A/77/PV.37 General Assembly

Let me begin by thanking the previous co-facilitators, Ambassadors Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani and Martin Bille Hermann, for their unwavering commitment and exemplary leadership during the seventy-sixth session. Malaysia joins others in congratulating Ambassador Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic, and Ambassador Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of Kuwait, on their appointment as the co-facilitators for the seventy-seventh session. Rome was not built in a day, and, understandably, reforming the Security Council will not happen overnight. The aspiration to reform the Council has existed for far too long, yet progress has been incremental, with no substantial concrete movement in sight. Clearly, we have to do more. The call for a Security Council that is legitimate, well-represented, democratic, accountable and transparent was repeated by many Member States during the recent high-level plenary week. The call was one of the commonalities underscored by the President of the General Assembly at the conclusion of the general debate. Malaysia commends the commitment displayed by fellow Member States in the intergovernmental negotiations that have been held thus far. That commitment has become more pertinent as we prepare for the Summit of the Future, to be held in 2024. In that context, Malaysia wishes to reaffirm its consistent call for a text-based negotiation, as we believe it constitutes the ideal step forward to instil new life in the reform process. At the same time, we are open to exploring a possible format or alternative that would facilitate the advancement of the 14-year-old intergovernmental negotiations process. Malaysia supports a comprehensive reform, both in terms of the Council’s working methods and expansion of its membership. We also support equitable and fair regional representation in a reformed Security Council that reflects current geopolitical realities. What started as a 51-Member-State Organization, since its founding in 1945, has grown into 193 countries today. The general feeling of the membership is that the Security Council needs have better representation to reflect that growth. With regard to the veto, Malaysia continues to call for its abolishment. We see the veto as an impediment to a more effective, democratic and accountable Council and to the Council fulfilling its core mandate. It is regrettable to see the repeated abuse of veto power in cases of international crimes of the most serious nature, such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indeed, it is illogical to allow one country to possess the sole decision-making power to destroy a deliberated, thoroughly negotiated resolution with just one vote. Alternatively, a new formulation could be put in practice, in line with the principle of one country, one vote. We reiterate our proposal that the veto should not be allowed to be exercised by just one permanent member, but by at least two permanent members and supported by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly should then back the decision with a simple majority. Malaysia’s approach to the reform process has always been pragmatic and objective. We have been consistent in advocating for an inclusive and transparent reform process that is guided by consultation and dialogue among Members. We remain convinced that a reformed Council should enjoy the widest possible acceptance among Member States. Reforming the Council today will have a consequential impact on future generations, which is why it is imperative that we make it happen. The general public demands an effective and efficient Security Council to better respond to the needs of today’s world. In that regard, we urge all Member States to demonstrate openness, flexibility and greater political will to work towards a mutually acceptable conclusion in the interest of international peace, security and prosperity. Let me conclude by assuring members of Malaysia’s commitment to moving that process forward.

Today Security Council reform without any further delay, is a most urgent requirement, in view of the need to maintain international peace and security. In that regard, my delegation takes note of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, which have been held numerous times so far, and would like to clarify its position on the agenda item for today’s plenary meeting. First, the Security Council should be responsible for discharging its mission and role, as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations, by thoroughly adhering to the principles of impartiality and objectivity. The failure of the Security Council today to fully discharge its mission and shoulder its responsibility to safeguard international peace and security lies precisely in the unjust and double-dealing behaviour of the United States and some of the member States that follow its lead. As is well known, the reckless arms build-up, deliberate manoeuvres escalating the political and military situation and nuclear proliferation pursued by certain countries are openly left unquestioned in the Security Council, whereas efforts to enhance the national defence capabilities of sovereign States for the purpose of safeguarding their sovereignty are condemned as “threats” to international peace and security. So long as their double standards, unfairness and high-handedness persist, the trust of the international community in the Security Council will be further degraded, and any decisions or resolutions that are adopted by the Security Council will not have reasonable binding force. To remain faithful to its intrinsic mission, the Security Council should thoroughly reject the double standards and high-handedness of the specific countries that abuse the Security Council for their political and military purposes, with no regard for the United Nations Charter or international law, and should no longer tolerate the practice of double standards and unfairness. Secondly, the Security Council should be reformed in line with the principle of ensuring the full representation of developing countries. The United Nations has now grown in strength into a universal Organization, and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries (NAM) and other developing countries comprise the majority of its Members, but they are not fully represented in the Security Council. The equitable representation of NAM and other developing countries, equivalent to their absolute majority among the United Nations membership, will be one of the important ways to make the Security Council into an organ that ensures impartiality, objectivity and democracy. In that connection, the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea holds that reform should proceed, with the priority of ensuring the full representation of NAM and other developing countries, to begin to increase the number of non-permanent member States among which consensus is most feasible. Thirdly, the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would like to reiterate that Japan, as an A-class war criminal State, should not be allowed to take a seat in the Security Council if the number of its permanent members is increased. Japan is a war criminal State that inflicted immeasurable misfortune and suffering upon humankind by invading many Asian countries, including Korea, and provoking the Pacific War in the past century. Japan has committed large-scale crimes against humankind, such as forcible drafting and the abduction of 8.4 million people, the massacre of 1 million Koreans and sexual slavery of 200,000 Korean women for its imperial army. Nevertheless, to date, Japan has not even thought to issue a sincere apology or provide compensation for its past crimes against the Korean people. Instead, it further accelerates the scheme to become a military Power and realize its ambitions of reinvasion, while glorifying its history of aggression. It is a mockery of and insult to the United Nations that a criminal State such as Japan still seeks a permanent seat on the Security Council, the main responsibility of which is to maintain international peace and security. The Security Council should naturally comprise States Members of the United Nations that are peace-loving and willing to contribute to maintaining international peace and security and that deserve trust of the international community. In conclusion, the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea hopes that the Security Council will be reformed in the most impartial and democratic way through full negotiations so as to meet the unanimous aspirations and desire of humankind for peace and security in the world.

Allow me to thank the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s timely debate and to convey Lithuania’s appreciation to the chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, the Permanent Representatives of Denmark and Qatar, for their work during the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. We would also like to congratulate and reaffirm Lithuania’s support for the Permanent Representatives of the State of Kuwait and the Republic of Slovakia as the newly appointed chairs of the process during the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly. The unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine waged by the Russian Federation in blatant violation of the United Nations Charter clearly exposed the structural and procedural weaknesses of the Security Council. With this war, Russia not only cynically disregards its duties as a permanent member of the Council, but it also continues to block the Security Council as a whole from implementing its mandate to maintain international peace and security. Such cynical disregard and obstructionism were already apparent in 2014 after the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea. Back then, Russia also vetoed the Security Council draft resolution (S/2014/189) condemning this action and supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine (see S/PV.7138), which was initiated by Lithuania, among other States, as a non-permanent member of the Council at the time. A similar resolution was later adopted by the General Assembly (resolution 68/262), but it was a clear signal that the abuse of veto power of a permanent member of the Council could become a major cause of Security Council inaction. The referral in February 2022 of the situation in Ukraine to the General Assembly through Security Council resolution 2623 (2022) the first “uniting for peace” resolution it had adopted in four decades, showed important momentum. However, it is regrettable that it took a new act of Russian aggression to revive Security Council discussions on Council reform, which has been an ongoing topic on the agenda of the General Assembly for almost two decades now. Our position on the several main issues in the reform is well known and has been repeated multiple times over the course of the years. First, the current structure of the Council no longer reflects today’s geopolitical realities. Its membership must include underrepresented regions in the permanent and non-permanent categories, in particular the African continent, Latin America, Asia and the Eastern European region. Any future decisions will not diminish the chances of small States to be represented in the Council. The war against Ukraine has served as a stark reminder that the abuse of the veto power could paralyse the Security Council even in the context of the mass atrocities committed by the Russian Federation. We strongly support blocking or limiting the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Lithuania believes that there is considerable room for improving the Council’s working methods without having to engage the lengthy process of amending the United Nations Charter. That could be a good first step towards achieving the objective of increasing Council transparency and inclusiveness. The Council could adopt formal rules of procedure rather than continuing to rely on provisional rules. It could ensure that the interests of States are reflected in a balanced way in dealing with matters on its agenda, including through non-member participation, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter. Prompt and substantive reporting by the Security Council to the General Assembly could increase the Council’s accountability towards the general United Nations membership. Finally, the 14 current members of the Council seeking to address the current stalemate on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine could agree to revisit and push for the implementation of certain neglected articles of the Charter, such as Article 27(3), which clearly provides for an obligation to abstain from voting by a party to a dispute. During the course of the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly, the governmental negotiations on Security Council reform resulted in the co-Chairs’ revised elements paper on convergences and divergences. Now is the time to commence real negotiations based on a concrete text, and Lithuania has consistently advocated this option as the only viable way forward.

First of all, we would like to congratulate the Permanent Representatives of Slovakia and Kuwait on their designation as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform in the current session of the General Assembly. We wish to convey to them our support in continuing our exchanges on the necessary reform of the Security Council. Our delegation would like to reiterate the importance of addressing Security Council reform in a comprehensive manner, discussing in detail the five key issues of this process, as stipulated in General Assembly decision 62/557, in order to reach the broadest possible consensus. The wide-ranging discussions held in the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations in previous sessions have reaffirmed the shared interest of the membership in achieving a Security Council that is better for everyone. We believe that in order to move forward in the context of the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations, we must continue to build on what has been achieved to date. Our delegation reiterates that a more efficient, democratic, transparent and representative Security Council would include, inter alia, transparent informal negotiations; the adoption of its rules of procedure, which to date remain provisional; the issuance of the minutes of the Council’s informal consultations, which should be the exception rather than the practice; and an exhaustive and analytical annual report on its work. We continue to advocate an expansion of the Security Council, both in the category of permanent and non-permanent members, in order to rectify the underrepresentation of developing countries, which make up a significant part of the membership of the Organization. We reiterate that the expansion of this body should include an increase in the number of new permanent members. Entire regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are not represented in this category. At least two countries from Africa, two from Latin America and the Caribbean, and two developing countries from Asia should be included. The category of non-permanent members should be expanded to comprise at least 15 members. Cuba has always opposed the existence of the veto. However, as long as the veto is not eliminated, the new seats created in the permanent-member category should have exactly the same rights and prerogatives as the current ones, including the power of veto. We do not favour the creation of new categories or subcategories of membership, because that would deepen existing differences and foster division within the Council. We reiterate that the Council’s interference in matters outside its competence must cease, particularly with regard to matters that fall within the mandate of the General Assembly. We look forward to continuing to discuss this relevant issue in the framework of intergovernmental negotiations, in order to make progress in reducing the gaps existing between the positions of all States Members of the United Nations in an inclusive and participatory manner, with a view to reaching the broadest possible consensus.

