A/77/PV.36 General Assembly

Forty-three years have passed since the question of Security Council reform first appeared on the General Assembly’s agenda. It has been 17 years since world leaders expressed their support for the so-called early reform of the Council, calling it an essential element of the overall effort to reform the United Nations. And it has been 13 years since the Assembly launched the intergovernmental negotiations process. This year, we approach Security Council reform with new attention, facing a set of interlocking crises that have placed the entire multilateral system under pressure. Countries are struggling due to conflicts and wars, climate change, food and energy crises, unsustainable debts and health emergencies. The war in Ukraine, now in its ninth month, has only amplified those effects, displacing millions and forcing countries to make unprecedented choices to meet the needs of their citizens. Through it all, the Security Council — the main guarantor of international peace and security  — has remained blocked, unable to fully carry out its mandate. Growing numbers are now demanding its reform. During high-level week, one-third of world leaders underscored the urgent need to reform the Council — more than double the number in 2021. They are looking to the General Assembly to lead on change. We should admit that this is about the credibility and the relevance of the United Nations. A choice is at hand  — does the Assembly continue its annual repetition of well-known positions or, moved by these crises, does it swing into action to find common ground and achieve breakthroughs? Members simply must answer that call. The General Assembly is, quite literally, the only United Nations body with a mandate to seek a solution to the question of Security Council reform. I count on the Member States to drive the transformation now urgently needed. The ancient philosopher Lao Tzu — who is said to have lived in an era of warfare and reform  — has an apt saying: “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.” Today, I ask members of the Assembly to take their collective step, to start from a position of “yes”, to listen to each other, to build on shared interests and to find areas of commonalities. I have held several meetings with Member States to hear their views on the way forward. I have heard their desire to achieve solutions. I have appointed the Permanent Representative of Slovakia and the Permanent Representative of Kuwait as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process. I thank them for accepting their important responsibility. I have complete confidence in them and their intention to understand the views of Member States and steer these negotiations in good faith, and with mutual respect. I ask everyone here to offer them full support. As members embark, I also encourage them to engage on the critical questions of our day. How can we ensure that the process goes ahead in an open, inclusive and transparent manner? Are Member States ready to seek practical solutions on the reform of the Council? What do they envision as the outcome of this session? Our meeting today is webcasted and recorded. Would they like to proceed in the same way during the forthcoming rounds of negotiations? One of the principles applied to the intergovernmental negotiations during recent years was that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Would members like to follow the same principle or prefer another methodology? The 2008 decision provides possibilities for Member States to negotiate. The objective is to find solutions in a transparent manner and through a well- designed process. It is up to them to decide whether or how to use the available techniques. In turn, they can count on me to provide all support to the co-Chairs and Member States in an impartial, objective and open- minded manner. It was also Lao Tzu who said, “Perseverance is a sign of willpower”. Let us persevere. Let us break free of entrenched positions. Let us go beyond the calculations of distrust and rivalry. Let us focus on the common good.

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the L.69 group, a diverse, pro-reform group of 29 cross- regional developing countries, including but not limited to Barbados, Bhutan, Brazil, Cabo Verde, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Malawi, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, South Africa, Timor-Leste and Vanuatu. The L.69 group welcomes your commitment, Mr. President, to advancing negotiations on Security Council reform at the seventy-seventh session, in a manner that will ensure that the Security Council is more representative of the world’s population, thereby reflecting twenty-first-century realities. We will support every endeavour that you undertake in line with that promise. We echo your sentiment, expressed at the opening of the general debate, that “This is a matter of credibility for our entire Organization and our multinational order” (A/77/PV.4, p.7) The L.69 group wishes to acknowledge, with sincere appreciation, the previous co-Chairs, Her Excellency Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations, and His Excellency Ambassador Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark to the United Nations. We commend their efforts to advance the process and take us a few steps closer to answering the call to instil new life in these discussions. We also take this opportunity to welcome the early appointment of the new co-Chairs, His Excellency Mr. Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic, and His Excellency Mr. Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait, to whom we offer our unconditional support in advancing the work before us in the intergovernmental negotiations. We have faith that they will make every effort necessary to take forward the work of guiding us to our common goal of Security Council reform. I will not use this statement to repeat the L.69 group’s well-established positions on the five clusters. Instead, I will use this opportunity to emphasize the context within which the next intergovernmental negotiations will take place. Our contemporary world continues to be assailed by a toxic web of long-standing challenges and evolving threats, which have redefined our traditional understanding of international peace and security. Those challenges no longer exist merely in remote places. It is neither sufficient nor satisfactory for us to watch those issues unfold via the media as we express our concern and our commitment to standing in solidarity with those affected. Instead, in our globalized world, those challenges have reached everyone’s doorsteps, and if we do not work collectively to ensure the integrity of our multilateral structures, none of us will escape the fallout. The Security Council is our gatekeeper. It is the primary organ endowed with the formidable responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. However, that mandate, as set out in Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, does not translate to reality. The Security Council has been rendered incapable of functioning effectively by virtue of its anachronistic architecture and its imperviousness to the logic of evolution. We have just heard the President underscore that at this year’s general debate, over 70 world leaders recognized the need for reform of the Security Council. There is tremendous momentum to advance that process. Expectations are so high that they are almost palpable. We must inject this momentum into our intergovernmental negotiations so that we can make tangible progress. It is in that context that the L.69 group issued a call to action, which was supported and signed by other like-minded States. The call to action, which was circulated to the wider membership yesterday, recognizes the need for a formal negotiation process, guided by the decision-making modalities and working methods laid out in the Charter of the United Nations and a renewed commitment to multilateralism. The various positions on the intergovernmental negotiations have been made clear. There is little ambiguity as to where every group and delegation stands, and we must now determine where we go from here. We must begin by restructuring the framework within which we are operating and which is ineffective. Any attempt to deny that fact is to accept the stalled process and perpetuate the status quo. It is time for us to begin substantive discussions on the basis of a text, with clearly attributed positions. That is the standard practice used within the multilateral system. It remains the mechanism relied upon in every negotiation because it is logical, tried and tested. That is a fact acknowledged by every Member State in this Hall, each of which puts forward its own texts for negotiations in other processes, despite divergences in positions. They work on the basis of those texts to reconcile those differences and explore possibilities for convergences and compromise to achieve an outcome. We also believe that it is imperative that every delegation have equal opportunity to participate fully in the negotiations. To that end, we would ask for the provision of record-keeping, webcasting and/or any other mechanism that ensures the participation of all delegations. This is a legitimate and consistent request that is in accordance with our desire for a credible process and outcome. It is in the interest of this process that we reiterate this request this morning. The United Nations has always represented hope. We must ensure that it continues to do so. It remains our best chance at guaranteeing global prosperity and stability. The world is looking to us to facilitate peace. The ordinary man or woman is not concerned with our geopolitical considerations but is concerned by the ways in which he or she is affected by the exigencies of today’s world. We are the gatekeepers. If we fail to revitalize multilateralism and if we fail to reform the Security Council, we will have not only neglected the peoples of the United Nations on whose behalf we act, but it would also be a clear dereliction of our responsibilities and we would therefore have failed as an organization. Today the world is questioning our purpose and our relevance. The pillar of peace and security upon which the Organization rests is crumbling; at stake now is our credibility and legitimacy. Wars continue to be waged and conflicts have far-reaching consequences for every corner of our planet. While countries continue to pursue a desired balance of power through military action unimpeded by an ineffective Security Council, what do those who pursue and win peace get? We need a multilateral order that is not only capable of safeguarding peace, but willing to prioritize it. As I conclude, allow me to highlight something that I personally still find very pertinent. Among the Sustainable Development Goals, which we have all committed to achieving by 2030, is Goal 16, on peace, justice and strong institutions. Target 8 calls for us to “broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance”. It makes clear that there is an understanding of how fundamental inclusion and effective participation are to the ideal of securing peace and, further, at the international level in our most important institutions for decision-making. That is not anywhere more necessary than in the Security Council. Finally, Mr. President, as you have just asked us to find solutions, allow me to recall and underscore one fact that we must be cognizant of when we recommence the intergovernmental negotiations at this session. Decision 62/557 mandates that we find a solution that can garner the widest possible political acceptance by Member States. Consensus was never a requirement for advancement in this process. We therefore call upon the co-Chairs to lead us towards a solution as contemplated by 62/557, and we look forward to working together towards a text, with clear attribution, that will serve as the basis of our negotiations in the intergovernmental negotiations. On behalf of the L.69 group, I reaffirm today that we will begin this session from a position of “yes”, as you, Sir, just requested of us.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Group of Four (G-4) countries: Brazil, Germany, Japan and my own country, India. Allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on the appointment of the Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic and the Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. Your decision to nominate the co-Chairs early in the session is a positive sign that we hope will be translated into immediately restarting meaningful engagement and lead to effective negotiations. The G-4 is confident that the co-Chairs will guide the Member States to instil new life in the process of Security Council reform. We also hope that your leadership of the intergovernmental negotiations will provide another opportunity to finally instil a strong breath of life into a process that has shown hardly any signs of life or growth in over four decades. We all have a collective responsibility to ensure that the intergovernmental negotiations live up to their original mandate, in which real negotiations on the basis of a text will pave the way for the early reform of the Security Council called for more than 17 years ago. We look forward to your leadership, Mr. President, towards tangible outcomes during this session. You may rest assured that we stand ready to lend our full support to you and the co-Chairs in that endeavour. It will be recalled that the item on equitable representation in the Security Council was included on the General Assembly’s agenda more than 40 years ago, in 1979. It is regrettable that work on the issue has nothing substantive to show even after four decades. Consequently, the Council still does not reflect the current geopolitical landscape. In contrast, many other major international institutions have made strides to change and adapt. There is simply no reason to leave the Security Council out of that process. It is also important to bear in mind that during this year’s high-level week, including the general debate of the seventy-seventh session, more than 70 Heads of State and Government and high-level governmental representatives underlined that reforming the Security Council should be one of our priorities at this session. That broad support for this topic confirms its relevance and urgency. The longer the Security Council reform is stalled, the greater its deficit in representation — and representation is an inescapable precondition for its legitimacy and effectiveness. It is high time to bring the Council in line with its Charter responsibility to act on behalf of the entire membership. That will not be achieved without enhancing the membership in both categories. Only that will enable the Council to effectively manage today’s conflicts around the globe, as well as the increasingly complex and interconnected global challenges it faces today. As indicated in the recent document “A Call to Action:, signed by more than 35 United Nations Member States, a diverse number of nations continue to voice their concern over the lack of openness and transparency in the intergovernmental negotiations, underlining the need for enhanced working methods and the definition of the applicable rules of procedure to the process. It is also an indication that the intergovernmental negotiations are being used not to enable real negotiations, but to prevent any concrete outcome. The very purpose of its creation 14 years ago — to launch actual negotiations — is being voided by the lack of activity, by the absence of a negotiating text and by the unwillingness of some to truly engage in substantive discussions. We would like to emphasize an undeniable fact that as many as 164 Member States have called for a text to serve as the basis for negotiations, in accordance with document A/72/510/Rev.1, containing a letter of the Permanent Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines addressed to the Secretary-General, dated 2 October 2017. We have been consistently asking for a single, consolidated text and for renewed working methods so as to bring about an open, inclusive and transparent process, with webcasting, record- keeping and the application of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. Some would argue that the intergovernmental negotiations are an informal process, but that does not mean we should operate in the shadows, losing track of what we discuss there year after year. A single, consolidated text, preferably with attribution, is the only means to move away from the cycle of repetition of well-known positions that have been the trademark of the intergovernmental negotiations in the recent past. It is also the best way to identify commonalities and to promote a give-and- take that may ultimately result in proposals that garner ample support from Member States. The position of the G-4 on the substance of reform is well-known. We uphold the need for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, with the expansion in the number of seats in both categories of membership, equitable regional representation, more transparent and inclusive working methods and an enhanced relationship with other United Nations bodies, including the General Assembly. Our support to the Common African Position has also been clearly voiced. We are aware that other Member States have different proposals and diverging perspectives on how to reform the Security Council, but we are convinced that almost everybody would agree that the Security Council is in dire need of reform. That is why the intergovernmental negotiations were set up in the first place — to allow us to sit down and discuss how to bridge the gaps in our positions. Reaching consensus before negotiating was simply never the plan. Members may rest assured that the G-4 is eager to collaborate with them and with the co-Chairs in bringing about a results-oriented process, as mandated by the General Assembly. Being faithful to the original purpose and mandate of the intergovernmental negotiations is the only way to ensure the ownership of the process by all Member States and its preservation as the adequate setting for our efforts. In that regard, and depending on the results of our joint work, the G-4 also reserves the right to revert to this item of the agenda during the current session. We simply cannot allow the intergovernmental negotiations process to cocoon itself in perpetuity without letting collective aspirations of Member States to take a definite shape. In that way, we hope the intergovernmental negotiations process will not be another missed opportunity this year.

On behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group, I wish to thank you, Sir, for convening this debate. We also thank you for appointing, early on in the process, two skilful Co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassador Tareq Albanai and Ambassador Michal Mlynár. They are the custodians of one of the most important processes within the Organization. The UfC group continues to stand ready to actively and constructively support their action and work at the next session of the intergovernmental negotiations and looks forward to cooperating with them in full transparency and willingness to make progress. We believe that, in their new capacity, they shall help Member States get closer to the common goal of a comprehensively reformed Security Council. The UfC group also takes this opportunity to thank the previous intergovernmental negotiations co-Chairs for the excellent work they have done in the past year. The UfC group feels strongly about the need for progress in the negotiations, especially after this year’s upheavals in the international system, including the current crisis in Ukraine. We will once again approach the next intergovernmental negotiations with a constructive spirit, confident that we can build up on the positive gains achieved. During the seventy-sixth session of work, we advanced on several issues, and it is worthwhile highlighting that the convergences have increased. For example, on the question of the veto, there was strong support among Member States for permanent Council members voluntarily refraining from the use of veto and on the need for the increased representation of developing countries and small- and medium-sized States, including small island developing States. Those convergences were duly reflected in the revised elements paper. In fact, the co-Chairs’ revised elements could be a good basis from which to start our work, notwithstanding the fact that there are important points on which the negotiating groups still have principled different views and readings, for a starter, on the democratic principle — which for the UfC group, together with the principle of accountability, goes hand in hand with regular elections — or on the principle of regional representation, which we believe should not be confused with individual quests for representation on the Council. In the UfC group’s view, a satisfactory reform should increase the legitimacy of the Security Council in the eyes of the general membership. To that end, the broadest possible consensus is needed. As already stated in the past, in our view a reformed Security Council that fulfils that aspiration should be more transparent, representative, accountable, democratic and effective. “More transparent” means a Council where the decisions are taken not by an exclusive few that hold ultimate power, but by all the members in a fully inclusive way and taking other voices into due consideration. “More representative” means going beyond a simple increase in the number of Security Council members; it means giving true consideration to increasing the opportunities for all Member States to sit periodically on the Council so that all regions and all voices are heard, including those of small, insular countries. “More accountable” means that every new member of a reformed Security Council would need to answer to the whole membership. It also entails a containment of the number of States with permanent seats to the current ones, while at the same time restraining the use of the veto. “More democratic” simply means that every new member of a reformed Security Council must be elected; “More effective” means fewer avenues for paralysis and a Council that can act expeditiously, ultimately making it more legitimate  — one that, because it is transparent, representative, accountable and democratic, enjoys more credibility in the eyes of all Member States and whose decisions are fully observed and implemented, and thus better able to deliver on its mandate. Unlike others, the UfC group is not asking anything for our individual members; we do not aspire to permanent membership equally for us or for any other State. We want reform for all, not for few — a reform of the Security Council that is beneficial to all Member States and for the United Nations itself. We are convinced that our idea of reform, which is the only one that has been adjusted over the years in order to take into consideration the positions of all negotiating groups, serves the whole membership. Under the UfC group’s proposal, everyone benefits, no one is left behind or left out, and everyone gains better access to the Council to contribute to a more peaceful world. Moreover, our proposal is the most detailed and pragmatic on the table, as several Member States from various regional groups have repeatedly acknowledged. It would give all Member States, big and small, from all regional groups a fair chance to be represented and it would not discriminate by introducing new situations of privilege. The ongoing crises, the increasing number of conflicts, and in particular the war against Ukraine have put renewed pressure on the need for meaningful reform of the Security Council. It is a need that the UfC group recognizes. However, new permanent seats and new vetoes would only serve the purpose of further paralysing the Security Council. If a condominium is falling apart due to the fact that the members of its board are fighting among themselves, simply adding new members by right to the board is not going to solve the real problem. Let me reiterate that, here, all Member States are equal. Thus, an approach to reform that serves only a few cannot be a solution for the entire membership. More concretely, we propose, on the one hand, to increase the number of two year- term elected seats in order to ensure a fairer system of rotation in the Council. We must bear in mind that 60 Member States have never yet served on the Security Council. On the other hand, we propose the creation of long-term, non-permanent elected seats, with the possibility of immediate re-election. That innovation is meant to accommodate those Member States that legitimately aspire and have the means to make a sustained contribution to the work of the Council. In our proposal, the Security Council would consist of 26 members. In addition to the current fifteen seats, there would be nine long-term, non-permanent elected seats distributed among the regional groups as follows: three for the Group of African States, three for the Group of Asian-Pacific States, two for the Group of Latin America and the Caribbean and one for the Group of Western European and other States. In addition, two additional two-year elected seats would be assigned — one to the Group of Eastern European Group and one, as a rotating seat, to small island and developing States and small States. That rotating seat would not prevent them from running within their regional group, but would instead be an additional way for them have fairer opportunities to gain access to the Security Council. Let me underline that this reform model would greatly enhance regional representation. Africa would constitute the largest group in the reformed Council, the Asia-Pacific region would have the highest percent increase, and both Latin America and Eastern Europe would double their representation. Our proposed distribution would also allow an increased and more stable representation for cross-regional groupings, such as the Group of Arab States. Looking at the next intergovernmental negotiations, we confirm once again our openness to constructive discussion, bearing in mind that there are no procedural shortcuts to consensus on achieving Security Council reform. That is one of the main lessons learned over the years — the reform process can succeed only if the views and positions of every Member of the United Nations are taken into account. In order for it to be successful, it is crucial that the co-Chairs set a clear agenda of work so that when the intergovernmental negotiations begin, the whole focus will be on substantive issues and not on procedures. That means agreeing in advance on a predefined number of sessions, on a calendar for the intergovernmental negotiations and on the topics to be discussed at each session. Our ultimate goal at the next session of intergovernmental negotiations should be to further reduce the main gaps separating negotiating groups and build and grow more convergences between Member States. Let us be clear that the ultimate goal is to achieve that convergence. The UfC group stands ready to cooperate to that precise end with you, Mr. President, with the new intergovernmental negotiations co-Chairs and with the whole membership.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of African States. I thank you, Sir, for convening this debate under agenda item 125, “Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council”. We take note of your opening remarks and wish to reiterate our steadfast commitment to achieving progress on this very important issue. Let me take this opportunity to once again congratulate you, on behalf of the African Group, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its seventy-seventh session. We look forward to working with you and all Member States and interest groups in achieving the widest possible political acceptance of the reform of the Security Council. We express our sincere congratulations to His Excellency Mr. Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait, and His Excellency Mr. Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of Slovakia, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations. We would like to assure them of our support in building on the gains made thus far in the reform process. We would also like to thank the former co-Chairs, His Excellency Mr. Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, and Her Excellency Ms. Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar, for their commendable stewardship of the intergovernmental negotiations process at the seventy- sixth session. Africa remains convinced of the need for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system that will significantly contribute to upholding the principles, objectives and ideals of the Charter of the United Nations for a fairer world, based on universalism, equity and regional balance. To that end, we remain true and committed to decision 62/557 and other relevant General Assembly decisions for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all five clusters, taking into account their interconnectedness. Africa is therefore not in favour of any piecemeal or selective approach that contradicts and violates the spirit of comprehensive reform. The present geopolitical realities are compelling evidence of the need for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Africa remains the only geographic region without representation in the permanent category of Security Council membership and underrepresented in the non-permanent category. That violates the principle of equitable geographical distribution, as espoused in Article 23 of the United Nations Charter. Africa’s demand for two permanent seats, with all the rights and prerogatives of current members, including the right of veto, and two additional non-permanent seats is a matter of common justice. We cannot remain complacent in the face of the stark reality that, in a world with a growing population and ever-present complexities, we remain without the right to have an equal say in decision-making on issues of international peace and security, and most especially on matters pertaining to and affecting the African region. It is time that we address that long-standing injustice and imbalance perpetrated in the present configuration of the Security Council without any further delay. At the high-level week of the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly, held in September, the President of Sierra Leone, Mr. Julius Maada Bio, who is the coordinator of the Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on the United Nations Security Council Reform, was pleased to note the commendable progress that had been achieved in the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council. He stated that Sierra Leone was of the view that progress made during the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly was underpinned by the Assembly’s acknowledgement that “the wider recognition and broader support by Member States for the legitimate aspiration of African countries to play their rightful role on the global stage, as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, adopted by the African Union in 2005, redressing the historical injustice against Africa, is viewed as a priority”. This quote is taken directly from the convergences section of the revised co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences during the seventy- sixth session. That development further reinforces the credibility and viability of the Common African Position on the reform of the Security Council. It builds on the broad support that our position continues to garner from the United Nations membership and signifies that the Common African Positions remains unchallenged in its claim to redress the historical injustice of Africa’s not being represented in the permanent category and underrepresented in the non-permanent category of Security Council membership. President Bio, however, urged Member States continue to demonstrate their renewed commitment and political will to correct the historical injustice done to Africa by supporting the reform of the Security Council to make it a more inclusive, democratic, transparent, accountable, legitimate and efficient global organ that properly reflects and adequately addresses the geopolitical realities of our present and future world. As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” Let me be clear. The historical injustice done to Africa, as the only geographic region in the United  Nations not represented in the permanent category, affects the entire United Nations and casts a dark shadow over the Organization. The Common African Position, as articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, is well known to the Assembly. However, for purposes of clarity and precision, let me reiterate that Africa demands “not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership, including the right of veto, and five non-permanent seats”. Even though Africa is opposed in principle to the veto, it is of the view that so long as it exists and as a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council. The African Union should be responsible for the selection of Africa’s representatives on the Security Council. The question of the criteria for the selection of African members of the Security Council should be a matter for the African Union to determine, taking into consideration the representative nature and capacity of those chosen. The comprehensive position of Africa on all five clusters of reform, as outlined in decision 62/557, is reflected in the text and its annex circulated on 31 July 2015 by the President of the General Assembly at its sixty-ninth session. That document, which was populated by more than 120 Member States, is commonly referred to as the framework document. It adheres to the principle of the membership- driven nature of the reform process and serves as the main reference document of the intergovernmental negotiations. In view of the foregoing and the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations, let me, on behalf of the African Group, highlight the following. The African Group requests a discussion at this session on how the historical injustice to Africa can be rectified. If, as stated in the co-Chairs’ elements paper, that redressing the historical injustice against Africa is viewed as a priority, it goes without saying that Member States should prioritize a discussion on the issue. Our call for such a discussion is to follow up on the statements made by several Heads of State and Government, including those of permanent Council members, such as France and the United States, during the general debate of the seventy-seventh session, in which support for increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent seats on the Council, especially for Africa, was expressed. President Joseph Biden stated that “the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council” (A/77/PV.6, p.20). That includes permanent seats for Africa, among others. In addition, President Emmanuel Macron of France also stated that “the five permanent members of the Security Council are no longer the only ones with something to say, and if they have something to say it is clear. That can work only if we are able to work more broadly to achieve the international consensus that is so necessary for peace. That is why I hope that we can commit at last to reform of the Security Council so that it is more representative, welcomes new permanent members and remains able to fully play its role by restricting the use of the right to the veto in cases of mass atrocities” (A/77/PV.4, p.49). That such support comes from the highest authorities should not only be noteworthy, but must be acted upon. In conclusion, we continue to acknowledge the intergovernmental negotiations as the legitimate forum for the achievement of our shared and common aspirations in the promotion of a fairer and just world through equitable representation on the Security Council. We look forward to working with you, Mr. President, and the entire membership of the Assembly within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations, with a view to building on progress made during previous sessions. While we are aware that Africa’s patience is being put to the test and we are desirous of early reform of the Security Council, we will not compromise the integrity of the Common African Position for the sake of having just any kind of reform that will not stand the test of time.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Benelux countries: Belgium, the Netherlands and my own country, Luxembourg. At the outset, we express our gratitude to the outgoing co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Al-Thani of the State of Qatar and Ambassador Hermann of Denmark, for their leadership during the seventy-sixth session and for their efforts to find greater common ground. We welcome the appointment of Ambassador Mlynár of the Slovak Republic and Ambassador Albanai of the State of Kuwait as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for the seventy-seventh session. We look forward to working with them to advance Security Council reform. I will focus on five key points that are shared priorities of the Benelux countries. First, in view of the growing number of conflicts and threats to international peace and security throughout the world, and in particular the unprovoked aggression of a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia, against a sovereign State member, Ukraine, reform of the Security Council is crucial, today more than ever, to safeguard the credibility of the United Nations and of the Security Council in particular. It is crucial that we all work together in good faith to give new impetus to the reform of the Security Council, in order to strengthen both the representativeness and the effectiveness of the Council, as well as its legitimacy, which has been seriously undermined this year. Secondly, we firmly believe that the time has come to reinvigorate the process of intergovernmental negotiations. The revised elements paper presented by the co-Chairs of the seventy-sixth session provides a good basis for pursuing our efforts to identify more areas of convergence, and we hope that it will lay the groundwork for grounded negotiations on a text. We cannot go on endlessly discussing Security Council reform. At a time when the credibility of the Council and of the United Nations as a whole is seriously in question, we must take concrete action. Thirdly, the issue of the veto is one of the key issues of Security Council reform. The use of the veto power has increased dramatically in recent years, preventing the Security Council from effectively discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Benelux countries are among the large and growing number of Member States that support limiting the use of the right of veto. We therefore strongly support the political declaration on the suspension of the right of veto in the event of mass atrocities, presented by France and Mexico, as well as the code of conduct relating to Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, developed by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group and endorsed by over 120 Member States. The code of conduct calls on all members of the Security Council — permanent and elected members alike  — not to vote against a draft resolution that genuinely seeks prompt and resolute action to end genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes or to prevent such crimes. We encourage all Member States to join those two important initiatives. Fourthly, we are of the view that the General Assembly has a political responsibility to address situations in which the use of the right of veto leads to paralysis in the Security Council’s decision-making process. Indeed, any permanent member using the right of veto should be held accountable. That is why we supported resolution 76/262, initiated by Liechtenstein and entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. The veto initiative introduced a welcome change in the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Fifthly, the Security Council should be more representative of today’s world. The Benelux countries support the call for increased representation of developing countries and small and medium-sized Member States, including small island developing States, in the Security Council. We also recognize and support the legitimate aspirations of African countries to an increased presence in the Security Council. The stakes of Security Council reform are high. You, Sir, can count on the strong and active commitment of the Benelux countries to help advance Security Council reform and in particular to strengthen the Security Council’s ability to maintain international peace and security on behalf of us all. It is in all of our interests.

