A/76/PV.35 General Assembly

The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. Therefore, if there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Committee that are before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position. I would like to remind members that in accordance with decision 34/401, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee, and that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. When there are multiple proposals recommended in a report of the Committee, statements in explanation of vote before the vote on any or all of them should be made in one intervention, followed by action on all of them, one by one. Thereafter, there will also be an opportunity for statements in explanation of vote after the vote on any or all of them in one intervention. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Committee, I would like to advise representatives that we will proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Committee, unless the Secretariat is notified otherwise in advance. I therefore hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Committee. I first invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Committee on sub-item (a) of agenda item 117, entitled “Appointment of members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions”, issued as document A/76/516. In paragraph 4 of its report, the Committee recommends that the General Assembly appoint or reappoint the following persons as members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022: Yves Eric Ahoussougbemey, of Benin; Amjad Qaid Al Kumaim, of Yemen; Makiese Kinkela Augusto, of Angola; Sharon Brennen-Haylock, of the Bahamas; and Jakub Chmielewski, of Poland. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to appoint or reappoint Yves Eric Ahoussougbemey, Amjad Qaid Al Kumaim, Makiese Kinkela Augusto, Sharon Brennen-Haylock and Jakub Chmielewski as members of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 117? (b) Appointment of members of the Committee on Contributions Report of the Fifth Committee (A/76/517)

I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Committee on sub-item (b) of agenda item 117, entitled “Appointment of members of the Committee on Contributions”, issued as document A/76/517. In paragraph 4 of its report, the Committee recommends that the General Assembly appoint or reappoint the following persons as members of the Committee on Contributions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022: Syed Yawar Ali, of Pakistan; Phologo Kaone Bogatsu, of Botswana; Jasminka Dinić, of Croatia; Mitsuru Kitano, of Japan; Ihor Humennyi, of Ukraine; and Thomas Anthony Repasch, of the United States of America. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to appoint or reappoint Syed Yawar Ali, Phologo Kaone Bogatsu, Jasminka Dinić, Ihor Humennyi, Mitsuru Kitano and Thomas Anthony Repasch as members of the Committee on Contributions for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (b) of agenda item 117? (c) Confirmation of the appointment of members of the Investments Committee Report of the Fifth Committee (A/76/518)

I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Committee on sub-item (c) of agenda item 117, entitled “Confirmation of the appointment of members of the Investments Committee”, issued as document A/76/518. The Committee recommends in paragraph 4 (a) of its report that the General Assembly confirm the reappointment by the Secretary-General of Keiko Honda, of Japan, as a regular member of the Investments Committee for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to confirm the reappointment by the Secretary-General of Keiko Honda as a regular member of the Investments Committee for a three-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022?

In paragraph 4 (b) of the same report, the Committee also recommends that the General Assembly confirm the reappointment by the Secretary-General of Macky Tall, of Mali, as an ad hoc member of the Investments Committee for a one-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to confirm the reappointment by the Secretary-General of Macky Tall as an ad hoc member of the Investments Committee for a one-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (c) of agenda item 117? (d) Appointment of a member of the Board of Auditors Report of the Fifth Committee (A/76/519)

The Assembly will next consider the report of the Committee on sub-item (d) of agenda item 117, entitled “Appointment of a member of the Board of Auditors”, issued as document A/76/519. The Committee recommends in paragraph 4 of its report that the General Assembly appoint the First President of the Court of Accounts of France as a member of the Board of Auditors for a six-year term of office beginning on 1 July 2022. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to appoint the First President of the Court of Accounts of France as a member of the Board of Auditors for a six- year term of office beginning on 1 July 2022?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (d) of agenda item 117? (e) Appointment of members of the International Civil Service Commission Report of the Fifth Committee (A/76/520)

I now invite members to turn their attention to the report of the Committee on sub-item (e) of agenda item 117, entitled “Appointment of members of the International Civil Service Commission”, issued as document A/76/520. In paragraph 7 (a) of its report, the Committee recommends that the General Assembly appoint or reappoint the following persons as members of the International Civil Service Commission for a four-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022: Claudia Angélica Bueno Reynaga, of Mexico; Spyridon Flogaitis, of Greece; Misako Kaji, of Japan; Jeffrey Mounts, of the United States of America; and Shauna Olney, of Canada. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to appoint or reappoint Claudia Angélica Bueno Reynaga, Spyridon Flogaitis, Misako Kaji, Jeffrey Mounts and Shauna Olney as members of the International Civil Service Commission for a four-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2022?

In paragraph 7 (b) of the same report, the Committee also recommends that the General Assembly designate Boguslaw Winid, of Poland, as Vice-Chair for a period of four years, subject to a corresponding extension of his term of office as a member of the International Civil Service Commission. May I take it that it is the wish of the Assembly to designate Boguslaw Winid as Vice-Chair for a period of four years, subject to a corresponding extension of his term of office as a member of the International Civil Service Commission?

May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of sub-item (e) of agenda item 117?

The Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of the reports of the Fifth Committee before it today.

An honest review of the Security Council’s practices shows that its increasing deficiencies have resulted in a legitimacy and credibility crisis as well as seriously undermining trust and confidence in it, thereby making its reform essential. The ultimate goal of reform of the Security Council must be to address all its current challenges and deficiencies and transform it into a truly representative, effective, transparent, accountable and, above all, rules-based body. While we support the Council’s enlargement as a means of addressing the existing inequalities in its representation of regions, we do not consider that an end in itself. At the moment the efforts being made focus mostly on enlarging the Council, equating that with reforming it and making it more efficient. But that cannot continue if it means neglecting or underestimating other issues. However important, enlarging the Council should remain only one of the many aims of reform. Improving its working methods and accountability and ensuring that all its decisions are taken in full accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and international law are certainly no less important than its enlargement. Reform of the Council should be seen as a comprehensive process in which all five core issues under consideration must be treated equally, discussed thoroughly and addressed as a package, because they are interlinked and, taken together, are greater than the sum of their parts. Selective approaches must therefore be avoided. Iran considers that ensuring equitable representation in an expanded Council is vital and believes firmly that it cannot be realized only by safeguarding geographical representation. The West currently has a strong presence and influence in the Council. Three of its members have veto power, while other major regions are poorly represented in terms both of number and privilege, including the power of veto. That means there is inequality between the regions. There are also many States within a given region that have never had a chance to become a member of the Council, while there are States in the same region that have served between 10 and 22 years on it. That means there is inequality within individual regions. The existing inequalities both between and within the regions must therefore be addressed, as they are all necessary and complementary. That is vitally important to 103 States, of which 63 have never served on the Council and 40 have served only once in the past 76 years. It is also essential to ensuring the geopolitical and geographical balance of the composition of an expanded Council. In ensuring equitable regional representation, we fully support addressing the historical injustice that has been done to the developing world, particularly Africa. We also fully support ensuring equal opportunities for each State within a given region. That can be done by, among other things, limiting the chances for those that have served more frequently on the Council and instead giving priority to those that have never served on the Council at all or have served less. And even a combination of such factors as population, economic power and regional position can be considered to that end. Reform that serves the interests only of certain regions or a few States is not acceptable, and any proposal that would worsen the current imbalances, reduce States’ chances of becoming Council members or contradict such intrinsic principles as States’ sovereign equality and equal rights or transparency and accountability must be studiously avoided. We also believe it is very important to reform the Council’s working methods in order to ensure that its actions fully comply with international law, particularly the Charter of the United Nations. Its decisions should never be ultra vires, nor should it resort too frequently, hastily or excessively to its Chapter VII functions. Enforcement measures should be applied only as a last resort. The use of sanctions as blunt and blind instruments has raised fundamental ethical questions about whether inflicting suffering on vulnerable groups is a legitimate way to put pressure on targeted countries. Certain Security Council sanctions in the past have served only to collectively punish an entire nation without any actual positive impact on the maintenance of international peace and security. Sanctions should therefore be applied very rarely, in a smart, targeted manner, with limited scope and duration, and only when all measures not involving the use of armed force are exhausted and have truly proved inadequate to maintaining or restoring international peace and security. It is also critical to ensure that a reformed Council refrains from considering situations that do not constitute a threat to international peace and security and issues that are related to the internal affairs of States. And transforming the Council into a truly rules-based and accountable body should remain a top priority. Paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Charter stresses that in discharging its duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. That means its powers are not limitless. It is not above the law and cannot act arbitrarily or without due regard for international law. Likewise, under paragraph 1 of Article 24, the Member States have conferred on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. That means the Council has a legal, political and moral responsibility to act properly and responsibly, and that its members must take decisions based not on their own national interests or those of the geopolitical or geographical groups they belong to but on the common interests of the entire membership of the Organization. The Council should never be used as a tool to pursue national political interests and agendas. The Council is responsible to the Member States on whose behalf it acts and must therefore remain accountable to them. That is the raison d’être of paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Charter in obliging the Council to submit annual or special reports to the General Assembly, where all Member States are represented. The correlation between Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter also makes it clear that the Council should act in accordance with the law, avoid ultra vires decisions, act responsibly and in a timely manner and remain accountable to Member States. It should not consider issues that do not fall within its purview or that the Charter confers on other United Nations organs, and in particular it must stop encroaching on the functions and powers of the General Assembly. Procedurally, we support the continuation of deliberations within the intergovernmental negotiations, which must remain open, transparent, inclusive and member-driven. Taking hasty decisions or setting artificial deadlines for its work will be counterproductive, and any decision, procedural or substantive, at any stage, should be adopted only by consensus. Nor do we support text-based negotiations at this stage. Moreover, changing the rules or format of the process or its informal nature seems unconstructive and should therefore be avoided. We stand ready to contribute actively and constructively to the work of the intergovernmental negotiations.