I would like to start by fully aligning my delegation with the statements delivered this morning by the Permanent Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the L.69 group, and the Permanent Representative of India, on behalf of the Group of Four (see A/77/PV.36). Let me also express our deep appreciation to the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark for the effort and dedication that they put into the task of co-chairing the intergovernmental negotiation discussions during the seventy-sixth session. Let me also welcome the appointment of the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Slovakia to the function of co-Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-seventh session and say that we have full confidence in their ability to move the process forward, in line with the expectations of the international community. I am a firm believer in the principle that we should practise what we preach. In the light of that, I put aside the prepared statement that I had, and I will speak a little from the heart and in reaction to what I heard this morning during the first part of the debate. I think that our first task in moving any process forward is to have an accurate diagnosis of the situation. As the President said this morning, and a number of delegations mentioned their frustration with the blockage that is evident in the Security Council today, I can fully align with that sentiment, even as one of the elected members of the Security Council this year. I think it is clear that there is a great sentiment of frustration. If that sentiment, or that diagnosis, were limited to our small diplomatic community here within the halls of the United Nations, we could perhaps be a little philosophical about the situation. But the crux of the matter is that such a perception is not limited to within the walls of the United Nations. The number of leaders and Heads of State and Government who addressed the urgency of Security Council reform last September is one indication. The evident frustration that we can see in our own societies with the lack of progress and the lack of effectiveness of the Security Council is also another telling signal that we cannot wait. The diagnosis has to move on to the intergovernmental negotiations process, which is the instrument designated to negotiate Security Council reform. I use the word “negotiate” very loosely. I do not believe that anyone in this Hall could honestly say that the intergovernmental negotiations have been an effective tool for moving the process of Security Council reform forward, As many speakers stated here this morning, they are a forum in which States Members of the United Nations simply restate their positions year in and year out. In that light, from our point of view, I must say that they are an instrument that is all too convenient for those Members that do not understand the sense of urgency that Security Council reform now requires. In that context, and in the light of the current geopolitical reality of the world, to propose that the intergovernmental negotiations continue as they have over the past 14 years would be like asking the orchestra on the Titanic to continue to play music as the ship started to sink. I am not going to address the substance of the reform. We have clearly stated our positions in this forum for many years, and we have also done so within the intergovernmental negotiations. I would like to limit myself to offering some concrete recommendations as to how we can overcome the hurdles that we face. If I could take the analogy one step further, I think that we have to urge the passengers on the Titanic to go to the lifeboats. First among those recommendations, I think that the intergovernmental negotiations must have a means of taking decisions. It is not tenable that a few Members can block progress because there is no means of ascertaining the will of the majority. Secondly, while recognizing and reaffirming the comprehensive and single undertaking mandate that we have, we must recognize the interdependence of the various clusters. In that light, we must cease the practice of discussing them exclusively in stand-alone distinct blocks. Thirdly, I recognize that the formulation of text- based negotiations gives some Members cause for hesitation. But there is nothing that should stop us from going through the elements paper on a paragraph-by- paragraph basis to allow the process to move forward and give it an effective ownership by Member States for the first time. Fourthly, to make that process effective, we will have to put prepared statements to one side, and we will have to engage in an interactive dialogue among all Members. Fifthly and finally, in order for it to be both effective and efficient, the intergovernmental negotiations process must be democratic and inclusive. That cannot be achieved if we do not have webcasting, documentation and records to assist small delegations that do not have the resources to be physically present at each and every meeting to fully participate in the process. In conclusion, I would like to say that too much is at stake, and we therefore all need to rise to the occasion. In the current circumstances, more of the same is irresponsibility, at best. We count on the President to steer us in the right direction.

The Pakistan delegation subscribes to the statement made earlier today by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/77/PV.36). Pakistan welcomes this annual General Assembly debate on the reform of the Security Council. Today the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the structures built 77 years ago under its framework are under extreme stress due to the revived great Power rivalry and competition. We must preserve those principles and the structures of constructive and cooperative multilateralism. The reform of the Security Council and the revitalization of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council must be an integral part of the process of reinforcing and reviving such multilateralism. The General Assembly has agreed repeatedly that the Security Council needs to be reformed through its expansion on the basis of equitable geographic representation. We need a more representative, democratic, transparent, effective and accountable Security Council. The reform of the Security Council involves the vital national interest of each and every Member State. That is why the Assembly decided in resolution 53/30 that any decision relating to Security Council reform will be adopted by a two-thirds majority of all Member States. It takes time, goodwill and mutual accommodation on the part of all Member States to achieve the wide majority of support that is essential for such a vital decision, which will entail a revision of the Charter. Our inability to reach agreement is not due to any shortcomings in the reform process. It is due to the refusal of a few countries to display any flexibility or willingness to accommodate the interests and views of other Member States. Unfortunately, consensus on Security Council reform has been impeded, from the outset, by the demand of four countries that they be selected as new permanent members in an expanded Council. Their demand violates the principle of the sovereign equality of States. It ignores the reality that permanent membership and the use of the veto are often the cause of the Council’s inaction. The problem cannot be the solution. On the other hand, the Uniting for Consensus group has developed a proposal for Security Council reform which is based on an objective analysis and equitable accommodation of the interests of all Member States and regions. We are convinced that it is the best basis for reaching consensus on Security Council reform. The intergovernmental negotiations process was agreed by consensus through the adoption of decision 62/557. It is a member-driven process. Despite what my colleague said a few minutes ago, it has served us well. Through the process, we have progressively enlarged the areas of convergence and reduced the areas of divergence. The Uniting for Consensus group welcomed the common elements paper formulated by the previous co-facilitators  — the Permanent Representatives of Qatar an Denmark. And we would once again like to thank them for their efforts and contribution. The common elements paper reflects their understanding of the current areas of convergence and divergence. It is a useful modality to reflect our negotiations. It is the very informality of the elements paper that enables the reflection of progress. Any attempt to formalize it will prove counterproductive. We also welcome the President’s appointment of the new co-facilitators, the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Slovakia — two respected and experienced colleagues. We offer them our full support and cooperation. In order to achieve agreement on reform, it is essential to address the continuing divergences on key issues under the five clusters, which are all interlinked. Significant differences still exist. First, there is the issue of the size of an expanded Council, with proposals ranging from 21 to 27 members. Secondly, with regard to the categories of membership, at least nine different categories of membership have been put forward in our discussions. Thirdly, concerning the right of the veto, at least four different options have been proposed, from abolition to expansion of the right of the veto. Fourthly, both the Uniting for Consensus group and the Group of African States have proposed a regional model for representation in the Security Council, which could be applied to other regions as well. Fifthly, with regard to the Council’s working methods, there has been the greatest progress towards convergence. The Uniting for Consensus group proposes that, when it commences next year, the intergovernmental negotiations should devote one meeting to considering each of the five clusters, with a view to addressing and, if possible, reconciling the differences on the key issues under each cluster. I believe that my colleague from Brazil said something very similar earlier. The progress made could be reflected in an updated elements paper prepared by the co-facilitators. Any precipitate move to resort to so-called text-based negotiations before we have developed agreements, at least in principle, on the key divergences will lock in different national and group positions, sharpen differences, reverse the progress we have made and ultimately lead to a breakdown in the intergovernmental negotiations process. To compile texts is easy; to reach agreements on what an ultimate Charter amendment should contain is the real challenge. Such a process of give and take can be best pursued in informal settings and negotiations. The Uniting for Consensus group’s position on all the key issues is clear, rational, reasonable and flexible. We have proposed that the size of an expanded Council should be 26 members, with the additional seats distributed proportionally among the five regions, as outlined by the Permanent Representative of Italy this morning (see A/77/PV.36). With regard to the issue of categories, it is our view that expansion should take place only in the category of elected non-permanent members, consistent with the existing provisions of the Charter. Each region could, however, be allocated some longer-term seats or seats against which immediate re-election is possible. In addition, the small States and small island developing States should be allocated one floating seat, in addition to their ability to contest for other regional seats. We sympathize with the position of Africa, as set out in the Ezulwini Consensus, to redress the historic injustices against Africa. Their desire for two permanent seats for Africa is a very different demand from that of certain countries to secure permanent membership for themselves rather than their respective regions. According to those four countries, their permanent membership will serve to reflect contemporary world realities. First, current realities are not permanent realities. Realities change. If the Security Council were to be constituted today, at least two of its five permanent members would not be accorded their present privileged status. Likewise, five, 10 or 20 years from now, those who believe that they are qualified for permanent membership may be overtaken in power, economic size and influence by other States. The only certain way to reflect contemporary world realities at any given moment in history is through the democratic method of periodic elections of Security Council members by the General Assembly, on whose behalf the Security Council acts. Periodic elections will also ensure the accountability of States that are elected to serve on the Council. The only criteria for Security Council membership set out in the Charter is for the election of non-permanent members. Article 23 states that in electing non-permanent members, due regard will be paid “in the first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization”. The four seeking permanent membership have not really distinguished themselves by their contributions to peace and security in the contemporary world. In the current war in Ukraine, apart from the parties directly involved, the State that has contributed the most to promoting a peaceful solution is Türkiye. In the Afghanistan conflict, apart from the parties directly concerned, the country that made the most significant contribution to peace and dialogue and to addressing the humanitarian fallout was Pakistan. With regard to Myanmar, it is the Asian countries. When it comes to the plight of the Rohingya, it is Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the European Union (EU). In the Sahara, the brunt of the responsibility now rests with the African States of the region and the United Nations. The Group of Four are largely missing in action. Contemporary global realities are complex. Constructive contributions to peace and security in recent times have been made mostly by the States of the region directly concerned, whether in Europe, Asia, the Middle East or elsewhere. The interventions of external major Powers in regional conflicts — be they in the Middle East, North Africa or elsewhere — have mostly contributed to exacerbating violence, suffering and instability. Four new permanent Council members seeking to flex their muscles globally is a recipe for further insecurity and instability. For the purposes of equitable representation in the Security Council, the most important contemporary reality is that the United Nations membership is constituted of 193 mostly small- and medium-sized States. Their interests must be adequately represented in the Security Council and all other United Nations organs. If four or six of the additional seats on the Council are occupied by the new permanent members, it will deny the other 182 Member States the chance for representation. This is simple mathematics. The proposal of the Uniting for Consensus group seeks to accommodate the wide and varied interests of the United Nations membership to the greatest degree possible through the democratic method of periodic elections. A Council composed on the basis of periodic elections would consistently and permanently reflect contemporary global realities. Some permanent members of the Security Council have taken it upon themselves to nominate others from other regions for permanent membership in the Council. Their nominees are their present or putative military allies. If such nominations are accepted, Security Council reform will become an extension of the efforts to build new power blocs and alliances. Such a reformed Council will only further serve as a stage for global power politics, rather than conflict resolution. I believe that almost all of us here — except, perhaps, the five permanent members of the Council — could agree that the creation of the institution of the five veto- wielding permanent members was a critical, if not fatal, flaw in the Charter of the United Nations. It has often paralysed the Council. Should we then compound that mistake and create additional permanent members? Will the Council function more effectively with 9 or 11 vetoes than it does with 5? Indeed, if the issue of permanent members is reopened, we will then logically have to consider the original sin. In the light of contemporary global realities, do all the five permanent members deserve to retain their privileged position? For example, in most major negotiations, the European position is articulated and negotiated by the EU. Would it not be appropriate to replace the two European permanent members with an EU representative? That would better reflect the regional interests of Europe and contemporary global realities. Besides equitable regional representation and capacity to contribute to peace and security, there is one additional criterion that is relevant to a State’s qualification for any form of membership in the Security Council, that is, its consistent adherence to Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations. Under Article 25, States Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the Charter. One of the four States seeking permanent membership has repeatedly refused to declare that it is committed to implementing the resolutions of the Security Council. Indeed, through force and fraud, it has prevented, for 75 years, the implementation of the Security Council resolutions demanding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. Instead, it has embarked on a campaign of massive oppression and human rights violations to deny the recognized right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to self- determination. My delegation will participate constructively in the resumed intergovernmental negotiations process and work assiduously with the co-facilitators to promote greater convergence and reduce divergence on Security Council reform. We would caution against any arbitrary changes in the intergovernmental negotiations process, which is a Member State-driven process. Only through patient diplomacy and mutual accommodation will we reach the goal of consensus on an equitable and effective reform of the Security Council.

