S/PV.5968 Security Council

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2008/528, containing a letter dated 4 August 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Belgium addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept paper on the item under consideration. I also wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2008/418, containing a letter dated 20 June 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland addressed to the President of the Security Council. I welcome the participation of the Secretary- General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, at this meeting and invite him to take the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to address the Council on such an important subject. I welcome this open debate on implementation of measures intended to make the Council more efficient and transparent, and I am grateful to you, Mr. President, for bringing us together. Let me also express my appreciation for the tireless efforts of the delegations of Japan, Slovakia and Panama, as successive Chairs of the Council’s revitalized Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Over the past years, the Security Council has faced increasingly complex responsibilities in the maintenance of international peace and security. At the same time, we have experienced a surge in the demand for United Nations conflict prevention and management, peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities. This makes it essential for the Council to keep addressing issues related to its working methods, including by implementing the measures set out in the note of the President of the Council two years ago. These measures are a key step in making the United Nations more efficient, effective and accountable in the face of a growing array of new challenges. I commend the Council for its efforts so far. Consider what progress has been made in implementing the measures since the adoption of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) in July 2006. The Secretariat has also taken steps to make the recommendations in the note a reality, including those related to the timeliness and content of my reports to the Council, those on the familiarization of duly elected Council members, and the main technical points regarding wider and more user-friendly dissemination of information on the Council’s programme and activities to non-Council members. Since taking office, I have stressed the importance of full accountability as a fundamental organizing principle and operational guideline for the work of the Organization. As a Secretariat, we must ensure that we work and deliver as one to meet the mandates that the Security Council gives us and, at the same time, hold ourselves accountable for our behaviour and for outcomes. I am confident that the Security Council, which carries out its responsibilities on behalf of all Member States, is also guided by this principle. I appreciate that the members of the Council are committed to interacting with the wider United Nations membership through greater transparency, openness in decision-making and inclusiveness. I consider this to be pivotal to the way the Council works and is perceived by the international community. Since 1994, when the Security Council held its first debate on this issue, it has come a long way. I trust that the Council will consolidate the gains that have been made and keep moving forward. I look forward to working with the Council in strengthening even further the cooperation between it and the Secretariat. I shall keep extending my full support to the Security Council and its members for their tireless efforts to make this indispensable organ more efficient, transparent and inclusive.

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement. In accordance with the understanding reached among Council members, I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate the text in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber. I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

As a country that has consistently advocated reform of the working methods of the Security Council, Indonesia naturally strongly supports the convening of the present debate. We welcome, in particular, its open nature, as the Council can thereby benefit from the views of the wider membership of the United Nations. We appreciate very much the important statement made by the Secretary-General reflecting the importance he attaches to the subject we are considering today. Indonesia associates itself with the statement to be delivered later today by the representative of Cuba, on behalf on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). My delegation attaches great weight to the measures identified in the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2006/507 (19 July 2006). It is our belief that a systematic and concerted application of such measures would indeed help promote the Council’s transparency, interaction with non-Council members and efficiency. My delegation is therefore encouraged to note that the two years since the note’s issuance have seen some progress in its implementation. While welcoming this development, Indonesia can also see room for further progress. It is our conviction that the objectives of greater transparency, interaction with non-Council members and efficiency are compatible. Indeed, they are quite inseparable from efforts to further enhance the legitimacy of the Council’s decisions and their effectiveness. Transparency has recently been enhanced. Monthly programmes of work and forecasts have been made available. The United Nations Journal announces both formal and informal consultations of the Council and, to a certain degree, the meetings of the subsidiary organs. Not least, we have seen efforts to give renewed impetus to open meetings. However, not infrequently, the monthly programme of work and forecast of the Council bears little resemblance to the actual work of the Council in a given month. Unforeseen crises invariably seize the Council’s attention. Meetings, including formal and informal consultations, are convened at short notice. It is incumbent that the Council recognizes that this way of working is increasingly becoming the norm, rather than the exception. Thus, it would be appropriate for the Council to further develop an information dissemination system that responds to the dynamism of a fast evolving situation and yet is comprehensive and inclusive in its reach, in order to ensure that the wider membership of the United Nations is informed in a timely and accurate manner of the Council’s activities. We welcome the increased resort to open, formal meetings as another facet of transparency. In order to increase transparency, especially at an early stage of consideration of an issue, the Council should strive for open meetings. Indeed, unless there are strong, irrefutable arguments to the contrary, we believe that reports by the Secretary-General, already published and available to Member States, should be presented and considered at open meetings of the Security Council. It would be to the Council’s advantage to hear the views of interested Member States at that stage as well. Consideration of any follow-up action by the Council may take place at its subsequent informal consultations. Nevertheless, care needs to be exercised in evaluating the actual significance of the reported increased resort to formal meetings. We must ensure, for example, that the potential contributions of such formal meetings are fully harvested. The views of the wider membership deserve full consideration. However, not infrequently, presidential statements are issued immediately after open debates and resolutions are adopted before the views of the concerned countries are fully heard. The Council should allow sufficient time to incorporate the valuable inputs from concerned Member States. Also, we must be cognizant of the possibility that, as resort to formal meetings becomes more common, there may be a tendency for substantive consideration of Council decisions to take place outside of formal meetings, and even outside of consultations of the whole, through such processes as the “groups of friends”. The latter brings us to the question of greater interaction with non-Council members. We support the efforts of the Council to consult with the wider membership of the United Nations and other relevant stakeholders, particularly when drafting resolutions, presidential statements and press statements. We believe such interaction has the potential not only to enhance the quality of the Council’s decisions, but also to engender an equally important sense of common ownership in them, thereby strengthening the prospects for their effective implementation. As a country that strongly espouses greater cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, Indonesia naturally attaches particular importance to the ways and means that might facilitate interaction between them. In line with resolution 1631 (2005) and the World Summit Outcome document, the Security Council has on some occasions conducted enhanced consultations and cooperation with regional and subregional organizations, as well as the Group of 77 and China, the NAM and other groupings, to speak on specific subjects in its open debates. Investment in such interaction would help enhance the wealth of information, insights and the spectrum of perspectives that guide the Council’s deliberation and decisions and also promote synergy between the Council’s efforts and those of regional organizations. Of particular significance is the promotion of interaction between the Security Council and the troop-contributing countries (TCCs), not only in the drawing up of mandates, but also in their implementation and when the situation on the ground demands it. In short, more interaction between the Council and the wider membership of the United Nations should be promoted. A footnote, however, may be needed. It is important that such interaction be inclusive, involving each member of the Council, consistent in its application, reflecting the Council’s readiness to engage with parties that may make contributions to its decision-making, and transparent. Taken to the extreme, we are concerned by situations in which discussions on draft resolutions and statements are carried out outside the Council proper, leaving less than optimal opportunities for deliberation on them within the Council. No doubt, we are all for the promotion of efficiency in the Council’s working methods. In that connection, Indonesia wishes to acknowledge the important steps the Secretariat has taken in carrying out several of the recommendations identified in the note by the President contained in document S/2006/507. I should now like to share some concluding thoughts. Form follows function. We believe that in considering the various facets of the Council’s working methods, including the possible format of Council meetings, it is important that we not lose sight of the underlying objectives or aims of the activity in question. With regard to consolidation and further progress, we believe that it is important that the progress already made in the implementation of the note by the President be consolidated and that renewed and concerted efforts be made where progress is yet to be made. As a matter of principle, Indonesia shall consistently place a premium on working methods that promote transparency and greater interaction between the Council and the wider membership. Not least, we shall consistently place a premium on working methods that offer the best chance for the Council to speak with a common voice in carrying out its Charter-mandated responsibilities. It is imperative that the Council be transparent as well as equitable and just in its approach to all threats and disputes that imperil international peace and stability. We seek a Council that safeguards the interests of all and whose decisions and actions are in full consonance with the established principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

First of all, I would like to thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his statement. I also wish to thank the Secretariat for its strong support for the day-to-day work of the Security Council. We would also like to thank Costa Rica and the other members of the group of five small nations for their initiative in convening this meeting. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the members of the Security Council act on behalf of all Member States in shouldering the noble mission of maintaining international peace and security. Successfully carrying out that task depends upon the political will of Member States and, to a certain extent, on whether the Council has in place a set of working methods that are scientific, reasonable and effective. An ancient Chinese saying illustrates that same idea: in order to do a good job, a craftsman must first sharpen his tools. With regard to the Security Council, working methods that are reasonable and applicable constitute an indispensable tool in accomplishing our mission. Profound changes are taking place in the international situation. The agenda and practices of the Security Council have also been adjusted from time to time. The Council’s workload has increased drastically. The Security Council faces many new situations and problems. In order to better carry out its duties and increase its ability to confront various challenges to international peace and security, the Council must learn from its experience, keep up with the times and adopt more scientific and advanced working methods. This is not only a concern for the members of the Council, but also for the overall membership. With regard to improving the working methods of the Security Council, in recent years the Council has undertaken many useful efforts. The note by the President contained in document S/2006/507 reflected the positive will and determination of the Council to increase its effectiveness and transparency. There has also been an increase in recent years in the number of public meetings. Coordination with troop-contributing countries has also been strengthened. In the course of taking decisions, the members of the Council are trying their best to consider and adopt the reasonable opinions of various parties. Generally speaking, the Security Council has made progress in enhancing its transparency, increasing its interaction with non-members of the Council and strengthening its effectiveness. However, this is no time for complacency. We must recognize that both the general membership of the United Nations and civil society have greater expectations as regards the Council and its working methods. Improving working methods is a long-term endeavour that should always be part of the Council’s agenda and should be given priority consideration. Improving working methods is also an incremental undertaking. We must safeguard what we have achieved, maintain the momentum and continue to make progress. Improving working methods should also be a results-oriented undertaking that closely integrates debate on related issues and includes concrete measures. China supports the Security Council’s improvement of its working methods. We would like to thank the delegation of Belgium for the concept paper (S/2008/528) it has prepared for this open debate, with whose relevant analysis we agree. I should now like to make a few comments. First, with regard to enhancing transparency, China supports the Security Council’s holding of more open meetings. However, we believe that it is necessary for us to improve how public meetings are conducted. We should avoid reducing such meetings to lengthy and pro forma exercises. The interactive nature of public meetings should also be strengthened. The President of the Security Council or his or her designate should, in a timely, comprehensive and accurate manner, brief non-members of the Security Council about its work. Secondly, with regard to increasing communication with non-members of the Security Council, China has always believed that the Council should do its best to listen to the opinions of all parties in addressing concrete issues, especially the parties to the issue and the countries of the region concerned. During meetings with troop-contributing countries, those countries should be encouraged to provide input. We also encourage the members of the Security Council to strengthen informal communications with non-members of the Council. The format used by the Council to carry out informal dialogues with organizations such as the African Union should also be further exploited. At the same time, the Council should also step up its exchanges and sharing of information with other United Nations bodies, especially the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Thirdly, with regard to increasing its effectiveness given the drastic growth in the number of items on the Security Council’s agenda, the Council should concentrate on priorities and focus its attention on the most urgent issues. When placing new items on its agenda, the Council should adopt a responsible and cautious attitude. We agree on the need for a review of the current items on the agenda, in order to save resources and enhance efficiency. We are also concerned about the excessive attention given to theoretical issues. In addition, during consultations, full consideration should be given to the technical difficulties faced by Member States. Draft texts should also be circulated to all members as soon as possible, in order that countries may have enough time to consult their capitals. Improving the Council’s working methods is going to pose a daunting challenge for its work. Fortunately, the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions is playing a positive role by continuously considering and debating this issue. China encourages the Working Group to maintain enthusiasm for its work and to put forward useful suggestions on enhancing transparency and efficiency, as well as to carry out its work in a dynamic way in order to achieve tangible results. It is our hope that, with the common efforts of all members, positive changes can take place continuously in the work of the Council.