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the 14 States members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). At the outset, we would like to congratulate His Excellency Mr. Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic to the United Nations, and His Excellency Mr. Tareq M. A. M. Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait to the United Nations, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform during the seventy-seventh session. We thank Ambassadors Mlynár and Albanai for accepting that important responsibility and pledge our full support and cooperation to advance the work of the intergovernmental negotiations. The States members of CARICOM would also like to extend our profound appreciation to Her Excellency Ambassador Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations, and His Excellency Ambassador Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark to the United Nations, for their efficient stewardship of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy- sixth session. CARICOM welcomes the convening of this important annual debate and the opportunity that it provides to continue our engagement on the long- pending issue of Security Council reform. We also welcome the early appointment of the intergovernmental negotiations co-Chairs for the seventy-seventh session and your suggestion, Sir, to commence the intergovernmental negotiations early in 2023. We are confident that any additional time given for planning and consultations would enhance the effectiveness of our work. CARICOM therefore looks forward to the early announcement of the meeting dates and to making tangible progress in the coming session. The need for a more effective Security Council has never been more pressing than it is today. Indeed, much has been said this morning about the myriad interlinked crises that have put multilateralism and the United Nations under severe pressure and laid bare the political, structural and operational limitations of the Security Council. At the same time, with the increased attention paid to the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole by our populations, it is clear that a strong and effective United Nations is our best and only option. We, as Member States, have the duty and responsibility to ensure that the United Nations and its Security Council are fit for purpose, and must muster the collective courage and political will to implement needed reforms. We are encouraged by the increased number of world leaders who, during the general debate in September, reaffirmed their commitment to Security Council reform. It is now up to us, their representatives, to faithfully uphold that commitment and to deliver concrete and actionable outcomes in the intergovernmental negotiations. CARICOM maintains that the current membership of the United Nations is not equitably represented on the Council at its current size and configuration. We reiterate our call for an expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership and for a guaranteed presence on the Council for small island developing States (SIDS). SIDS have a distinct and practical perspective on matters of peace and security, given their size, remoteness, development status and inherent vulnerabilities. Thus, they are well placed to make a unique and valuable contribution to the work of the Council. The urgency of the challenges before us demands that we move beyond rhetoric and focus on finding greater common ground. In the coming session, CARICOM hopes to build on the revised elements paper on convergences and divergences. We intend to work with all delegations to refine the positions therein and to build on the areas of convergences. In conclusion, Mr. President, CARICOM thanks you for organizing this important debate and wishes to assure you of our full commitment to an early and urgent reform of the Security