The United Nations, as an institution, is being tested. The question before us is whether we will defend an outdated status quo or reform the Security Council and empower the United Nations to take on the challenges of the twenty-first century. The United States believes, to our core, that we must move forward together. We stand ready to engage widely with Member States to make the Security Council more effective, representative and credible. As President Biden announced during this year’s general debate (see A/77/PV.6), the United States supports the expansion of the Security Council in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, including new permanent seats for countries from Africa and Latin America. The Security Council needs to better reflect the world in geographically diverse perspectives, but for the Security Council to meet this moment, all permanent members of the Security Council must also live up to our obligation to maintain international peace and security. That means exercising the veto authority responsibly. As I have said before, the United States will refrain from use of the veto except in rare, extraordinary situations. We also believe that, when a permanent member State does use its veto, they should have to defend their actions to the General Assembly. In that context, we strongly supported and were proud to co-sponsor an initiative by a group of forward- leaning countries, spearheaded by Liechtenstein, which requires the General Assembly to convene a meeting after any veto has been cast (see resolution 76/262). That is a meaningful step forward and one that increases accountability and transparency. Make no mistake  — any permanent member that exercises the veto to defend its own acts of aggression against another United Nations Member State must be held accountable. If we fail to do so, we undermine the very credibility of the Charter of the United Nations. That is why this year the General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned, in the strongest terms possible, Russia’s further aggression in violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. In doing so, we have reaffirmed Ukraine’s independence, unity and territorial integrity. We have made clear that the Russian Federation must immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw its forces from Ukraine. Achieving the reforms that we so desperately need will not be easy and will not happen overnight, but we must take up that work in earnest. The United States looks forward to continued and extensive engagement through established channels and discussions on reform, including through the intergovernmental negotiations process. We extend our sincere gratitude to former intergovernmental negotiations co-facilitators Denmark and Qatar for their extraordinary efforts during the seventy-sixth session of the General Assembly. Their work helped to foster important and constructive discussions on Security Council reform. We thank the incoming intergovernmental negotiations co-facilitators, Kuwait and Slovakia, for answering the collective United Nations membership’s call for change. We look forward to engaging with them both and the broader United Nations in the months to come.

We would like to welcome the convening of today’s debate, which is committed to the objective of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other related matters. South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the Group of African States (see A/77/PV.36) and the statement delivered by the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the L.69 group of developing countries (see A/77/PV.36). We thank the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark for their facilitation in the previous intergovernmental negotiations and welcome the appointment of Ambassador Mlynár and Ambassador Albanai as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy-seventh session. We wish to assure them of our support and commitment. Every year that we continue to consider the matter without registering tangible progress, the structural challenges in the Council become more and more apparent and urgent. Collectively, we cannot address them with a piecemeal approach. Global circumstances, with their broad ramifications, and the inability to respond to such structural challenges rest on the fact that confronting the status quo jeopardizes the interests of a few. South Africa would once again like to emphasize three fundamental points. First of all, it is our firm conviction that to realize equitable representation in the Council, the lack of permanent African representation and under-representation in the non-permanent category of the Security Council needs to be corrected. That lack of representation, apart from being historically unjust, also adversely affects the Council’s ability to adequately address matters of peace and security on the African continent. The voice and effective participation of African Council members have already proved to be effective, thereby allowing the Council to act with relative unity on matters affecting the continent, even in a difficult global political environment. South Africa, therefore, fully supports the Common African Position, with the goal of Africa being fully represented in all decision-making organs of the United Nations, in particular the Security Council. We appreciated the opportunity to build on the co-facilitators’ revised elements paper, which was recognized as providing a good basis for our discussion in the intergovernmental negotiations forum and the annexed positions of 31 July 2015. There is no longer any doubt that there is wide recognition and support for the Common African Position, referenced in full, and that our discussion is already proceeding and evolving. Secondly, we need to continue this momentum to move forward from that basis and build on progress that has already been made. That requires that we recognize text-based negotiations as the only way to achieve the commitments made in the 2005 World Summit outcome document. At the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, our Heads of State and Government committed to instilling new life in the discussions on reform of the Security Council. Two years on, that commitment needs to be reiterated and its importance stressed. We welcome the fact that the Secretary-General’s report, Our Common Agenda (A/75/982), also recognizes that the Security Council could be made more representative of the twenty-first century world and reflective of current geopolitical realities. That should be done through enlargement, including better representation for Africa, as well as more systematic arrangements for more voices at the table. Thirdly, delays in the reform of the Security Council will not assist us in refining the global means of addressing threats to international peace and security. The divisions in the Council, especially among major Powers, have been entrenched, requiring a composition in the Council that is more relevant to today’s globalized world and not one that merely perpetuates outdated thinking about a bipolar world. It is our hope that during the seventy-seventh session, we take seriously the mandate of the intergovernmental negotiations and, earnestly and in good faith, commence with negotiations in the full sense of the term. We already have the means and the basis to do so. South Africa will actively participate in that process and lend its full support to the President of the General Assembly and the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process. Further delays in the urgent reform of the Security Council will continue to perpetuate an ever more divided and increasingly polarized world and retain a Council structure that is unable to respond to or fulfil its mandate. In the interest of the broader United Nations membership and the people who are affected on a daily basis by violence, armed conflict and emerging threats to stability, we must move with urgency and make substantial progress during the current General Assembly session.