I would like to welcome the presence of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, among us, and thank him for his statement. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, and, through you, the group of five small countries, for choosing the timing of this debate and its subject. At the outset, we would like to align ourselves with the statement to be made later by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. This is the first time since 1994 that we have held an open debate on the reform of the working methods of the Council. Such a reform would be carried out on the basis of the concept paper before us, which has accurately laid out the framework of the discussion. The formal aspects of the note in document S/2006/507 do not undermine the importance of this debate, and, has been said, format is a twin of freedom. The note codifies practices that have been imposed since the 1990s to accommodate the changes that have taken place in the international environment and the increasing acceptance of the role of the United Nations in dispute settlement. We have therefore left behind the atmosphere of confidentiality of previous decades and established rules for announcements, statements and important briefings. There is no doubt that doing so offers a response to some of the demands of the international community, in particular after the holding of the 2005 World Summit. Despite all of that, ensuring continuous improvement means, by definition, that such efforts must be continued. The note is not the first attempt — and will not the last — and, as stated in its introduction, it is no more than a number of measures that were previously agreed upon. To summarize, complex texts that are difficult to understand do not provide an adequate response to the issues evoked, including those contained in the Secretariat’s document addressed to the Council dated 17 February 2007. That response highlights the fact that progress must be made on other elements, and a balance must be struck between the question of whether to hold informal consultations or meetings on the one hand and the type of meetings to be held on the other. Informal consultations, which take up most of our time must only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances. How can we respond to demands for reform and deal with matters that are important to all those who work for the Council, under Articles 24 and 30 of the Charter, when we are dealing with a nearly invisible body that is continuously in session behind closed doors, without any need or any objective justification for such an institution? Concerning meetings, if the note considers public meetings more important than private meetings, the many types of open meetings and public meetings and the reasons for selecting each one of them need more objective checks and definitions. We believe that an open debate, which is closer to a public debate, under rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure, must be considered more important than debates in any other format. That has not, regretfully, been the case. There is still hesitation — albeit often selective — within the Council in resorting to that format. We have no doubt that more transparency would enhance the legitimacy of our resolutions and promote their wider acceptance. Such acceptance will be achieved when the background and the different points of view in our debates are known by all and our commitment to the principles of the United Nations and Article 24 of the Charter can be verified by all. Some might say that an increase in transparency would be at the expense of the efficiency that is so important for a body responsible for international peace and security. But in focusing on efficiency, we should look beyond mere decision-making: an increase in transparency will not affect efficiency if it is carried out in the following manner. First, we must expand open debates, particularly on issues that have been under lengthy consideration by the Council, so that open debates become the rule and anything else the exception. The limitation of open debates or their late announcement affects the right of those interested in addressing the Council to do so and makes their participation more rhetorical than actual or effective. Secondly, we must develop the other formats of open debates, particularly press briefings, so that they allow wider participation, which would respond to the needs of smaller States for comprehensive briefings. Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, in particular, address that matter. Thirdly, we must develop and codify the participation of States that are not members of the Council in the work of the subsidiary bodies of the Council. Fourthly, we must deepen the Council’s relationship with regional organizations such as the African Union, since many of the issues that are considered before the Council have a direct impact on their members. There is no doubt that procedural matters evoke differences among Member States, something that the United Nations has known since its inception. The adoption of the rules of procedure of the Council has been frozen for a long time, and those rules remain provisional. There are many demands, of course, from within the Council and General Assembly as well as from outside, that we take some sort of action concerning this issue. A working group has been established and continues to undertake very important efforts under the leadership of Ambassador Arias. We are committed, under the terms of concept paper S/2006/507, to continue to work for that purpose. The working group has presented today a very important issue concerning its work. We support its work and we would like to get a briefing as soon as possible on that matter.

Allow me to first of all welcome the presence among us of the Secretary- General at this debate and to thank him for his statement. The Security Council today is, by general account, a remarkably more robust and intensive body than was the case a decade or more ago. Nowadays, the United Nations is becoming involved in an ever- increasing number of conflicts. There is an ever- increasing demand for United Nations peacekeepers and monitors. Sanctions and other effective measures are being applied to more and more cases worldwide. In addition, there is the modern scourge of terrorism and new threats such as the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction, all of which require special and detailed attention by the United Nations, its subsidiary bodies, in particular the Security Council, and Member States. When all of that is taken into consideration, the question remains: how can we comprehensively, adequately and effectively address those issues while at the same time not detrimentally affecting the work of this unique international body in the implementation of its mandate? As we have just mentioned, the agenda of the Security Council has become increasingly active in recent years. It is only natural that the interest of the general membership in its working methods has also increased. Questions have already been put forward on issues such as the transparency of the Council’s work, the Council’s effectiveness and efficiency, as well as interaction, cooperation and the general participation in the work of the Security Council by members and non-members alike, including troop-contributing countries, and the evolving role of regional organizations vis-à-vis the United Nations. Moreover, as was emphasized in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (General Assembly resolution 60/1), achieving greater transparency and better and more effective implementation of sanctions regimes imposed by the Security Council is another issue that merits continued debate. Croatia welcomes the good work and progress achieved so far in approaching those issues by both elected and non-elected members of the Council. We especially thank the delegations of Japan, Slovakia and Panama for their excellent stewardship of the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, as well as the so-called group of the Small Five, an important group whose efforts have gone a long way in stimulating those debates. We would especially like to offer our appreciation to Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan, whose efforts while chairing the Working Group led to the Council approving the note contained in document S/2006/507, which is the subject of today’s debate. Croatia supports the recommendation contained in the note, while at the same time believing that implementation of certain points contained therein needs to strike a balance between desirability and expeditiousness. We welcome the achievement of greater transparency in the Council’s work through briefings by the presidency to non-Council members, including regular meetings with troop-contributing countries, and an increasing number of open meetings of the Council. Even though my delegation supports having more open meetings, that idea should be tempered with a sense of what Council members wish to achieve in those meetings. While some may recall that prior to the 1990s, the Council conducted more of its business in open rather than closed meetings, one needs to keep in mind that the Council’s agenda at the time was far less ordered and indeed less full. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Security Council’s primary mandate is maintaining international peace and security, and that, and only that, should be the driving force in deciding the format of its meetings. Any reflections on or possible reform of working methods must be conducted in that light so as to help facilitate the more efficient and effective functioning of the Security Council as a whole. Conversely, the Council may wish to make better use of the wish for consultations and participation in its deliberations by countries particularly affected, including possibly countries host to peacekeeping operations, neighbouring States or even countries that are targeted for sanctions or that have sanctions implemented against them. My delegation has long believed that including or consulting with a country host to a peacekeeping operation during discussions among Council members on the future of that country can be beneficial to the Council’s decision-making process. Included in that are regional and subregional organizations. Such organizations are often ideally placed to help or advise the Security Council on overcoming crises erupting on a local or regional level. Using their expertise or having them pronounce on various crises not only should become common practice during open meetings, but also should be taken up during consultations among Council members, possibly by having them brief one or more interested Council members upon request. The President’s note and its recommendations were designed to improve the efficiency of the work of the Council. We believe that, through its practical implementation, that goal will be largely achieved. At the same time, we believe that the question of reforming or improving the working methods is not a static process and that further modifications to the aforementioned note through the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions may be appropriate at some time in the future.

First of all, my delegation would like to thank the Secretary- General for his briefing and you, Mr. President, for having organized this open meeting on the implementation of measures adopted in July 2006 to improve the effectiveness and transparency of the work of the Security Council and to enhance its interaction with the other States Members of the United Nations. France has always been concerned that the working methods of the Security Council should enable the Council not only to act effectively, which is fundamental to its credibility as the principal organ for maintaining international peace and security, but also to maintain a transparent and interactive relationship with the entire membership of the United Nations. Fourteen years ago, in this same type of debate on working methods, the Permanent Representative of France noted that there was a certain “malaise” in relations between the Council and other Member States, and noted that the malaise was largely due to the fact that the Council’s work was being conducted behind closed doors and without publicity. There was frustration on the part of non-members with the lack of information from Council members, who had little opportunity to exchange information with Member States with an interest in the agenda items. To improve that situation, France proposed a return to the spirit of rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, where it says: “Unless it decides otherwise, the Security Council shall meet in public”. That 1994 debate launched a real evolution. The opportunities for public meetings were extended, with the holding of policy debates, making it possible to hear the views of States interested in various ways in the items under consideration, as well as the organization of public exchanges of views among Council members on subjects not warranting private treatment. Since then, the Council has continued to improve its methods and procedures in that spirit of openness, and the note by the President of July 2006 was both the embodiment and amplification of those efforts. It is worth mentioning that that evolution coincided with the development of the Council as an active body, seeking to play fully its key role in resolving issues of maintaining international peace and security. That demonstrates well, we believe, that the opening of the Council to the outside and the enhancement of its transparency and its interaction with the rest of the United Nations also responded to the objective of effectiveness — which is in no way opposed to openness. Quite the contrary. The Council acts on behalf of all Member States and can act effectively only if it respects two conditions. It must take into consideration the concerns of Member States but also be accountable to them, which is possible only if there is openness and transparency. Of course, as we already emphasized in 1994, effectiveness also requires an appropriate split of Security Council activity between public meetings and the private consultations that are necessary to the conduct of negotiations and to the development of compromises. In that respect, we believe the figures given in the President’s concept paper (S/2008/528, annex) indicate a good balance. They show that the percentage of official Security Council meetings since 2006 has always been slightly greater than that of consultation meetings, while the proportion of official private meetings is very low. That balance seems satisfactory, in that it enables the Council to conduct the negotiations necessary to prepare decisions, which need a high number of informal meetings, and at the same time to interact sufficiently with the other Member States in official meetings. My delegation also believes that the list of possible formats for meetings in the annex to the note (S/2006/507) gives the Council enough flexibility to allow it to choose the best format depending on the issue being considered. Once again, the spirit of rule 48 means that official meetings should be public as far as possible. My delegation should like to note that consultations should remain what they are: informal meetings for preparing decisions and for negotiations. We do not believe it would be desirable to regulate them more. On the contrary, they should remain informal and interactive, in keeping with their purpose, and not aim to replace the substance of official meetings. Still on the subject of transparency, my delegation should like to recall the considerable progress emphasized in the concept paper, which was achieved thanks to the distribution of programmes of work and meeting announcements through modern means of communication. Direct informational notes to non-members of the Council from the Council President and the Chairs of subsidiary bodies are also extremely useful in that regard. Something more important than it might appear and that should be explored is how we add and remove agenda items on the list of matters of which the Council is seized. The present modalities for removing from the list items of which the Council is no longer seized are most restrictive and in a very specific way make it difficult to add certain items. Thus, the list is not always as precise as it should be about the substance of the Council’s deliberations: either it contains obsolete items or does not precisely mention other items. I believe that we need a more flexible way of managing the list to make it a better source of information on the matters of which the Council is seized. On the question of interaction with all Member States, the concept paper rightly notes the importance of consultation with Member States not members of the Council that are directly involved or specifically affected when preparing and drafting decisions. Measures making possible effective participation by such States and by representatives of regional organizations in official meetings of the Council would also be very useful. My delegation believes that the best possible use should be made of possible procedural modalities to enhance the interactivity of our meetings. In conclusion, my delegation commends Ambassador Arias for the manner in which he is chairing the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Under his chairmanship, the Group has done useful work on the list of matters of which the Council is seized. The Working Group has accepted Ambassador Arias’s proposal that it should continue to work on that issue, along with three other matters that are at the heart of today’s debate: the format of meetings and the implementation of paragraph 26 of document S/2006/507 regarding increased transparency of open meetings and paragraph 35 on various options for meetings; participation by Council members at various stages of decision-making and negotiation, including their association with the work of subsidiary bodies; and the role of the President of the Council and the Chairs of subsidiary bodies with respect to the broader public and to documentation and procedure. It seems to us that the programme of work adopted by the Working Group should enable it to engage in useful thinking on methods and procedures with a view to presenting possible recommendations to the Council by the end of the year. That could be one of the outcomes of today’s discussion.

