intergovernmental negotiations. We see a need to hold constructive discussions on the elements paper with the goal of fully and accurately referencing both the Consensus and the Declaration. Our consistent and firm stance on including the Sirte Declaration in the co-Chairs’ elements paper is based on the fact that while the Ezulwini Consensus was adopted by consensus during a retreat of African Heads of State, it was in Sirte that the agreement was finalized, at an extraordinary session of the Organization of African Unity Assembly of African Heads of State and Government, via the Sirte Declaration. As we pointed out earlier, removing the Declaration from any document under consideration by or discussed in the General Assembly, or any other United Nations body, would seriously undermine the Common African Position as a product of both the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration.

Uganda expresses its appreciation to you, Sir, for convening this meeting and for the draft oral decision you circulated on 11 June to roll over the work of the intergovernmental negotiations on reform of the Security Council to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. At the outset, my delegation aligns itself with the statements made by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone, in his capacity as Coordinator of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, and Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States. My delegation would like to underscore the following points in its national capacity. Uganda extends its support for the oral draft decision, because it reflects the work done during this session and, most importantly, rolls over the framework document in addition to the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences, among other things, as the basis for the future work of the intergovernmental negotiations. We therefore support the oral draft decision before us without the proposed draft oral amendments. We want to express our gratitude to the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Wronecka and Al-Thani, for their tireless efforts in facilitating the work of the intergovernmental negotiations during this session and coming up with the elements paper. However, as the co-Chairs themselves indicated in their letter of 12 May, the elements paper sought to reflect their understanding of the current state of the intergovernmental negotiation discussions on the five clusters and their linkages. It therefore cannot be taken as a basis for future negotiations but can serve as a useful reference tool for Member States’ deliberations on the matter in the future. My delegation reiterates that the framework document of 2015 should continue to be a separate reference document for the intergovernmental negotiations, as it encapsulates the positions and views of most Member States, including those of Africa, on the five clusters outlined in decision 62/557. We also call urgently on the co-Chairs to accurately reference the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration in their elements paper. We underscore that the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration are decisions by African Heads of State and Government representing the aspirations of the African people. That is the only viable option that reflects Africa’s legitimate right and aspiration to rectify the historical injustice endured by the continent. In that regard, it is important to note that referencing the Ezulwini Consensus without the Sirte Declaration clearly contravenes the Common African Position and undermines the decisions reached by the African Heads of State and Government. We note that the Common African Position continues to enjoy broad support from Member States and interest groups, as recently evidenced by the repeated support and sympathy expressed for it during the recently concluded cycle of intergovernmental negotiations, and that should be taken into consideration in moving the process forward. In conclusion, Uganda reiterates its commitment to the intergovernmental negotiations process and reaffirms that as established by decision 62/557, the intergovernmental negotiations remain the legitimate and appropriate mechanism for deliberations on reform of the Security Council. We also look forward to continuing to engage with Member States within the intergovernmental negotiations to advance the reform process and extend our full support to the incoming President of the General Assembly at its seventy-sixth session in that effort.