The Republic of Korea aligns itself with the statement made earlier today by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/77/PV.36). I would now like to deliver the following statement in my national capacity. Over the past 30 years, we have had numerous exchanges on the issue of Security Council reform, and my delegation believes that we have found at least three consensus points. First, most of us agree that the Security Council should be enlarged, especially considering that United Nations membership increased by 80 countries, most of which are developing countries, over the past 60 years, since 1963 — the last time the membership of the Security Council was increased. Secondly, most of us also admit the reality, whether we like it or not, that it is extremely difficult to abolish or even slightly change the prerogatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council (P5). Thirdly, we share the view that there is a need to improve the working methods to enhance the transparency and effectiveness of the Council. On the other hand, our views still differ on a few critical points, particularly on whether to increase the number of permanent members. We need to seek a substantive breakthrough on that, and there is no way to bypass it. The Republic of Korea strongly believes that adding permanent members undermines the adaptability, sustainability and relevance of the Security Council over the long term. Expanding the permanent membership basically means adding particular country names to Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, but once we add names, we cannot change them. We all know that two of the P5 country names inscribed in Article 23, that is, the Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, are no longer accurate, but we cannot even correct the names in the Charter of the United Nations. Some say we should expand the permanent membership to reflect the international reality. They might succeed in finding the exact composition that correctly reflects the current reality, like a still picture. But that does not mean that they will succeed in reflecting the future reality. Who in the General Assembly Hall can predict the future of international politics and the rise and fall of major Powers for the next several decades, let alone several centuries? If we truly want the Security Council to reflect the constantly evolving international reality, there is no choice but to hold regular elections. Some say that they will elect permanent members. But a one-time election that assures the seat forever is not an election in the true sense. At this point, we believe that all Member States are now faced with the ultimate choice between two options: The first option is adding particular country names to Article 23 of the Charter, assuming that we are able to reach an agreement on which countries those will be. Probably, those names, once added, will last forever in the Charter of the United Nations, like the P5, no matter what those countries become or how they behave in the future. The second option is holding regular elections to select our representatives on the enlarged Council, trying to reflect reality at the time of each election. The candidates can either be new ones, or the ones who are already on the Council. In either case, we establish a mechanism for the whole United Nations membership to regularly hold the Security Council accountable. My delegation encourages all Member States to seriously consider choosing one of these two options and engage in in-depth consultations during the forthcoming intergovernmental negotiations. Meanwhile, the Republic of Korea remains open and flexible in terms of the specific modalities of elections that apply to the enlarged non-permanent membership, including for the longer-term seats. For us, the concept of adding forever membership, with or without the right to veto, is unacceptable. The Republic of Korea sincerely hopes that the Security Council will be equipped with the adaptability it needs to reflect the ever-changing international reality and become more sustainable and maintain its legitimacy in the long term. We want to see Security Council enlargement and reform without further delay.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting. We commend your efforts to make progress on the intergovernmental negotiations concerning Security Council reform. In that regard, we welcome the appointment of the Permanent Representative of Kuwait, His Excellency Ambassador Tareq Albanai, and the Permanent Representative of Slovakia, His Excellency Michal Mlynár, as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. I would also like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the Permanent Representative of Qatar, Her Excellency Ambassador Ms. Alya Al-Thani, and the Permanent Representative of Denmark, His Excellency Martin Hermann, for the appreciated efforts they undertook as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations during the previous session. Furthermore, my delegation endorses the statement made by the Kingdom of Bahrain on behalf of the Group of Arab States (see A/77/PV.36). Our world today is facing unprecedented geopolitical challenges, perhaps the most urgent ones since the United Nations was established 77 years ago. Those challenges undermine the ability of the international multilateral system to carry out its work in line with the Charter of the United Nations and with its purposes and principles. Those increasing political, security and humanitarian challenges in the international arena should lead us to make more efforts to advance the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. In the general debate during the high-level plenary week in September, we heard Heads of State and Government calling for reform of the United Nations in general and of the Security Council in particular, especially in the light of the unprecedented challenges facing all of us. The geopolitical developments that we are experiencing today and the increased calls from Member States for Security Council reform must become more determined and insistent in order to intensify the efforts towards undertaking a true and comprehensive reform of the Security Council in line with General Assembly decision 62/557, which laid the basis for the Member States to take ownership of the negotiations so that the Security Council could be more capable and effective to meet the challenges it faces. Despite the rhetoric and the incessant calls from within and outside the United Nations for decades with regard to the importance of Security Council reform, we are far from achieving that goal because of a lack of necessary political will from Member States, including the five permanent members, to bring the points of view together to achieve the desired objective. There are numerous challenges facing us with regard to Security Council reform, most prominent of which is the veto issue. We have all seen arbitrary use of the veto at times in the past years, which has undermined the Council’s credibility and, in some cases, made it incapable of assuming its responsibilities and adopting the appropriate measures to maintain international peace and security. In particular, we deeply deplore the fact that the veto has been used most often over the past three decades on issues concerning the Arab region. There is another pressing challenge — namely, that of the fair and equitable representation of geographical and regional groups, as well as the issue of improving Security Council working methods. There is a need for more effectiveness and transparency in the work of the Council. The State of Kuwait reiterates that any proposal on expanding and reforming the Security Council must be the subject of a broad consensus, or at least the broadest possible political acceptance among Member States. Our stance, which remains unchanged, is based on the following main elements. First, all ideas related to Security Council reform must be based on our determination to enable the Council to become more representative of States Members of the Organization and to reflect the international reality, which has changed significantly since the United Nations was established in 1945. We also reiterate that the intergovernmental negotiations remain the only forum for reaching an agreement on expanding and reforming the Security Council. Secondly, the issue of reforming the Council must be in line with a general perception that aims to continue with the process of reforming and developing all the United Nations organs with more complementarity and balance in the work of the Organization. In addition, there is a need to focus on developing the relationship between the Security Council and other United Nations organs without infringing upon the competences of any of them. Thirdly, the working methods of the Council need to be improved with more transparency and effectiveness of its work. The Council is supposed to achieve two important aims: first, to take decisions that ensure swift and effective measures to maintain international peace and security, and secondly, to enjoy the support of all Members States of the United Nations in order to effectively implement |Security Council resolutions. Promoting the working methods, transparency, efficiency and inclusiveness of the Security Council are very important for its performance. Fourthly, any expansion of the Security Council membership must take into consideration small States so that they can become members and contribute more to the work of the Council. Further, the right of Arab and Muslim States to proportional representation must be taken into consideration. That should be in line with their number, importance and contribution in terms of defending the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. While taking into consideration those basic foundations, we reiterate our full support for the Arab position, which calls for Arab permanent representation with full powers within the permanent category in case of future expansion of the Security Council. We also call for appropriate Arab representation within the non-permanent category. The Arab Group represents more than 400 million people and 22 States. That is nearly 12 per cent of the United Nations membership. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the work of the Security Council and the items on its agenda concerns the Arab region, which requires fair and proportional Arab representation in an expanded Council so as to ensure that Arab points of view are well presented to the Council. In conclusion, the State of Kuwait is resolved to work with other Member States to make progress on Security Council reform so that the Council can be more representative, transparent, neutral and credible.

Japan aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of India on behalf of the Group of Four — Brazil, Germany, India and Japan (see A/77/PV.36). Allow me to make some additional points in my national capacity. Japan welcomes the determination of the President of the General Assembly to advance the reform of the Security Council as expressed in his recent statement at the start of the general debate of the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly (see A/77/PV.4). In this context, we highly commend the early appointments of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic, and Ambassador Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait. We look forward to the President’s leadership in guiding us towards concrete outcomes during this session. He may rest assured that he and the co-Chairs will have Japan’s full support throughout the session. We stand at a historic watershed moment. The international order is being seriously challenged on many fronts, including by Russia’s aggression, and the Security Council’s credibility is in the gravest jeopardy since its creation. The Council must be at the centre of our collective response to these challenges. It must function, guide and facilitate meaningful discussions. It must be able to act with purpose. It must be trusted and looked up to, and, for that purpose, the Council needs to be reformed and strengthened. It is promising to see that there is renewed momentum for change. Approximately 70 Member States mentioned the necessity of Security Council reform during the high-level week this year, which is almost double the number of last year. We are also encouraged to see that a greater number of permanent members of the Council are positively disposed towards reform. Japan welcomes all initiatives to limit the use of the veto, including those of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, France, Mexico and the United States, and we would like to continue to deepen discussions with Member States on this issue. When we conduct negotiations, we need a text to negotiate on. That is clear and simple. There is no other way to ensure meaningful progress. The existing co-Chairs’ elements paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters can be the basis for such a text, and I am glad to hear that many speakers today, regardless of their positions, agree on the importance of the elements paper. The paper should be updated after each meeting by introducing attribution to record the positions of each Member State and group, and, as such, would also serve as a record of the positions and proposals of Member States and groups, which in turn would make it easier for the wider membership to actively participate in the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. In order to avoid the repetition of the same old discussion, I will note that the President of the General Assembly, together with the co-Chairs, is fully empowered to set the goal of the intergovernmental negotiations session before it begins early next year. I trust that he will do so. In past intergovernmental negotiations meetings, we were lost. We did not know the goal or where we were heading. We would start the intergovernmental negotiations in February, hold five or six meetings based on the speakers list, and conclude in June by adopting the same old roll-over decisions. I believe that the majority of the delegations in this Hall would welcome it if the President set the objective of this intergovernmental negotiations session in the coming weeks — an objective such as adopting a text on which we can work in future sessions and make progress. Whatever we might call the text, it could be based on the co-Chairs’ elements paper, as we have suggested, or on some other basis. Once a goal is set, we should engage with each other seriously to achieve it. We can have as many intergovernmental negotiations meetings as that purpose requires. Let me stress once again that the President of the General Assembly is fully authorized to do this. We elected him unanimously to advance the agenda items of the General Assembly, including Security Council reform. We need concrete action now. It is high time we moved to text-based negotiations. We look forward to constructive and productive negotiations under the leadership of the President of the General Assembly and facilitation by the co-Chairs. Before concluding. I have to say that it is regrettable that a Member State made a groundless statement with regard to Japan.

Argentina associates itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/77/PV.36). At the same time, we would like to highlight some issues in our national capacity. We need a Security Council that is credible and effective; otherwise, it will not be able to fulfil its mandate to promote international peace and security. We all agree that the Council’s membership and working methods reflect outdated geopolitical realities, which were shaped by the world of 1945. As the Security Council plays a much more active role than in the past, its failures are more apparent, and its reform is more urgent than ever. But the path to reform must be pragmatic and, above all, realistic. My country believes that a genuine reform of the Security Council should be one that helps to address the current global problems and reflects the progress that the world has made over the past 75 years. Some countries argue that reform should include an expansion in both categories of membership and that the potential new permanent members should reflect today’s geopolitics. That line of argument can lead only to ineffective reform. Accepting new permanent members would mean expanding the club of the privileged, exacerbating the inequities and shaping a new institutional composition that could soon become outdated again. The idea of reforming the Security Council on the basis of enlarging the category of permanent members will only increase the existing shortcomings. If the elimination of permanent members is unrealistic, we should at least not add new permanent members. The enlargement of the Security Council is necessary, but only new non-permanent members could render the Council a more effective, democratic and representative organ. An expansion of the non-permanent membership category could foster a new work dynamic, allowing elected members more influence within the Security Council and greater participation in the decision-making process. That is what we mean by a modern reform of the Security Council, focused on elected seats  — a reform that enhances, rather than reduces, the democratic nature, accountability and effectiveness of the organ. The Argentine delegation is ready to participate in the next intergovernmental negotiations in the same constructive spirit as we did previously, confident that we can build on the positive achievements made. The revised elements paper of the co-facilitators could be a good basis for starting our work, although we are aware that there are important points on which the negotiating groups have different views and various understandings. During the next session, our aim should be to further narrow the main gaps that separate the negotiating groups. Argentina, along with the Uniting for Consensus group, is ready to continue to work in that direction. Our group proposes a flexible approach and will continue to demonstrate a willingness to compromise.

I thank the President for convening this timely and important debate. Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by Ambassador Massari, Permanent Representative of Italy, speaking on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus (UfC) group (see A/77/PV.36), and would like to add the following observations in its national capacity. Malta remains fully committed to the reform of the Security Council and its accompanying process, for which we encourage all Member States to engage in the same constructive spirit that has continued to steer our discussions so far. On that note, allow us to congratulate Ambassadors Albanai and Mlynár on their appointment as the two new co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, as well to thank the two previous co-Chairs, Ambassadors Al-Thani and Hermann. We are confident that the new co-Chairs will continue to assist our exercise, underpinned by the same principles that governed past sessions. This year has shown how critical and crucial the reform of the Security Council is. Progress has never been so indispensable, and, as the most appropriate platform for our discussions, the intergovernmental negotiations should remain our tool to take the reform of the Council forward. Today’s Security Council does not reflect the realities of today, but those of 77 years ago. The international community deserves better — a reformed Security Council that gives all Member States a greater chance to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Throughout past sessions, we heard voices that enhanced our outlook towards reform. As a member of the UfC group, Malta subscribes to what we view as the most democratic solution, because, by advocating for the expansion of the elected membership category, we are inherently rendering the Security Council more representative. We have proof that the Council is enriched by the experience of those who served in the elected membership category, as they ushered in a spirit of integrity and, more concretely, innovation within the working methods of the Council. In addition, expanding the elected membership category fundamentally leads to the Council being more relevant as it engages in serious conversations with those who are situated on the front lines of conflict and who can truly make a difference, thereby making the Council effective with regard to the needs and challenges of today. With that in mind, allow me to recall what a Security Council would look like under the proposal of the UfC group. In total, there would be 26 members, with 21 serving in the elected seat category  — six seats for the Group of African States; five seats for the Group of Asia-Pacific States; four seats for the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States; three seats for the Group of Western European and other States; two seats for the Group of Eastern European States; and one seat for small States and small island developing States. The new elected members would earn their seat as a responsibility, not as an inherent privilege, and would be given a greater chance to contribute and shape solutions for the maintenance of international peace and security. If we take, for example, the stand- alone seat for small States and small island developing States, smaller delegations would not hold back from competing with larger ones simply to get a respectable seat at the table because such a seat would enable the voice of small Member States to be represented with dignity. That would be a Security Council that is truly beneficial to all Member States, with the Council itself benefiting the most. That is why the United Nations membership should strive for convergence at this seventy-seventh session. As part of the UfC group, Malta is open to continuing a discussion underpinned by constructiveness, understanding and relevance to the myriad issues that we have before us. That task comes with its own demanding and arduous negotiations, which is why we need to ensure that the process remains structured and comprehensive without any procedural shortcuts that can dismantle the evidently solid progress that we have achieved so far. In order for this session to be successful and ambitious in our goals, it is imperative that the co-Chairs present clear guidelines as to how they envisage our substantive discussions. The timely issuance of a programme of work, for example, enables us, as Member States, to come prepared and focused, with clear and credible objectives. In conclusion: for as long as the Security Council exists, the Council will require reform. That cannot be overlooked, and we should not be afraid of such a change. It is a fact that the Council has fallen short of its credibility and capability in responding promptly and effectively not only to long-standing challenges, but also to emerging threats. Let us not continue to contribute to the Council’s inability to react. We need to act today to ensure that history does not repeat itself. With such an outlook in mind, this session should lead us towards a common understanding of what reform for all should look like, and that is what the UfC group, as a constructive team player, has painstakingly embarked on. Malta stands ready to support the President, as well as the co-Chairs, and to work actively and constructively within the next intergovernmental negotiations session in order to achieve significant progress.