The United States welcomes this opportunity to have an exchange of views with other United Nations Member States on the implementation of the measures set out in the annex to the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), issued in July 2006. The Council takes seriously the Charter mandate in Article 30, that it shall adopt its rules of procedure, and takes equally seriously the importance of making sure that other United Nations Members, our partners in the maintenance of international peace and security, are informed and appropriately involved in the Council’s work. For over a decade there has been an ongoing dynamic effort in the Security Council to ensure that information concerning the Council’s work is readily available to all United Nations Member States. Increased use of Internet websites has facilitated this process. The elected members of the Council have made significant contributions to this effort, particularly through their active participation in the Security Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. All members of the Council have supported the effort to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Council’s work. In July 2006, they expressed their commitment to implementing the measures devised for that purpose. The Security Council has issued a steady stream of notes by its President aimed at demystifying Council practice and procedures. The notes have been published as official United Nations documents and are listed in the Security Council’s report for the year in which they were adopted. Most also appear in a topical index published in February 2006. They cover a broad range of relevant subjects, including the agenda, the annual report, briefings, documentation, meetings and formats. Highlights of these notes are presented in a concise and user-friendly list in the annex to document S/2006/507. Today’s debate offers an opportunity for the Council to meet with the beneficiaries of that list to hear first-hand whether the practical application of the innovations listed in the annex to document S/2006/507 have helped them to follow the Council’s work. It is a consumer survey which gives Member States an opportunity to voice their views on implementation. At the same time, receptivity to the measures taken by the Council remains disappointing. We had hoped that the briefings by the Council’s President would provide first-hand information to Member States, but attendance at those briefings has been sparse. Similarly, despite the Council’s efforts to have greater recourse to public meetings, the Chamber is often half-empty. Nor has identification of the formats used in Council meetings — designed to assist other Member States in understanding the nature and purpose of the scheduled exchanges of views — stimulated participation. In May, when the Chairmen of the Council’s Committees briefed on counter-terrorism activities, a topic of concern certainly to all Member States, less than 10 non-members of the Council joined the debate. We hope the wider membership will take better advantage of the improvements already made to Council working methods, and we intend to listen carefully to constructive comments in order to assess the effectiveness of practices and measures taken by the Council to enhance efficiency and transparency. That information will inform the future efforts of the Council’s Working Group on documentation and procedure.

I thank you, Mr. President, for taking the initiative to organize this important open debate of the Council. I thank the Secretary-General for his participation and his statement. My delegation has always strongly advocated the convening of an open debate which would provide an opportunity for all interested United Nations Member States to share their assessments of the progress in the implementation of the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507 of July 2006 and contribute ideas on how to further its effective implementation. We share the views contained in the statement to be delivered by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), which stresses that reform of the Security Council should not be confined only to the question of the equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council, but should also address substantive issues relating to the Council’s agenda, working methods and decision- making process. We further share the view of NAM that transparency, openness and consistency are key elements that the Council should observe. From a body that used to meet only a few times a month, the Council has turned into one that held 219 formal meetings and 177 consultations of the whole between August 2007 and July 2008. We commend the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, as well as the Secretariat, for their efforts to enhance the implementation of the measures agreed upon through the July 2006 note with a view to making the work of the Council more efficient. We are encouraged by positive developments to that end, particularly a growing trend towards transparency, with an unprecedentedly large number of open meetings held by the Council, and more intensive participation by non-member States in the Council’s work than ever before. Regarding the commitment set out in paragraph 29 of the July 2006 note, during the first six months of this year, the countries concerned spoke first on 25 occasions in 34 Council meetings with their presence. We also appreciate the efforts of all Council members to intensify consultations with the broader United Nations membership, in particular interested Member States, their neighbouring countries and regional organizations and groups of friends. To further the Council’s work in this direction, while supporting all the recommendations by NAM contained in the aforementioned statement, I wish to emphasize the importance of the following measures. First, due attention should be given to the Council’s regular consultations with the parties concerned, including regional and international organizations. We consider as useful practices such as the President’s briefings to the public and the media and the July presidency’s consultation with not only Council members, but also the United Nations membership at large, in the process of preparing the annual report on the work of the Council to be submitted to the General Assembly, and we believe that such practices should become routine. Secondly, Member States should be allowed — in fact, they should be invited — to present their views before the Council takes action concerning them. That would make the Council’s decisions accepted as more legitimate and fairer, and thus more conducive to cooperation by Member States in the process of implementation. Thirdly, more open debates, such as the one we are having today, should be convened in order to give the general United Nations membership greater opportunities to express their views on related issues. In order to avoid abuse in that regard and the perception of double standards in any Member State’s support for that measure, it must be coupled with efforts to avoid Council involvement in issues not falling within the purview of its mandate, which is the maintenance of international peace and security. Transparency must not be promoted at the cost of making the work of the Council overlap with that of other bodies, such as the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and development and other agencies, and hence of weakening their coordination. Fourthly, resort to Chapter VII of the Charter in order to address issues that, by their nature, are not threats to international peace and security must be avoided so as not to create a confrontational atmosphere or situations in which the Council cannot act or speak with one voice, or even situations that could lead to the possibility of vetoes. My delegation and the majority of Member States believe that, pending their eventual elimination, vetoes should be confined to matters truly appropriate for consideration under that Chapter. As a responsible non-permanent member of the Security Council, Viet Nam has been trying its best to contribute to the improvement of the Council’s working methods, in the interest of the entire United Nations membership and of international peace and security. In carrying out our task as President of the Council last month, we were guided by the aforementioned concerns. We look forward to working with the other members of the Council and of the United Nations at large in that direction.

First of all, permit me to thank you, Mr. President, and your delegation for the holding of this public debate on a topic of particular importance to my delegation. We are confident that your dedication and leadership will ensure that our deliberations today will have concrete results that will optimize the Council’s work. We also highlight the Secretary-General’s presence at this debate, which clearly shows the Organization’s commitment to promoting the effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council. In addition, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the Small Five group, in particular Ambassador Urbina and the delegation of Costa Rica, to promote this debate. The Security Council’s working methods are not an end in themselves, but one of the ways to ensure that the Council fulfils, as efficiently and effectively as possible, the obligations and responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations. Before making a few specific comments, we believe we should point out that the Security Council, because it is an organ whose membership is limited, will always have a problem of representativity. What is more, today it is generally accepted that the Council does not reflect current socio-political realities. That lack of representativity means that the Council’s working methods must be aimed at, inter alia, correcting that deficiency to the extent possible. From that perspective, we shall analyse a number of the topics that, concerning the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), have been presented in the current presidency’s concept paper (S/2008/528) and that we believe to be of particular importance. With regard to the holding of Council meetings, it is important to note that article 48 of the provisional rules of procedure states that the Security Council, unless it decides otherwise, should meet in public. In Panama’s opinion, unless there are important reasons justifying the opposite, all Member States should be allowed unconditional access to Council meetings. That alone would contribute significantly to the transparency of the Council’s work, its interaction with Member States and, hence, its effectiveness. Likewise, it is vital that the Secretariat’s reports be disseminated to all Member States in a timely manner. Furthermore, the Council’s effectiveness depends on the appropriateness of its decisions and on their due implementation. To that end, it is particularly important that the Council take its decisions after it has become thoroughly familiar with the relevant situations and their consequences. In order to gain such a level of understanding, it is necessary to know and understand the views of each and every country that could be affected by the Council’s decisions. Such Council consultations should be broadened to permit greater participation in the Council’s deliberations by persons or groups other than Member States. In addition, such consultations should be held as often as required. In particular, however, they should be held sufficiently in advance so that they can achieve the desired goal of informing the Council’s decisions. In that context, it should be pointed out that the adoption of the mechanism known as the Arria Formula meeting was a significant step forward in the process of enhancing the transparency of the Council’s work. The Arria Formula must now be formalized and broadened with a view to greater participation. That principle applies both to the Council and to its subsidiary bodies. In that connection, Panama wishes to reaffirm its support for the practice of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict of inviting to its meetings countries affected by its decisions, as an example to be followed by all subsidiary bodies of the Security Council. We believe that that practice has particular relevance for the Counter-Terrorism Committee as a subsidiary body. Finally, Panama would like to reiterate that the thematic debates of the Security Council should be aimed principally at discussing matters under the Council’s consideration and informing the Council as to the positions of Member States in that regard, and that such debates should not serve as a way for Member States to air their views on general issues. There are other, more appropriate forums for that purpose, in particular the General Assembly. In conclusion, I should like to reiterate our position that the Security Council’s working methods are not an end in themselves, but one of the ways to ensure that the Council can carry out the duties and responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter.