The United States continues to believe that the intergovernmental negotiations remain the most appropriate forum for discussing any changes to the permanent membership of the Security Council. We remain open to any form of negotiation within that framework as long as the format allows for broad consensus. Wide agreement across the intergovernmental negotiations is the only way reform will ultimately succeed. As we have previously stated, the United States remains open, in principle, to an expansion of the Security Council for both permanent and non-permanent members. We believe that must be pursued in a way that will not diminish the Security Council’s effectiveness or its efficiency, and that will not alter or expand the veto. We recommend carefully considering the ability and willingness of any potential Council member to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. A Member State’s capacity to shoulder the considerable responsibility that comes with sitting on the Council should be taken into account. The Security Council is an important tool for addressing some of today’s most pressing threats to international peace and security, but it occasionally falls short. A well-executed expansion of the Council could help modernize it to better reflect twenty-first- century global realities and increase its effectiveness.

We would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate committed to the objective of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other related matters. We thank Ms. Joanna Wronecka and Ms. Alya Al-Thani, the Permanent Representatives of Poland and Qatar, for their hard work and leadership as coordinators of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy-fifth session. We welcome the reappointment of Ms. Al-Thani and the appointment of the Permanent Representative of Denmark, Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, as her co-Chair. South Africa aligns itself with the statements delivered respectively by the representatives of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the Group of African States, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the L.69 group (see A/76/PV.33). For South Africa those statements outline what we aim to achieve and how we aim to do it, giving expression to the urgency of moving forward after decades of stagnation. We would like to make three broad points. First of all, we firmly believe that if we are to realize equitable representation on the Council, we must urgently address Africa’s lack of permanent representation, and its underrepresentation in the Council’s non-permanent category. That lack of representation, apart from being historically unjust, also adversely affects the Council’s ability to adequately address matters of peace and security on the continent. South Africa fully supports the African Common Position, with the goal of seeing Africa fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council. Building on the co-Chairs’ elements paper, which was recognized as providing a good basis for discussion in the intergovernmental negotiations forum, there can no longer be any doubt that there is wide recognition and support for the African Common Position. Our second point is therefore that we need to move forward from that basis and build on the progress already made. Our leaders, the African Heads of State and Government, have entrusted the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government, as well as African representatives at the United Nations, with actively promoting, discussing and defending Africa’s interests and aspirations in the Security Council reform processes. They expect us to do everything in our power to deliver on the African people’s aspirations and just demands that the injustice of their exclusion from the premier body of the United Nations be undone and rectified as a high priority. That requires that we launch text-based negotiations as the only way to achieve the commitments made in the 2005 World Summit outcome document (resolution 60/1). In our view, in order to fulfil the African Common Position, which has wide support, we have no choice but to commence with text-based negotiations. We believe that the African Heads of State will want us to find ways to realize that within the processes provided for in the General Assembly. When we marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, our Heads of State and Government committed to instilling new life into the discussions on Security Council reform. In his report Our Common Agenda, the Secretary-General recognized that commitment, noting that “[a]fter decades of debate, the majority of Member States now acknowledge that the Security Council could be made more representative of the twenty-first century, such as through enlargement, including better representation for Africa, as well as more systematic arrangements for more voices at the table.” (A/75/982, para. 127) Our third point is therefore that delays in the reform of the Security Council will not assist us in refining the global means of addressing threats to international peace and security. Neither will delays help in addressing the lack of representation in the Council so as to ensure that it is able to fulfil its obligation under the Charter to legitimately act on behalf of the broader United Nations membership. It is our hope that during the seventy-sixth session we can take seriously the mandate of the intergovernmental negotiations and commence negotiations, in the full sense of the term, earnestly and in good faith. In order to make progress we have to take the most basic first steps, such as having some basis on which to negotiate. South Africa will actively participate in that process under the President’s able leadership, and will lend its full support both to him and the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process. Delaying Security Council reform is a betrayal of the intentions of our Heads of State and Government. Stagnation only means failing to reform the Security Council in order to enable it to better fulfil its mandate in the interests of the broader United Nations membership and the people who are affected by violent armed conflict and emerging threats to stability on a daily basis.

I would like to thank the President for convening the annual General Assembly debate on the important issue of Security Council reform. My delegation warmly welcomes the appointment of Ms. Alya Al-Thani and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, as co-Chairs of the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations. I trust that they will skilfully manage this membership-driven process in a neutral, balanced and, most importantly, impartial, manner. The Republic of Korea aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/PV.33), and I would now like to add the following points in my national capacity. For years we have worked strenuously together to advance Security Council reform. Building on the progress we have made thus far, my delegation believes that we should continue to strive to instil new life into our efforts to achieve a more representative Security Council for the twenty-first century, as the Secretary- General pointed out in his report Our Common Agenda (A/75/982). The current composition of the Security Council reflects the unique situation that existed at the end of the Second World War. In essence, a few were given the extraordinary permanent privilege of vetoing any decision of the Council. While there might have been reasons to justify that at the time of the founding of the United Nations, today, however, it is well known as the source of inefficiency and paralysis in the Council in the face of the many conflicts around the world. True reform of the Security Council must therefore help to alleviate those problems and reflect the progress of the United Nations in the past 75 years. Overall, history has advanced towards the ideals of democracy in a way that curtails the prerogatives of the few and limits the terms of all powers, and that is the direction in which Security Council reform in the twenty-first century should be headed. Realistically, the idea of reforming it by simply enlarging the already problematic permanent membership will only amplify the existing deficiencies. So if it is difficult to eliminate the concept of permanent membership of the Security Council, we must at least not add any new such members. The best way to reform the Council is to increase the proportion of its members that are regularly replaced by the entire membership through elections in the General Assembly. By increasing the number of elected members on the Council, we can boost representation from a wide variety of diverse groups, including developing countries, African countries, small island developing States and small States, among others. We believe that it is the true reform for all that will make the Council more democratic and efficient. We look forward to closely consulting with all Member States on a way forward. My delegation would like to take this opportunity to reiterate its support for the central role of the intergovernmental negotiations as the sole and legitimate forum for discussing the issue of Security Council reform. We have recently witnessed unjust criticism of the intergovernmental negotiations process from some Member States. However, we should not forget that the current format of the intergovernmental negotiations discussion is a direct result of the failure of what we did for more than 10 years during the formal process of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council. The intergovernmental negotiations process allows for frank and in-depth discussions in an informal setting, which was not available in the Open-Ended Working Group. In the intergovernmental negotiations, we have steadily narrowed down our differences and moved towards finding common ground. That will eventually enable us to establish reform that enjoys the widest possible political acceptance. Reform based on consensus is crucial, since the formation and work of the Security Council underpin core principles of the international order. Indeed, a hasty and divisive initiative such as what happened during the adoption of the rollover decision will not serve the noble goal of reform. We look forward to seeing other groups demonstrate prudence and flexibility in their positions at the intergovernmental negotiations next year. We ask the co-Chairs to provide Member States with a clear outline of the schedule and agenda for the next intergovernmental negotiations. Thanks to the achievements of the discussions on the revitalization of the General Assembly, the Main Committees now have to decide on a clear timeline for the next session. Applying that to the intergovernmental negotiations will help us to make our discussions more efficient and productive. True Security Council reform should be based not on narrowly defined national interests but on a clear vision of how our global governance should be. We look forward to having constructive discussions in the intergovernmental negotiations next year in that regard. The Republic of Korea, alongside the Uniting for Consensus group, reaffirms its strong commitment to working with the President and all other groups and Member States to achieve our common goal of making the Security Council more democratic, transparent and efficient.

I thank the President for convening this annual debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. I would like to congratulate Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, on her renewed appointment as co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiation process, and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, on his appointment as her co-Chair, and to assure them of Morocco’s full support in the fulfilment of their mandate. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the remarkable work accomplished by Ms. Joanna Wronecka, former Permanent Representative of Poland, during the previous sessions of this process. My delegation endorses the statements made by the representatives of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the Group of African States, and Kuwait, on behalf of the Group of Arab States (see A/76/PV.33), and would like to highlight the following elements in its national capacity. In accordance with the framework defined by decision 62/557, Council reform must be comprehensive and not gradual, and must take into account the five clusters without exclusivity or distinction. The reform process must also take into account and be guided by the links between the five clusters of issues to be negotiated. We reiterate our position advocating the further strengthening and modernization of the United Nations. Reforming the Security Council so as to make it more representative, while guaranteeing its effectiveness, efficiency and accountability, is a fundamental aspect of that. The Charter of the United Nations designates the Security Council as the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Its mandate is clear and unambiguous. Morocco believes that our work must continue in the current intergovernmental negotiations framework if we are to expand the Council in a modern way that reflects the evolution of the composition of the United Nations. The Security Council should be made more representative, and not in a way that leads to the detriment of its effectiveness, efficiency and accountability. Morocco believes that enlarging the Council is essential, but it is a thorny issue that must be carefully thought out and undertaken. We cannot speak of the size of an expanded Security Council without discussing the categories of members. Furthermore, the size of an expanded Council would affect the issue of equitable regional representation. Given the current international context, it is unacceptable that Africa is the only continent not represented among the Council’s permanent members and underrepresented in the non-permanent category of members. Those historic injustices challenge and compel us all to rectify them by ensuring the increased representation of Africa on a reformed Security Council, with at least two permanent and five non-permanent seats. Africa’s demand for equitable geographical representation within the Council is just, legitimate and indispensable. Its contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security is enormously significant. Indeed, 10 of the 16 largest troop contributors, including Morocco, are African. They participate directly, substantially and humanely in peacekeeping efforts around the world. In that regard, I would like to reiterate that Morocco subscribes to the African Common Position on Security Council reform in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We supports Africa’s fair and equitable representation in both categories of seats, as I have said, in order to do justice to our continent. It will then be up to Africa to decide on its representatives in the reformed Security Council. Like the African Group, the Group of Arab States itself deserves greater representation on an expanded Security Council. The lack of permanent representation for the Arab countries, despite the fact that they are very much involved in issues dealt with in the Security Council, is regrettable. In that regard, a permanent Arab seat, with all its prerogatives, as well as adequate representation in the category of non-permanent members, would enable the legitimate demands of the Arab Group to be met. We also believe that the issue of the veto should be more widely debated because of its scope, its implications for reform and its consequences for the credibility of the Organization. On that issue, we are of the view that as long as the right of veto is in force — and for the sake of justice — it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council. We look forward to your guidance throughout the intergovernmental negotiation process for this session. I would like to reiterate my delegation’s support for the two co-Chairs, as well as our determination to continue to participate constructively and positively in this round of intergovernmental negotiations and our readiness to engage with all Member States, with a view to achieving genuine and comprehensive Security Council reform in a constructive and transparent spirit.