The delegation of Burundi would first like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting so that the General Assembly can adopt the draft oral decision on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. While we fully align ourselves with the statements made earlier by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone and Eritrea on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform and the Group of African States, respectively, we would like to add some observations in our national capacity. My delegation welcomes the momentum achieved during this session of the intergovernmental negotiations and has taken note of the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters, based on revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration. The document mentions the broad recognition and support by Member States for Africa’s legitimate aspiration to play its rightful role on the world stage, including through an increased presence on the Security Council, as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus, adopted by the African Union, and it also accurately reflects the view that redressing the historical injustice with respect to Africa is considered a priority. However, my delegation emphasizes that the elements paper on convergences and divergences resulting from this session of the intergovernmental negotiations makes reference only to the Ezulwini Consensus and not the Sirte Declaration. The Consensus and the Declaration should both be included in the final document because they are inextricably linked. We therefore request that that be taken into account in final documents of the intergovernmental negotiations in future. The delegation of Burundi is of the view that the draft oral decision submitted for adoption is in accordance with previous practice and is a balanced reflection of the discussions and results of the intergovernmental negotiations. We believe that the adoption of these decisions by consensus is a long- standing practice and that any challenge to that technical provision could imperil all the significant advances that have been achieved to date. Mr. President, my delegation reiterates its unwavering support for the adoption of the oral draft decision, as it is the result of the in-depth consultations that you conducted with the core groups on the resumption of the intergovernmental negotiations process. It reflects Member States’ general understanding and basis for agreement on the negotiations. My delegation is opposed to any amendment to the draft decision and would like to remind the Assembly of resolution 53/30, in which the General Assembly resolved to refrain from adopting any decision or resolution on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters without an affirmative vote of at least two thirds of its members. My delegation continues to believe that the framework document circulated by the President of the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session, which fully and faithfully reflects the Common African Position on the five issues, and the co-Chairs’ elements paper, along with the draft decision before us, can all serve as a useful guide for future intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. My delegation opposes undermining or challenging those documents in any way, as we believe that they and other procedural issues should not take precedence over the substantive issues of the intergovernmental negotiations. Burundi desires a credible, inclusive, transparent, open and swift negotiation process, conducted in a spirit of flexibility and compromise. Security Council reform must be based on the five key issues together, as a package. We must always bear in mind the fact that Security Council reform can be comprehensive only if it fully addresses all five issues. The challenges are huge, but if Member States are committed and negotiate in good faith, reform is not impossible in this ever-changing world. In conclusion, my delegation notes the progress that has already made, but believes that we can do better — much better — and move forward. It is not a good idea to wait for a major global event that could overturn the established order in order to meet the challenge of achieving speedy reform of the Security Council. That challenge must be overcome by collective efforts leading to a shared success that can be our legacy for future generations.

Let me begin by thanking you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting to adopt an oral decision on the technical rollover of the intergovernmental negotiations. My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, and I would also like to make a few points in my national capacity. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate my delegation’s full support to you, Mr. President, and to the co-Chairs, Ambassadors Wronecka of Poland and Al-Thani of Qatar, support that was repeatedly affirmed by all groups and Member States throughout this year’s intergovernmental negotiations meetings. Throughout the long process of meetings this year, we have never doubted that you and the co-Chairs have been open, inclusive, impartial and professional in guiding the intergovernmental negotiations process. My delegation strongly supports your draft oral decision on the rollover of the intergovernmental negotiations. It is balanced and will allow for a smooth transition of our important efforts to reform the Security Council. It is therefore regrettable that the long-established practice of adopting a rollover decision by consensus has been challenged by an amendment presented today. More important, my delegation believes that the proposed amendment, touching on the fundamental nature of the intergovernmental negotiations discussions, is clearly a substantive issue rather than a procedural one. However, what is particularly worrisome is that it could damage the fundamental nature of our discussions in the intergovernmental negotiations. The elements paper clearly stipulates that the understanding and views of the current state of the intergovernmental negotiations process are those of the co-Chairs, not Member States. The draft amendment would therefore directly contradict decision 62/557, which emphasizes that intergovernmental negotiations should be a membership-driven process. If we should decide to continue our future intergovernmental negotiations discussions based on the co-Chairs’ elements paper, it is therefore my delegation’s sincere hope that the draft amendment will be withdrawn. I have many more points to make against the draft amendment today. However, Mr. President, in your opening statement you mentioned the importance of a good balance between diplomacy and politics, whose commonality, as far as I am concerned, is none other than civility, and I will therefore stop here.

Turkey aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, and I would like to add the following remarks in my national capacity. Turkey greatly appreciates the efforts of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassadors Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, and Wronecka, former Permanent Representative of Poland. Their invaluable leadership and wisdom in steering the intergovernmental negotiations, during the five dedicated meetings of the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly, as well as their extensive engagement with the entire membership, are commendable and should be recognized by all Member States. All groups and individual Member States had ample opportunities to explain their positions and concerns during the meetings. We welcomed their consistently fair and impartial open-door policy throughout the year for any individual Member State or negotiating group, and we appreciated the fact that this approach was often commended during intergovernmental negotiation meetings. Member States agree that the Security Council must be more transparent, representative, accountable and effective. Reform of the Council is an issue with broad implications for the national interests of Member States as well as for the work of the United Nations. Our approach must therefore be comprehensive and inclusive while aiming at consensus. We recognize that the co-Chairs’ efforts were focused on that direction. If indeed all Member States are equal, reforms that serve only a minority cannot be imposed on the entire membership. Our focus must be on the common good, not on narrowly defined national interests. With reference to your letter dated 11 June, Mr. President, I would like to underline that Turkey fully supports the draft oral decision circulated to the membership with the letter. We firmly believe in the virtue of the membership-driven nature of the reform process within the intergovernmental negotiations and in the power of dialogue, and we oppose any procedural short cuts. We view the proposed amendments as an attempt to impose a certain view on the entire membership while disregarding widely shared concerns and sensitivities. With regard to their content, we note that two of the proposed edits were not agreed on by consensus during the intergovernmental negotiations. They are not procedural in nature but quite substantive. Concerning the reference to the Declaration for the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1), we would like to remind delegations that it is already included in the co-Chairs’ document. We firmly believe that we should not deepen our divergences. We need consensus-based approaches to be able to achieve reform. We call on Member States to work together responsibly and constructively for the common good in order to reach the widest possible agreement. We therefore invite all Member States to support the draft oral decision as presented by the President.