I should like to welcome the presence of the Secretary- General, which shows his interest in the well-being and the strengthening of the entire Organization. I wish to thank the Belgian delegation and you in particular, Mr. President, for having granted the request made two months ago by the delegations of Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, and my own delegation, that an open debate be held on the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), submitted in 2006. As Council members are well aware, agreement to hold this debate was not easy to reach. The idea that the working methods of the Security Council are the exclusive domain of its members is a stumbling block that has always been difficult to overcome. Costa Rica speaks today, unsurprisingly, as a member of the General Assembly. This is our only permanent status, which guides our perspective and our interests and which cannot be different from the interests of the Organization when considered as a whole. The premise established in Article 24 of the Charter, according to which Member States acknowledge that the Security Council acts on Members’ behalf, seems to be a one-way street. Member States must recognize that the Council acts on their behalf, but the Council does not often recognize that it acts on behalf of the member States. This perception, according to which the Council is an autonomous organ independent of the membership of the United Nations, must yield to the unshakeable realities of our time. We live in an age in which the transparency of decision-making processes and the accountability of representatives to the represented have been established as solid principles in all organizations, independent of their nature. Let’s be clear: no one is attempting to take decisions that, because of their nature, fall under the purview of the Council and no one is expecting a revolution in the working methods of the Council. An important group of Member States, as reflected in the requests received by the President, aspires simply to have the Council listen to their assessments of the way it carries out its duties and to some suggestions, which may very well improve the efficacy and the legitimacy of the Council’s decisions. The attitude of some members of the Council, who seem hesitant to examine the Council’s working methods in an open debate, seems to indicate that more than simply a change in the norms of the Council is necessary — there needs to be a change in the Council’s attitude. That is what these last few months have shown us since we became members of the Council. It seems that the culture that has become entrenched here in the last few years has fostered the unity of this body as an end in itself, which was not always the case. The diversity of interests among the permanent members and the elected members should not be mentioned, even less so the possibility of clarifying procedural matters or deciding the format of a meeting through a vote. Of all the cultural norms of the Council, however, the most detrimental is the attitude of exclusion in relation to the great majority of Member States, whose presence in the Council is very rare, if even having taken place at all. The 2006 note by the President marks an important milestone in the history of the Security Council. This is an opportune moment to recognize the work of the former representative of Japan, Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, as well as Ambassadors Peter Burian of Slovakia and Ricardo Arias of Panama, who succeeded Mr. Oshima in the chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Certainly, the note represents the crystallization of a process that had been going on for the fifteen years prior. It analysed and resolved, at least in theory, many of the concerns of the membership of this Organization. Nevertheless, the periodic examination of the Council’s practices makes it possible to conclude that the challenge of consistently implementing adopted agreements and rules still remains. Notwithstanding the decisions that have been made, Costa Rica believes this Council should be interested even more in the input that can be given by those who have a legitimate interest or are going to be directly affected by the Council’s decisions. Despite the agreements reached in this direction, its practice reveals important shortcomings. The frequent use of informal mechanisms should be the usual practice before reaching agreements in the Council. A decision-making process that does not include transparent and direct communication of the Council, as a whole, with interested parties cannot be considered legitimate. Another subject that deserves greater attention is the public aspect of the actions of the Council. Although it is true that there has been progress in the number of public meetings as compared to other years, we are far from the spirit of the norm, which establishes that every meeting of the Council is a public meeting as a general rule, unless expressly decided otherwise. We recognize that there are situations that demand discretion, but we disagree with a practice that has in fact inverted the language of the norm. It is also true that public meetings demand a greater degree of preparation and require greater responsibility from all of us. However, none of this justifies the non-compliance of a stipulation that was adopted by the Council and whose compliance is demanded by a large part of the membership of the Organization. In looking at the six meeting formats of paragraph 35 of the President’s note, four guarantee greater access to countries which are not members of the Security Council. The Secretariat has the duty to facilitate the application of this existing rule, which favours transparency and accountability, by presenting open formats for all meetings as a first option in the proposed programme of work, prepared by each presidency of the Council. It is up to the members of the Council to argue and to convince others regarding the use of a private format on an exceptional basis. With regard to the implementation of paragraph 27 of the note, I will not dwell on that subject much, but, before I conclude, I want to reiterate the shared responsibility of all members of the Organization, whether they are members of the Security Council or not, to contribute to the correct implementation of all agreements on the working methods of the Council. We often witness a lack of interest of many members of the Organization in the work of the Council, a lack of attention to the information that is available and the sparse use made of the opportunities offered. Those opportunities must be taken advantage of, rights must be exercised and the responsibility must be assumed. We have defended, in the abstract, the opening of channels for participation prior to the taking of decisions. We are willing to do so concretely in accordance with the explicit requests of interested parties. Not all of the doors of the Council are closed, and we are willing to work to open them up more and more. But these doors will remain open only if interest is shown in using them. We spoke before of the need for a change in the prevailing culture more than a change in norms. This change in the prevailing culture includes all of us: the Council, the Secretariat and each and every one of the Member States. I wish to conclude by affirming that the holding of this debate, which is an important achievement, must be a responsible and constructive exercise. I would also conclude by affirming that all of us, especially the members of the Council, must keep in mind that all exercise of accountability has, by virtue of its nature, ingredients of criticism, which should not perturb anyone. The price of constructive and beneficial criticism is the possibility of the misuse of these opportunities, and this is a small price to pay for the gains that are derived from a frank and constructive exchange. If we can share this spirit — being open to dialogue, to constructive criticism and to creative suggestions — we should agree that it is not necessary, neither is it possible, to have to wait another 14 years to have a further opportunity to debate about matters regarding the working methods of the Council with all the Member States. We advocate for periodic open debates on these issues every two years, so that each elected member can have at least one opportunity, during its tenure of membership of the Council, to debate the working methods of this organ. Today, we are sure that this exchange will enrich the discussions at the core of the Working Group on Documentation with a view to making decisions, and we are going to work to make this happen.

We too welcome the participation of the Secretary-General in our debate today. My delegation also wishes to associate itself with the statement that Cuba will make on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, a statement that goes to great lengths to point out some of the working methods that need to be considered during this debate. The Charter of the United Nations has endowed the Security Council with a mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security and the power to take decisions that bind sovereign States. By doing so, it gives the Council a far-reaching impact on the lives of many people in the world. For this reason, we welcome the improvements in the working methods of the Security Council as detailed in document S/2006/507. While they are modest measures, they remain meaningful steps towards improving the work of the Council and are an effort to try to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Council’s work. The challenge is to ensure that these measures are fully implemented and made permanent, so that the Security Council can be predictable. In recent years, the Security Council has adopted various measures aimed at improving its working methods. However, as long as the rules of procedure of the Council remain provisional, those changes will always seem inadequate. Even if the working methods were dramatically improved in accordance with all the suggestions that have been made so far, the core problem would remain, namely, that over the past 60 years, the Security Council has witnessed the gradual erosion of its credibility and authority. Its representativity has been challenged increasingly, as it addresses matters that have expanded beyond the vision that the founders of the United Nations foresaw in 1945. In our view, the Security Council must be reformed to address both enlargement in its categories of membership and improvement in its working methods. Anything less is papering over the cracks in the foundation on which this organ was built more than 60 years ago. In the past decades, permanent members of the Security Council have sought to utilize the Council to further issues in their own interest. There have also been occasions where resolutions of the Council have been brought up for decision with little or no opportunity for meaningful discussion by its entire membership. We have always had been troubled by the fact that issues such as Kosovo, Western Sahara, non-proliferation, and even Georgia, are regarded as of interest, at least to some members of the Council, to the exclusion of other issues. On the question of the Middle East, people around the world are well aware that the Council has remained paralysed in trying to address the plight of the Palestinian people 40 years after the illegal occupation of their land. This problem is further complicated when the Council deals with issues that involve groups of friends and contact groups that draw on States Members of the United Nations from outside the Council. Typically, these small groups are dominated by or entirely comprised of developed countries. They usually operate in secrecy and seek to impose their views on the rest of the membership of the Security Council by drafting resolutions that the Council is then expected to endorse without any further discussion. For South Africa, given our desire for transparency and political inclusiveness, the small group phenomenon presents a significant problem. Yet, we indeed endorse innovations that involve the groups of friends and contact groups as useful tools for the Council to reach out to consult with the broader membership. However, these outreach innovations will only be beneficial if they complement the work of the Council in an open, accountable and transparent manner. On numerous occasions, the Council has been criticized for its tendency to encroach upon areas of responsibility assigned to other United Nations bodies, such as the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council, thus weakening the United Nations as a whole and opening the Council’s agenda for manipulation and the promotion of bilateral agendas. The Council can stem the erosion of its credibility and transcend the divisions and the national interests of its members by uniformly discharging its Charter-based mandate to maintain international peace and security. The international community needs a Security Council that is representative and functions in an effective and predictable manner. The fact that the Council has always operated through provisional rules of procedure is central to this debate. It also does not help that, when the Council was created, the membership of the United Nations as a whole constituted 51 countries — a number that has now almost quadrupled — and that since its creation the Council has been expanded only once — over 40 years ago. Again, until the Council is fully representative and can operate in a manner that is easily understood, its credibility, legitimacy and even its working methods will always be challenged.

Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank you and your delegation for organizing today’s Council meeting on its working methods. We believe that a dialogue on these important issues requires a balanced, professional approach, and one that does not politicize the substance of the item under discussion. Russia, as a permanent member of the Council, favours increasing the effectiveness of the Council’s work, while maintaining its expeditiousness, with a reasonable balance between transparency and effectiveness in its work. We will not forget that the important thing is to build the Council’s capacity to carry out its prerogatives under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. The questions of enhancing the working methods of the Council lie within its exclusive competency. These questions must be considered within the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Work in this area is not public, yet it should be done on a planned basis and through rational, constructive interaction with all interested delegations of States Members of the United Nations. In recent years, significant progress has been achieved in increasing the openness of the work of the Council, as evidenced by the regular practices of holding open meetings, of inviting interested parties to them, of briefings by the President of the Council for United Nations Members, and of consultation with a wide range of international participants. Increasing the quality of its interaction with other members of the Organization in connection with issues falling under the Council’s competency is a key element in improving the Council’s working methods. It is currently our practice to establish ways and means to carry out dialogue between the Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, other United Nations bodies, regional organizations and international partners. The current mechanisms for interaction work; however, there is no doubt in this regard that, working together, we could focus on finding additional ways to enhance them. We support further strengthening the practice of holding active consultations between members of the Council and countries contributing troops to peacekeeping operations, in order to ensure that those countries can participate at the earliest stages of planning for such operations. In doing that we must fully utilize exiting procedures as well as previously adopted Council decisions in this area. This has to work like a two-way street. It is important that the Council also receive the fullest assessment possible from troop-contributing countries with regard to the relevant issues. We believe that troop-contributing countries will participate more actively with members during Council meetings. We believe that increasing transparency in the work of the Council could benefit from the Russian initiative on reinvigorating the Military Staff Committee to ensure the relevant level of military expertise as the Council develops the military aspects of its peacekeeping operations. The time has come for that body to function with its full Council membership. We believe that implementing this proposal should be of interest to both the permanent and non-permanent members of the Council. Under the provisions of the Charter, there is an opportunity for constructive involvement in the Committee’s work by interested countries contributing troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations. We believe that any enhancement of the working methods of the Security Council must continue to take place on a regular basis within the Working Group especially established by the Council for that purpose, which is currently headed by Ambassador Arias. We welcome the very constructive cooperation that exists in that body. That work should be subordinate to the priority task of effective and expeditious work on the part of the Council in maintaining international peace and security, in strict compliance with the Charter of the United Nations. Sir John Sawers (United Kingdom): I would like to begin by thanking the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica for calling today’s debate, as well as you, Mr. President, for convening the meeting. I should also like to thank the Secretary-General for the interest that he has shown in the meeting. Continually improving the way we work is a practice relevant to all international organizations. Its basic objective is at the heart of my Prime Minister’s initiative on international institutional reform. All organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council, have a responsibility to ensure that they work effectively and transparently. The views expressed here, including by non-members of the Council, will inform the ongoing work of the Council on its working methods. The United Kingdom played a full and active part in the drafting of the 2006 note (S/2006/507) by the President and fully supports its implementation. There is much being done already. Individual Council members have an obligation to do all they can to promote and implement the measures we have agreed. For example, during the United Kingdom’s presidencies of the Council we made it a priority to notify Council members in advance of a meeting of the main themes under consideration, to help focus the discussion. We also briefed non-members of the Council at the beginning and end of our presidencies, as well as immediately following each discussion of the Council. Beyond those times during which we held the presidency, we have sought the view of a wide range of interlocutors on issues under discussion by the Council — for example, through the use of Arria Formula meetings. A case in point is our work on Somalia, where an Arria Formula meeting in March provided an opportunity to hear views from outside organizations involved in Somalia. That fed directly into the Council’s work. We also hosted an Arria Formula discussion on sexual violence in conflict, followed by the open debate under the United States presidency later in June. There are some welcome trends towards greater transparency in the Security Council. The Council now meets more in formal meetings and has fewer informal consultations in proportion to the year 2000, for instance. The Council’s discussions on Timor-Leste last week illustrated our flexibility with regard to the format of meetings. We had both formal debate and private consultations, allowing for participation by interested parties and interactive discussion between Council members and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. There will always be a need to balance transparency with the need for the Council to be able to work effectively. It is right that the Council continue to look for ways to open up its work to non-members. The Council has also shown a greater willingness to consult and take advice from expert bodies. Expert panels assist with the monitoring of sanctions and assist the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004). In the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate the Council has institutionalized a standing body of expertise designed to monitor global standards mandated by the Council. The Peacebuilding Commission is well-placed to create a new centre of expertise. The Council is working harder. Twenty-four substantive subjects were discussed in the period 1996-1997. Ten years later, from 2006-2007, the number had doubled to 49. Ad hoc committees that deal with a range of thematic issues, such as children in armed conflict, sanctions and peacekeeping operations, have been created. That thematic approach feeds directly into country-specific issues, broadening the debate and highlighting linkages between different issues on the Council’s agenda. All of that helps us in our primary role of maintaining international peace and security. The Council has also increased its interaction with regional organizations. We have responded to requests from African countries to enhance our relationship with the African Union and its peace and security machinery. That led to meetings of the Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council in 2007 and 2008. Those are all positive trends, but this is an ongoing process. I would like to identify the following areas where the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which is under Ambassador Arias’s able chairmanship, could do further work. First, we could consider our practice on the use of rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure for parties to a conflict who are not Member States to take advantage of the scope offered by that rule. Secondly, we can look at further ways of keeping the Security Council agenda up to date and self- explanatory. The title of today’s debate is a classic example of using bureaucratic language rather than something that can be readily understood by all. Thirdly, we could take up the responsibility of the Council presidency to guide the Council without constraining it and ensure that the standards of effectiveness and transparency set out in the 2006 presidential note are implemented and upheld. Those areas, as well as others that emerge today, will play a crucial part in informing the discussions of the Working Group. We look forward to taking that forward in the Group in due course. In closing, I would like to reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to ensuring that the Council is as transparent and as effective as possible.