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Group of Arab States. At the outset, I would like to convey to you, Mr. President, the support of the Arab Group for your efforts in managing the work of the current session of the General Assembly, especially in the context of the reform and expansion of the Security Council, which is of particular importance to all Member States, including the Arab Group. I would also like to congratulate His Excellency Ambassador Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait to the United Nations, and His Excellency Ambassador Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic to the United Nations, on co-chairing the intergovernmental negotiations at the current session. I wish them every success. I would also like to sincerely thank Her Excellency Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations, and His Excellency Ambassador Martin Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark to the United Nations, for their appreciated efforts in co-chairing the negotiations at the seventy-sixth session. In the light of the multiple and interconnected crises facing the world, which have put the multilateral system and the United Nations under considerable pressure, the need for real and comprehensive reform has become more pressing than ever, including the introduction of reforms to the three main organs of the United Nations — as mentioned in the declaration on the commemoration of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations (resolution 75/1) and the report of the Secretary-General entitled Our Common Agenda (A/75/982)  — and in particular the Security Council. We as Member States have declared our commitment to instilling new life into the discussions on the reform of the Council. From that standpoint, the issue of Security Council reform and equitable representation in its membership is one of the main pillars of the comprehensive reform process of the United Nations, which makes us more determined to intensify efforts aimed at achieving real and comprehensive reform of the Council, the organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security, as stipulated by the Charter of the United Nations. We need to make the Council more capable and effective in facing challenges in a more representative, transparent, impartial and credible framework. In that regard, the Arab Group reiterates that the intergovernmental negotiations within the framework of the General Assembly are the only forum for reaching an agreement on the expansion and reform of the Security Council in accordance with decision 62/557, which was adopted by consensus and laid practical foundations for negotiations. The Arab Group also emphasizes the interconnection of all five main clusters for negotiations and their common elements, which requires us to address them in a manner that preserves that interconnection and achieves the comprehensive reform of the Council. As we have stressed before, the position of the States members of the League of Arab States regarding the Security Council reform process is to demand permanent Arab representation with full powers in the category of permanent seats in the event of any future expansion of the Council. Furthermore, fair representation requires proportionate Arab representation in the category of non-permanent seats in an expanded Security Council. There are many challenges before us especially regarding Security Council reform, most prominent of which is the right of veto. The arbitrary use of the veto right has on many occasions undermined the credibility of the Security Council in taking decisions and in some cases in assuming its responsibilities and adopting the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. It is unfortunate that the majority of issues for which the veto has been exercised, particularly over the past three decades, have been related to the Arab region. Furthermore, the main and overarching objective of the reform and expansion of the Security Council is to ensure that all geographic and regional groups are fairly and appropriately represented in the membership of an expanded Security Council. In that context, I would like to stress that the Arab Group, in the light of its political, cultural and heritage specificity, deserves, as an independent group, to be represented in an expanded Security Council. The Arab Group represents more than 400 million people and its membership includes 22 countries, representing approximately 12 per cent of the general membership of the United Nations. In addition, a large part of the work of the Council and the issues on its agenda are related to the Arab region. That calls for fair and proportionate Arab representation in an expanded Security Council in a manner that ensures the presentation of the Arab point of view in the work of the Council, in order to preserve the credibility of its actions and the legitimacy of its decisions. With regard to the issue of improving and developing the working methods and procedures of the Security Council, we believe that it has become necessary for its work to be more efficient and transparent, including by agreeing permanent rules of procedure instead of the provisional rules of procedure that have been in place for decades. Consideration must also be given to allowing the concerned States to participate, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the issues discussed by the Council so as to reduce the convening of closed meetings and informal consultations to a minimum that makes them the exception rather than the rule, as well as making available decisions and statements that are considered by the Security Council, and consulting with concerned States. The Arab Group also calls on the subsidiary organs and committees of the Security Council to provide adequate information on their activities to the Members of the United Nations, and stresses the need for the Security Council to strictly abide by the limits of its mandate, as stipulated in the Charter. The Group affirms its position in calling for maintaining the cohesion of the general membership and not detracting from the credibility of the intergovernmental negotiations by imposing any steps that do not enjoy the consensus of Member States, and without rushing to set a deadline that might impede reaching a comprehensive and real solution to the reform process. In that context, I would like to emphasize that any papers issued within the framework of the negotiating process must accurately reflect the positions of all countries and groups, including that of the Arab Group, in order to ensure that the positions and proposals of the countries are the basis for negotiations in accordance with decision 62/557, with a view to preserving the principle of Member States’ ownership of the intergovernmental negotiations. The Arab Group welcomes the progress that has been made at recent sessions in identifying the common elements among the positions and proposals of States, as well as points of difference that require further discussion. Those efforts reflect the presence of many elements of agreement among the positions of countries and various groups regarding the five negotiating clusters. Therefore, making progress requires continuing the discussion in a positive atmosphere with the aim of converging views to find common ground for consensus on a solution that enjoys the widest political acceptance and achieves the real, comprehensive and desired reform of the Security Council. In conclusion, the Arab Group affirms its determination to continue to participate actively and positively during the next round of intergovernmental negotiations, and expresses its openness to consulting with all other negotiating groups with the aim of reaching a real and comprehensive reform of the Security Council in a transparent context and constructive spirit.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important debate on the urgent issue of Security Council reform. Let me begin by welcoming the new co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, His Excellency Mr. Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic, and His Excellency Mr. Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait. I would like to assure you, Mr. President, and the co-Chairs of the full support of the Maldives to the process. We would also like to commend Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar, and Ambassador Martin Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, for their dedicated efforts and leadership in steering the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session. The impacts of the coronavirus disease pandemic and increasing incidents of conflict and military confrontation show more clearly than ever the necessity of global cooperation and multilateral action. Yet here in the United Nations, discussion of the most pressing security issues has been relegated to a small group of Member States, and the authority for absolute decision-making has been consolidated in even fewer hands. It has been 57 years since the Security Council’s membership was last enlarged. Over those years, while the United Nations overall membership has increased from 113 in 1965 to 193 today, there has been no further expansion of the Council. The Maldives believes that the reform of the Security Council is a critical aspect of the revitalization of the United Nations. Indeed, it is a goal that the Maldives has long advocated for. The Maldives was among the 10 Member States that requested the inclusion of this agenda item in 1979. We are of the view that the comprehensive reform and expansion of the Security Council are essential to making the Security Council democratic in composition, effective in decision-making and accountable to the general membership. We believe that the Council should reflect the realities of today’s world. We believe that the Council’s composition should reflect an equitable geographical distribution. We believe that the Council should embrace democratic, responsive and responsible decisions and decision-making processes. The Maldives has consistently called for the Council to increase its number of permanent and non-permanent seats. Any increased representation should reflect both developing countries and small- and medium-sized States, which includes small island developing States, and redress the historical injustices against Africa. We are in the fourteenth year of the intergovernmental negotiations process and ongoing reform efforts. The Maldives welcomed the new approach that the co-Chairs of the seventy-sixth session ushered in. We appreciate the substantial use of guiding questions and “unformal” meetings that allowed us to go beyond repetitive prepared statements and contributed to an increase in real dialogue for areas of convergence. Moving forward, however, it is critical to focus on concrete progress. The Maldives reiterates its firm view that we must move towards a single negotiating text during the seventy-seventh session. Our intention with that text should be to incorporate the positions of the Member States and groups, with their attributions. That goal will improve transparency and accountability — principles that will instil new life in our discussions of Security Council reform. Reform is also necessary to ensure that the Security Council can sufficiently address emerging non-traditional security threats, such as climate change and sea-level rise. Those non-traditional challenges threaten the very existence of several States. We believe that given the changing understanding of threats to international peace and security, the Security Council must also evolve to consider the implications of non-traditional security threats to international peace and security. Given that reality, it is clear that we need a Council whose membership includes small and developing States facing unique and pressing security challenges. Since the establishment of the Security Council, very few small island developing States have managed to secure one of its coveted rotating seats. Past elections have demonstrated that small States, with fewer resources, are at an unjust disadvantage when competing and campaigning for a seat. Contemporary challenges require greater cooperation and the participation of multiple stakeholders with varying viewpoints. That is important if we are to resolve issues effectively. This is why increasing representation in the Council alone is not enough. We need further improvements to the working methods of the Council. Therefore, the Maldives supports increasing the substantial role and moral authority of the General Assembly. The Maldives co-sponsored the veto initiative adopted at the seventy- sixth session. As a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, we are encouraged by the Security Council’s establishment of a consistent practice regarding the initiative’s implementation. Let me conclude by reiterating the imperative need for Security Council reform. We ought to have an efficient, effective, representative and accountable Council. We hope that the constructive spirit demonstrated at the seventy-sixth session will guide negotiations among Member States in the seventy- seventh session.

I would like to start by thanking the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform during the seventy-sixth session, Ambassador Alya Al-Thani of Qatar and Ambassador Martin Hermann of Denmark, for their efforts. I also congratulate Ambassador Michal Mlynár of the Slovak Republic and Ambassador Tareq Albanai of Kuwait on their appointments as co-Chairs for the seventy-seventh session. I wish them every success. Let me say at the outset that Singapore is not part of any group within the intergovernmental negotiations process, and therefore we neither speak for any group nor associate ourselves of any particular group. We speak as Singapore, and we reflect our own position. The world has entered a dangerous phase of geopolitical competition. The war in Ukraine has the potential to spill out of control and there is real danger that the international community may sleepwalk into a global confrontation. The relationship among larger Powers remains tense and that has affected the work of the United Nations. The Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has not lived up to expectations. That is disappointing but not surprising because the Security Council itself has become an arena for geopolitical competition, especially among the permanent members. In a context of deadlock and dysfunction in the Security Council, the need for reform has become more urgent and more critical. We need a Security Council that reflects the contemporary realities of the international environment, in particular the multipolar character of our world. However, it is also important to approach the question of Security Council reform from the broader perspective of strengthening the United Nations and strengthening the multilateral system as a whole. The question of Security Council reform is therefore one aspect of the equation. The other part is strengthening and revitalizing the role of the General Assembly, strengthening the role of the Economic and Social Council and also strengthening the role of the Peacebuilding Commission. To put it differently, we need to look at the question of Security Council reform not only from the perspective of enlargement but also from the perspective of its working methods and how the Security Council relates to other principal organs of the United Nations. We need a future-ready United Nations in which the Security Council can provide solutions and not become a problem that needs a solution. In that regard, I would like to make three specific points. First, we believe that there is now a window of opportunity to accelerate our work towards Security Council reform. At the high-level week in September, many Heads of State and Government underlined the urgent need to instil new life into the discussions on the reform of the Security Council. We have heard some encouraging signals from world leaders on the need for Security Council reform. We should ride this momentum to take action and to push for meaningful reform that would enhance both the representativeness of the Council and its accountability. On representation, Singapore has consistently supported an expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. We are of the view that any reform should address the concerns of regions currently unrepresented or underrepresented in the Council, and no reform should disadvantage small States. There is certainly a compelling case for new permanent seats for Africa. We also need to expand the non-permanent member category to allow for greater representation and diversity. In particular, we need to ensure that small States, including small island developing States, have a greater opportunity to serve in the Security Council. Let me take this opportunity to highlight the fact that more than 100 Members of the United Nations are small States, with a population of less than 10 million people. Among the small States, only about 50 have served on the Security Council. In other words, the majority of small States have not yet served on the Security Council, not even once. Therefore, it is our view that any reform cannot marginalize the needs and interests of the small countries. In fact, for Singapore, the litmus test of any reform exercise is how it will benefit small States and enhance their opportunity to seek membership of the Security Council. My second point is that, if the Council is to be effective in the future, we must avoid the mistakes of the past. I have already spoken about how the veto has prevented the Council from discharging its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In that regard, please allow me to state that Singapore does not support any new permanent members obtaining the right of the veto; we do not see the granting of new veto rights as helping to make the Security Council more effective. The latest paper of the intergovernmental negotiations co-Chairs states that a significant, growing number of Member States support limitations to the veto and that there is a strong and growing support among Member States for permanent members to voluntarily refrain from the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocity crimes. Those observations in the co-Chairs’ paper are also in line with the French- Mexican initiative and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s proposed code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. My delegation strongly supports both initiatives, as well as the veto initiative adopted under resolution 76/262, which has created more accountability over the use of the veto. In seeking to create a future-ready United Nations in which the Security Council is able to discharge its responsibility and provide solutions, we also believe that it is important to ask some fundamental questions. If there is an expansion in permanent membership, how can we be sure that new permanent members will be committed to upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter? What are our expectations of new permanent members and what safeguards can we put in place to ensure that new permanent members will meet those expectations and that they will defend the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and uphold international law? Recent experience has shown that our expectations are not always met. Therefore, the question of our expectations of new permanent members and the need for some safeguards is a relevant and important matter that needs discussion within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations. I know that these are difficult but pertinent questions, but we believe that we need to discuss them within the intergovernmental negotiations. In that regard, it is also our view that it is worth discussing the idea of a declaration of responsibilities for all members of the Security Council, including permanent members. A declaration of responsibilities can and, I would say, should be part of any agreed package of Security Council reforms that might eventually be adopted. Such a declaration of responsibilities would apply to all incoming elected members and to all permanent members, both existing permanent members as well as any new potential permanent members. For example, we believe that all members of the Security Council must reaffirm their commitment to respecting the principles of the United Nations Charter and upholding international law when serving as members of the Security Council. We also believe that all members of the Security Council must reaffirm their commitment to abstaining from voting if they are a party to a dispute, in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter. Those are some specific ideas that we would like to put on the table for further discussion. My third and final point relates to the working methods of the Security Council. That dimension of Security Council reform cannot be ignored or underestimated. We recognize the ongoing efforts of Council members to increase transparency in the work of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. In that regard, we recognize the work done by the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, currently chaired by Albania. The continual updating of presidential note S/2017/507 is an important exercise, and we look forward to note 507 being updated in the near future. With regard to working methods, the annual report of the Security Council, as identified in Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Charter, is particularly important. It is important and necessary that the annual report of the Security Council be detailed and analytical, including identifying areas where the Council was not able to reach a decision. Let me conclude by stating that we should keep in mind that the end goal of reform is to have a future-ready Security Council that can effectively discharge its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The intergovernmental negotiations process must deliver reform that serves the interests of all countries, and that does not just address the interest of countries that aspire to permanent membership. We need a comprehensive package of reforms that will make the Security Council more effective and strengthen United Nations and the multilateral system as a whole. Singapore recognizes that the road to reform will not be easy, but my delegation is fully committed to this process and looks forward to working with all delegations within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiation process.