The delegation of Pakistan aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. I would first like to thank both co-Chairs, Ambassadors Wronecka of Poland and Al-Thani of Qatar, for their splendid guidance of the work of the intergovernmental negotiations this year, in difficult circumstances. I would also like to add my voice to the expressions of gratitude to you, Mr. President, for the open and consultative process of leadership that you have provided, not just for the intergovernmental negotiations process but for all processes within the General Assembly. After hearing some of the statements here today, I would add that I admire your patience and forbearance in response. Your draft oral decision, Mr. President, is consistent with precedent. In the past, similar decisions have been adopted, reflecting the widest possible agreement, as does your proposal. It is balanced, and the tradition is to adopt those decisions by consensus. It is therefore most regrettable that some delegations have chosen to continue their divisive efforts in the intergovernmental negotiations and to carry them forward into the General Assembly. They are promoting partisan objectives, transparent in their efforts to add amendments, which they are quite aware would be unacceptable to a large percentage of the members of the Assembly. The draft amendments are not merely procedural but touch on the substance and process of the intergovernmental negotiations. The intergovernmental negotiations process should not be reopened, since we have the co-Chairs’ elements paper. The intergovernmental negotiations are a member-driven process. The co-Chairs’ paper reflects their own understanding of the convergences and divergences among Member States on the issue of Security Council reform. The positions and understanding of the co-Chairs cannot form the basis for negotiations. Indeed, they have not asked for that, contrary to what some statements here today have asserted. Members should read their letter of 12 May. It does not talk about the document becoming a basis for negotiations. It is also quite clear that the co-Chairs’ document does not reflect the positions of various parties in a balanced or comprehensive way. We have heard about the African position on the omission of the Sirte Declaration. Similarly, the position of Uniting for Consensus is not fully or comprehensively reflected in the co-Chairs’ paper, and therefore the paper is not and cannot become a basis for negotiations. On the other hand, your statement, Mr. President, is a balanced and comprehensive suggestion, building on the informal meetings and the co-Chairs’ letter and paper, as well as the 2015 framework document. They all provide material for us to further build on our convergences and reduce our divergences. It is that approach to building consensus that should guide the Assembly and all its members. We would ask the Group of Four to withdraw their draft amendments and not to divide the Assembly further. Their amendments are biased and do not enjoy wide support. If we are pushed to a vote, it will erode the objective of Security Council reform and set it back by many years. It will not give new life to the process but will rather be its death knell.

Argentina aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, and we would like to add a few points in our national capacity. The text of the draft oral decision circulated in your letter of 11 June, Mr. President, clearly reflects the developments and results of the intergovernmental negotiations held during the current session. The proposed amendments do not reflect the current status of our discussions. In the co-Chairs’ note dated 29 April, they make it clear that their elements paper on convergences and divergences was not prepared in order to serve as a basis for discussions for future intergovernmental negotiations. It is simply a document that in accordance with the mandated responsibility of the co-Chairs provides a summary of the discussions held during this year’s negotiations. We believe that the draft oral decision to roll over intergovernmental negotiations to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly should be limited to a technical update providing continuity for the Security Council reform process pursuant to the modalities outlined in decision 62/557. We therefore call on those proposing the amendments to reconsider them in a spirit of good faith and cooperation. My delegation fully supports the text of your draft oral decision, Mr. President, and we hope that it can be adopted by consensus at today’s plenary meeting.