Chile is grateful for the convening of today’s important deliberations on Security Council reform, in line with the desire to revitalize the Organization. We have confidence in the President’s judgment in guiding us, and we welcome the appointment of the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Slovakia as co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations process for Security Council reform during the seventy- seventh session. We would ask that our discussions be analytical, constructive and focused on the substance of the issue. We call for avoiding rhetoric and positions that highlight only differences rather than convergence. All of us in the General Assembly have emphasized achieving a reform that would update the Security Council and thus promote more democratic representation of States. We are aware that the raison d’être of multilateralism and the Organization rests in being able to depend on a legal structure that fosters participation and representation in and ownership of the mechanisms that we have adopted on behalf of States. It is perhaps for that reason that we hold such high expectations for Security Council reform. Year after year, we repeat that the organ must be imbued with a set of qualities which include, inter alia, being rational, more representative, participatory, democratic, transparent, efficient and effective, having well-known working methods and, above all, being accountable. The international situation has had an impact on the Organization. We acknowledge the important contributions that have been made in a timely and judicious manner. But we must also acknowledge that, in its singular role in ensuring the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council cannot continue to postpone its reform. Otherwise, its legitimacy and authority could be compromised. Chile believes that the goal of reforming the Security Council rests in providing equitable representation within the organ so that it reflects current geopolitical realities and strengthens the effectiveness and legitimacy of the United Nations, as a whole. We support the expansion of its membership that could include both categories of permanent and non-permanent members without conferring the right of the veto upon any of them or predetermining their exact number, while taking into account that any increase in membership should favour developing countries. In conclusion, we reiterate that, in order for the reform of the Security Council to be successful, substantive and lasting, the membership’s broad and meaningful support is necessary. Clearly, the consequences of its realization will have an impact on the entire United Nations system and multilateralism.

Guyana aligns itself with the statements delivered by the representatives of the Bahamas, on behalf of the Caribbean Community, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, on behalf of the L.69 group (see A/77/ PV.36). We thank the President for convening this annual debate and welcome the early appointment of the co-facilitators of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform for the seventy-seventh session. Guyana joins others in congratulating His Excellency Ambassador Michal Mlynár, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic, and His Excellency Ambassador Tareq Albanai, Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait, on their appointment and looks forward to working constructively with them. We also commend the work of the previous co-Chairs, Her Excellency Ambassador Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar, and His Excellency Ambassador Martin Bille Hermann, Permanent Representative of Denmark, and express our appreciation for their efforts to advance the process. The Security Council and in particular the need for its reform have received increased attention in recent times, as our populations look towards the Council and the United Nations, as a whole — and rightfully so — to address some of the urgent challenges before us. The President (see A/77/PV.36) and others who spoke before me have pointed to the fact that more than 70 leaders called for Security Council reform during the general debate. It is therefore incumbent upon us in the General Assembly to utilize this moment to truly instil new life in and advance negotiations on Security Council reform. We are hopeful that the renewed energy seen today and during the general debate will translate into concrete progress at the forthcoming intergovernmental negotiations session. Without losing sight of the important work achieved over the years, my delegation would like to highlight  — and indeed repeat  — some of the key priorities that we will be advancing at the forthcoming session. First, with regard to the process, the intergovernmental negotiations must adopt a framework that facilitates substantive negotiations. My delegation is of the view that the intergovernmental negotiations will be able to achieve concrete results on substance only by employing working methods that are conducive to building consensus. We therefore support the call for the commencement of negotiations based on a single text with clear attribution, in line with standard United Nations practice and the rules of procedure of the General Assembly. That will allow us to better synthesize the various positions and expose areas of agreement and potential solutions. Secondly, Guyana underscores the need to ensure the full, equal and meaningful participation of all delegations in the intergovernmental negotiations. We echo the call for record-keeping and documentation to ensure that each Member State — specifically those that are capacity constrained — has an equal opportunity to participate in the process. Finally, with regard to substance, Guyana continues to advocate for an expansion in both categories of membership and for a rotating seat on the Council for small island developing States. We believe that, given its unique experience, that group of Member States has important contributions to make to the maintenance of international peace and security, especially in the light of non-traditional threats, such as climate change. The growing complexity of international conflicts today has magnified challenges to the functioning of the Security Council. In its present configuration, the Council is incapable of effectively addressing many of the security challenges of the world today. We, the States Members of the United Nations, are responsible for ensuring that the Council is configured to represent all of the world’s population and to better respond to the challenges of the twenty-first century. It is not fair, just or right — nor can we afford — to continue excluding the voices of people from entire regions and continents from deliberations that impact their future. Surely, we do not need another world war and victors thereof for us to determine the membership of a reformed Security Council. What is needed now, perhaps more than ever, is the political will and sustained efforts of all United Nations Member States to give priority to the intergovernmental negotiations process and concentrate on achieving actionable outcomes. My delegation pledges to work constructively with the co-Chairs and other delegations to build on the outcome of the previous session and produce more concrete results.

I wish to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Denmark, Ambassador Martin Bille Hermann, and the Permanent Representative of Qatar, Ambassador Alya Ahmed Saif Al-Thani, on their work, as well as the new co-facilitators, Ambassador Michal Mlynár of Slovakia and Ambassador Tareq Albanai of Kuwait, on their appointment to lead the process. We assure them of our support in carrying out their task. As is recurrent in the negotiations and debates on the effective functioning of the Security Council, we note once again that the organ must be strengthened and improved in order for its structure to keep pace with the evolution of the international scene. We believe that the intergovernmental negotiations are the appropriate forum for achieving that objective. Recent events following the invasion of Ukraine and the way in which the Security Council has functioned make it all the more urgent that we address its reform with the utmost urgency. In that connection, my country has attached particular importance to the need for Security Council reform to ensure that the organ is more democratic, transparent and effective. In that regard, our country has actively advocated the promotion of more transparent working methods and greater accountability mechanisms. We do not wish to repeat our position, which we have expressed on previous occasions, but we would like to recall our support for an enlargement of the Council in terms of both permanent and non-permanent members, while ensuring a regional and geographical distribution that is more appropriate and representative of the realities of 2022 or 2023, which are completely different from those of 1945. A central aspect of our position, however, is our belief that new permanent members should not be granted the privilege of the veto. In accordance with Uruguay’s historical position in that regard, the veto privilege runs counter to the desirable democratization of the Council. What we have witnessed this year also serves as grounds for arguing that the veto should not be extended in any way. With regard to the enlargement of the Council itself, we reaffirm that the number of its members should be increased in order to achieve full representation of the actors in the international community, reflecting the current reality to which I just alluded. For that reason, we believe that the demands of the Group of African States for adequate representation that reflects their position in today’s world are fully justified. We also call for our region of Latin America and the Caribbean to see the current number of its members in the Council doubled. We do not believe it would be appropriate to revisit in depth what kind of powers and mandates the new members of the Council should have. We believe that both the permanent membership — albeit without a veto  — and the non-permanent membership should be expanded. There is talk of creating intermediate situations or categories of members, but in our view the only option that would be justified is that of permanent members without a veto. We would also like to refer to the issue of the veto as it exists today. While it is not realistic to think about eliminating it in the near future  — although that must be our objective  — it must not be expanded. We believe that we must seek to reform, regulate and limit the use or application of that instrument. Finally, one issue that we cannot forget and that must be a central point of the reform process is the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. In that regard, we believe that our objective should be for both organs to strengthen their cooperation and complementarity, without undermining their respective functions and powers as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