I thank the President for convening today’s important debate on further advancing Security Council reform. Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/76/PV.33), and would like to add the following observations in its national capacity. Ahead of the start of the intergovernmental negotiations, the United Nations membership requires an appropriate platform to steer our discussions as effectively and efficiently as possible. In that light, the selection of Ms. Alya Al-Thani and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, as co-Chairs is a welcome announcement, and we want to congratulate them. We are confident that their appointment will continue to assist our exercise, underpinned by the same principles that have governed past sessions. Malta, as a member of the Uniting for Consensus group, stands ready to support them and to work actively and constructively during the next intergovernmental negotiations session in order to achieve significant progress. It is only by first delving into our most fundamental principles that we can advance this reform effort. The United Nations membership continues to benefit from the intergovernmental negotiations with a view to enhancing our discussions and increasing our convergences. For as long as the Security Council exists, it should be accompanied by a structured and comprehensive process for such reform. The coronavirus disease pandemic has further exacerbated the need to reform the Council so as to make it more credible and capable of responding promptly and effectively both to long-standing challenges and emerging threats. Malta subscribes to a reformed Security Council that gives all Member States a greater chance to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. The Uniting for Consensus group has continually and comprehensively advocated for the expansion of elected members, an element that enjoys full convergence among all negotiating groups and delegations. Our discussions will benefit immensely if we build on the progress that has been made so far. Expanding the number of elected members is a truly democratic solution that will transform the Council and render it more representative, transparent, efficient and accountable. The evidence shows that elected members have fostered a spirit of integrity, accountability and innovation within the working methods of the Council, as their first-hand experience with certain dossiers gives the Council a better understanding of the myriad issues it deals with. That cannot be ignored. Democratization is central to a reformed Council. We cannot afford to have our next session reflect the impasse that has strangled our work in past sessions. This session should result in a solution that will lead us to a common understanding of what reform for all should look like. Throughout the years, the Uniting for Consensus group has been a constructive team player and has thrown itself into the search for compromise. It will maintain that outlook for the incoming session, and I want to assure the Assembly of Malta’s commitment to that outlook, a constructive and inclusive dialogue that is guided by the principles of consensus. Malta remains fully committed to a reformed Security Council and looks forward to continuing our engagement in this discussion and giving it our full support.

At the outset, my delegation welcomes the appointment of the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, and we wish them every success. We believe firmly that under their leadership we will be able to have substantive discussions during this session. Argentina aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/76/PV.33). At the same time, we would like to highlight some considerations in our national capacity. According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council is mandated to act on behalf of the entire membership. Despite that, however, the Council continues to be unrepresentative. The United Nations is made up of 193 States, whereas only 15 can be seated on the Security Council at one time. The second factor affecting representation is the continued domination of the Security Council by its permanent members, a dominance aided by the power of veto. It is important to emphasize that the five permanent members accounted for more than 50 per cent of the world’s population in 1945, whereas today they represent only 26 per cent of that total. Finally, the working methods of the Security Council lack transparency and greatly limit the participation of non-member States. All those failings have led the membership of the United Nations and the international community to agree on the need to reform the Security Council with a view to improving its representativeness, transparency and effectiveness. We can affirm that there is a consensus among States about the fact that the Security Council needs to adapt to the challenges that have arisen since the United Nations was first created, but there are differences among them in terms of how to make the changes that would adapt the Security Council to the needs of the twenty-first century. For my country, genuine reform of the Security Council should help to alleviate current global issues and reflect the advances that the world has seen in the past 76 years. Reforming it by expanding the category of its permanent members alone will only amplify current deficiencies. If eliminating the permanent category altogether is not realistic, we should at least not add new members to it. Some argue that new permanent members should be added to the Council to reflect changes in global politics today. It is true that the relative power and prestige of countries has changed a great deal since 1945, but if we apply that logic, the makeup of the Council should change every time there is a change in the reality of international politics. It is just not feasible to continue adding new permanent members to the Council based on the power dynamics at any given moment in time. That is why our group, Uniting for Consensus, believes that the best way to achieve real reform would be by increasing the proportion of members that are regularly chosen through elections in the General Assembly. That is the reform that will make the Council more democratic, efficient and dynamic. The latest intergovernmental negotiations have shown an increasing commitment to resolving differences and building on common elements, with a view to making progress towards an understanding with as much agreement as possible. Unfortunately, however, we believe we are still far from that scenario. What happened in June during the adoption of the procedural decision was not a positive sign. The attempt by a group of delegations to impose a solution to the detriment of consensus was very unfortunate and endangered the possibility of future negotiations on Security Council reform. Intergovernmental negotiations are the most appropriate and efficient forum for discussing that reform. We need to continue our substantive discussions and work to achieve greater convergence. Attempting to promote shortcuts or divert discussions away from the issues set out in decision 62/557 will only entrench positions known to all and distance us from the political goal that we know we need to achieve. Uniting for Consensus has shown flexibility and a willingness to work towards a compromise solution. The argument for increasing the number of non-permanent seats has the unanimous agreement of Member States. If we want to revitalize the intergovernmental negotiations, we should focus our discussions on convergences that we have already identified. The revitalization of the intergovernmental negotiations is a matter not of form but of substance. Changing the format will not eliminate circular arguments. True change means recognizing a convergence, basing efforts around it and working for an agreement on that basis. The Uniting for Consensus proposal is the only compromise proposal submitted in recent years that in a fair and balanced way seeks to address the aspirations expressed by the various negotiating groups. Our group has been continually involved in the intergovernmental negotiations with a proactive focus, backed by open and inclusive dialogue with all negotiators. We will participate in the next intergovernmental negotiations in the same spirit. In conclusion, my delegation reiterates that it is prepared to continue working for viable and realistic reform, exploring interim and alternative formulas that can enable the greatest possible consensus while respecting the equality of States and an adequate rotation.

As usual, Spain aligns itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy yesterday on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/76/ PV.33), and I would like to add a few comments in my national capacity. At the outset, I want to congratulate the two co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ms. Alya Al-Thani and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, on their appointment. Spain thanks them in advance for accepting this challenge  — because it is a challenge. They can count on our constructive cooperation throughout the negotiations that will begin in 2022. Today I would like to focus my intervention on three issues — first, the format of the negotiations; secondly, permanent and elected members; and thirdly and finally, the veto. First, with respect to the format of the negotiations, it has been 14 years since we started this process. We have had 14 years of dialogue during which we have attempted to agree on Security Council reform based on a consensus among all the Member States. And yet the chaotic conclusion to the negotiations during the seventy-fifth session and the various proposals for changing their format indicate the level of frustration with this process among some of us Member States. For some, the solution lies in breaking with intergovernmental negotiations and starting over with another format, based on the rules applicable in the General Assembly. Just yesterday we heard calls to change the format and move to text-based negotiations (see A/76/PV.33). But the format of negotiations is not the problem. The problem is a basic one, resulting from a lack of agreement on the principles on which reform should be based — in short, a lack of agreement on the reform we want. If there is no agreement on those principles, we could change the format a thousand times and still never achieve a consensus-based reform. Why do we want to reform the Council? And what do we want to reform? Uniting for Consensus is very clear that we do not want to perpetuate a Security Council born in a specific historical context that gave rise to the existence of permanent members and non-permanent members and accepted the veto power of the five permanent members. That is not the Security Council that we want for the twenty-first century, because we understand that it cannot be the best guarantee of the maintenance of international peace and security in today’s circumstances. Uniting for Consensus has consistently and persistently advocated reforming the Security Council in a way that makes it more democratic, representative, effective, accountable and transparent, based on the legal equality of Member States. We do not want to maintain the format of a Council created 75 years ago in the face of the very complex and global problems and challenges that we are dealing with today. The Secretary-General’s report Our Common Agenda, which was presented on 10 September 2020, recognizes that “our collective peace and security is increasingly under threat as a result of emerging risks and dangerous trends for which traditional forms of prevention, management and resolution are ill suited.” (A/75/982, para. 88) Further on, the report adds that “risks to peace and security are growing”. They are indeed growing, and are more diverse, I might add. As some Member States pointed out yesterday, the permanent members of the Council are not the same countries that they were 75 years ago. They are not the same countries that they were 14 years ago, when we started this exercise, and neither are the causes of our conflicts the same as they were 75 or even 14 years ago. We must therefore agree on the principles that constitute the foundations of this reform, a reform that should not be cosmetic or limited to the mere addition of a few more members in each category. No change in the negotiating format will change the need to agree on that, and to agree on that we may all have to reflect again on the best way to achieve this objective, as Uniting for Consensus always has. My second point concerns the membership categories. I will be brief about this, since other members of Uniting for Consensus have explained it very clearly and have expressed Spain’s position. Why would we want to increase the category of permanent members with veto power, or even permanent members without veto power, in a reformed twenty-first-century Council? That would clearly go against the principles that Uniting for Consensus advocates, particularly the principle that a reformed Council should be more democratic and representative. But above all, and much more importantly, while holding elections and being elected always give elected Council members legitimacy, they also confer legitimacy and representativeness on the Council itself. Yesterday, several Member States reminded us in detail and gave very valuable examples of the contributions that elected Council members have made, both in terms of the improvement and positive evolution of the Council’s working methods and in the area of understanding new issues and including them in its work. The addition of elected members only adds value to the Council. That is why we advocate for it and why Uniting for Consensus is working on proposals that would allow elected members to participate for longer periods on the Council, with the aim of flexibly accommodating the aspirations and capacities of each Member State. This expansion is especially focused on giving more say and better access to the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean and to small island developing States and small States. We therefore advocate expanding the category of elected members, something on which there seems to be broad agreement in this Hall. Fundamentally, we advocate it because it is a way to give a voice and access to countries that have been marginalized in the Security Council. The work of a Council with 21 elected members would certainly correspond better to global realities and have a much greater understanding of the problems and needs of the international community as a whole. The third issue concerns the veto. Here, too, much has already been said. We firmly believe that the power of veto is a mistake and that the veto is destined to disappear. I know of no international organization of relevance or one that represents a majority of States, even at the regional level, that gives a small number of its members individual veto power. As the frequent obstruction of the Council has demonstrated, the veto and the threat of its use are an obstacle to effective, durable and consensus solutions. The veto is not widely advocated in other international organizations because it is not effective. Incorporating new permanent members with veto power into a Security Council reformed for the twenty-first century would perpetuate the Council that was created 75 years ago, and that is not the right path. Spain supports the Franco-Mexican initiative that advocates voluntary restraint on the use of the veto when dealing with mass atrocities, a proposal that currently has the support of 106 Member States. While that is a large number it is not all of them, and it does not represent two thirds of the membership. The veto can be limited if we all want it to be limited. Ultimately, it is a mistake, and adding more vetoes to the existing ones will not produce successful results. The revitalization of multilateralism through the reform of our Organization cannot sidestep the Security Council. Strengthening multilateralism necessarily involves reforming the Council through a strong consensus forged in the debates of the intergovernmental negotiations. It is vital that we listen to all voices and opinions in those negotiations. I see that 67 Member States have spoken in this debate. Spain believes that statements made in national capacities that share opinions and points of view are very valuable. In them we may find new ideas, or variations on established ideas that have the potential to move us forward on and even facilitate the path to consensus for us all. If all of us may be called to serve on the Security Council, we all need to make our voices heard when it comes to building a Council for the twenty-first century. Let us not forget that reform is only a tool for achieving the real goal of a Council that has a beneficial impact on the entire membership and therefore on the Organization itself, as well as a revitalized and inclusive multilateralism.