I would like to begin by congratulating and thanking your delegation, Mr. President, for the initiative to hold this debate on such an important matter as that of the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation, of course, very much appreciated the presence of the Secretary-General at our meeting. Exploring ways and means of improving the transparency and effectiveness of the work of the Security Council, thereby strengthening interaction with non-members, is a very commendable initiative that, beyond making it possible to consider calls made by non-members, also serves as a significant contribution to ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Council. The Council’s working methods, which are at the centre of its work, also serve to give it legitimacy and to ensure greater acceptance of its decisions. In that connection, my delegation, which associates itself with the statement to be delivered shortly by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, would like to make some comments. We welcome the progress achieved to ensure that the Security Council’s work is more transparent, but additional efforts must be deployed in order to take into account, to a greater degree, the views expressed by the member States that are not members of the Council and to ensure that better information is available. That means, in particular, holding more public debates and also that, as far as possible, public briefing sessions be led by the chairmen of subsidiary bodies and special envoys and representatives of the Secretary-General. We also believe that the report of the Council to the General Assembly should be more analytical, in order to give a better account of its activities to all Member States. In addition, when decisions are drafted, it would be appropriate to take into account certain existing recommendations on transparency, inter alia the note by the President of 17 February 1999 (S/1999/165), recommending that all Council members be able to fully participate in the drawing up of Council resolutions and presidential statements and have sufficient time for doing so. Submitting the texts of draft resolutions just before the deadline for their adoption, even if they are supported by groups of friends or other external partners, is a practice to be avoided. In our view, we should use the groups of friends as little as possible, since, even if they are useful on occasion, they can also sometimes hinder transparency and lead to frustration. When it comes to the effectiveness of the Council’s work, my delegation attaches the greatest importance to the timely distribution of reports in all the official languages, in compliance with the presidential note of 26 March 2002 (S/2002/316). That would enable delegations to make substantial contributions to debates, and allow national authorities to gain useful prior knowledge of those reports. It is also important for the quality of its decisions that the Council be able to take into account the views expressed by non-member States in the course of its meetings. Decisions must therefore be taken after debates, so that, as far as possible, those decisions may reflect the views expressed. A better presentation of agenda items and a rationalization of the agenda could also enhance the work of the Council. The issue of enhancing interaction and dialogue between the Council and non-member States is of particular importance to my delegation, as I have already said. Here, we would recommend increased recourse to the Aria formula, which allows direct interaction between all interested stakeholders on a given issue. The Council would also gain from enhancing communications with the troop-contributing countries, whose opinions should be taken into due account, and from discussions with all Member States with information relating to operations in the field. In the same vein, we would suggest that the Council report on the missions it undertakes in public meetings, and that the representatives of the countries visited participate. Such missions put Council members in direct contact with the reality of the questions that they are dealing with, and that experience should therefore be shared with all Member States of the Organization. Allow me to address the question of Security Council committees and to express our full support of the recommendations in the president’s note of 29 March 1995 (S/1995/234), which lists the improvements that could be made to the procedures of those subsidiary bodies. Sanctions committees must enhance their communication with the States concerned and grant requests often made by countries that wish to speak during private committee meetings. We also believe that a detailed review of the listing and de-listing procedures of those committees should be carried out in order to ensure that such procedures are more transparent and in accordance with the relevant instruments on human rights. I cannot conclude without adding my voice to those of the Member States who would like to see the formal adoption of a final version of the rules of procedure of the Council, instead of the provisional version that the Council has at present.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Belgium. Maintaining international peace and security has been one of the key objectives of the United Nations since its establishment. Thus, in 1945, the authors of the Charter decided to confer the main responsibility for that item to the Security Council, as the Charter says in Article 24, “in order to ensure prompt and effective action” on the part of the Organization. As a result, the credibility of the Security Council is based largely on that very ability to act in a prompt and effective manner. Obviously, that capacity also depends, as others have emphasized before me, on the political will of its members. Article 24 of the Charter contains a second idea that is just as important. In meeting its responsibilities, the Council acts on behalf of all Members of the Organization. That provision is inextricably linked to two other important elements in any discussion on the Council’s working methods: on the one hand, transparency, and on the other hand, interaction with Member States that are not members of the Council, in particular with those who are directly affected by specific situations. Some 60 years after the establishment of the United Nations, that transparency and need for access have become even more essential. The right balance between effectiveness, transparency and access remains a major challenge, even if those three principles are not, in my delegation’s opinion, contradictory, but rather complementary. So how do we meet that challenge? — first of all, through a pragmatic approach. The progress made since 1994, the year that the Council for the first time discussed its methods of work in a public meeting, demonstrates that the Council is adapting its working methods through a pragmatic and gradual approach. The presidential note in document S/2006/507, the so- called Japanese note adopted in July 2006, is the best evidence of that. It called on Council members to take measures that were sometimes not very spectacular in themselves but were important overall. The concept paper distributed by my delegation on 4 August provides a summary of those measures, so I shall not go back over that here. Secondly, above all, it is up to the members themselves to be responsible for improving their way of working. The presidency plays an important role in that area. As President of the Council in June 2007 and August 2008, Belgium, like other Council members, implemented the recommendations of note S/2006/507 in a consistent way, for example by inviting neighbouring States or countries with a particular contribution to make to participate in public meetings, or by ensuring that non-members that were directly interested would be able to take the floor before Council members. Obviously, not only the President of the Council plays a key role, but also the chairs of the subsidiary bodies, namely, by ensuring fair procedures, also have a particular responsibility, to which a number of speakers before me have already referred. All those measures have a direct impact on non-members of the Council. We hope that from now on they will benefit from the improvements in our working methods. Thirdly, as well as safeguarding those gains, it is important to consider new measures to be taken. If such measures — concrete, constructive and achievable in the short term — emerge from this debate, my delegation would consider today’s debate a success. For my part, I would like to mention three such items. First, the deliberations of Council members would, no doubt, be enriched if there were more interaction with Member States that are associated with a conflict. While it is true that the provisional rules of the Council do not explicitly rule it out, it is still not the practice to invite non-members of the Council to private consultations. So, why not make better use of the existing mechanism of private meetings to hear the viewpoints of Member States, in the question-and- answer format, before Council consultations per se are held? Secondly, the prospects of the Peacebuilding Commission are such that they add significant value. It has become more and more customary to invite the President of the Commission or chair of the country- specific configuration to participate in Council deliberations, as was the case yesterday when we discussed Burundi. That practice, which was not yet called for in the note of 2006, should, of course, be followed up on. Finally, thirdly, my delegation attaches great importance to the Council having more in-depth interaction with regional and subregional organizations, which, as we know, play an important role in mediation efforts and in peacekeeping operations. This year, we have already seen several examples of close interaction between the Council and the African Union. As a member of the European Union, my delegation would, of course, like to advocate better interaction with the European Union. My delegation believes that the participation of the current presidency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last week was, itself, also very useful. In that context, it might be useful to do more in-depth thinking on a better implementation of paragraph 30 of the note of 2006. I have given you just a few preliminary ideas. Those ideas, as well as others that are emerging or will emerge from this debate, could be closely considered in the days and weeks ahead, for example within the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which is the right place for such discussions. In the next few weeks, my delegation is ready to work with other delegations, so that together we shall be able to make tangible progress towards our common objective, which is to have a Security Council that is more transparent, interactive and effective, and, as a result, more capable of acting in conformity with Article 24 of the Charter. I shall now resume my functions as President of the Council. I should like to remind all speakers that we have asked them to limit the length of their statements to a maximum of five minutes, so that the Council will be able to conduct its deliberations with all the desired effectiveness. Those delegations who have a long statement to make are asked to present a condensed version in the Chamber, it being understood that the full version can be issued in print. I now give the floor to the next speaker on my list, the representative of Japan.