I thank the President of the General Assembly for convening this meeting and allowing us to have this debate at this time. I think it is very timely, given the difficult year that we have had in the Assembly, and we very much welcome this annual debate. My delegation also looks forward to the forthcoming round of the intergovernmental negotiations. Like many of my colleagues, I would like to congratulate the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations process for the current session. We look forward to working constructively and creatively with them. I assure Ambassadors Tarek Albanai and Michal Mlynár of Canada’s full support and cooperation throughout the discussions. We are very proud to be a member of the Uniting for Consensus group (UfC). I fully endorse the statement that was made earlier by my friend and colleague the Ambassador of Italy, Mr. Maurizio Massari (see A/77/ PV.36), who explained very clearly how our group is committed to a reform process based on consensus, transparency and inclusivity, with increased Security Council effectiveness at the core of our proposals, which are very much based on increasing the democratic membership of the Council. (spoke in French) Admittedly, the Uniting for Consensus group’s proposal has evolved over time, which is an approach that I recommend to all delegations, as we cannot continue to repeat exactly what we have said in the past. We have taken into consideration the positions of other Member States and groups through several cycles of discussions and negotiations. Canada will continue to do its best to achieve as broad a consensus as possible, because the reform of the Security Council is absolutely crucial. It is necessary and will require sustained efforts and compromise from all parties, all countries and all delegations. The legitimate aspirations and expectations of a great many Member States are at the very heart of the question, as are our national interests and, as I previously mentioned, the fundamental principles: ensuring that the Security Council is representative, responsible, democratic, transparent and effective. (spoke in English) We will continue to work with African Member States, small island developing States, small States and developing States, as well as with cross-regional groups, to expand their representation in the Security Council. It is encouraging that such an approach is one that is now accepted by virtually every speaker who made a statement today. Everyone agrees on the need to increase the democratic membership of the Council, and everyone agrees that the Council has to work better, more efficiently and more transparently. I think that everyone I heard speak agrees that Africa’s historic treatment is particularly unjust and that we must address the African situation. Perhaps it is my experience as a mediator and lawyer that leads me to point out a few of the realities that we face. They may be obvious, but we have to say them over and over again: if we are going to have meaningful reform of the Council, it is going to require an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations. Such an amendment is not necessarily an everyday event — it is not easy to do, because it would require not only an intergovernmental process here but also many dozens of national processes in our capitals and our parliaments. An amended Charter would require ratifications by Member States, one by one. I was involved in two reform processes of the Canadian Constitution in 1985 and 1993, respectively. In both cases, although negotiations succeeded and all those around the table agreed, the process of ratification failed. I learned from that experience  — twice over an eight-year period. I therefore come to this very different structure and stress that we must keep our eye on the ratification process. We should not just think about what it will take to get a deal among us. We must keep our eye on the fact that this process requires ratification in the United States Senate, in the Politburo in China, in France, the United Kingdom — the five permanent members  — and in two thirds of the parliaments of every one of us here. Think about that for a moment. In the light of what I have just said, when we present a proposal for a reformed Council to our national Governments, we will therefore need to ensure that it is the best possible proposal — not the best proposal, not the perfect proposal, not the proposal that people many people have touted and said “This is what I want.” As the song goes: “If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring.” Unfortunately, I do not, and I cannot, require that; none of us can. We should therefore stop looking for perfection. I think the problem is the search for perfection. My colleague from Japan, who spoke earlier, said  — and I know that many of the Group of Four representatives and other people say — that the problem is our working methods. If only we had a negotiated text, everything else would be solved. And I keep coming back to the point that this is not the case. We can all talk about the importance of sharing texts. I am quite happy for us to share documents, texts and proposals. That is not a problem. But what is a problem is this approach of saying we must have the best possible solution, the perfect solution. And what we say is no, we have to look at the best of what is possible. What is likely to be able to happen? And if others believe, as I do, that Security Council reform is actually essential right now. Somebody suggested that the reputation of the Security Council is in jeopardy. I do not think it is in jeopardy. I do not think it has a reputation because the structure that it has created and the vetoes that have been issued have created this problem, which is that the reputation just is not there. That is what makes reform urgent, and that is what makes practicality urgent. If we are really serious about reform, we are not going to look for perfection. We are going to look for the best we can do in the circumstances, as quickly as possible. That is what Canada wants, and it is attainable only if enough of us give up and abandon our search for perfection. As long as people are committed to the perfect solution for them, we will not achieve reform. It will not happen. And that would be a terrible thing. We have to understand that ratification is inseparable from our deliberations. If we were to reach an agreement that in fact is impossible for everyone to ratify, what good is it? Everybody says: “We will just let the others decide whether to say no. We will let somebody else effectively veto the proposal.” Then we would all just have wasted our time. We have not done what is practically necessary to get to a solution. In conclusion, it seems to me that there are a few fundamental points that I just keep repeating, but I think need to be said and done if we are to move forward. We in Canada believe that the establishment of five non-elected members of the Security Council was in fact unjust and undemocratic. It was a response to the circumstances of the time. It is not going to last. It does not serve us well at the moment. And it will not serve us well into the future. As we have all seen — and that is why we have been such an active General Assembly over the past several months — it has prevented Council action and effectiveness. It has recreated a permanence of animosity. Adding more non-elected members would only add more regional animosity, reduce action and reduce effectiveness. My colleague from Uruguay and other colleagues have said that they want new permanent members, but without a veto. The problem with that approach, in our view, is that the five non-elected members of 77 years ago are not the ones that the global community would choose today. I do not want to hurt anybody’s feelings, but that is a reality. The question that comes to my mind is, what is the world going to look like in 77 years? Some of us may be here, but I am pretty sure I will not be. But it is certainly important to understand that when we talk about permanent members without a veto, do we really know who the permanent members should be 10, 20 or 50 years from now? Do we actually know that? Can we predict that far into the future? No, we cannot. We do not think, therefore, that we should further ossify the Security Council through decisions that are actually irreversible. Once we have made a country a permanent member, good luck in trying to change that. We do not get that many kicks at this can. We have an opportunity now to try to actually do something. And if we make the wrong decisions, then we are in trouble. I heard vast agreement today that the veto should be eliminated, but tell me the last time that a permanent veto member said that it would give up the veto right. Does anybody believe that someone is going to go back to the United States Senate and say we have a new charter, but we have given up the veto? Good luck with that. It would be the League of Nations all over again. I mean, we have to get real. We would like it therefore to be constrained, and we think that is doable. We think that we can create enough momentum. We believe that the French- Mexican initiative and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, on veto restraint, is the way to go. My colleague from Liechtenstein is here today. Liechtenstein is a country that woke us all up to the fact that we can actually make the veto more accountable. We can actually do that. It is achievable. That is the way we should be thinking. What is achievable? What can we do within our human limitations? I do not think allowing more States to have access to the veto is an answer. But I also think it is a mistake to believe that we can identify today where permanency should lie. That is why I would propose, perhaps a little immodestly, that the wisest thing we can do is to come around together to consider the proposal from Uniting for Consensus. We are proposing structural changes  — increasing the size of the Council, guaranteeing more seats for developing countries, including Africa. That is doable, and I think it is actually the one thing we can do that is really achievable. We can also make it possible to look at the terms of membership on the Council. For the elected members. And there is a lot of room for creativity in that because, in a sense, we are saying to the permanent members: “Let us handle how we are going to elect the 21 or 23 or 25 — or however many there are — elected members. We will figure out the terms, and we will figure out how to do that.” And if we if we take that practical approach and get down to discussing how that might be done, we think it is all achievable. When I was a mediator, we used to refer to something we called the “zone of agreement”. When one goes into an impossible dispute and the parties are far apart, one must ask oneself “where is the zone of agreement?” Where is that concentric circle where we can say that at a certain spot lies the possibility of an agreement. If we try to add new veto- wielding members, we will not get it. It will not happen. I know that my African friends get very annoyed with me when I say that, but I do not believe it is possible or achievable. And even if it was achievable, I do not think that it would be a great, wonderful thing, because it is the veto that has got us into the mess that we are in at the moment. But making the Council bigger and elected, making its methods transparent, changing the relationship between the Assembly and the Council, changing the relationship between the Council and the other organs of the United Nations, getting rid of some of the Council’s dilapidated, hierarchical, secretive methods of work and replacing them with a more transparent and effective way of working — that is achievable. That is doable. And that is where I think we are going to find the zone of consensus. And if it requires a change in our own working methods to get there — fine — we can talk about that. It is not a taboo topic that we are not allowed to talk about. But that should be our focus. I think that we have an opportunity to make a change. I think that the fact that the President of the Assembly is so keen on and interested in that process is crucial. We have two new co-Chairs who are succeeding two other excellent co-Chairs. But as I said, the problem with our working methods is not that we do not write everything down all the time. The problem is that many of us are pursuing a goal like that of Don Quixote with the windmills — it does not work. And we will all have to abandon that in favour of a truly pragmatic, practical approach that will get us to where I think we would all like to get to.

Spain aligns itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy earlier today on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus group (see A/77/ PV.36), presenting in detail the group’s position in today’s annual debate on reform of the Security Council, and I would also like to add a few brief comments to highlight some of the points of that position that are key for my delegation. I would like to join others in warmly welcoming the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Slovakia and to assure them of my delegation’s full cooperation. I also want to stress that the format of intergovernmental negotiations remains the best way to make progress. As a member of Uniting for Consensus, Spain believes that Security Council reform is urgently needed. And since it is urgent, it is important to seek realistic ways of advancing the consensus and the agreements within the General Assembly. Under the Uniting for Consensus proposal, a greater number of Member States would have the possibility of serving as elected members on the Security Council, and some of them would be able to do so for longer or successive periods. And that is the key point of the Uniting for Consensus proposal I wanted to emphasize here today — the role of elected members and elections in the composition of the Council. Elections confer a higher degree of legitimacy on members of the Council, in addition to enhancing the participation of Member States from regions and interregional groups that have otherwise been underrepresented or set aside. In addition, periodic elections allow for scrutiny of the work of Council members, thereby enabling the organ itself to better adapt to changes in international relations. We support a reform model that enhances regional representation and works to achieve a more democratic and transparent Security Council, in which Member States that aspire to be elected members may have the opportunity to do so and thereby assume greater responsibilities in the maintenance of international peace and security. Reform of the Council must respond flexibly and adaptably to our world’s current reality and needs in order to prepare the Council for challenges that lie ahead. We believe that our proposals would enable us to strengthen confidence in the international system and in the ability of Member States to adapt to the new challenges facing the system today.

I would like to thank the President for convening today’s very important debate and the Permanent Representatives of Denmark and Qatar for leading the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform during the previous session of the General Assembly. Let me also congratulate the Permanent Representatives of Kuwait and Slovakia on their appointment as co-Chairs of the current session of intergovernmental negotiations. Estonia continues to deplore the lack of meaningful substantive progress on reforming the Security Council, the organ at the heart of the United Nations that bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, as the Charter of the United Nations clearly states. The inability of the Security Council to take any substantive decisions on Russia’s unprovoked, unlawful and unjustified aggression against Ukraine shows that such reform is more urgent than ever. The members of the Council, especially its permanent members, have a special responsibility in that regard. Any permanent member that exercises the veto to defend its own acts of aggression loses moral authority and should be held accountable. Russia has abused its veto power to block the Council from adopting resolutions regarding its grave violations of international law and the principle of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Do we really have to wait until an entire nation is wiped out? How many devastating wars will it take to move forward with this long-overdue reform? We therefore continue to advocate for a meaningful, results-oriented process for reforming the Security Council. The main goal of the reform should be a strengthened United Nations and greater transparency and ownership of the Security Council’s work and in the Council’s accountability to the wider United Nations membership. There is a clear need for increasing the membership of the Security Council based on equitable representation. Estonia was grateful for being entrusted for the first time in our country’s history with serving on the Council from 2020 to 2021 as an elected member. We are convinced that elected members play an important role in the Council that should be respected by the permanent five members. Elected members bring innovative approaches and greater transparency to the Council’s work and a greater willingness to find common ground and solutions. They are also more open to focusing the discussions of the Council on new and emerging security threats, such as climate change and cybersecurity. We continue to advocate for all States, especially small States, to have an opportunity to serve on the Council. We continue to stress that the question of the veto must be given careful consideration in the context of enlarging the Council. The increased threat of the use of the veto and the actual use of the veto by some members of the Security Council has left the Council paralysed and unable to react to situations in which action has actually been most needed. The failure of the Security Council to protect civilians from mass atrocity crimes severely and adversely affects its credibility. The permanent members of the Security Council should refrain from using the veto to block the actions of the Council directed at preventing or ending situations involving mass atrocity crimes. Such a vital commitment by all permanent members is already achievable on a voluntary basis, with no amendments needed to the Charter. There are no excuses for not following through on such a commitment in order to bolster the protection of civilians and the moral standing of the Council. Therefore, as a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, Estonia also actively supports the group’s code of conduct, which addresses the Security Council’s action with regard to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those two initiatives share a common goal and are complementary. We call on more States to join the code of conduct proposed by ACT group and the political declaration on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity proposed by France and Mexico, both of which were launched in 2015. In conclusion, let me reiterate the call for concrete and meaningful steps by the United Nations membership to advance our common goal of making the Security Council more representative, effective, transparent and accountable, and thereby more legitimate and results-oriented.