Colombia is grateful for the convening of this plenary meeting of the General Assembly to discuss reform of the Security Council, a matter of major importance for the entire membership. We would also like to congratulate the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, Ms. Alya Al-Thani and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations that we will be conducting in the first half of 2022. My delegation subscribes to the statement by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the countries of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/76/ PV.33). As a founding member of the United Nations, Colombia participated in the formulation of the Charter of the United Nations, signed in San Francisco, and has played an active role in the Organization ever since, based on the principles of multilateralism and strict adherence to international law, with a view to building an equitable and rules-based international order. On that basis, we reiterate that intergovernmental negotiations are the only legitimate platform for the debate on the reform of the Security Council, and we hope that in 2022 we will make progress in the substantive discussions on the five key reform issues outlined in decision 62/557 of 2008  — membership categories; the question of the veto; regional representation; the size of an enlarged Security Council and its working methods; and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. I also want to emphasize that we do not consider a text-based negotiation acceptable, because we believe we should maintain our focus on discussing substantive issues rather than concentrating on procedural aspects. For that reason, my delegation cannot accept proposals for new rules or a change in format from the intergovernmental negotiations. Colombia is of the view that consensus is the only possible path to that end, and we must persevere in achieving it, with a collective approach in a spirit of flexibility, taking into account the shared aspiration of all Member States for a Security Council that is more representative, democratic, transparent and effective, and with clear accountability mechanisms for the execution of its mandate. We believe that expanding the number of permanent seats with the right of veto not only creates an obstacle to just and comprehensive reform but contradicts democratic principles, equity and the right of all Member States to participate in the collective building of international peace and security. It would only deepen the existing imbalances and difficulties. I want to make it clear that Colombia does not support initiatives aimed at extending privileges and differentiated capacities to new members and does not see how expanding such prerogatives could increase the transparency of the Security Council’s working methods. If we are to achieve constructive and comprehensive reform of the Council, we believe that the most appropriate way to do it is by expanding the category of elected members with the traditional term of two years and creating a new category of non-permanent seats with a longer term and the possibility of immediate re-election. The introduction of longer-term seats would be an effective response to the legitimate interest of some States in making a greater contribution to the work of the Council during their term of office. At the same time, it would promote a rotation system that works more fairly for the entire membership. It is a model for the Security Council that would unquestionably open the door to developing countries from every region of the world, giving them an opportunity to contribute to building international peace and security on equal terms. In that way, we can reinforce the principles of democracy and representativeness and ensure a regional balance, which is a key aspect of the intergovernmental negotiations. Today, as we are working to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and dealing with challenges such as overcoming the effects of the coronavirus disease pandemic, the climate change crisis and the emergence of information and communications technologies, among so many others, we cannot ignore the fact that the global governance scheme that we intend to reform must be based on the strengthened capacities of the United Nations as a whole. The Security Council cannot be a stage that is mired in the past and on which the competing interests of its members are played out in isolation, or one to which we gain access in the same way as that of seven decades ago, as various of our colleagues in the Uniting for Consensus group have already mentioned. It must rather serve as the epicentre of a type of cooperation that is thoroughly aligned with the challenges facing international peace and security today. It is time to review the structures of the past, and especially to dream of and build the United Nations of the future. Our responsibility is to respond to current challenges and needs, as well as to build a better future for the generations to come.

Many of us take the floor every year to stress the importance of Security Council reform. In the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, our Governments called on us to breathe new life into the discussions, and France is fully committed to that objective. The intergovernmental negotiations must lead to tangible and substantial results. When the process appears to be going round in circles, it loses the confidence of States. We saw it in the last session. The positions are well known and the observation very widely shared. What we need is to start real negotiations. To make that happen, we have to establish a framework. In that regard, we commend the swift appointment of the co-Chairs for this session and extend our best wishes to Ms. Alya Al-Thani and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark. They should now be given a clear mandate. We continue to support the proposals for greater transparency in the debates. For example, the statements of States and groups of States that desire it could be compiled and made freely accessible. Above all, like a large majority of delegations, we believe that the negotiations should start on the basis of a draft text. It is a familiar process that has been used systematically throughout our Organization, and it will enable us to avoid endlessly repeating already agreed-upon rhetoric. While we recognize that this is a difficult task, we are not starting from scratch. Successive co-Chairs have redoubled their efforts to enable the adoption of useful documents. During the seventy-fifth session, Ambassadors Wronecka and Al-Thani submitted a summary of the elements of convergence and divergence of 2019. Together with the 2015 framework document, that summary forms the basis of our discussions. The goal now is to come up with a single document. With regard to reform itself, France’s position is constant and well known. We would like the Council to take into account the emergence of new Powers that have the desire and capacity to take on the responsibility of a permanent presence on the Security Council and that are in a position to make a significant contribution to the work of the Council, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. France is in favour of enlarging both categories of members, and we therefore support the candidacies of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan for permanent membership. We also want to see a stronger presence of African countries among the permanent and non-permanent members. An enlarged Council could therefore have as many as 25 members. That kind of enlargement would make the Security Council more representative of today’s world and would strengthen its authority while preserving its executive and operational nature. With regard to the question of the veto, we know that this subject is extremely sensitive, and it is up to the States that are asking for permanent seats to decide for themselves. On that subject, the goal is still a double one  — on the one hand, consolidating the Council’s legitimacy, and on the other, strengthening its ability to fully assume its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It was in that spirit that France proposed several years ago that the five permanent members of the Council should voluntarily and collectively suspend the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. That voluntary step does not require a revision of the Charter but rather the political commitment of the permanent members. The initiative, which we launched jointly with Mexico, is now supported by 105 countries. We call on all Member States that have not done so to support it so that we can quickly reach the symbolic two-thirds mark in the General Assembly. We also reiterate our desire to continue the discussion on this proposal with the other permanent members of the Council.

The delegation of Venezuela would like to thank the President for convening this annual plenary meeting on agenda item 123. We are committed to the efforts to reform the Security Council and continue to believe firmly in the central role of the intergovernmental negotiations in the quest for a balance that would make it possible to reach a consensus on this important issue. We emphasize that Venezuela is ready and willing to achieve that goal. Discussions within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations, based on inclusive, transparent dialogue that has the consensus of all the parties, can facilitate a holistic solution that has the shared support of Member States for consolidating equitable representation on the Security Council and increasing its membership. We should point out that despite the efforts that have been made in a complex debate that requires establishing common ground and a spirit of compromise, there is still no general or consensus agreement among States that would enable us to move on to the discussion of more specific issues. That is why steering the course of action towards text- based negotiations or imposing artificial deadlines could be counterproductive and compromise the progress made so far. We reaffirm the principles of inclusion and the legal equality of States as key elements of multilateralism that should guide the negotiation process, along with results related to the issue of equitable representation and an increase in the Security Council membership. Venezuela supports the legitimate aspiration of African countries to adequate representation on the Security Council. Africa makes up more than a quarter of the membership of the United Nations and over the years has been the subject of 70 per cent of the Council’s work. African countries are usually the most affected by conflicts that are addressed within the framework of the Security Council, which is why they should be adequately represented on it. Once again, the discussions within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations have demonstrated the importance of redoubling our efforts to correct the continuing historical imbalances inherited from colonialism in order to increase Africa’s presence on the Security Council. In conclusion, we continue to believe in the need to move forward fully and effectively with the work of the intergovernmental negotiations, with a view to making the Security Council more representative and giving it a renewed capacity to respond to the challenges of the international community with regard to international peace and security.

The key to effective work in the United Nations is an effective Security Council that is capable of meeting the needs of our time. Belarus supports a gradual, regulated dialogue on the issue of Security Council reform that should be based on a broad consensus. The format of intergovernmental negotiations in the General Assembly is a guarantee of that broad agreement and the only legitimate instrument for discussing the parameters of reform. Any proposals to introduce changes that have not been agreed on into the intergovernmental negotiations model or to remove the dialogue from that generally recognized framework altogether will lead to an impasse. We support ensuring that States adhere to the clearly agreed terms and timeline for this round of intergovernmental negotiations. In our view, extending the meetings of the annual sessions indefinitely or arbitrarily increasing their numbers does not contribute to productive work. The differences in States’ approaches to the parameters of reform are fundamental, and so far none of the proposed configurations have received any tangible support, which is why our progress towards reform should be consistent and evolutionary. It should take into account the needs of each State and should be inclusive and based on dialogue and a common understanding of a common goal. There is no room in this issue for ignoring the principles of transparency and openness. We want to once again point out that considering that the results of the negotiation process are still undeveloped, it is premature to talk about starting so-called text-based negotiations. There are no procedural or substantive grounds for this. As a member of the Group of Eastern European States, Belarus supports the idea of providing at least one additional non-permanent seat for the group. The discussion of the expansion of the Security Council is a member-owned and -driven process. It affects the interests of all countries without exception. That means that disregarding the principle of consensus is tantamount to discriminating against States, and we cannot allow that. We must not jeopardize the foundations of the functioning of the United Nations.