At the outset, I wish to thank Ambassador Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, and Ambassador Martin Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, for leading the process capably throughout the seventy-sixth session. My delegation also wishes to congratulate Ambassador Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic, and Ambassador Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait, on their appointment as co-Chairs during the seventy- seventh session. They have our support Reforming the Security Council, the body entrusted with the critical task of maintaining international peace and security, is of greater urgency now than ever. We only have to look at the world around us to understand why that is so. Now and today, humankind faces the highest number of violent conflicts since 1945, as the Secretary-General has put it. The ongoing conflicts, geopolitical tensions and increased polarization in the global geostrategic landscape and climate have led to food, energy, financial and other crises. These in tandem are eroding our ability, collectively and individually, to sustain recovery efforts from the pandemic, to promote human security for all and to attain the Sustainable Development Goals so that no one is left behind. No country has escaped unscathed from those crises; in that, we are together. Indeed, if current trends continue unchecked, we are also at risk of all being left behind. Therefore, to help support the international community’s shared aspirations and collective undertakings to better address those current and future challenges, a reformed Security Council is one important pathway. On that pathway, Thailand remains an advocate for a reform that results in greater efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and transparency of the Council. Thailand also hopes for a reform that will inculcate and cultivate greater unity and partnership within the Council as it seeks to overcome present global challenges and future ones, in cooperation with the international community. That is why the ideas contained in the report Our Common Agenda (A/75/982) that stress the need for the Council to be more representative and to strengthen the inclusiveness and legitimacy through consultation with other actors, including regional organizations, should be followed through. That is why creative ideas on how to attain and sustain peace, on how to promote enhanced diplomacy and the use of peaceful means rather than confrontation, and on how to strengthen the United Nations inherent convening power to bring parties to the negotiating table, with a reformed Council playing an important role, should be further elaborated in the proposed new agenda for peace. So indeed, we need to rally to instil new life into the discussions on the reform of the Security Council, in part to address the broader tasks of making our world a safer place. And let us not forget that, in view of the great importance of this issue and to help ensure the sustainability of any solutions related to Council reform, the broadest-based political acceptance possible, if not consensus, is absolutely essential. In the light of those contexts, I wish to highlight the following three points. First, instilling new life into the discussions on the reform of the Security Council should be guided not just by the renewal of our efforts but also by adopting new perspectives. Among others, achieving low-hanging fruit on enhancing the Council’s working methods could serve as a springboard towards further reform of the Council. Throughout the year, Member States have expressed on relevant occasions general agreement for the Council to, first, promote the roles of elected Council members, especially developing countries, to be entrusted with penholdership in drafting the Council’s resolutions; secondly, further engage troop- and police-contributing countries in planning and mandating field missions prior to deployment; and thirdly, enhance engagement and information-sharing with regional organizations and non-Council members. My delegation trusts that progress in reforming the Council’s working methods will help increase the sense of co-ownership, efficiency and transparency, and could build momentum towards reaching agreement on structural reform. Secondly, regional approaches, regional priorities and regional ownership are key to achieving lasting peace on the ground, not just on paper in meeting rooms. My delegation is fully convinced that the affected region knows best when it comes to resolving situations affecting peace and stability in that particular region. The voices of the affected region must be heard. Therefore, a reformed Council must be one that engages actively in close partnership with the affected region, including the relevant regional organizations, as it seeks to help that region address the particular challenge affecting peace and stability. Indeed, that multilateral regional interface is indispensable to having a sustainable solution to the challenges within a region that have spillover effects on the rest of the world. To help ensure that, it is therefore important that the voices of various regions be better represented in the Council, so that they can be heard. Thailand is therefore of the view that any expansion of the Council must bring about broader geographical representation, cross-regional balance and greater representation of developing countries. On the basis of that thinking, Thailand therefore supports, for example, greater representation of African countries on the Council. Thirdly, the Council should strengthen its partnership with other bodies and partners within their respective mandates to ensure that enduring solutions to challenges of international peace and security are built on the tripod of peace, human security and sustainable development. To that end, we believe that the Council’s relations, cooperation and coordination with the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council should be further strengthened. We are pleased to see greater engagement among the three bodies during the past years and encourage such engagement to be further regularized and deepened. Similarly, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) offers valuable contributions to the work of the Council. Its role as an advisory body, especially in discussing institution-building and promoting early development in transition and post-conflict settings, complements conflict prevention and preventing relapse into conflict. That will only benefit the Council, so we hope to see greater coordination between the Council and the PBC in that regard. In conclusion, we look forward to fruitful intergovernmental negotiations at this session, to commence in 2023, at which we hope that the areas and elements of convergence will increase. Thailand reaffirms our commitment to continuing to work constructively with all parties to galvanize the momentum for a reform towards a more effective, equitable and accountable Security Council. We look forward to working with the co-Chairs and other Member States to achieve that shared objective.

I begin by acknowledging the work of Ambassadors Martin Hermann of Denmark and Alya Al-Thani of Qatar in leading the process of intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session . I also congratulate Ambassadors Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of Slovakia, and Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of Kuwait, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the process at this session. I am sure that with their experience and that of their delegations, they will promote progress in the discussions. We are not starting from scratch. Oral decision  76/572, adopted on 12 July, reaffirms the central role of the Assembly in the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council. The co-Chairs’ document on revised elements on convergences and divergences also reflects a good part of the discussions and gives an account of the central elements from which we must deepen the process. But I must also point out that in order to achieve a prompt reform of the Security Council, it is urgently necessary to add a solid base of realism to that dialogue and to that effort. The delay in the expansion of the Security Council continues to anchor us in an institutional format that has been in force since 1966. In fact, on 17 December 2023 we will commemorate 60 years since the Assembly decided to increase the number of members from 11 to 15. Ecuador deposited its instrument of ratification on 31 August 1965, the date on which the requirement established by the Charter of the United Nations itself of having the ratification of the five permanent members was finally met. Only 13 years after that reform — that is, more than 43 years ago, in 1979, when this organ had 152 members — the question of the enlargement of the Council was once again included in the agenda of the Assembly. If the same dynamics as those of today had been in force 55 years ago, with the same diverse and often opposed aspirations, the Security Council would still have only six non-permanent members, and nothing would have changed. For all of those reasons, Ecuador insists on the need for an urgent reform of the Security Council — and of course, not just any reform. We champion a reform that reflects the reality of the contemporary world and takes into account the number of members of the Assembly and the democratic values ​that the Organization promotes, including alternation. The absence of a reform agreement affects the ability of all Members of the Organization to participate more in the work of the Council, as I have already stated on several occasions over the past two years. At the moment, the Group of Latin America and Caribbean States, for example, already has candidates for non-permanent membership of the Security Council for the next 31 years, that is, until the term 2053-2054. Over the past four years, 19 candidacies have been presented, and five candidacies have been put forward in 2022 alone. Likewise, eight countries of my region have candidacies for at least two different terms. In short, there are nominations from my region for up to a decade after the United Nations centennial. That could be mitigated in my region with an expansion from just two to four non-permanent posts. During this period, Ecuador will continue to advocate that the reform put an end to the underrepresentation of developing countries and of some regions such as Africa or Latin America and the Caribbean. We will continue to seek reform that encompasses fair representation for the various transregional groups of developing countries, such as small island States. Reform must also encompass solid coordination, feedback and information mechanisms for the States Members of the Organization. In order to achieve a more transparent Council, we must promote with special care a true update of its working methods. I must reiterate, however, that as we move forward with that process, we can and must continue to strengthen the working methods of the Security Council in those aspects that do not require a reform of the Charter, but rather a more rigorous application of it. It is also important that the support of delegations, including those of the permanent members, for Security Council reform also be reflected precisely in a greater democratization of the practices and procedures of the Council. That should include, for example, best practices in the mechanism for allocating the leadership of the subsidiary bodies of the Security Council, such as greater opportunities for non-permanent members to lead the drafting and management processes of the issues. It must also be reflected in a sufficient application of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, by which the parties to a dispute must abstain in the voting. We also reiterate our support for the Franco-Mexican initiative to restrict the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities, as well as the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct for the Council’s response in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. If it is to be substantive and lasting, the reform that we seek must result from the broad and significant support of the membership. Whatever its result, it will have an impact on the United Nations system and therefore on multilateralism itself. To that end, we must carry out the process in a spirit of flexibility and mutual respect, avoiding harshness and confrontational rhetoric, so as to facilitate the greatest possible convergence of support. To achieve results, the flexibility of all delegations, and not only that of some groups or certain countries, is required. Finally, Ecuador believes that at this time, a sufficient number of meetings should be allocated to the intergovernmental negotiation process, which should start as early as possible and should not conclude due to artificial deadlines before having exhausted the debates on all the substantive points. You, Sir, and the new co-Chairs can count on the commitment and strong support of my delegation to move forward in the process.