First of all, I strongly welcome your initiative to convene this discussion today. I also wish to express our appreciation to Costa Rica for its proposal to convene this meeting. The continuous efforts of the members of the Security Council aimed at improving the Council’s working methods in order to enhance its efficiency and transparency are commendable, and notable achievements and improvements have been made, as described in the concept paper for this open debate (S/2008/528, annex). We are very pleased to see such developments building upon the efforts of Japan and other countries towards the adoption of the note by the President of the Council dated 19 July 2006 (S/2006/507). In this context, I would also like to express our great appreciation to the successive Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, who have made indispensable contributions in implementing the note. Ambassador Burian of Slovakia not only finalized a new note by the President of the Council (S/2007/749), but also set the course for its implementation, particularly in involving the Secretariat. We also know that, whenever the Council is facing procedural difficulties, Ambassador Arias of Panama acts as a guardian of the note in the Council. We hope that the active efforts through the Working Group will continue and that the positive momentum from 2006 will be maintained. Improving the working methods benefits both the members and the non-members of the Council. As the concept of peace and security evolves and as States become increasingly interdependent economically and politically, the Council must actively engage the wider membership of the United Nations and develop more efficient working methods to ensure its responsiveness to emerging challenges. It is the Council that plays the leading role in this endeavour. We hope that those States which are granted a special responsibility in the Charter or through elections will spare no effort to respond to the needs and concerns of the Member States at large. Allow me to make a few proposals on possible ways forward. First, it is essential to engage States which have special interests or responsibilities regarding particular matters, in order to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of the Council’s actions. The participation of non-members in the Council’s meetings has been significantly improved. We are also aware that the relevant parties are consulted informally on a case-by-case basis. However, more needs to be done, particularly in ensuring the engagement of the troop-contributing countries and the financial contributing countries. Making better use of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations is desirable. It is important to have an informal exchange of views prior to a major adjustment to or the creation of a peacekeeping operation mandate in the Working Group. That should help in addressing the legitimate concerns of the major stakeholders, including troop contributors and financial contributors. Secondly, the Security Council would certainly benefit from seeking more interactive relationships with the General Assembly and other organs. That is important to facilitate the complementarity of the organs. As the Security Council and the General Assembly have their own responsibilities and memberships, cross-cutting issues such as conflict prevention, peacebuilding, climate change and other relevant matters deserve substantive discussion in both organs, and one organ can make useful inputs to others based on those discussions. In addition, as Japan currently serves as the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, I would like to express our gratitude to the Council for inviting the Chairs of the country- specific configurations to almost all of the Council’s relevant meetings. We hope the Council will seek to make more active use of the Peacebuilding Commission as its advisory body. In this context, I believe that the regular meetings of the President of the Council and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission will continue to facilitate communication between the two organs. Thirdly, the increasing number of public meetings, especially open debates, is welcome. However, I would like to point out that both members and non-members of the Council should make maximum efforts to ensure the effectiveness of such meetings by making focused and concise statements with specific and practical proposals and by pursuing action-oriented follow-up. Fourthly and finally, in the context of reform of the Security Council, the issue of working methods is also an important component. There is no doubt about that. Japan believes, however, that not only the improvement of working methods but also the expansion of the Security Council is a crucial aspect of the reform of the Council. I would like to emphasize that the reform of the Security Council through the expansion of the Council should have a significant positive impact on the improvement of the Council’s working methods. Nowadays, everyone is aware of the importance of improving working methods, and we are always heartened to note that many representatives regularly carry the blue booklet which Japan voluntarily issued, in order to refer to the note and other useful information in it. We reiterate our hope that the Council will give positive consideration to the publication of the booklet as an official document of the United Nations. The improvement of the working methods of the Council is something that can never fully achieve its goals. The Security Council always needs to evolve in order to respond swiftly and effectively to ever- changing world challenges. A follow-up to the discussion in this open debate is essential in terms of further advancing this task and preserving what we have achieved since the adoption of the note by the President in 2006. Japan will continue to follow the development of this matter with great interest and will make utmost efforts to contribute to this endeavour.

At the outset, Sir, I would like to commend you and the delegation of Belgium for the initiative to convene this open debate on the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council of 19 July 2006 (S/2006/507) and for creating this timely and welcome opportunity, when the members of the Security Council and other United Nations Member States are engaging in a direct exchange of views on how to ensure that the Security Council is more open, more transparent, more efficient and more effective and that, as a matter of principle, there is more dialogue and better interaction between members of the Council and other United Nations Member States, especially those directly affected, concerned and interested. I would also like to thank you for preparing a very valuable concept paper (S/2008/528, annex) containing many relevant points as well as some very useful data. We welcome the presence of the Secretary- General at this open debate and thank him for his very informative briefing. It goes without saying that the Council and the Secretariat need to continue working very closely together on a whole range of issues pertaining to the Council’s working methods. I cannot start otherwise than by mentioning the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (General Assembly resolution 60/1), especially its paragraphs 153 and 154, whereby our heads of State or Government agreed on the need to adapt the Security Council’s working methods so as to increase the involvement of States not members of the Council in its work. Increased transparency, efficiency and effectiveness are part and parcel of these efforts. In 2006, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, Slovakia was actively involved in the negotiation process stemming from the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, led by the Japanese chairmanship of the Security Council Informal Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which culminated in the adoption of the note contained in document S/2006/507. On this occasion, I would like once again to express our appreciation to the Japanese delegation for their tireless efforts and exemplary leadership in the process of agreeing and adopting the note. In 2007, as Chairman of the Working Group, Slovakia focused its efforts and endeavours mainly on thorough implementation of the note and on dealing with a range of practical issues pertaining to documentation and other procedural questions. We appreciate the efforts of the delegation of Panama as the 2008 Chair of the Working Group. We believe that many good results have been achieved over the past two years through adopting the note and striving to fully implement it. All Council members have been actively engaged in this endeavour. We are convinced that everybody who has been following the work of the Security Council for some time has to agree now that there have been considerable improvements, for example when it comes to the number of public meetings and open briefings and as regards the availability and accessibility of timely information about the work of the Council. We are very pleased to see, inter alia, that it has recently become much more common for countries directly concerned to take the floor before Council members and that representatives of regional and subregional organizations are more often invited to take part in various forms of the Council’s work. I will refrain from giving details about what specific issues we focused on as 2007 Chair of the Working Group; those details are part of the written statement that will be distributed. I would just like to highlight the fact that, in an effort to further facilitate an exchange of views related to the efforts to enhance the efficiency, openness and transparency of the Council’s work, as well as of the Council’s regular dialogue and interaction with other Member States, my delegation convened an Arria Formula meeting, which was held on 13 December 2007. This was generally seen as an innovative opportunity to discuss that relevant topic. A brief summary of the meeting and the related recommendations were set out in a document issued under the symbol S/2007/784. In spite of everything that I have said so far, we do not believe that there is still time for complacency or for a feeling that the job has already been done. We have always seen the 2006 note by the President of the Security Council and its implementation as works in progress. The note and the agreed measures contained therein are only first and fairly modest — although very important — steps in the long term-effort to increase the openness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of the Council’s work. We would like to take this opportunity to encourage the members of the Council to fully and consistently implement all agreed measures, as well as to continue discussing and assessing further practical ways and means to move things further along. The views expressed by other Member States, including at today’s open debate, should be taken duly into account. In addition, on the basis of its own recent experience as an elected member of the Security Council, Slovakia believes that further efforts in the near future should be focused on the following four areas. First, continuing efforts should be made to enhance the transparency and openness of the Council’s work, including, and in particular, with regard to the work of its subsidiary bodies. Secondly, there must be continuing efforts to enhance and widen the interaction and the dialogue between the Council and other United Nations Member States, in particular those directly affected, concerned and interested. That issue is directly or indirectly referred to in at least 22 paragraphs of the 2006 note and is the sole topic of at least eight paragraphs. This could also be achieved through better use of private Council meetings, more regular use of Arria Formula meetings and the holding of regular consultations between members and non-members of the Council on relevant issues. Thirdly, there must be a revitalization of private Security Council meetings with the troop-contributing countries. Such meetings have recently become too formalistic and have lost much of their original value, as envisaged in particular in resolutions 1353 (2001) and 1327 (2000) and in numerous presidential statements, most of which were adopted between 1994 and 2004. Fourthly, continuing efforts must be made to maximize the relevance of the Security Council’s annual report to the General Assembly, including by making the annual report more substantive and more analytical and by holding an interactive discussion on it with the General Assembly. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Slovakia remains fully committed to the cause of the Council’s openness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. We stand ready to continue contributing to the ongoing discussions and to concrete action aimed at achieving that long-term goal.

I wish to thank the representative of Slovakia for having abridged the written version of his statement. I now call on the representative of Switzerland.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland. The group of five small countries (“S-5 group”) thanks you, Mr. President, for having organized this open debate. We are pleased to note that the Council responded favourably to our letter of 20 June 2008 (S/2008/418), in which our group requested that a meeting be held on the implementation of the measures set out in the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) and that all interested Member States be invited to participate in the discussion. I shall confine myself to a few general comments, as my colleagues in the S-5 group will make separate statements on specific aspects of the Council’s working methods. Mr. President, you have provided us with an excellent concept paper (S/2008/528, annex). It clearly shows that an increased number of Council decisions require active implementation by all United Nations Member States. For example, sanctions regimes have multiplied, and their implementation has become a costly and complex task for Member States. In addition, the increase in the number of United Nations peacekeeping operations is causing an unprecedented burden in terms of personnel, logistics and financing. It is thus important that non-members of the Council be informed in a timely manner about its deliberations and that they enjoy sufficient access to the Council’s decision-making process. That is why I should like to briefly explain why the S-5 group requested this debate and why we consider it important. The S-5 group welcomed the submission of the 2006 note by the President of the Security Council and considers it a significant step forward. We acknowledge the progress made thus far. However, we think it is also important to proceed more systematically with the implementation of the note if we wish to further enhance the Council’s effectiveness. We believe that, two years after the note’s submission, the time has come to take a closer look at what has and has not been accomplished to date. We also believe that a further step should be taken, and we encourage the Council to consider measures beyond those envisaged in the note. More specifically, we agree with the analyses presented in the concept paper, to which we would like to add the following comments. The S-5 group welcomes the substantial increase in the number of public meetings. However, they should not serve as a pro forma exercise, while the essential information continues to be shared behind closed doors. We share the view that the Council should better explain why it has chosen a particular format and that it should strive to make the best possible use of various forms of meetings, particularly when acting on issues directly concerning non-members of the Council, which would thus like to be involved at an early stage. We hope that briefings to non-members on the monthly programme of work will continue to be systematically given by future presidencies. However, we regret that briefings after important consultations are given only on an ad hoc basis and that they continue to depend on the goodwill and the available time of members of a given Mission. The access of non-Council members to subsidiary bodies has been improved but remains at a very formal level. That is why we invite the Council to explore ways in which directly affected third parties can establish contact and engage in dialogue on specific points with the relevant organs. Finally, before establishing or renewing a mission’s mandate, the Security Council should seek to enhance consultations with Member States deploying civilian and military personnel as well as with significant financial contributors. In the past, the S-5 group has submitted various additional measures for consideration by the Security Council. Here, I should like to recall some of them: reports to the General Assembly on specific subjects, as well as assessment and analysis of the implementation of Council decisions; additional measures aimed at enhancing the equity of standards for the process of listing and de-listing regarding sanctions; non-use of the veto in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity and grave violations of international humanitarian law; and, finally, announcement in the Journal of the United Nations of all meetings of the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies, including expert-level meetings. The S-5 group sincerely hopes that this public debate will not be an isolated event, but will trigger a thorough evaluation of the 2006 note by the President. Such a process could take place as follows. At the end of this open debate, the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions could be mandated to undertake a comprehensive review of the implementation of the 2006 note and to involve interested non-members in that review. Based on its findings, the Working Group could then formulate a set of measures and present them to the Council before the end of 2008. The Council could then convene a follow-up meeting to discuss these recommendations; on the same occasion, the Council could seek the views of the broader membership, in particular on those measures which have a direct impact on non-members of the Council. Finally, the Council could adopt a follow-up note by the President reflecting the progress made and containing new measures to improve its working methods. The constant evolution of Security Council working methods and their consistent application are in the interest of members and non-members of the Council alike. Therefore, the implementation of the 2006 note requires the sustained commitment of all Council members; non-members should also stay engaged and actively use the platforms of interaction that the Council offers to them. The Small Five group remains fully committed and stands ready to cooperate with the Council in this process. I would again like to congratulate you, Mr. President on having convened this important meeting, which represents a considerable step in the right direction.