At the outset, we would like to congratulate the Permanent Representatives of Denmark and Qatar on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during the current session. They have our support in the ongoing exchange on the needed reform of the Security Council. As we have said in previous discussions, it is essential to address reform of the Security Council in a comprehensive manner through detailed discussion of the five key issues of the process, as stipulated in decision 62/557, with a view to reaching the broadest possible consensus. We believe that in order to advance within the framework of the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations, we must continue to work on the basis of what has been achieved to date in the extensive discussions during previous negotiations, which have demonstrated the importance that Member States attach to this issue and our common interest in achieving a better Security Council for all. Our delegation reiterates that a more efficient, democratic, transparent and representative Security Council would include transparent informal negotiations; the full adoption of Council rules, which are still only provisional; the publication of informal minutes of the Council’s consultations, which should be the exception and not the rule; and an exhaustive and analytical annual report, among other things. We continue to support an expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent membership categories of the Council, with the aim of rectifying the inadequate representation of developing countries, which are a significant number of members of this Organization. The veto is something that Cuba has always opposed. However, if it is not to be eliminated, new positions created in the permanent membership category should have exactly the same prerogatives and rights as the current ones, including veto power. We are not in favour of creating new categories or sub-categories of members, because in our view that would deepen existing differences and foment division within the Council. We continue to emphasize and reiterate our belief that the Council must stop interfering in matters beyond its purview, particularly those that come under the mandate of the General Assembly. We hope to continue the debate on this relevant issue within the intergovernmental negotiations framework in order to reduce the current gaps between the positions of all Member States. It is they that should lead this process in an inclusive and participatory way in order to achieve the desired results based on a consensus.

I would like to thank the President for convening this meeting. I join others in expressing our appreciation to Ms. Joanna Wronecka, former Permanent Representative of Poland, and Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, for their leadership as co-Chairs during the seventy-fifth session. We also acknowledge the speedy appointment of the co-Chairs to lead the process during this session and congratulate Ms. Al-Thani and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, on their reappointment and appointment, respectively. We are grateful to them for accepting this important assignment. My delegation aligns its statement with that delivered by Ms. Rhonda King, Permanent Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the L.69 group (see A/76/PV.33), and I would like to highlight the following points in my national capacity. We want to see a reformed Security Council that is fit to address today’s challenges within an updated United Nations system and able to respond to even the smallest of its members. We have a collective opportunity to reform the United Nations as a whole and the Security Council in particular, bodies established in the 1940s, so that they can find their purpose and relevance in today’s changing world. The topic of reform of the Security Council is important to my delegation. As a small country with a small Mission, we want to reiterate the call for necessary improvements to the working methods of the intergovernmental negotiations, particularly regarding documentation and record-keeping, as they will be critical to improving the efficiency and transparency of the process. Like many speakers before us, we also underscore the importance of attribution. We believe that if we all agree to such measures, we can make progress towards achieving what our leaders want us to do.

At the outset, Canada would like to thank the President for convening this meeting. We welcome this important annual debate on Security Council reform, and we look forward to the coming round of intergovernmental negotiations. I would like to congratulate Ambassadors Alya Al-Thani and Martin Hermann on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations at this session and assure them of Canada’s full support and cooperation throughout the process. Canada is proud to be a member of the Uniting for Consensus group. I fully endorse the statement made yesterday on behalf of the group by Ambassador Massari of Italy (see A/76/PV.33). He explained very clearly how our group is committed to a reform process based on consensus, transparency and inclusivity, focused on increasing the Security Council’s effectiveness. (spoke in French) The Uniting for Consensus proposal has evolved over time. We have taken into account the positions of other Member States and groups through several negotiation cycles. Canada will continue to do its best to achieve the broadest possible consensus, given the vital importance of Security Council reform. It is necessary and will require a sustained effort. The aspirations and legitimate expectations of many Member States are at the heart of the issue, as are national interests and fundamental principles, in ensuring that the Council is representative, responsible, democratic, transparent and effective. (spoke in English) Canada will continue to work with Member States from Africa, small island developing States, small States and all developing countries, as well as cross-regional groups, with the aim of expanding their representation on the Security Council. We recognize that the historical treatment of Africa has been particularly unjust and that reform must address Africa’s situation. But this is not just about the size and form of the Council. Its methods and the issues of the veto and longer terms for non-permanent members are all elements for deliberation and we must also strive for the largest possible consensus on them. A reformed Security Council should serve everyone better, and that demands that we all support reform in a manner that serves all of our interests rather than just those of a small group. The decision in June to continue the intergovernmental negotiations process was the correct one, and while there were some last-minute challenges, we the Member States were able to reach consensus. Although consensus was not a goal in and of itself, it was a visible demonstration of our collective will and the widely accepted political imperative that is reform of the Council. As my delegation has said before, reform of the Security Council will have to come through an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations. That will require an intergovernmental process and dozens of national processes, given that amending the Charter will require Member States’ ratification, which in many cases involves governmental action and public scrutiny. We need to ensure that when we present a proposal for a reformed Council to our national Governments, it is the best proposal possible and aligned with our commitment to a renewed social contract and a multilateral system that is accountable to the people it is meant to serve, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s recommendations in Our Common Agenda (A/75/982). That is not simply about identifying the challenges ahead of us. Canada seeks to ensure a reform process that is more inclusive of all stakeholders, including those representing the most vulnerable populations. As part of our deliberations, Member States should ensure meaningful outreach to young people, Governments, parliaments, academics and civil-society organizations so that they also have a voice in the process. In considering our negotiations on reforming the Security Council, we should bear in mind two final but fundamental points. First, the improvements in the Council’s work and effectiveness have come from its elected members, which either individually or as a group have been responsible for key outcomes on issues such as women and peace and security; the sanctions committees’ panels of experts; the protection of civilians, including with regard to the agenda for children in armed conflict; and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, including the African Union. Those gains did not come from the permanent members. Secondly, the veto should be eliminated and until that happens, constrained. Canada is a signatory to the French-Mexican initiative and supports the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group on veto restraint in cases of atrocity crimes and genocide. In order to best serve the world’s peoples and, in particular, protect all civilians, Member States cannot permit increased access to veto power.

We would like to thank the President for convening this important meeting on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council. Nicaragua associates itself with the statement made by Ambassador Rhonda King, Permanent Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the L.69 group (see A/76/PV.33). Our Organization has not been able to fulfil the scope of the objectives set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. In view of that situation, we urgently need to call for its rebuilding. In order to do that we have to make essential changes so as to enable the United Nations to serve the interests of humankind. In these times of pandemic and suffering for humankind, an effective and representative Security Council is vital, as is reform of the United Nations as a whole, as Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann, priest and Ambassador of Nicaragua, called for during his presidency of the General Assembly in 2008. In that regard, it is critical to reform the Security Council and ensure that its composition and functions reflect the realities of the international community of the twenty-first century. The overwhelming support of our sisters and brothers in Africa for the Common African Position is clear and inspiring. As the President and the Assembly are aware, we have always echoed that support, which continues to grow with every session. Nicaragua believes that Africa must be heard and its aspirations for justice met, as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We also reiterate our solidarity and support for our brothers in the Caribbean Community, the small island States and the Group of Arab States in their aspirations and desires for these reforms. We trust in the President’s leadership in this process, and he can count on Nicaragua’s commitment to participating constructively in the process of reforming the Security Council, which, we reiterate, must be inclusive, transparent and democratic in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate and establish a legitimate reform process.

We would like to thank the new co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, for taking on their demanding tasks. Liechtenstein will be a constructive voice in the negotiations and will support their efforts. The standing and authority of the intergovernmental negotiations ultimately depend on the willingness of the main stakeholders to make meaningful compromises and show flexibility in the negotiations. The negotiations should also determine our view on the future of that process, which has gone on for too many years already. With regard to the subject of enlargement, a number of years ago Liechtenstein suggested an intermediate model with long-term renewable seats but without additional veto rights for States. That intermediate model has the potential to better represent the geopolitical realities of today as well as the current membership of the United Nations. It is unacceptable that some regions, particularly Africa, are seriously underrepresented on the Security Council, while our own part of the world continues to be overrepresented. We fail to see how adding new veto powers could be considered beneficial to the effectiveness of the Council, given the ongoing pernicious impact of the existing veto powers on its work. At the same time, we agree that selecting additional countries for a permanent presence could help to establish a healthier power balance in the Security Council. Enlargement alone will not bring meaningful Council reform, which must include an agreement on the use of the veto. There have been positive initiatives to that end, and we would particularly like to highlight the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group regarding mass atrocities. A total of 122 Members of the General Assembly have joined the code of conduct, of which 10 are current and two are permanent members of the Security Council. Nevertheless, the use and the threat of use of the veto have increased in recent years. It is therefore essential to create an accountability mechanism. In particular, in our view the Assembly should automatically be convened every time the veto is exercised in the Security Council, without prejudice to a possible outcome. That means the Assembly could agree on an outcome and adopt it or could choose not to do so. Finally, the Security Council also needs to urgently embrace a new security paradigm. As clearly evidenced by the pandemic, more people around the globe are facing more insecurity than ever before. The challenge of climate change is a threat to peace and looms large for security in particular. But more broadly speaking, the Council must put the security of human beings, of people, at the centre of its work in order to guide us to a safe and secure future.