We would like to express our full support for the draft oral decision you have proposed, Mr. President, based on long-standing practice in the intergovernmental negotiations, as you rightly mentioned. Paragraph (e) of decision 62/557 clearly states that the basis for intergovernmental negotiations should first and foremost be the positions and proposals of Member States, regional groups and other groupings of Member States. However, the co-Chairs’ elements paper represents only their reading, analysis, understanding and interpretation of the discussions and proposals made during the intergovernmental negotiations. As the co-Chairs themselves have stated, they alone are responsible for the preparation of their paper. It is not the product of a member-State-driven process. Neither is it accurate or complete. For instance, it fails to include some of our major proposals. Accordingly, while we appreciate the co-Chairs’ good intentions and efforts in presenting the paper, our delegation cannot agree with giving the paper any status.

Morocco fully aligns itself with the statements made by the Permanent Representatives of Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States, Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, and Kuwait, on behalf of the Group of Arab States, and would like to add the following remarks in its national capacity. At the outset, I would like to congratulate the co-Chairs, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Poland, on their commitment to ensuring a collaborative spirit in the current intergovernmental negotiations cycle, which enabled constructive debate and considerable progress. We also thank them for their efforts in drafting their elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. We know that it reflects the views of the co-Chairs and their understanding of the progress made in the current cycle of intergovernmental negotiations. We appreciate the references in the document to the broad support for the African position expressed during our discussions, including the Ezulwini Consensus, and to the importance of repairing the historic injustice to Africa as a priority in the reform process. However, we are concerned about the omission of references to the Sirte Declaration, which, along with the Ezulwini Consensus, defines the parameters of the Common African Position, including Africa’s aspirations for full representation on the Security Council, an issue that has already been addressed by the African Group and the Committee of Ten. As we said in our discussions during the intergovernmental negotiations, we believe it is essential that the direction of discussions and positions be accurately reflected in the final documents of every session. We support Africa’s clear, just and legitimate demands with regard to Security Council reform, as contained in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. The two documents go hand in hand and cannot be separated. We also support the Arab Group’s position on the issue. We thank you, Mr. President, for your draft oral decision, circulated with your letter of 11 June, to roll over the negotiations to the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly in accordance with the practice of the past few years. We firmly believe that the progress made during the current cycle serves as additional proof that we can move the process forward during the seventy-sixth session, thanks to a spirit of compromise and collective will on the part of all States. Reform of this vital organ must be fully supported by all Member States, because the Security Council works on behalf of Member States to maintain international peace and security. Lastly, we reiterate our commitment to the current intergovernmental negotiations format, which remains a legitimate platform and the most suitable one for bringing about Security Council reform.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s meeting at such a pivotal time for the issue of reform of the Security Council. I would first like to express Malta’s gratitude for your leadership during this historic seventy-fifth session. We would also like to convey our appreciation for the sterling work of the co-Chairs, who steered the United Nations membership through the discussions of the intergovernmental negotiations. Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by Ambassador Stefano Stefanile, Deputy Permanent Representative of Italy, on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, and we would like to add the following remarks in our national capacity. In the spirit of consensus, Malta fully supports your draft oral decision, Mr. President, which continues the efforts to achieve a proper evolution of the intergovernmental negotiations towards the seventy- sixth session of the General Assembly. Nonetheless, we deeply regret the draft amendments that have been presented, which we do not consider to be purely procedural. Our goal is to continue the consensus- oriented approach that has always guided the process of Security Council reform. For that reason, we call on the initiators of the amendments to reconsider and ensure that the draft decision as you have presented it, Mr. President, is adopted by consensus. In conclusion, it is only by focusing on our core principles that we can expect any advances in this process. We cannot rush a process as important and delicate as reform of the Security Council. The United Nations membership will be in a better position to move forward only if convergences are discussed and eventually reflected in a manner that is as accurate and representative as possible.