I will start by thanking the President of the General Assembly for his engagement of in promoting this constructive debate on the reform of the Security Council. I would also like to express my gratitude to my colleagues the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and of Denmark for their role as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session. I would also like to welcome the appointment of this year’s co-Chairs, the Permanent Representatives of Slovakia and of Kuwait, to whom I convey my best wishes and support for the challenging work ahead. Allow me to cite my Prime Minister, one of the 70 Heads of State and Government who referred to this matter at this year’s general debate. He said that, “We need a representative, agile and functioning Security Council that is able to respond to the challenges of the twenty-first century without becoming paralysed, and whose actions are scrutinized by the other Members of the United Nations” (A/77/PV.9, p.16). And indeed we need a Security Council that is better articulated with the General Assembly and incorporates a comprehensive view of security that recognizes, inter alia, the role of climate change as an accelerator of conflict and the mutual link between conflict and food insecurity. We need a Security Council that fosters a global vision of security that takes into account conflict prevention, peacebuilding and sustaining peace, while addressing new and emerging risks through holistic approaches. In that regard, we hope to see closer cooperation with the Peacebuilding Commission. Portugal considers that the process of reforming the Security Council must be inclusive, transparent and comprehensive, generating solutions that will be worthy of a wide consensus among Member States. It has been Portugal’s long-standing view that the current composition of the Council does not adequately reflect the international community’s diversity or its present-day realities. Only with increased balance and representation can the Council be fully empowered to face the growing, and in many cases unprecedented, threats to international peace and security. In that regard, we believe that consideration should be given to increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. Such reinforcement of the inclusiveness of the Council should not, however, compromise its efficiency. It is particularly evident that we need better representation for Africa in the Security Council in terms of both permanent and non-permanent membership. Portugal is a long-time supporter of the Common African Position and sees the growing consensus that has been gathering around it as an encouraging sign. Other regions and specific groups of countries also require better and more stable representation. In order to reinforce its representativeness, the Council needs more permanent members, including but not limited to Brazil and India. At the same time, more opportunities must be given to enable the participation of small- and medium-sized countries, based on the principle of geographic balance that must underpin the action of the Security Council. As many said before me, the process of reforming the Security Council must also include the continuous improvement of its working methods. Portugal has consistently defended that principle, especially when, as an elected member of the Council, we had the honour to chair the Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Matters. We will continue to strive for increased transparency, effectiveness and legitimacy within the Council, including as a member of the Accountability, Coherency and Transparency (ACT) group. In that regard, we encourage all Member States to join both the Franco-Mexican political declaration on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity and the ACT group’s code of conduct on the use of the veto, which currently has 124 signatories — close to a two-thirds majority of Member States. The veto initiative shows that there is a consensus among Member States on the need to increase scrutiny of the use of the veto. We sincerely hope that the intergovernmental negotiations will enable us to make decisive progress and broaden the scope of the elements of consensus for the reform of the Security Council, thereby increasing the effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations system and enhancing trust in multilateralism. Portugal is ready to continue supporting the process and help find the best possible solutions.

I thank the President for convening this important annual debate. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations at the previous session, the Permanent Representatives of the State of Qatar and of Denmark. We welcome the appointment of the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for the current session, the Permanent Representatives of the Slovak Republic and of the State of Kuwait. They have our full support. The world today is not the same as the world in 1945, when the United Nations was established, or the world in 1965, when the membership of the Security Council was expanded for the first and only time to date. As the world changes, it is also imperative that its institutions change with it. We believe that the current processes within the United Nations, including the debate on reforming the Security Council, show, on the one hand, the necessity and, on the other, the ability of the Organization to adapt to changes. Therefore, it is imperative that we continue our efforts to achieve the overall reform of the United Nations system and step up efforts to achieve Security Council reform. The events of this year have yet again and very clearly showed the world how urgent it is to reform the organ that holds the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. For the Council to be able to carry out that crucial task more effectively, it needs to be more representative and reflective of the realities of the international community, as well as more accountable and transparent. Allow me to highlight some of the key points that are important for Slovenia in the process. First, with regard to the intergovernmental negotiations themselves, we believe that they should strive to be as efficient, effective and results-oriented as possible. We welcome the practice of continually updating the co-Chairs’ elements paper. Slovenia’s position has always been that in order to achieve tangible progress, negotiations should be text-based and accompanied by the attribution of positions and proposals of Member States. We see the elements paper as an important contribution to that goal. We also believe that the intergovernmental negotiations process should be more open and transparent. That could be achieved by applying the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, meaning that we would have records of what is discussed. In that regard, we appreciate this yearly debate in the General Assembly, which is on the record. My second point concerns representation. Since the last time the Security Council membership was expanded, the membership of the United Nations as a whole has increased by 76 States. Making the Council more representative must therefore clearly be at the core of our discussions. We share the view that some groups are underrepresented, which should be urgently addressed. We support the Group of African States in its demand for more seats in the Council. There is clearly a historical injustice that should be redressed. We also think that other groups, such as small developing States, should be given more opportunities to serve on the Council. And because the number of members of the Group of Eastern European States has more than doubled in the past three decades, we also call for an additional non-permanent seat for that group. My third point is on the use of the veto. We believe that the holders of the right of veto should exercise it responsibly and refrain from misusing it for national interests. Nor should they shy away from taking positive action when it is urgently needed. As a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, Slovenia advocates for the ACT code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. There are 124 countries that have already subscribed to that important document, and we encourage others to follow their example. Slovenia also supports the French-Mexican initiative on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity and is a sponsor of resolution 76/262, on the veto initiative, as an important step towards greater accountability. My final point is about the categories of membership. The Charter provides for two categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent. We believe that the way to reflect the current realities is by expanding both categories, but we also welcome discussion on other possible solutions. Let me conclude by assuring members that Slovenia will engage constructively in the discussions. We once again express the hope that this session will see us gain enough momentum to lead to tangible progress.

I thank the President for convening this meeting to discuss reform of the Security Council. I would like to take this opportunity to join previous speakers in congratulating Ambassadors Michal Mlynár and Tareq Albanai, the Permanent Representatives of Slovakia and Kuwait, on their appointment as the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations for the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly. My delegation commits its full support and cooperation to the work of the co-Chairs during the current intergovernmental negotiations process. I also commend the valuable work done by Ambassadors Alya Al-Thani and Martin Hermann, the Permanent Representatives of Qatar and Denmark, during the seventy-sixth session. As we believe in comprehensive reform of the Security Council, we have already spelled out our specific comments and positions on each of the five categories under discussion in the intergovernmental negotiations process. In the interests of saving time, I will not repeat them again. Bangladesh was one of the 10 countries that proposed the inclusion of the agenda item entitled “The question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council” to the General Assembly in 1979. Many processes, initiatives, models and so on have been proposed since then for reforming the Council, including through intergovernmental negotiations. However, we have seen no meaningful progress yet. We have said again and again that it is high time that we reformed the Security Council, the most powerful organ of the United Nations. There is no debate about the importance of the Council. We all agree that its membership and structure are not in tune with the current realities on the ground and at the United Nations. The last time the Council underwent reforms was 56 years ago. If it is to be fully representative, relevant, effective and fit for purpose, it must be reformed. However, we think mere repetition of the same resolutions of the international community does not reflect well on our own conscience. We must do something in a timely and progressive manner  — something that is concrete and can be referred to in a meaningful way. There must be some order and method brought to the exercise. It is time to ask ourselves whether we are doing that. My second concern is about whether the expansion will fulfil the expectations of Member States that are not members of the Security Council. We understand that Council members should follow and abide by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, but is there any safeguard or mechanism for scrutiny to ensure that they are following the Charter and that could be cross-examined by the general membership of the United Nations? According to the way the Council’s work is currently conducted, only Council members, and the five permanent members in particular, have the power to exercise checks and balances. Earlier this year (see A/76/PV.69), the Assembly decided in its resolution 76/262 that its President would convene a formal meeting within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent members of the Council and hold a debate on the situation about which the veto was cast, provided that the Assembly did not meet in an emergency special session on the same situation. In view of the ever-evolving and challenging situations we are currently confronting, that may not be enough. We need to seek more innovations to assure the central role of the United Nations by ensuring that the voices of the general membership are heard on important and urgent global issues. It may sound frustrating, but it is a matter of great concern to many delegations as to how far and how long we can afford to debate for the sake of debate only. The Assembly is aptly represented by the best and most experienced people of their time. It would therefore be very difficult, if not impossible, to form new opinions that are different from the national positions or personal beliefs of the representatives of Member States. Do we need to find another smart way or modality to convince them to take genuine action for real discussion on reform? It is imperative that we show results. Until we are fully convinced of the viability of a new methodology for decision-making, we feel that building on the important work done in the past intergovernmental negotiations sessions is essential if we are to work towards the objective of achieving genuine reform. In view of the call from a large number of Member States, we see merit in having text-based negotiations. However, we also underscore how imperative it is to have an inclusive approach that faithfully reflects all the positions and opinions that have been expressed and to which all Member States subscribe in order to ensure legitimacy and acceptance. There can be no occasions more significant than the current global realities that are dictating the urgency of the reform of the United Nations, including the Security Council. If we cannot do it now, we may never be able to. Bangladesh stands ready to contribute to the process of building a consensus through a genuine, realistic approach, not to mention a fully participatory and inclusive process.