My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone and Kuwait on behalf of the Group of African States and the Group of Arab States, respectively (see A/76/PV.33). At the outset, I would like to congratulate Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, and Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform at this session, and to assure them of my delegation’s full support and cooperation throughout the process. The seventy-fifth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations has given us a unique opportunity to keep a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism on track while upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirming the Organization’s central role in global governance. We cannot afford to ignore the realities of a fast- changing world. Meaningful reform of the United Nations system aimed at making the Security Council more representative and relevant to today’s challenges to peace and security is therefore more necessary than ever. Despite the existing divergences, it will be vital to continue to engage collectively in working for a comprehensive reform that is likely to garner the widest political acceptance possible. To that end, my delegation is committed to meaningful reform of the Security Council and remains fully committed to the Common African Position, as espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. It is time to ensure Africa’s full representation on the Security Council. As long as it is not represented in the permanent category and underrepresented in the non-permanent category of the Security Council, Africa continues to endure a historical injustice that must be redressed along the lines of the continent’s legitimate demands, by granting it two permanent seats and two additional non-permanent seats on the Council. As long as the veto exists, it must be extended to new permanent members of the Council, based on the principles of equity and sovereign equality. We are encouraged in that regard by the continuing and increased support for the Common African Position, which is now widely recognized by the General Assembly. We appreciate that this support was rightly reflected in the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences in the previous session. In that connection, I should emphasize that both the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration constitute the pillars of the Common African Position and should be referenced collectively in any outcome document, as they both equally reflect the legitimate aspiration of Africa to redress the historical injustice done to it. The upcoming session of intergovernmental negotiations should be an opportunity to sustain momentum, preserve the gains made so far and address some of the most intractable issues related to the process. To that end, we affirm the relevance of the intergovernmental negotiations as the only legitimate negotiating forum for advancing our collective endeavour on the issue of Security Council reform, encompassing the five main clusters and taking into account their interlinkages. Any disaggregated or selective approach is likely to jeopardize the ultimate objective of a comprehensive reform. Equally important is the framework document circulated on 31 July 2015, which remains of particular relevance to Africa as it accurately captures the entirety of the Common African Position on all five clusters. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize the importance of building on the progress already made with the aim of fulfilling the vision of our leaders as expressed at the 2005 World Summit  — to make the Security Council more broadly representative, democratic, effective, legitimate and accessible. As a member of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government, Algeria stands ready to engage constructively in the intergovernmental negotiations process. Only forthright determination will enable us all to stand together with the political will we need to ultimately produce a reformed Security Council.

I would like to thank the President for organizing this important yearly debate and to take the opportunity to thank the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during the previous session of the General Assembly, the former Permanent Representative of Poland and the Permanent Representative of Qatar. The outcome of that session achieved some progress, albeit very moderate, in the form of the partial attribution of some positions and proposals of Member States. In that regard, we welcomed the previous co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergence and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, circulated to the General Assembly on 29 April. We also welcome the appointment of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for the current session, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, and fully support their work. We believe that the debate on reform of the Security Council itself is a good indication of both the ability of and necessity for the Organization to adapt and evolve with the world around us. We have to make the Council more representative and reflective of the realities of the international community and more accountable, transparent and effective. We also need to focus on how best to adjust its working methods. However, discussing reform in the absence of actual progress can put at risk the credibility of both the intergovernmental negotiations and the wider United Nations. I will focus on four key areas that are important for Slovenia. First, with regard to the process of the intergovernmental negotiations, we believe that they should strive to be as efficient, effective, and results- oriented as possible. Instead of starting every session almost from scratch, we should consider making them a continuous process in which each new session is a continuation of the previous one, thereby avoiding oft-repeated debates and statements. Another way to achieve increased efficiency could be by starting text- based negotiations on the basis of a single document with appropriately attributed proposals. The process could also be made more transparent and open by applying the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, so that records would be kept of the discussions. That would also help to reduce repetition and be as valuable to us as the verbatim records that are kept of this yearly debate of the General Assembly. Secondly, with regard to the question of representation, making the Council more representative continues to be at the core of our discussions. We share the view that some groups are underrepresented, and in that respect we call for a non-permanent seat for the Group of Eastern European States, whose membership has tripled in the past 30 years. At the same time, Slovenia especially supports Africa and its demands for more seats on the Council. In addition, small developing States should also have a greater voice. Thirdly, with regard to the use of the veto, we believe that those possessing the right of the veto have a great responsibility and should refrain from misusing it or avoiding their commitment to taking positive action, particularly when it is urgently needed. As a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, Slovenia advocates for the group’s code of conduct regarding the use of the veto in Security Council actions against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. A total of 122 countries have already joined that important code of conduct and we call on others to do the same. Slovenia also supports the initiative on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocities. Lastly, with regard to the Council’s categories of membership, we support the expansion of both categories and welcome the discussion of possible solutions on how to approach the issue. Slovenia is looking forward to actively participating in further discussions on reforming the Security Council and hopes that we will gain enough momentum to lead us towards more tangible progress.

My delegation would like to express its gratitude to the President for convening today’s debate, and for his readiness to ensure that the process of reforming the Security Council gets the necessary support. Ahead of the new cycle of intergovernmental negotiations, I would like to reiterate several points that my delegation deems important for ensuring progress in that endeavour. First, we must be ambitious enough to break the vicious cycle of repeating our positions year after year, with the only likely outcome an updated list of convergences and divergences, which, while very useful in terms of taking stock of where we are, does not help in terms of bridging our positions. That brings me to my second point. We could open new avenues for progress if we launched text- based negotiations. That step would re-energize the negotiation process and strengthen its results-oriented nature. Being ambitious also means ensuring that our decision at the end of the session goes beyond a technical rollover. The discussion in the Assembly in June when an attempt at that was made (see A/75/PV.84) was illustrative in that regard. If we are to ensure the success of such attempts in future, it therefore seems crucial to allocate much more time to drafting texts and to have broader ownership of General Assembly decisions among the Member States. Thirdly, we consider that a text that is intended to serve as a basis for negotiations should properly reflect the entire scope of positions and proposals and acknowledge unchallenged proposals as commonalities. Fourthly, among those unchallenged proposals is strengthening the representation of the Group of Eastern European States in the Council. It is a matter of principle for Ukraine that an additional seat should be allocated to the Group in the elected member category. We want to emphasize that the Group remains among the least represented among the non-permanent membership, having just one seat for 23 Member States. Finally, my country will continue to insist on revisiting the role of the veto in the work of the Security Council. That is an indispensable element if we are to fully reform the Security Council. It is absolutely inappropriate that permanent members have the privilege of exercising the right of the veto during the Council’s consideration of situations in which they are directly involved as parties to a conflict. The delegation of Ukraine therefore strongly supports all initiatives aimed at limiting the use of the veto. We believe that legitimate reasons for restricting the use of the veto by permanent members should include cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well as conflicts and situations in which a permanent member is involved and cannot vote impartially due to a conflict of interest. The Charter of the United Nations has been amended five times since it was signed in order to reflect our changing world. Strikingly, the amendment process came to a halt 48 years ago, despite the fact that the world of the twenty-first century cannot be compared with that of 1973, the year that the last amendment was approved. The world map has changed dramatically and artificial entities such as the Soviet Union are now a thing of the past. And although they have disappeared from the world map, they are still present in the Charter, as we can see when we read the Charter. In a nutshell, that means that the Charter in its current wording does not reflect today’s world either de facto or de jure. Once again, all we need to do is look at the map and then at the Charter. Even the Secretariat understands that, and uses language in its publications that does not exist in the current text of the Charter. We can see it on the Security Council’s website, because the Member States have not agreed on the changes. While we have opened different clusters for our negotiations, we cannot agree on their fundamentals. It is time to do so. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that the delegation of Ukraine is ready to engage constructively on all the issues at hand so as to ensure progress towards our common goal of reforming the Security Council.

At the outset, I would like to join colleagues in expressing my appreciation to the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy-fifth session, Ambassadors Joanna Wronecka, former Permanent Representative of Poland, and Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar. I also commend Ambassador Al-Thani for taking on that important task for the seventy-sixth session, this time together with our colleague Ambassador Martin Bille Hermann of Denmark. I congratulate them both and would like to wish them success and assure them of my delegation’s full cooperation. Through the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations, our Heads of State and Government committed to instilling new life into the discussions on the reform of the Security Council. The rollover decision 75/569 in June reaffirmed that commitment, and the Secretary- General’s report Our Common Agenda (A/75/982) also took note of it. It is therefore now up to us in this Hall to start producing long-overdue results. The only way to do that is by starting text-based negotiations, in accordance with normal practice at the United Nations. The previous co-Chairs’ elements paper, as well as other previous papers, including the 2015 framework document of the sixty-ninth session, can easily serve as a starting point for text-based negotiations. Georgia has always supported Security Council reform in terms of equitable representation and enlargement, and we have stated our positions for many years. Nevertheless, let me once again reiterate those positions. We support expanding both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, which will increase the Council’s legitimacy, authority and credibility. Our particular priority is the allocation of additional seats to the Group of Eastern European States, so that we have better regional representation and parity in the Council. At the same time, we support allocating additional seats for the Group of African States, in line with the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We stand for the inclusion of small States in decision-making in order to ensure that the basic principle of sovereign equality is more explicitly reflected at the core of the international security architecture. Meaningful reform should also imply reform of the use of the veto by restricting it. Article 27 of the Charter of the United Nations states that in a series of specific important decisions, “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”. We believe that the right of the veto should be restricted when a Security Council decision is aimed at preventing crimes against humanity, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, genocide or cases of conflict in which a member is involved and therefore cannot exercise the veto impartially. We had our own gruesome experience in that regard. We therefore fully support the political statement on the suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, presented by France and Mexico during the Assembly’s seventieth session, as well as the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct regarding Security Council action on genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Lastly, there must be greater openness in the work of the Council so that its deliberations are made in a more transparent and democratic manner, thereby increasing its accountability to the General Assembly.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Permanent Representatives of Denmark and Qatar on their appointment as co-Chairs of the forthcoming intergovernmental negotiations. The aim of this year’s negotiations was to “instil new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council”. That is very timely, considering that despite the passage of time and corresponding significant geopolitical developments in past decades, the Security Council remains an institution that needs reform in terms of its representativeness and working methods. In that regard, I would like to briefly highlight the following elements, which we have already stated in more detail on a number of occasions. First, the Philippines supports enlarging the Council by increasing the number of members up to 27. Secondly, we strongly believe that improving the working methods of the Security Council is crucial. The Council should aim for wider participation by non-members in its decision-making process and for greater transparency and accountability to non-members. Given that the Council’s rules of procedure are essentially provisional, they are unpredictable and non-transparent. Making them more predictable and transparent therefore requires that we agree on specific actions to be taken under specific circumstances. Secondly, regarding the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, many delegations have consistently called for more regular coordination and interaction between the Council, the Assembly and other main organs of the United Nations, while respecting each body’s respective competencies and mandates. Thirdly, the outcome of this exercise should be in the form of a package agreement on Security Council reform that contains elements both on expansion and working methods. In other words, any final agreement should cover all five clusters. Finally, we support the intergovernmental negotiations process, but we need to consider improving the form of our output in order to elicit a greater sense of movement, if not progress. For example, the discussions next year on areas of convergence could move forward on the basis of the previous intergovernmental negotiation discussions so as to provide momentum and direction for future discussions on negotiations.