I support the statement made earlier today by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. In the interests of saving time, I will be brief. However, I would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. President, for your leadership on an issue that we addressed throughout the seventy-fifth session of the General Assembly, and the co-Chairs for their outstanding work throughout the year. We support the text of the draft oral decision, which accurately reflects our position and the discussions that have taken place within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-fifth session. We hope that all Member States will support it by consensus. A forum for negotiations on Security Council reform does exist. We all agreed on it many years ago, in decision 62/557. While we have been making headway in that forum towards consensus in various areas, there is obviously still a lot of work to be done. We do not support the draft amendments put forward today, because they are substantive in nature and their content belongs in the aforementioned negotiating forum, whose meetings for 2021 have already concluded. The forum for the content of the amendments introduced today will be the 2022 intergovernmental negotiations held during the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly, where we will once again be able to listen to one another’s positions and express our agreements and disagreements. The so-called co-Chairs’ paper that has been discussed today, which at least one draft amendment has proposed as a basis for negotiations, obviously does not enjoy consensus among all Member States, as has now been made clear. The problem is that the proposed amendments seek in this way to alter the outcome of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy- fifth session of the General Assembly. I would like to conclude by expressing my disagreement with the statement of one of our colleagues this morning, which claimed that opposition to today’s draft amendments was equivalent to opposition to Security Council reform. While we are against the introduction of substantive amendments such as those before us today, we nevertheless support reforming the Security Council, as we have stated on numerous occasions in this Hall. We continue to believe that discussions of Security Council reform should be held in another forum, the intergovernmental negotiations, which we have all agreed on for that purpose.

I will be very brief. We thank you, Mr. President, for circulating the draft oral decision and for your commitment to the process itself. We also thank the co-Chairs for their tireless efforts during the intergovernmental negotiations process. I align my comments with the statements delivered by the representatives of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, and Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States. I want to join the Committee of Ten, the African Group and many other Member States that have taken the floor today in supporting the inclusion of references to the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration in the text of the draft decision. As we have heard from many speakers, at the very least there was consensus on the fact that those references should be included in the text. I believe that should form part of the basis of the discussion here, given that the text that we hope will serve as the basis of a future discussion omits an element that is supported by the African Union and many other delegations, as they have said today. We do not believe this is a metaphysical matter, as the inclusion of those elements in the elements paper will be valuable for future conversations. My final point concerns consensus. Needless to say, we have held many debates in the General Assembly. While the Assembly must sometimes hold votes on decisions and resolutions, we should not undermine its capacity to reach consensus wherever and whenever the opportunity has been provided. Rwanda does not wish to discuss the lack of consensus on the deferral of this subject, which is very important to the General Assembly and to Member States. We would have liked to have consensus, but it is regrettable we are having these kinds of discussions regarding amendments to your proposal, Mr. President. Once again, we should probably have had more time to consult, even with our capitals, before agreeing on a way forward on the matter.

My delegation aligns itself with the statements made by the representatives of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on Security Council reform, and Eritrea, on behalf of the Group of African States. In our national capacity, my delegation would like to express its gratitude to you, Mr. President, as well as to the co-Chairs, for their dynamic leadership and inclusive efforts in this admittedly very difficult process. I am also pleased to express my delegation’s appreciation to all Member States for their collective commitment to an inclusive and transparent process. We recognize the co-Chairs’ efforts to reflect the Common African Position in the final document, but unfortunately that commitment alone is not enough to satisfy the African Group. The omission of references to the Sirte Declaration and the Ezulwini Consensus in the document, despite all those involved in the process being well aware that they constitute two indivisible components of the Common African Position, unfortunately represents a regrettable setback to the adequate consideration of Africa’s demands. Our continent, already the victim of an injustice that has lasted far too long, can only disagree and express its firm reservation with regard to the omission, while demanding that it be rectified without delay in order to ensure the complete and accurate reflection of our position on the five thematic groups within the intergovernmental negotiations. I would also like to return to another point, this time regarding consensus. While we are grateful to you, Mr. President, for introducing the draft oral decision on the rollover and for convening this meeting, my delegation is also concerned about the lack of consensus that has previously always prevailed on the adoption of this document. I would like to remind the Assembly that the African Group, through the Committee of Ten, has always joined the consensus in the spirit of preserving unity and mutual trust among Member States, as well as in advancing reform of the Security Council in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. That spirit should therefore always prevail in good faith so that we may hope to ultimately achieve the comprehensive and meaningful reform of the Security Council that is so eagerly awaited by the entire African continent.

It appears that we need more time on this question for further consultations and reconsiderations among Member States. I shall therefore suspend our consideration of agenda item 127, to be resumed on Tuesday 22 June at 10 a.m. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 127.