Mexico endorses the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group, and wishes to make some additional comments in its national capacity. Today’s debate touches on an issue on the United Nations agenda that generates the greatest interest, especially in an environment like that which we are currently experiencing, with international crises on various fronts and the growing inability of the Security Council to fulfil its responsibility. The accumulated frequency of vetoes and their repercussions have also generated renewed interest in a reform of the Security Council that must be analysed and discussed by the General Assembly. A few weeks before the conclusion of Mexico’s participation as an elected member of the Security Council for the 2021-2022 term, our vision of the need for functional reform has gained even more force. The Security Council must adapt to the new realities of the world. My country recognizes that demand and its sense of urgency. We cannot change the historical context or the political conditions in which the United Nations was created, but we can reform the Council so that it is improved and operates with greater efficiency, more transparency and better accountability. A Security Council similar to today’s, but merely with more members and more vetoes, would not be an organ that could truly act on behalf of all the States Members of the United Nations, as mandated by paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations. A reform focused on increasing the number of permanent members would be contrary to the principle of the legal equality of States and would not make it possible to compensate for the unfair underrepresentation of some regions, starting with Africa. It is true that recognizing the new realities of the world entails the need to increase the participation of African countries, as well as that of Arab countries, Latin American and Caribbean countries and small island developing States — that is, of course, if this is about minimizing the differences and not increasing them. Membership of the Security Council is above all a service to the international community as a whole. All countries, regardless of their size or their location on the map, should be able to aspire to be members of the Council. We do not want more of the same or more privileges for only a few. Mexico supports and will support those proposals that contemplate the increase in the number of seats for elected members, through periodic elections, not for life and, if possible, under new modalities. For example, longer terms of office and the possibility of immediate re-election could be considered. As in any democracy, those who belong to the Security Council must submit to periodic elections in the General Assembly for the sake of genuine accountability. Being subject to periodic elections is the true test of accountability. The model promoted by the United for Consensus group has been able to evolve to respond to the questions to which I have just referred. Mexico remains in favour of breathing new life into the intergovernmental negotiations for the reform of the Security Council and of directing our deliberations towards the formulation of concrete proposals that will be the basis of said negotiations. It would be very useful, to begin with, for the existing differences to be reduced and for the convergences, which also exist, to be expanded. That is not impossible. The Uniting for Consensus group is working in that spirit, since our commitment, far from seeking privileges for a few, is above all the commitment to a viable, functional, democratic and inclusive reform of the Security Council — a reform that is attractive to the vast majority of Member States. That and nothing less is our commitment. We recognize the usefulness of the informal dialogues promoted in the recent cycle as an exercise aimed at fostering such rapprochements, but that does not mean that they replace intergovernmental negotiations as the only competent negotiating forum. I conclude by welcoming the new co-Chairs that have been designated for the negotiations: the Permanent Representatives of Slovakia and Kuwait. We trust in their ability and diplomatic skills, and I assure them that, in the delicate task entrusted to them, they will of course enjoy the support of my delegation.

We would like to begin by congratulating Ambassador Mlynár, Permanent Representative of Slovakia, and Ambassador Albanai, Permanent Representative of Kuwait, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform at the current session of the General Assembly. We look forward to maintaining communications and cooperation with the co-Chairs and supporting them in their work on the basis of the mandate of the General Assembly in guiding Member States to build on the outcome of the previous session in order to enhance communication, dialogue and consultation on Security Council reform and move the intergovernmental negotiations process forward. I wish also to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Al-Thani and Ambassador Hermann, co-Chairs of the previous session of the intergovernmental negotiations, for their efforts to facilitate in-depth and frank discussions among Member States on Security Council reform. I appreciate their important contributions to the positive progress of the intergovernmental negotiations process. Today we are witnessing the emergence of various global crises and challenges. The world is confronted with momentous changes unseen in a century. The Organization is expected to respond effectively to such crises and challenges. The Security Council is expected to earnestly fulfil its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations and play its due role in maintaining international peace and security. That is the universal aspiration of the United Nations membership. At the same time, we must also recognize that the Security Council does not exist in a vacuum. The decision-making of the Security Council is greatly constrained by multiple factors. A Cold War mentality, bloc politics and double standards, among others, seriously undermine the unity of Council members and weaken the Council’s ability to discharge its duties. The functioning and performance of the Security Council reflect the reality of international politics and epitomize the international landscape. The challenges facing the Security Council are a microcosm of the systemic flaws of global governance. Therefore, Security Council reform cannot be viewed or addressed in isolation from international political realities. Instead, it must be placed in the context of the overall reform of the global governance system, promoted along with the reform of the global economic, financial and trade mechanisms. Comprehensive reform is imperative to enabling the Security Council to fulfil its responsibility effectively. That is the shared expectation of all Member States. China has always actively advocated, firmly supported and vigorously promoted Security Council reform. We are of the view that reform should start with the underlying issues and proceed in a realistic, fair and democratic manner. China has the following three expectations with regard to reform. First of all, Security Council reform should stick to the right direction. The Security Council as it currently stands lacks fair representation in the composition of its membership. Such an unsound structure and disequilibrium in the balance of power seriously constrain the effective functioning of the Council. Reform must effectively increase the representation and voice of developing countries, correct the historical injustice to Africa and give more small and medium- sized States with independent foreign policies and impartial positions the opportunity to serve on the Security Council and participate in decision-making on an equal footing. The Security Council should not become a club of the big and rich. Failure to reverse the imbalance of the current configuration of the Security Council and to redress the overrepresentation of developed countries, while instead conferring more power advantage to some individual political blocs and thereby making the decision-making of the Security Council more undemocratic and the work of the Security Council less efficient and effective, would go against the original purpose of the Council and create more and newer problems without remedying existing ones. Such a result is not progress; on the contrary, it is retrogression. Secondly, Security Council reform should embody equity and justice. The Charter of the United Nations establishes the principle of the sovereign equality of Member States. All countries, large or small, rich or poor, should have equal access to the Security Council and enjoy the outcome of reform on an equal footing. Reform should give priority to the concerns of underrepresented regions. Africa, whose 54 countries account for nearly one-third of the United Nations membership, is noticeably underrepresented on the Council. Reform must not create new injustices. Africa’s unique demand for redress for historical injustices should be fully respected and special arrangements should be made to comprehensively address Africa’s concerns and effectively enhance its representation and voice. Thirdly, Security Council reform should be advanced in coordination with the reform of other governance mechanisms to find solutions to the various crises and conundrums facing the world today. Not only is Security Council reform urgently needed, but the global governance system also needs to be strengthened and improved. We should promote in parallel comprehensive reform of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization; put an end to negative practices that are unreasonable, unjust, and incompatible with the unfolding situation; give greater representation and say to developing countries in global affairs; fully capture the aspirations and voices of the developing world; practice real multilateralism; champion a global governance concept that features extensive consultation and joint contribution for shared benefits; and steer the global governance system towards a more just and realistic orientation in order to better respond to global challenges. The decisions of the Security Council bear upon war and peace and the future of the collective security mechanism. The reform of the Security Council should help preserve the achievements of the victory in the anti-fascist war, strengthen genuine multilateralism and increase the authority and efficiency of the Security Council. It should be able to withstand the scrutiny of history and actual practice. Reform should not simply cater to the needs of some individual countries that, driven by selfish interests, seek to elevate their international standing by way of a permanent seat on the Security Council. China is of the view that the General Assembly should adhere to decision 62/557 and the guiding principles established therein, as well as the intergovernmental negotiating track through the use of informal plenary meetings to conduct in-depth discussions on various reform ideas and proposals. Security Council reform touches on the vital interests of each and every Member State. It is therefore necessary to reach the broadest political consensus through consultations on an equal footing to arrive at a package solution that takes into account the interests of concerns of all parties under the five clusters of related issues. The intergovernmental negotiations are a United Nations membership-driven process. The intergovernmental negotiations are the only legitimate platform for all parties to discuss issues pertaining to Council reform. Openly pressuring the co-Chairs for the sake of advancing one’s own agenda or even threatening to start a new process outside the intergovernmental negotiating track is neither constructive nor effective in producing the desired results. At present, there are still fundamental differences among the parties with regard to the overall direction and basic principles of Security Council reform. It is necessary to expand consensus and narrow differences through in-depth discussions. In such circumstances, rushing to launch text-based negotiations, setting official time frames for reform or even forcing through immature reform proposals will only intensify disagreement, trigger confrontation, undermine the unity of Member States, and even derail the intergovernmental process. China is firmly against any such move. We hope that the President of the General Assembly and the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations will listen extensively to the views of all parties, take past practice into account, make reasonable plans and arrangements for intergovernmental negotiations meetings, and actively guide all parties to speak their minds, strengthen dialogue and consultations by focusing on substantive issues, build mutual trust, and steadily move the process forward. China will actively participate in the intergovernmental negotiations. We stand willing and ready to work with all parties towards that goal on a track that is aligned with the long-term development of the Organization and the common interests of Member States so that the results of the reform can be broadly shared among all countries.