I join others in thanking the two new co-Chairs of the intergovernmental process for taking on such a demanding task and pledging our full support to them in their work. Council enlargement may not be imminent, but perhaps we will be able to benefit from the changed dynamic in which it will be doing its work in the coming session. In the many long years of efforts in that regard, the calls for the enlargement of the Council have never been stronger. The authority of the intergovernmental negotiations ultimately depends on the will of key stakeholders to show flexibility and make meaningful compromises. A number of years ago, Liechtenstein, in our national capacity, put forward an intermediate model, which proposes the creation of long-term renewable seats, without additional veto rights for any State. We believe that this model has the potential to better represent the geopolitical realities of today, as well as the current membership of the United Nations. It is unacceptable that some regions, Africa in particular, are seriously underrepresented in the Council, while our part of the world continues to be overrepresented. We fail to see how adding new veto powers can be considered beneficial to the effectiveness of the Council, which is the overall objective of Council enlargement, given the pernicious impact of the existing veto power on its work. But we agree that a permanent presence of additional countries selected for that purpose by the membership can help establish a healthier power balance in the Council and take the use of the veto to a better place. The past year has demonstrated, as much as any, the limitations of the Council’s current configuration. In the world’s most serious conflicts, we see the Council unable to act as innocent civilians are killed in conflict, including in Ukraine through the aggression of one of its permanent members. Council reform is a lengthy and intractable process, not in every respect commensurate with the urgency of the moment. We will continue pursuing meaningful measures within the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, as it currently stands. The most significant development in that respect has been the adoption by consensus of resolution 76/262, known as the veto initiative. We are grateful that this initiative, which we proudly led, resonated so strongly among the membership, as evidenced again in our debate today. We are confident that it will play a significant part in improving the effectiveness of United Nations action on issues of peace and security. The veto initiative is not a measure to reform the Security Council, as such, but it strikes a better balance between the Council and the Assembly, and it empowers and prompts the Assembly to make full use of its authority under the United Nations Charter. The veto initiative can provide great impetus for Council reform, and we welcome the impact it has already had on the use of the veto in practice. We are committed to exploring further meaningful steps, within the confines of the United Nations Charter, in order to address the veto. For years, we have advocated for the support and implementation of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which currently commits 125 signatories to not vote against any credible draft resolution intended to prevent or halt mass atrocities and to support timely and decisive action to prevent and end such crimes. Next year, there will be 11 code of conduct signatories on the Security Council — a new record — including two permanent members. We will also pursue other ideas to bring about meaningful change with respect to the use of the veto. We encourage in particular a conversation about Article 27, paragraph 3, which stipulates that the parties to a dispute should refrain from voting when action is taken in the Council — a provision that has been neglected for too long. How can the interpretation of the law be left to the actor whose behaviour it is supposed to govern? Nevertheless, that is the current practice with respect to Article 27, paragraph 3. We also look forward to seeing further statements from permanent members on their future use of the veto, ideally through declaring moratoriums, and more wide-ranging self-declarations with respect to the principles and commitments they are undertaking. We also believe that States aspiring to be given the veto should also share such statements with the membership in order to help us inform our discussions on intergovernmental negotiations.

We would like to thank the President for convening this important meeting and congratulate Ambassador Tareq Albanai of Kuwait and Ambassador Michal Mlynár of the Slovak Republic for their appointment to be the co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations during the seventy-seventh session. Please be assured of our full support for the work of the co-Chairs. I also thank Qatar and Denmark, the previous co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations, for their efforts during the previous session. We are living in a time of great geopolitical and economic uncertainties. The international security environment is the most complex in decades. In recent years, the Council has made efforts to respond to numerous security issues. It has maintained a high level of activity and decision-making, even during the height of the coronavirus disease pandemic. However, the Security Council is not always able to discharge its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. There is growing demand over its ability to fulfil this extremely important function and to reflect today’s reality. Viet Nam therefore reaffirms its consistent support for the reform of the Security Council in order to make it more equitable, representative, democratic, transparent, effective and efficient, with a view to better responding to current global challenges. It is our consistent view that the Security Council should be expanded in both categories  — permanent and non-permanent membership. Additionally, developing countries should be represented adequately within this important organ, with a view to closely reflecting their proportion in the membership of the United Nations. I also share the concern of many delegations about the underrepresentation of African States in the Security Council. The expansion of the Security Council should be complemented by the improvement of its working methods, which should ensure greater democracy, transparency, effectiveness and responsiveness. The use of the veto should be restricted and accountable. We have spent 14 years debating this issue. It is now high time that we move forward with the intergovernmental negotiations in order to address it. The intergovernmental negotiations process should be more substantive, with adequate tools and means for negotiations, which should be conducted in good faith, with mutual respect and in an inclusive and transparent manner. Global developments show us that it is becoming increasingly urgent to achieve the much-needed reform of the Security Council so that the Council, as well as the United Nations as a whole, can continue to prove its relevance and effectiveness in our world today. Let me conclude by reiterating our readiness to constructively engage in this process in order to find the best way to reform the Council.

My country’s delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by the Permanent Representatives of Sierra Leone and of Bahrain on behalf of the Group of African States and the Group of Arab States, respectively (see A/77/PV.36). I would like to deliver this statement in my national capacity. At the outset, I would like to sincerely congratulate the President of the General Assembly on his election and express to him my sincere thanks and appreciation for convening today’s important debate. We greatly appreciate the remarks made by the President at the beginning of today’s meeting, as well as the constructive consultations he recently conducted with all groups with the aim of exchanging opinions and viewpoints in order to develop a general vision for the next stage. On behalf of my country’s delegation, I also sincerely congratulate the Permanent Representatives of the State of Kuwait and of Slovakia on their appointment as co-Chairs of the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-seventh session and assure them of the Algerian delegation’s support and constructive contribution to the upcoming negotiations. I would also like to thank the previous co-Chairs, the Permanent Representatives of the State of Qatar and of Denmark, for their efforts in facilitating the intergovernmental negotiations at the seventy-sixth session. In line with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, in particular the principle of the sovereign equality of all Member States, Algeria attaches great importance to the issue of reform and fair representation in the Security Council, one of the main pillars of the comprehensive reform process of the United Nations. My country, Algeria, was one of the first countries to call for and encourage the process of expanding the membership of the Security Council and improving its working methods. We actively participated in the first meetings of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council. In that context, as a member of the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government on the reform of the Security Council, Algeria remains convinced that the intergovernmental negotiations are the sole and optimal framework for discussing the reform process, in accordance with decision 62/557, of 15 September 2008, which stipulates in particular that the positions and proposals of Member States must form the basis of those negotiations. We also stress the importance of, and the need for, observing the balance between the five main clusters on Security Council reform at the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations in order to ensure that one topic is not promoted to the detriment of any other. My country’s delegation also believes that Member States should first agree on the principles of reform with regard to the five main clusters. That is a prerequisite for starting to draft any text for negotiations on Security Council reform. It is important to note that the previous round of intergovernmental negotiations demonstrated an urgent need to achieve the utmost clarity and transparency on procedural issues for the upcoming negotiation process at the current session, before discussing the thematic issues. In that regard, any hasty initiative that compels Member States to undertake negotiations on non-consensual texts that only reflect some opinions could lead to adverse effects, causing States to cling to their positions and intensifying differences among them. Algeria therefore calls for placing an important emphasis on the intergovernmental negotiations, without imposing any steps or texts that lack the consensus of Member States, setting an inappropriate timetable or adopting a fragmented and selective approach that is not consistent with the spirit of comprehensive reform and does not take into account the desires and aspirations of all Member States on the reform process. Current events and circumstances, along with international geopolitical realties, compel all of us to undertake a comprehensive reform of the Security Council. In addition, the previous intergovernmental negotiations clearly demonstrated all Member States’ recognition of the need to meet the legitimate aspirations of African countries. They showed the need to address the historic injustice facing the African continent and how Africa has been unfairly made absent from all international decision-making processes, including on African issues. It is high time for the international community to address that continued and long-standing injustice in order to enable the African continent to play its important role at the global level, especially when dealing with the issue of allocating permanent and non-permanent seats to African countries in an expanded Security Council. Africa’s presence and representation need to be strengthened, as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, adopted by the African Union in 2005. The forthcoming intergovernmental negotiations need to reflect that and make it a reality. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate our full support for the President. We look forward eagerly to working with him in a consensual manner at the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations in order to make progress towards achieving fair and balanced representation in the Security Council so that it can carry out its primary role of maintaining international peace and security.

Before giving the floor to representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply, I would like to remind delegations that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and five minutes for the second and should be made by representatives from their seats.

I take the floor today to exercise India’s right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s continued abuse of the General Assembly. As we meet today to discuss the extremely important topic of the reform of the Security Council, the representative of Pakistan has yet again made unwarranted references to Jammu and Kashmir, which  — let me repeat it once again for his benefit — remains an integral and inalienable part of India, irrespective of what the representative of Pakistan believes or covets. Pakistan’s desperate attempts to peddle falsehoods and its bad habit of abusing the sanctity of multilateral forums deserves our collective contempt, and perhaps some sympathy as well.

I am obliged to take the floor to respond to the comments just made by the representative of India. Let me begin by saying that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral and inalienable part of India. It has never been. India keeps repeating that factually incorrect position in its statements at the United Nations. The fact of the matter is that, when India took the complaint relating to Kashmir to the Security Council, the Council explicitly and by implication rejected India’s claim that Kashmir is legally Indian territory. In several resolutions, the Security Council has recognized Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory and explicitly provided that the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people, expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite that is conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. Those United Nations resolutions were accepted by both India and Pakistan and are binding on both countries. They are yet to be implemented. India’s assertions on the status of Jammu and Kashmir are a direct affront to the Charter of the United Nations and the authority of the Security Council. It is also a negation of the principle of the right to self- determination — the very right enshrined in Article 1 of the United Nations Charter. Let me also recall that Article 25 of the United Nations Charter states that “[t]he Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” As a candidate for Security Council membership, India is in utter violation of that provision of the Charter. By its refusal to implement the Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir, India rides roughshod over the Charter as well as the legitimacy and credibility of the Security Council. Therefore, the mentioning of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s continued intransigence to not implement Security Council resolutions is very much pertinent to today’s debate. Recalling a ground reality is not an abuse, but an honest expression of the facts. Throughout the day, we have heard voices, including that of my delegation, calling for a more effective and transparent Security Council. We wonder how India, which seeks permanent membership of the Security Council, will add to the effectiveness and transparency of the Council when the country has blatantly proved over the past 74 years that it could not care less about the Council’s resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir.

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers tomorrow, Friday, 18 November, at 10 a.m. in this Hall.