We would like to thank the President for convening this plenary debate, which addresses a topic of great interest to many delegations, and for his leadership in advancing Security Council reform. We want to express our sincere appreciation to the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiation process during the seventy-fifth session, Ms. Joanna Wronecka, former Permanent Representative of the Republic of Poland, and Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, for their dedication and hard work. We would also like to congratulate Ambassador Al-Thani and Ambassador Martin Bille Hermann of Denmark on their reappointment and appointment as co-Chairs, respectively, for the current session. We look forward to working with them. As we reflect on the work of the United Nations in the wake of the seventy-fifth anniversary of its founding, Security Council reform has to be an integral part of those reflections in order to ensure that the Organization is fit to address the challenges of the twenty-first century. All Member States seem to agree in principle on the fundamental idea of the need for reform in order to make our Organization stronger and more responsive to the people it serves. Security Council reform is an essential part of comprehensive reform of the United Nations, and Slovakia remains committed to achieving results that make the Council more representative, efficient and transparent. After adopting the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations a year ago, and in the light of the Secretary-General’s recent report Our Common Agenda (A/75/982), all Member States should implement their principles and recommendations, which among other things means giving new impetus to the United Nations and properly reforming it. I should note that it has been more than 40 years since substantive reform of the Security Council was first put on the agenda of the General Assembly. In view of that, my delegation joins others in calling for the start of text-based negotiations that would give the intergovernmental negotiations substantive meaning and accelerate the process. In that respect, the five key reform issues outlined in decision 62/557 remain the guiding principles of our work in the intergovernmental negotiations. The position of my delegation on reviewing the membership of the Security Council is consistent and well documented. We support the expansion of both categories of membership and the calls for increasing them to no more than 25 members, while respecting geographical balance. As a matter of principle, new members of the Council should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current members. I underscore that the reformed Council should include one additional non-permanent seat for the Group of Eastern European States. A lot can also be achieved by enhancing the transparency and efficiency of the Council’s work. For that reason, we encourage the full implementation of presidential note S/2017/507. We also welcome positive movement towards improving the Council’s relationships with other United Nations bodies such as the General Assembly, the Secretariat and the Peacebuilding Commission, as well as its interaction and dialogue with regional and subregional organizations, especially the African Union, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and others. In conclusion, my delegation looks forward to engaging in open, transparent, inclusive and results-oriented negotiations with a view to moving the process forward during the current session of the General Assembly.

I thank the President for convening this important debate. We welcome the appointment of the Permanent Representatives of the State of Qatar and Denmark as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations and look forward to working with them during the current session. Reform of the Security Council is in the interests of Member States, the United Nations system and the international community as a whole. That interest arises from the serious threats and challenges facing both the world and the functions of the Security Council, on which Member States have conferred the primary responsibility for acting on their behalf in maintaining international peace and security, as provided for by the Charter of the United Nations. The common view is that the Security Council needs reform so that it reflects current realities and is more representative, democratic, transparent, accountable and effective. The intergovernmental negotiations constitute the most appropriate platform for the efforts to achieve Security Council reform with the widest possible political acceptance of Member States, in line with General Assembly decision 62/557. All five key issues are closely interlinked, and the negotiations are reasonably based on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, a large variety of opinions on the reform of the Council persist, particularly in relation to the categories of membership, the question of the veto and regional representation. Despite their differences and disagreements on substance, Member States could make progress on a number of issues by focusing on the areas of convergence, especially with regard to increasing the representation on the Council of developing countries, African nations, small island developing States and small States, as well as strengthening the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly and improving the Council’s working methods. A balanced expansion of the Security Council’s membership while maintaining its effective and operational functioning could help to enhance its authority and legitimacy, provided that the expansion is based on a fair and equitable geographical distribution. In that context, the enlargement of a category of membership that is accepted by all Member States, or even the creation of longer-term non-permanent seats with the possibility of immediate re-election, as part of comprehensive Security Council reform and without prejudice to the negotiations on the remaining substantial issues on the categories of membership and other clusters, might contribute to moving the reform process forward. The issue of the veto is one of the key elements of Security Council reform, and we have noted the various options discussed by Member States in that regard. More in-depth analysis is needed to explore, first and foremost, whether and how the veto poses an impediment to the effective functioning of the Council, particularly as far as serious breaches of the Charter of the United Nations and international law are concerned. Furthermore, close cooperation and coordination among the principal organs of the United Nations, in compliance with their respective mandates, is critical to enabling it to effectively address existing, new and emerging threats and challenges. Security Council reform should be decided by the general membership through open, inclusive and transparent intergovernmental negotiations, and should take into account the positions and concerns of all Member States. We look forward to further progress over the course of the negotiations based on the work already done and the gains achieved, in good faith and in a spirit of flexibility, constructiveness and mutual respect.

Let me begin by expressing our gratitude to the President for convening this meeting and for his important remarks (see A/76/ PV.33). I would like to thank the previous co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for leading the General Assembly on the Security Council reform negotiations during the seventy-fifth session. At the same time, I also want to congratulate Ambassadors Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani and Martin Bille Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, on their reappointment and appointment, respectively, as co-Chairs of the current intergovernmental negotiations. My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by Ambassador Rhonda King, Permanent Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the L.69 group (see A/76/PV.33), and would like to add a few remarks in its national capacity. The just and equitable expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent categories of seats on the Security Council must continue. Our stance in favour of enlarging both categories is based on the composition of the Council, as outlined in the Charter of the United Nations, the effects of contemporary realities and the principles of justice and equality, with a view to ensuring greater representation of developing countries, particularly those in unrepresented and underrepresented regional groups. The use of veto power should be limited to decisions related to Chapter VII of the Charter, with a view to its gradual and complete elimination. As long as the veto exists, it should be extended to all new members in the permanent category of the Security Council, who should enjoy all of the category’s prerogatives and privileges, including the right to veto. We attach great importance to ensuring equitable geographical distribution through an emphasis on unrepresented and underrepresented groups. The adequate representation of all regions, particularly the unrepresented or underrepresented, must be duly considered for both membership categories, and the solution ought to be fair and just. Mongolia is of the view that it is particularly important to convene open debates in the Security Council and engage the wider membership of the United Nations, including countries that are affected by Council decisions and troop- and police-contributing countries. We are against the Council’s existing practice of holding closed meetings for which no records are issued, and we urge that non-members be granted access to their documentation and records, including those of the Council’s subsidiary bodies, and have the right to participate in their debates. The Security Council should also strengthen its working relations with the Secretariat and troop- and police-contributing countries and maintain a close working relationship with the General Assembly, among other things by holding regular consultations and submitting analytical, substantive and comprehensive evaluations of its work in its annual report to the Assembly. It should also submit special reports to the General Assembly more frequently. In conclusion, my delegation is committed to participating constructively in the continued negotiations to advance this process, which aims to achieve a more representative, democratic and effective Security Council that reflects the reality of our changing world.

Guyana fully aligns itself with the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Jamaica and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the Caribbean Community and the L.69 Group, respectively (see A/76/PV.33). We thank the President for convening this annual debate and for his valuable efforts to carry forward the discussions on Security Council reform. Guyana also joins in congratulating Ambassadors Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani of Qatar and Martin Bille Hermann of Denmark on their reappointment and appointment, respectively, as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform during this session. We thank them for accepting that important responsibility and pledge them our full support in the execution of their mandate. Forty-two years have passed since Guyana and nine other Member States first called for Security Council reform to be put on the agenda of the General Assembly. Can anyone imagine that at the time the urgent priority was to ensure that the Security Council was more responsive, equitable and balanced in its representation of the expanding membership of the United Nations? And here we are today, 42 years later, making the same calls. We can and must do better. We have had 29 years of structured consideration of the question of Security Council reform by the General Assembly and 12 years of intergovernmental negotiations. We have heard numerous statements, positions and perspectives on the need for reform and the various models that should define its implementation. There has been some modest progress, but we are still far from achieving the goal of a more democratic, representative and accountable Security Council. What is needed now is political will and the commitment of all Member States to giving priority to the intergovernmental negotiations process and concentrating on achieving more actionable outcomes. It is imperative that we normalize the intergovernmental process and apply the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Keeping records and webcasting the meetings of the intergovernmental negotiations would serve to enhance the openness, inclusivity and transparency of the process. Moreover, agreement on a single text as the basis for our deliberations in the negotiations is a crucial component of the credibility of the process. Guyana therefore supports the call for the next round of intergovernmental negotiations to focus on improving the co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergence and divergence in order to ensure that it fully reflects the positions of Member States and can be used as a basis for forging convergence going forward. In that respect, and in the spirit of transparency, Guyana underscores the need for responding to the membership’s express wishes and avoiding the exclusion of ideas in future revisions of the paper. There is no wrong time to make the right decision. The forthcoming round of intergovernmental negotiations is yet another opportunity to instil new life in the discussions on Security Council reform and achieve more concrete outcomes. Guyana continues to advocate for an expansion in both categories of membership and a guaranteed presence for small island developing States on the Council. We believe that given that group’s unique experiences, it has important contributions to make to the maintenance of international peace and security, especially in the light of emerging non-traditional threats such as climate change. My delegation is ready and committed to working with the co-facilitators and delegations to move this process forward and ensure that we have a Security Council that is fully equipped to respond to today’s challenges to global peace and security.