Türkiye aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. I would like to make the following additional comments in my national capacity. We appreciate your engagement in the process, Mr. President, and warmly welcome Ambassadors Mlynár and Albanai, Permanent Representatives of Slovakia and Kuwait, respectively, in their new capacities as the co-Chairs. They will have our full support and cooperation in discharging their important roles. We also express our gratitude to the former co-Chairs, Ambassadors Alya Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of Qatar, and Ambassador Matin Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, for their valuable efforts at the seventy-sixth session to find areas of convergence, which was a welcome approach in reaching consensus on this important matter. The need for Security Council reform is undeniable. What we must strive for and ensure is that the reformed Council reflect the realities of our time — of a world that is ever changing. Thus, the outcome of the reform process must not create a static body. That will require a comprehensive and inclusive approach. It will require emphasizing and prioritizing the common good over individual national interests. Needless to say, the resulting reform should enjoy sufficient support from all Member States. That is the only way the Security Council can be more representative, more democratic, more accountable and more effective. Permanent membership and the veto mechanism are the obvious factors that lie at the heart of the problem. We need to acknowledge that they serve nothing but the national interests of those who hold those privileges. This system has made the Security Council dysfunctional, unaccountable and undemocratic. The reform process needs to look for ways to address and eliminate the current problems of the Security Council, not for ways to aggravate them. We are fully convinced that the Security Council will be more representative and responsive if we increase the number of elected seats and the possibility for all Member States to serve on the Council. The Security Council will be more accountable if the performance of members is subjected to periodic elections. A better ratio between the non-permanent and permanent members will improve the decision-making process and enable the Council to be more effective. Ideally, the veto should be abolished. There is no justifiable explanation as to why certain members should have that right and others not. In that respect, we support the initiatives to limit the use of the negative vote in the Council. A more equitable representation of the regional groups and a fair system of rotation, including enhanced opportunities for underrepresented groups, are a must in the reformed Council. The working methods of the Council and its relationship with the General Assembly are also no less important, as they define the daily dynamics of the system. Maximalist aspirations, especially those that are based on narrow national interests as opposed to the spirit of compromise and consensus, have blocked the intergovernmental negotiations for too long. An issue that has direct impact on the lives of current and future generations requires compromise and a consensual process. If there is a genuine wish to make improvements in the Security Council, we should focus on the most attainable models that have a chance to be realized in a swift manner. We call on all Member States to demonstrate the political will and flexibility to facilitate the reform process pursued under the aegis of the intergovernmental negotiations, which is the sole legitimate platform to handle this matter.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this meeting on the question of equitable representation on the Security Council. On four occasions this year, the Assembly has met in the face of disagreement in the Security Council — four uses of the veto that go to the heart of its mission, in Ukraine or Syria or on the Korean peninsula. At those meetings, and also on many other occasions this year, we have heard vibrant calls for Security Council reform. Switzerland joins the calls for more representativeness, more accountability and more efficiency. First, we welcome the fact that several delegations attach renewed importance to our intergovernmental negotiations aimed at a more equitable representation in the Security Council. Switzerland will engage constructively with all Member States during this session. I take this opportunity to congratulate our two new co-Chairs, my colleagues the Ambassadors of Slovakia and Kuwait. Given the difficulty of the task and the obstacles to be overcome, we believe it is important to aim not only for the final goal, but also for the closer, next steps. In terms of representativeness, Switzerland is in favour of an enlargement of the Security Council that reflects the reality of the world we live in. That enlargement should offer better representation to certain groups of countries, in particular the Group of African States. Considering the stalemate resulting from evident differences within the intergovernmental negotiations, Switzerland has argued in favour of a third category of a very limited number of non-permanent but renewable seats. Such a category would allow the main regional actors to have a longer-term position in the Security Council. Each term should be long enough to allow for the building of institutional knowledge and to avoid a permanent campaign for re-election; in other words, at least five and a maximum of ten years. On the issue of accountability, Switzerland advocates voluntary constraints on existing veto rights, namely, in situations of genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. In the face of such outrages to our common conscience, the decision to block action by the Security Council risks bringing it into collective disrepute. I therefore call on all States to adhere to, promote and implement the code of conduct against atrocities, launched by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, supported by 124 members of the Assembly. Elected by the Assembly to the Security Council for the term 2023-2024, Switzerland is committed to working towards greater effectiveness and efficiency in the Council. Together with our partners in the ACT group, we will pursue our efforts to strengthen the Council’s working methods in favour of transparency and accountability to all United Nations Member States. We will support progress in the intergovernmental negotiations and in efforts to reform other United Nations bodies. The Our Common Agenda (A/75/982) report offers us the opportunity, and we encourage all to seize it ambitiously. Faced with the victims of cold, hunger and death, in the face of the horrors of today’s wars, each step taken and each advance in terms of reform is to be welcomed.

Costa Rica congratulates the Permanent Representatives of the Slovak Republic, Ambassador Michal Mlynár, and of the State of Kuwait, Ambassador Tareq Albanai, on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. They have the full support of Costa Rica in this complex but important process, whose outcome will have a decisive impact on our collective security architecture. Costa Rica aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. Fifty-nine years have passed since the last amendment to Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, which expanded the Security Council from 11 to 15 members — 59 years in which we have confirmed time and again that expansion in the category of elected members is the only way forward and the one that will bring the most benefits to the entire membership, in particular to those regions and groups that have been underrepresented for more than seven decades. To that end, let me highlight some examples of the decisive work of the elected members, who have shown us —with varying degrees of success— that it is possible to influence the permanent members of the Security Council to do all the work they have been mandated to do and to spend less time protecting their own privileges and more time protecting those made vulnerable by armed conflict and its many insidious consequences. Over the past 25 years, the international community has worked to understand how war affects children, to decipher how disruptive, dramatic and long-lasting its consequences may be, and to outline the preventive and mitigating measures that can be taken to protect them. However, it was not until 25 August 1999 that the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1261 (1999), during Namibia’s presidency of the Security Council. The resolution identified the protection of children in situations of armed conflict as a fundamental concern for peace and security and established it as one of the first thematic human rights issues to be added to the Security Council’s agenda. Since 1999, the Security Council has adopted 12 resolutions on that subject. In the vast majority of situations on the Security Council’s agenda, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons is a common denominator. But it was not until nine years ago, on 26 September 2013, when Australia led the Security Council to adopt its first resolution on the impact of the illicit transfer, destabilizing accumulation and misuse of small arms and light weapons on international peace and security (resolution 2117 (2013)). By adopting resolution 2117 (2013), the Security Council confirmed that the proliferation of small arms and light weapons prolongs conflicts, facilitates violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and exposes civilians at high risk of death or injury from weapons- related violence. It also confirmed that the threat of violence to civilians due to the widespread possession of small arms remains even after armed conflicts have ended. Without the leadership of Australia, an elected member, that important resolution would not exist. Six years have passed since the adoption of resolution 2250 (2015), on youth, peace and security, during Jordan’s presidency of the Security Council in December 2015. For Jordan, the adoption of that resolution meant moving away from portraying young people as victims of armed conflict and violent extremism and creating a political framework to highlight their contributions to peace processes, conflict resolution and peacebuilding. Jordan had to struggle to convince the Council that this was a relevant issue. Its work was and remains commendable, and the youth, peace and security agenda will have a deserved place in the new agenda for peace. From Namibia’s extraordinary advocacy for children in armed conflict to Australia’s insistence on reminding us of the threat that the proliferation and diversion of small arms and light weapons pose to civilians, States and international peace and security, elected members have shown the leadership and capacity to effect positive change for humankind. From Jordan’s determination to recognize the positive role that young people play in preventing and resolving conflict, countering violent extremism and building peace, to Ireland and Niger’s foresight in bringing climate security issues to the Security Council in the form of draft resolution S/2021/990 in December last year, the elected members continue and will continue to press for adapting the Security Council to new and complex threats to international peace and security. At a time when we face multiple crises, we cannot allow this archaic system to impede progress on critical issues such as climate security and many others. The time has come to seriously assess the geometry of Security Council representation, and that can be done only by expanding the elected members’ category. The experience is clear and has proven to be positive. The elected members of the Security Council are a force to be reckoned with. We all know that. Because of the windows of opportunity they have seized, not only to improve the effectiveness of the Security Council, but to bring the United Nations closer to fulfilling its promises of peace and security in an increasingly complex global landscape, the elected members have demonstrated both their determination and their willingness to make the necessary sacrifices, to open every possible door and to use every tool at our disposal —not just coercive or threatening ones — to help prevent conflict wherever humanly possible. It is the elected members who have worked tirelessly to restore the full functionality of the Council’s processes and to insist on successes worthy of what can still be and must once again be the most important chamber in the world. Let us commemorate the fifty-ninth anniversary of the most recent amendment to Article 23 of the Charter by once again increasing the number of elected members. Let us thereby honour each of their attempts to steer the Council into more productive, if not always calmer waters, with less conflict and much more peace. Dame Barbara Woodward (United Kingdom): May I start by joining others in congratulating Ambassador Albanai of Kuwait and Ambassador Mlynár on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. Under their leadership, we look forward to engaging in and driving forward the negotiations. Momentum for change is building around the United Nations. The world is not the same today as it was in 1946, when the Security Council first met, or as it was in 1965, when it was last expanded. The challenges we face today are more complex and more interconnected, including threats to the Charter that binds us together and its principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The way we respond must change, too. Our position is well known. The United Kingdom has long called for the expansion of the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. We support the creation of new permanent seats for India, Germany, Japan and Brazil, as well as permanent African representation on the Council. We also support an expansion of the non-permanent category of membership, taking the Security Council’s total membership to somewhere in the mid-twenties. With those changes, the Council would be more representative of the world today and, coupled with a renewed commitment to the Charter of the United Nations, it would be better able to respond decisively to threats to international peace and security. Since the General Assembly last met on this topic, we have seen the veto used egregiously in the Council to prevent action that would have saved lives and to censor criticism of Russia’s unjust and illegal war in Ukraine. We were proud, therefore, to co-sponsor the veto initiative that now enables the Assembly to hold vetoing powers to account. For our own part, the United Kingdom has not exercised our right to use the veto since 1989. We prefer to persuade Council members of the merit of our positions to secure their support in the Council. As supporters of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group code of conduct, we remain committed not to vote against a credible draft resolution to prevent or end a mass atrocity, and we encourage all States to join us. We have a shared goal of reforming the Security Council. The upcoming intergovernmental negotiations are an opportunity for practical and focused discussions on how to make it a reality. Text-based negotiations would help all countries in the Assembly to engage constructively on this important issue, and would help us make swifter progress.

I fully align myself with the statement delivered by the representative of India on behalf of the Group of Four. Allow me to add a few words in my national capacity. Since last year’s debate on the same issue, we have seen a number of pertinent developments. In February, a permanent member of the Council started a war of aggression against a neighbouring State, blatantly violating the Charter of the United Nations, and then vetoed Council draft resolutions on its own actions. In April, the General Assembly unanimously gave itself a standing mandate to hold a debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council. In September, high-ranking representatives of more than 70 Member States  — including permanent members of the Council  — spoke out in favour of Security Council reform. In our view, that shows two things. First, reform of the Council is indeed more needed than ever. Secondly, general awareness of that fact has been on the rise. Of course, that does not imply that all United Nations Member States agree with this assessment, and by no means does it imply that there is broad agreement on what a reformed Security Council should look like. But that is not my issue today. The point is that there is a body tasked with negotiating this topic, but that it has so far been unable to live up to its original name — “intergovernmental negotiations” — not least because it is bound by rules that go beyond those of the General Assembly. The issue is that even the start of standard negotiations, as is done on a daily basis in the General Assembly, is constantly blocked. The issue is that we might need to reshape that mould or, if that is impossible, break out of it. We must finally get ahead now because, at its core, the deteriorating credibility and legitimacy of the Council — and, as it represents a central pillar of the United Nations, of the United Nations at large — are at stake. As our current world is in constant crisis mode, we need more than ever a well-functioning body acting on the questions of peace and security that lie at the core of the United Nations — body that reflects in its representation and in its working methods the world of today. I would therefore call upon all reform-minded actors to reach across the lines on a common cause. We have full confidence, Mr. President, that your able leadership and the guidance of our highly capable and experienced co-Chairs will contribute towards tangible progress. I take this opportunity to thank the previous co-Chairs. I would like to assure the Assembly of Germany’s firm support for the process.

I welcome you back, Mr. President, from your successful participation in the twenty-seventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) in Sharm El-Sheikh. My country’s delegation endorses the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone, on behalf of the Group of African States, and of Bahrain on behalf of the Group of Arab States. It gives me great pleasure to thank Ambassador Alya Al-Thani and Ambassador Martin Hermann, Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, respectively, for their efforts in leading the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session. I also congratulate Ambassador Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of Kuwait, and Ambassador Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of Slovakia, on their assumption of the co-chairmanship of the intergovernmental negotiations at the current session, and I wish them success. I would like to add the following remarks in my national capacity: First, today’s discussion is being held as the COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh is coming to an end, which prompts the consideration of reforming the international system from a comprehensive and integrated perspective. The world and developing countries in particular are calling for climate justice, comprehensive equity and genuine participation in international governance. That will come about only through real reform of the Security Council, international financing organizations and the Bretton Woods institutions, and the fulfilment of the requirements for combating climate change. As the international community faces interlocking crises, reform should be consistent on those tracks. In that regard, I affirm Egypt’s full support for the Secretary- General’s call for reforming the governance of international financing organizations in order to make them more equitable to developing countries. Secondly, Egypt believes that the Security Council can be reformed only by consensus. In addition to the procedural difficulties of amending the Charter of the United Nations by a vote, consensus among the general membership remains the main guarantee for achieving an expanded Security Council that represents everyone’s vision and is accepted by the countries of the world. We therefore reiterate the primacy of decision 62/557, the intergovernmental negotiations process, the five reform clusters set out in decision 62/557 and the work towards a solution that enjoys the widest possible political acceptance. Thirdly, the right of the veto remains the cornerstone of the process of reforming the Security Council. If we fail to address the structural imbalance in the Security Council, it will not be possible to talk about meaningful reform. That is the basis of the rational and just Common African Position, as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, because it insists, among other things, on Africa’s obtaining two permanent seats with full powers and privileges, including the so-called right of veto. Unless we resolve the veto issue, the will of one of the current permanent members will always prevail over the will and opinions of the entire continent of Africa. I invite everyone to take another look at the statement delivered on behalf of the African Group this morning by my dear brother, Ambassador Alhaji Fanday Turay of Sierra Leone. Our African message is very clear. Fourthly, the ultimate goal of Security Council reform is to reach a more transparent, credible, fair and effective Council to fulfil the aspirations of the peoples in a United Nations that is capable of facing the challenges of our times. Therefore, it is very important not to lose our way and that the reform process not become a competition and rivalry over the membership of the Council, instead of achieving a positive change in the efficiency of the work of the Security Council and ways to develop that work. In the midst of complex international challenges and today’s unprecedented polarization, we should think rationally and be careful not to rush into steps that could lead to the collapse of negotiations and the waste of the efforts that have been made in recent years. My country therefore calls on all to set their differences aside and work together in a spirit of understanding to preserve the elements of convergence agreed in the intergovernmental negotiations by focusing the discussions on the five clusters of reform in order to reach a solution that enjoys the widest possible political acceptance. That is the same position set out in the resolution adopted at the recent African Union Summit, held in February 2022. The resolution of the African Union Summit confirmed the interdependence and indivisibility of the elements of the Ezulwini Consensus, especially the right of veto. In that context, we do not welcome running the intergovernmental negotiations in a manner that would lead to the erosion of the inclusiveness and organic unity of the Common African Position. Unless all the elements of the Ezulwini Consensus are met, it will not be possible to talk about ending the historical injustice done to the African continent. I cannot imagine how the delegation of Egypt could be clearer in that regard. In conclusion, I affirm Egypt’s commitment to working with all Member States to reach a comprehensive reform leading to a more transparent, credible and fair Security Council, able to effectively play its role in the maintenance of international peace and security.

I congratulate the Ambassadors of the Slovak Republic and the State of Kuwait on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-seventh session. Colombia endorses the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group. As a founding Member of the United Nations, my country has played an active role in the Organization, based on its unwavering commitment to promoting multilateralism and strict adherence to international law, central pillars in building an equitable international rules-based order. Colombian Ambassador Eduardo Zuleta Ángel presided over the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations in 1946 and opened the first session of the General Assembly. It was a historic moment representing a new phase in relations among States based on the democratically agreed principles and embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. On that occasion, he himself appealed to good faith among nations and defined as the great task of the United Nations the construction of peace and security, stability and well-being. In his words: “An inner voice tells us that, animated guided by a broad and sincere feeling for humanity, we can lift up our hearts and bring to bear on the problems of peace the spirit of cooperation, the tenacity of purpose, the self-sacrifice and the technical effort which... led to the splendid triumph of the democracies... Founded on reason and actuated by a real love of peace and mankind, its pronouncements will not fail to command the attention and respect of the Security Council.” (A/PV.1, pp.37-38) We are determined to make the Council a more comprehensive body that will allow all the Members of our Organization to participate in the elaboration of the rules that emanate from it and to contribute their experiences with diverse problems on an equal footing. Colombia reiterates that intergovernmental negotiations are the only suitable platform for the debate on Security Council reform, and we are confident that in 2023 we will advance in the substantive discussions on the five thematic clusters established in decision 62/557 of 2008. A text-based negotiation is not acceptable, as we must continue to focus on discussing the substantive issues before we concentrate on procedural aspects that do not produce tangible results and slow our process. We are not amenable to a reform based on the expansion of permanent seats or the extension of the right of veto. The veto represents an anachronistic mechanism that obstructs cooperation in a collective security system that requires it, even more so when facing the multidimensional threats that affect us all today in equal measure. Exhausting the negotiations on whether or not to expand the number of permanent members and the right to veto only hinders the possibility of achieving a fair and global reform and fundamentally contradicts the democratic principles of equity and equality among States. On the contrary, Colombia believes that the most appropriate thing is to increase the number of new seats in the category of elected members, with the traditional mandate of two years and the possibility of re-election for two additional years. Consequently, the Security Council model proposed by the United for Consensus group opens the door to developing countries from all regions of the world, offering them the opportunity to work on and contribute to the construction of peace and international security on equal terms. We must strive to strengthen the legitimacy of the Security Council, both in its operation and in its mandate, incorporating different and innovative visions to address current challenges, while offering that organ lessons learned at the national and regional levels, increasing its capacity to anticipate and prevent violations of international peace and security. To cite just one example, we can see how the Peacebuilding Commission has become the epicentre of positive actions for the benefit of the rule of law and the protection of children and women in post-conflict contexts, while at the same time acting to promote productive enterprises that reduce the possibilities of conflict and reinforce peace and well-being. Today, as we seek to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and face challenges such as overcoming the consequences generated by the coronavirus disease pandemic and addressing the climate crisis, among many other challenges, we cannot ignore the fact that the global governance that we intend to reform is necessarily based on strengthening the capacities of the United Nations as a whole. For that reason, the Security Council cannot simply be a structure anchored in the past that extends privileges and prerogatives to a few, reproduces a competition of interests in isolation among its members, and is accessed in the same way as it was seven decades ago.

Let me begin by thanking the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process for the seventy-seventh session, our dear friends and colleagues Tareq Albanai of Kuwait and Michal Mlynár of Slovakia. Since we met on this issue in plenary last year, Members have received the starkest reminder of the importance of Security Council reform and the need to achieve tangible progress. I refer, of course, to Russia’s flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the challenges faced by the Security Council in responding to Russia’s unilateral, illegal and immoral invasion of Ukraine. The Security Council is integral to the rules- based international order and to our global peace and security architecture. It is the only United Nations organ with a mandate to make decisions that are legally binding on Member States. The need for reform of the Security Council was made clear in Australia’s national statement, delivered by Foreign Minister Wong during high-level week (see A/77/PV.11), and in the statements and interventions of many others. In particular, we applaud the new level of engagement by the United States on this matter. Australia welcomes the active efforts of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations to deliver progress through 2022 by convening informal meetings across all five clusters of issues mandated in 2008. The Council, let us be clear, needs greater representation from Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Council’s working methods should be improved to ensure that it is more accountable to Member States, and better standards need to be developed for use of the veto so as to ensure that it is more transparent and limited. That is why Australia was pleased to co-sponsor resolution 76/262, an initiative of Liechtenstein that was adopted by consensus in the General Assembly on 26 April. That was a practical step towards increased transparency on the use of the veto and greater connectedness between the Council and the General Assembly. But it is not enough. We urge Members to move to text-based negotiations and the intergovernmental negotiations to achieve a more open and transparent process. Only then can these reforms — which so many Member States expressly and urgently want  —— be realized. As Australia’s Foreign Minister said in our national statement, “Being genuinely committed to the United Nations means being genuinely committed to reforming the United Nations and keeping it vital.” (A/77/PV.11, p.38)