I would like to thank the President for convening this plenary meeting to discuss Security Council reform. I would also like to congratulate Ambassadors Al-Thani and Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, and to assure them of my delegation’s full support and cooperation. My thanks also go to the previous co-Chairs for their contributions to the process. Cambodia is a strong supporter of multilateralism and the rules-based system. Our view is that Security Council reform is in the interests of all Member States, big and small. It should therefore be carried out in a way that accommodates all the proposals of all Member States. In that regard, Cambodia wishes to reiterate its principaled position that we support the expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent seats in the Security Council, to the extent that will ensure its effectiveness. The increase of representation for developing countries, especially middle and small countries in the Council, should be duly considered so that their voices can be heard and their issues of concern can be effectively addressed. As we strive to make further progress, we should focus on bridging the differences in all the reform clusters. We believe that building consensus is very important and will lead to substantive progress in our negotiations aimed at successful reform. Any attempts to force text-based negotiations without first reaching a consensus among all Member States would be counterproductive and hinder the negotiating process. Finally, my delegation stresses that the intergovernmental negotiations should be the main mechanism for discussing and negotiating Security Council reform, in accordance with General Assembly decision 62/557. We oppose any attempts to establish a separate platform for the negotiating reform, because we believe it would divide the membership. Mr. Kayobosi (Uganda) We thank the President and appreciate his convening of today’s debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. Uganda also congratulates the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark on their reappointment and appointment, respectively, as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, and assures them of Uganda’s full support in moving the reform process forward. At the outset, Uganda aligns itself with the statement made by Ambassador Alhaji Fanday Turay, Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone and Coordinator of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government (C-10), on behalf of the Group of African States (see A/76/PV.33), and would like to make some additional remarks in its national capacity. We underscore the need for comprehensive reform of the Security Council, taking into account the interconnectedness of the five clusters under consideration. Uganda is therefore opposed to any piecemeal or selective approach that contradicts the spirit of the comprehensive reform that we all aspire to. Uganda reiterates the Common African Position, as encapsulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. The full representation of Africa on the Security Council means no less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership, including the right of the veto, if it is retained, and five non-permanent seats. In that respect, Uganda underscores the need for expanding both the permanent and non-permanent categories of the Security Council and rejects any suggestions aimed at creating other categories of membership, which would clearly undermine Africa’s quest for representation in the permanent category. My delegation appreciates the strong and broad support of the majority of the United Nations membership that the Common African Position enjoys and welcomes the previous co-Chairs’ reflection of that broad support in the section on convergences of their elements paper, which reflects “[T]he wide recognition and broad support by Member States for the legitimate aspiration for Africa to play its rightful role on the global stage, including through an increased presence in the Security Council as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus, adopted by the African Union.” Uganda reiterates its strong support for the 2015 framework document as the main reference document for the intergovernmental negotiations reflecting the Common African Position in its entirety, as well as in all five clusters. Uganda therefore appreciates that the framework document was rolled over to this session, together with the co-Chairs’ elements paper. Uganda reiterates its strong commitment to the intergovernmental negotiations process and reaffirms that the negotiations established by decision 62/557 remain the legitimate and appropriate mechanism for the deliberations on reform of the Security Council. My delegation would also like to reiterate that it would be premature to call for text-based negotiations before generating the widest possible consensus among the membership on all the five clusters that are under consideration. Also, as a member of the C-10, we have received no such mandate from the Heads of State and Government of the African Union. Uganda looks forward to continuing to give its full support to the co-Chairs and engaging with all Member States in moving this process forward.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Sir, for presiding over this meeting on agenda item 123, entitled, “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council”. I would like also to congratulate Ambassadors Martin Hermann and Alya Al-Thani, the Permanent Representatives of Denmark and Qatar, on their appointment and reappointment, respectively, as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations. My country’s delegation aligns itself with the statements by the representative of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the Group of African States, who presented the African Common Position on this issue, and the representative of Kuwait, speaking on behalf of the Group of Arab States (see A/76/PV.33). After facing problems with holding meetings last session owing to the coronavirus disease and the subsequent measures taken to safeguard lives and curb the spread of the pandemic, we now hope to launch a new stage of serious negotiations during the current session of the General Assembly that can achieve the desired goals of the intergovernmental negotiations, leading to unprecedented reform of the work of the Council. Those are urgent negotiations that can help us meet our Organization’s noble goals. My delegation would also like to thank all who contributed to the previous negotiations, including delegations, co-Chairs and Secretariat staff. The Charter of the United Nations aims above all to govern the relations among States in order to prevent crises, wars and disasters arising from their behaviour, by setting international legal norms and fostering preventive and deterrent diplomacy, which is primarily founded on the willingness of all Member States to act in good faith according to the principles of the United Nations. In recent decades the world has seen new developments that are very different from those of the 1940s and 1950s. They require that we take important and necessary measures arising from new circumstances that demand reform of the Security Council, the most important organ of the United Nations, mandated with maintaining international peace and security. The reform must be comprehensive. It must focus on all five aspects of the reform process, including equitable geographical representation, especially with regard to the African continent, which has 54 States members of the United Nations and has never had equitable representation on the Council, despite the fact that more than 70 per cent of the Council’s agenda is related to African issues. We emphasize that it is high time for all Member States to end this historical injustice against the African continent and recognize its demands as legitimate, realistic and duly applicable. The African continent has expressed those demands on numerous occasions at which the African States have expressed their Common Position, as outlined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which calls for two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, with all the accompanying prerogatives, including the right of the veto, as well as two additional non-permanent seats. My delegation welcomes the decision of the members of the General Assembly to continue the process of intergovernmental negotiations on reform of the Security Council. We must strive to understand each other in a way that will enable us to make progress in achieving the desired goals of the reform process, which is long overdue, despite the fact that we have agreed on certain issues and reached a number of commonalities. My delegation would also like to stress the importance of starting serious negotiations that approach the urgent need to reform the Council so that we can improve its working methods in a transparent and democratic manner that will contribute to achieving international peace and security and ensure the participation of all the relevant parties in every discussion in the Council. The intergovernmental negotiations process on this issue demands that we look at all the various aspects of reform comprehensively and expeditiously. As the Assembly is aware, that can be achieved only by showing collective will, bearing in mind the injustices of countries’ representation on the Security Council, as well as its methods of work, which many consider undemocratic. Even some countries that have been non-permanent members in the past have complained about the control that the permanent members exercise over the work of the Council. Furthermore, limiting the non-permanent seats on the Council to two-year terms prevents non-permanent members from leaving their stamp on the work of the Council. We also see a need to develop the Council’s relationship with the General Assembly, which represents all States Members of the United Nations, in order to harmonize the work of the two organs and ensure that they do not infringe on each other’s work as if they belonged to separate organizations. In conclusion, my delegation emphasizes its readiness to participate in the new intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. We hope that the new round of negotiations will represent the start of a serious process for achieving our goals. If successful, the negotiations will transform this organ of the United Nations into one that is effective and capable of adequately fulfilling its mandate. The United Nations would be rectifying the historical injustice suffered by some of the world’s regions in terms of representation, enabling it to change its working methods so that it can function in a more transparent and democratic manner.

We thank the President for convening today’s important debate on reform of the Security Council, and he can count on our full support in realizing his vision of revitalizing the United Nations. We trust to his wisdom in guiding us and would like to congratulate Ambassadors Alya Al-Thani and Martin Bille Hermann on their appointment as co-Chairs of this session’s intergovernmental negotiations. Yesterday the General Assembly adopted resolution 76/7, an important resolution that will set a course of action for implementing the commitments made by our leaders in the Declaration on the Commemoration of the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations. Its consensus adoption should inspire us to do the same for the Security Council reform process, as the Declaration also tasks us with instilling new life into the discussions on that issue. The substance of our positions has not changed, so I will refrain from elaborating on them today, and it seems that almost all the delegations here today feel the same. We all know what our convergence and divergence points are. After three years taking part in the debate on this issue, I would like to raise some questions and then look to the Assembly for answers. First, when is the right time for reform? Conflicts and wars persist around the world as we continue to deliberate here in New York. They show no sign of receding any time soon. Our peoples need a Security Council that can deliver effectively and efficiently and sooner rather than later. Our delegation is of the view that all Member States must show greater political flexibility in order to move towards convergence. Secondly, where and with what should we start our reform? We have a host of commonalities and consensus resulting from years of deliberations. The expansion of the non-permanent membership, for instance, could be a quick win. We owe it to the peoples of Africa, the Asia- Pacific, and Latin America. Their voices need greater representation on the Council. Improving the Council’s working methods is also very doable. We can start with the lowest common denominators. Information sharing and engagement with States outside the Council could be a meaningful and unifying move. During their membership of the Council, non-permanent members benefit from sharing information with States outside of the Council, which enriches their understanding and informs their positions. Lastly, how do we build on the momentum of pandemic recovery? As we begin to have more in-person meetings, our responsibility for delivering reforms is increasing. We no longer have to work within the confines of our offices or residences, or in the boxes of teleconference platforms. Do our minds and conversations therefore need to go beyond their traditional boundaries? The discussions of the application of text-based negotiations and the Assembly’s rules of procedure have increasingly occupied much of our focus. We can consider exploring alternative methods, especially when we have answered the first two questions that I just raised. I did not raise the questions about why and who because the answers are very clear. The vast number of recent Security Council decisions emphasize the seriousness of our global peace and security challenges, as well as the Council’s critical role in mitigating conflict and fostering peace. We therefore need an inclusive, transparent and democratic Council that will be able to adequately fulfil its responsibilities. It is incumbent on all of us Member States to make that reform happen. Our delegation stands ready to work with all other delegations to answer those questions during the President’s presidency of hope.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers on Wednesday, 24 November, at 10 a.m. in this Hall. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 123.