I should like to thank the representative of Switzerland in particular for having abridged the written version of the declaration. I now like give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

Mr. President, Mexico welcomes your initiative and that of Belgium of convening a public debate to consider this issue, which is without doubt a fundamental aspect of the process of reforming the Security Council and is of vital importance for all States Members of the United Nations. Mexico is concerned to observe that, despite the praiseworthy endeavours to implement as regular practice the recommendations in the 63 paragraphs of the annex to document S/2006/507, important elements still remain to be tackled. It is imperative to seek the implementation of all the recommendations and provide ongoing follow-up on Council practices in order to continue enhancing its work. The various elements of the Security Council’s daily work need to be reviewed as stated in the annex to the note by the President of the Security Council. In this vein, Mexico welcomes the fact that significant progress has been made with regard to the transparency of programme of work thanks to “virtual” publication and updating of the Council’s programme of work, as well as the dissemination of the monthly forecast. With regard to the Council meetings and their formats, Mexico is convinced that a higher number of public meetings and briefings should be held in order to keep all Member States informed of what the Council and its subsidiary bodies are doing. On open debates, it must be recognized that in practice their real utility is questionable, given that we have not seen them yield results in terms of actions or initiatives taken by the Security Council. Similarly, we have not seen prompt follow-up of agreements reached at such debates or their reflection in initiatives prompted by Council members. In this regard, it is imperative to consider again the purpose of holding open debates and to consider their usefulness in the light of the need to make them results-oriented. They should allow true opportunity for participation by States Members of the Organization. Although some thematic debates have proved extremely interesting, the Council has not given the necessary follow-up to the development of positions and proposals expressed on the various matters under consideration. Here, at least a report should be drawn up which could give rise to specific initiatives. For Mexico, the question of documentation is relevant if the membership is to be kept updated on decisions and regarding other relevant Security Council information. Mexico believes that the reports of the Secretary-General and the special Secretariat briefings to the Security Council are of particular relevance and a prime source of information about what is going on in the field. Here, my delegation acknowledges the significant progress achieved in the prompt issuance of reports of the Secretary-General, as well as the inclusion of a specific section on the recommendations of those reports. We emphasize how useful they are when it comes to the measures that the Security Council decides to adopt on a given issue. Mexico is also convinced of the importance of reports by the Security Council presidency. In this regard, we would urge States concluding their Presidency of the Security Council to continue timely reporting on their work so that specific follow-up can be given on issues that continue to be considered in the following months, so that progress can be made and so that specific objectives can be achieved. We welcome the recent meeting convened by the Permanent Representative of Viet Nam at the end of his presidency, at which Member States had an opportunity to express their views on the work of the Council. Mexico recognizes how important it is for the Council to interact with States and cooperate with regional and subregional organizations. My country therefore believes that continued efforts should be made to achieve better cooperation with interested non-members of the Council, as well as with regional organizations, in order to ensure that the problem or conflict in question is addressed in a comprehensive fashion that helps to identify solution. Similarly, promoting more unofficial consultations with Member States interested or involved in a situation under consideration by the Council, as well as with neighbouring countries and countries that can make particular contributions, is of particular importance in dealing with a given issue. Mexico therefore supports a greater number of meetings between such actors and the Security Council. We urge that as far as possible a greater variety of meeting formats be used, including Aria Formula meetings. These measures would be a decisive step towards enhancing the Council’s work, dealing with issues threatening international peace and security. They would provide the Council with additional input and would ensure greater participation by the various actors involved in the matters under discussion. Moreover, Mexico believes that even greater coordination is required among United Nations organs, in particular the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, in order to avoid any duplication of work. This could be achieved through better communication among those organs, and by holding periodic meetings among the Presidents of those organs, as indicated in paragraph 51 of document S/2006/507. On the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly, Mexico reaffirms how important it is that the document be less descriptive and more analytical and results-oriented. In particular, my country believes it indispensable that it contain concise information on the work of all the Council’s subsidiary bodies, such as the sanctions committees and the Working Group on Documentation, inter alia, as these are integral part of the report. In order to ensure greater transparency in what the Council’s work, Mexico recommends that the report make mention of situations brought to the attention to the Council but on which the Council decided that no action needed to be taken. The reasons for such decision should be indicated. We also believe it is important that the report be published in a timely manner so that Council members have time to thoroughly study it before it is submitted to the General Assembly. Although we acknowledge the progress made with regard to greater efficiency of the work of the Security Council, much still remains to be done to ensure that the discussions are more lively and transparent. That is certainly a challenge for the Member States and the Secretariat, who must work together in order to overcome the shortcomings that are still in existence here. Accordingly, Mexico believes that the best way of ensuring greater efficiency is to ensure better coordination between Council members and the Secretariat and better planning of the work, so that non-Council members can know about forthcoming meetings and better prepare their participation, should that prove appropriate. Mexico firmly believes that the enhancement of the Council’s working methods when it comes will lead to improvements in its work and decisions and improve its image in the eyes of the international community and Member States of the Organization. In order to ensure that it is better able to tackle the new threats and challenges to international peace and security and in order to ensure a Security Council that is able to deal with all of its responsibilities, a substantive change to its working methods is imperative and cannot be delayed.

I now give the floor to the representative of Iceland.

I have the honour of delivering the following statement on behalf of all five Nordic countries, namely, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. First of all, allow me to thank the Belgian presidency of the Security Council for organizing this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. The group of five small countries (S-5), namely, Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, also deserves praise for its untiring work in maintaining focus on this very important, though less media-friendly, aspect of Security Council reform. In agreeing to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council, Member States of the United Nations have conferred a tremendous and historically unprecedented amount of power and legitimacy upon a decision-making procedure in which they do not participate directly themselves. It is therefore of utmost importance that the Council, when acting on behalf of all the Member States, take all possible steps to ensure maximum transparency and interaction with Members outside the Council. Furthermore, while the absence of a reform of the Council’s membership remains a major gap in the efforts to modernize the United Nations, improving the Council’s working methods becomes all the more urgent to secure the necessary transparency, efficiency and interaction among Member States. The Belgian concept paper underlines the need for a clear understanding of the rationale for the Council’s adoption of a specific meeting format. The Nordic countries share this concern and suggest that, when appropriate and clear, the President of the Council could, upon opening the meeting, explain the rationale for choosing the given format. It is of the highest importance that the Council be kept continually informed on political aspects of issues on its agenda. In this respect, we would welcome regular opportunities for briefings from all parts of the Secretariat. In addition to the welcome briefings from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, we would also like to hear from the Department of Political Affairs and the Peacebuilding Support Office, in order to be briefed on political and peacebuilding perspectives as a complement to the peacekeeping and humanitarian perspectives already being provided. The regularity and quality of briefings for non-Council members has increased. The ongoing focus on the issue of transparency has made every member of the Security Council aware of the obligation entailed by Security Council membership to keep the wider United Nations membership informed. On the whole, presidential briefings have worked well. But more detailed explanatory briefings should aim to be as inclusive as possible in order to inform all interested countries about developments on issues before the Security Council that might affect them. Iceland, as a small island State, is greatly aware of the challenges faced by the least developed countries and the small island developing States in this regard. Some years back, members of the Council agreed that interactive wrap-up sessions at the end of a presidency would be useful so as to increase transparency and the availability of information emanating from the Council. Such sessions — some of them held in public — were potential arenas for assessing the Council’s contribution and for addressing the issue of lessons learned. Unfortunately, this tradition was discontinued a couple of years ago, and the Nordic countries would like to encourage Council members to take up that practice again. Alternatively, regular reports of the Security Council to the General Assembly, with an assessment by each outgoing presidency, could be instituted. The annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly should be made as substantial and analytical as possible. The Council could hold an interactive discussion on the annual report when the report is considered by the General Assembly. Transparency should make it easier for non-Council members that have a real interest in or knowledge of a matter to make a contribution. Such contributions are in the interests of all Member States. In this context, the five Nordic countries would urge the Security Council to take steps, when possible, towards making draft resolutions and presidential statements available to non-Council members as soon as they are introduced in informal consultations of the whole. I would like to pay particular tribute to the work of the independent website Security Council Report, which has made a major contribution, since its relatively recent creation, to transparency and predictability with regard to the work of the Security Council. The Secretariat is also to be complimented on the improvements it has made to the official Security Council website. The webcasts are also very useful and should be continued and expanded if possible. We are also convinced that additional improvements are needed in the interaction and information flow between, not only the General Assembly and the Security Council, but also the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, in order to implement the much needed, truly integrated approach to matters related to peace and security. In this regard, we wish to emphasize our continued support for the practice of inviting the chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission to brief the Council on a regular basis. Interaction with regional organizations such as the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the European Union has intensified. We welcome the emphasis on regional organizations’ increased responsibility and ownership of efforts to solve regional conflicts. At the same time, it is important that this approach take place within the United Nations framework and with the Security Council’s support. Interaction, transparency and legitimacy in the working methods and procedures of the Security Council’s subsidiary bodies, particularly the sanctions committees, are paramount in further strengthening the protection of fundamental rights of individuals and the rule of law. The five Nordic countries would like to recall paragraph 109 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document regarding the necessity of ensuring “fair and clear procedures for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and for removing them, as well as granting humanitarian exemptions” (A/RES/60/1, para. 109). In this regard we welcome the adoption of resolutions 1730 (2006), 1735 (2006) and, most recently, 1822 (2008). Those resolutions constitute important steps in the right direction with regard, inter alia, to transparency towards both States and individuals. Further moves towards truly fair and clear procedures should include the introduction of an independent advisory input to the work of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999), especially with respect to requests for de-listing. Finally, as the Belgian concept paper points out, efficiency, transparency and interaction are closely intertwined. The Nordic countries will continue to contribute constructively to helping the Security Council function better on all these levels, and Iceland will, if elected to a seat on the Security Council this October, seek to carry forward this important work.

I now give the floor to the representative of New Zealand.

We thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important open debate, the first on Security Council working methods since 1994. We especially thank you for preparing an excellent concept paper (S/2008/528, annex), which clearly sets out areas where progress has been achieved and other areas where more needs to be done. The working methods of the Security Council — a vital organ in the United Nations system — are of the utmost importance to New Zealand. For many Member States, especially those that rarely have an opportunity to serve on the Security Council, the working methods have a very considerable impact on our ability to contribute and to understand issues before the Council. Improving the Security Council’s working methods is therefore one of the most important areas for reform, and one on which there is a broad measure of agreement. We note that considerable progress has been made in the implementation of provisions to increase the Council’s transparency, efficiency and interaction with non-members of the Council in line with the recommendations of the note by the President contained in document S/2006/507. New Zealand is grateful to Japan and Slovakia for the work they have done and the leadership they have provided in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions in implementing measures such as a higher rate of public rather than private Council meetings, greater notification of those meetings and regular briefings on the programme of work at the beginning of each presidency. While progress has been made, there are still areas in which New Zealand would like to see improvement. Specifically, while we note that private consultations are a useful and sometimes necessary mechanism for Council members, public meetings allow the greatest participation and should be used whenever possible. Furthermore, it is vital that essential information be shared at public meetings, not just in closed consultations. A clear rationale for the Council’s choice of a particular format for its meetings should be included in the President’s opening remarks. In conjunction with important closed consultations of the Council, we would like to see a systematic process to allow Member States to have input and an exchange of views with Security Council members on issues before the Council that affect them. Although there have been many improvements in that regard, New Zealand would like to see draft statements, draft resolutions and other documents shared systematically with non-members of the Council, perhaps by e-mail to all Missions, sooner and with more frequency. We would also like a format for greater participation by interested parties in the preparation of those documents. There is also considerable scope to develop the interaction with other interested parties, such as troop- contributing countries, regional organizations, the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. Finally, there is a need for more effective input to the Council from parts of the Secretariat, such as the Department for Political Affairs, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In terms of next steps, we agree with the statement made by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the group of five small nations that the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions could be charged with reviewing the implementation of the 2006 presidential note and looking at the proposals made in today’s debate. The Working Group could then present its findings and recommendations to the Security Council before the end of this year. The Council could hold a follow-up meeting, making sure to include the views of the wider membership and potentially adopting a follow-up presidential note that reflects the progress made and outlines areas where further specific improvements have been proposed. New Zealand welcomes the ongoing commitment of the Security Council to enhancing the efficiency and transparency of its work and to implementing the measures contained in the presidential note. We now look forward to the Council’s delivering on that commitment and to actively engaging with the wider United Nations community on this issue in the coming months. Finally, may I reiterate our thanks to you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting.

I now give the floor to the representative of Australia.

I would like to thank you very much, Mr. President, for convening this debate. Given the lateness of the hour, I promise the interpreters and others that I will be as brief as possible. I would also like to thank those who have spoken before me. Every intervention I have heard contained good and valuable ideas with which we strongly agree and of which we have taken careful note. I would also like to acknowledge the important role that Japan has played, and to thank Costa Rica, Jordan, Lichtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland for the burden they have taken on in advancing this issue. While Security Council reform in general has been stuck, some modest improvements in the Council’s working methods have been achieved. We encourage more work in that regard. Australia has not been on the Council for over 20 years, but we have been a contributor to many peacekeeping operations mandated by this body. Of course, as a Member we are bound by its decisions. We therefore believe that the basic mindset of the Council should be one of active accountability and deliberate transparency. Let me offer a few brief thoughts on what that might mean in practice. More details can be found in the printed copy of Australia’s intervention. First, the Council has an image problem. Outside of this building, and perhaps even outside the Chamber, and certainly in many capitals and among the wider public, it is regarded as a bit of a closed club doing good where it can but regularly and jealously guarding its privileges and specific interests. That image is not going to change overnight. Real change will require substantive reform but, as I think all statements up to now have emphasized, the reform of working methods can help. A good start would be for the Council to formally state that it has an objective and that that objective is to be like any modern effective organization: to be accountable and transparent. Secondly, we believe that reliable progress can only be made if one measures what one does. How much of the Council’s work is done behind closed doors? As others have asked, how much of it should be done behind closed doors? How soon are newly elected Council members brought into deliberations? How often are resolutions drafted ahead of open debates and what, if any, changes are made as a consequence of those debates? What percentage of the drafting recommendations of the 10 elected members or non-members of the Council are ever accepted? As we have been reminded, some Council Presidents have done very well in maximizing transparency and access by non-members — and we are grateful for that — but have all? The Council should keep those sorts of statistics and issue them periodically — say, every two years — so that we can know if we are making progress or not. I note that the representative of Croatia cited some performance statistics in his intervention. We should do more of that, and information should be more readily available. Self-assessment can be useful and necessary but, equally, an external assessor is not a bad idea. The work of one external organization mentioned a few moments ago by a previous speakers — Security Council Report — illustrates the value of external auditing. That is a body very well and ably led by someone very well known to many of us. He is a gentleman who participated in the last debate on this issue, back in 1994. Nineteen ninety-four: as we in Australia say, that is a long time between drinks. One of the most compelling ideas I have heard today was raised by the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica. He said that his delegation advocates “for periodic open debates on these issues every two years, so that each elected member can have at least one opportunity, during its tenure of membership of the Council, to debate the working methods of this organ” (supra). That is a good idea. We should just do it. I would also like to echo Indonesia’s call for greater use of web-based information technology, not just to disseminate information but also to gather inputs on less controversial matters from a wider pool of expertise. Finally, we non-members should also reflect on our own performance. Too often we turn up at open debates and merely read out what our capitals have sent us, rather than responding to the interventions that have gone before and that have been the product of very careful consideration. On those occasions when we are invited to open debates, as noted by the United States delegation, we often fail to turn up. We ignore time limits, and we do not avail ourselves of the opportunity, as we are frequently reminded by the President, to shorten our statements and distribute longer written texts. In short, we can all do better, and we need to.

I thank the representative of Australia for having condensed the written version of his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Uruguay.

The delegation of Uruguay would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, on convening this thematic debate today in the Council. It has made it possible for us to listen to the views of many delegations for whom the working methods of the Council is a matter of great importance. We say this in the firm belief that for small countries, those of us who can hope to sit on the Council only after long periods off of it — indeed some delegation has calculated that our period on the Council was likely to fall every 50 to 99 years — the participation of non-members of the Council must be treated as a fundamental right of Member States. They have the right to participate in negotiations and decision-making by the Organization’s bodies, in particular when they have a direct interest in the outcome of discussions and when those outcomes affect their citizens or their highest aims. Believe me, even some of the smallest countries, such as Uruguay, have, throughout the Organization’s existence, shown a firm determination to meet the obligations of the Charter and thus require the full exercise of their rights in every forum. We have another general concern that we would like to express before turning to some of the specific thematic issues concerning the work of the Council: when members discuss the matter of enhancing the working methods of the Council, this is immediately linked to the issue of reform of the membership of the Council, as if those were two matters that were indissolubly linked. But they are two matters that have been inexplicably linked. They cannot serve as a joint basis for negotiations. Some time ago, a group of countries presented a draft General Assembly resolution, A/60/L.49, which contained worthy suggestions and proposals that could be endorsed today by the vast majority of Members. The treatment given this worthwhile proposal by some delegations has been, if I may say so, almost mean, because in reality, they allowed the issue of the Council’s working methods to turn into a discussion on the expansion of the Council, which is a difficult matter, and almost completely intractable because of its very nature. Among the matters mentioned in the President’s concept paper and others we have debated over the years on the subject, there are some of particular interest to Uruguay, and I would like to comment on them briefly. With regard to consultations with troop- contributing countries, we wish to reiterate the need for troop-contributing countries to be fully informed of fundamental developments in the relevant missions. We welcome the improvements that have been implemented with regard to better communication between the Security Council and troop-contributing countries. However, the meetings that are currently held are merely informative in nature. We cannot say that there is any real consultation with the troop- contributing countries. Rather, in general, those countries are informed of decisions that have already been taken by Council members or by the Secretariat. We, the contributing countries, would like to have a real opportunity to express our views in such instances, in particular when changes to mandates are under discussion, as those can have consequences for the safety and security of national contingents, equipment and new configurations in the field of the forces in question or for evacuations of troop contingents. It would be appropriate for meetings with troop- contributing countries to be held with sufficient notice, to ensure that the consultations held can indeed be reflected in the decisions adopted by the Council. Subsidiary bodies of the Council should permit interested Member States to participate in their discussions, in particular in the case of the sanctions committees. It should be possible for those States with concerns regarding sanctions regimes to participate, so that effective and timely consultations can be held, pursuant to Article 50 of the Charter, with the relevant sanctions committee. We acknowledge that the improvements implemented in the sanctions regime by the Council have been steps forward towards an improvement in the functioning of the varied and complex subsidiary organs of the Council. But there is still a real lack of direct access to appeal bodies, and there is no real system for consultations in which countries could participate with a reasonable expectation of seeing their interests taken into account and of influencing, with a view to advancing those interests, organizational developments in each case. In addition, we acknowledge what has been done to clarify the committees’ rules for listing and de-listing. We urge the Council to continue to work on that matter and provide maximum guarantees in that regard. We do not wish to repeat the criticisms that we have previously expressed on other matters, such as on the Council’s report to the General Assembly, or on the need to undertake reforms aimed at achieving final approval of the rules of procedure of the Council. We have made those views clear, and we wish to conclude on a positive note, looking to the future with optimism. Let us once again consider the spirit of General Assembly draft resolution A/60/L.49. We have already approved a plethora of measures making it possible to enhance the working methods of the Council without waiting for a reform of the size and composition of the Council because, again, we believe that those two matters are independent, and on one of them, the reform of the Council’s methods, there is agreement in principle.

I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the 118 States members of the Non-Aligned Movement. The Movement considers the convening of this open debate a step in the right direction, almost 15 years since the last one held by the Security Council on its working methods. We sincerely hope that this will be the first step towards regular and comprehensive consideration by the Council of this important issue, duly taking into account the views of non-member States. The Movement reiterates that the reform of the Council should not be confined only to the question of the equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council, but that it should also address substantive issues relating to the Council’s agenda, working methods and decision-making processes. The note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2006/507 describes some measures aimed at enhancing the efficiency and transparency of the Council’s work and at promoting interaction and dialogue with States not members of this organ. NAM considers that some improvements have been made in the working methods of the Council, including in the implementation of some of the measures described in the aforementioned note. However, those are clearly not enough, leaving much room for improvement. Transparency, openness and consistency are key elements that the Security Council should observe in all its activities, approaches and procedures. Regrettably, the Council has neglected those important factors on numerous occasions. Such instances include unscheduled open debates with selective notification, reluctance in convening open debates on some issues of high significance, frequent restrictions on the participation in some of the debates and discrimination between members and non- members of the Council, particularly with regard to sequencing and time limits of statements during the open debates, failure to submit special reports to the General Assembly, as required under Article 24 of the Charter, the submission of annual reports still lacking sufficient information and analytical content, and lack of minimal parameters for the drawing up of the monthly assessment by the Security Council presidencies. The Council must comply with the provisions of Article 31 of the Charter, which allow any non-Council member to participate in discussions on matters affecting it. Rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Council should be thoroughly observed. Closed meetings and informal consultations should be kept to a minimum and as the exception they were meant to be. The Movement also reiterates the need to reform and democratize the decision-making processes of the Council, including limiting and curtailing the use of the veto, with a view to its eventual elimination. NAM requests the Security Council to take the following immediate actions to improve its working methods, many of which have so far not been considered by the Council and are not included in presidential note in document S/2006/507. It is necessary to increase the number of public meetings, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, and to ensure that those meetings provide real opportunities to take into account the views and contributions of all the Member States of the United Nations, particularly the interests of non-Council members whose issues are under discussion in the Council; to allow briefings by the Special Envoys or Representatives of the Secretary- General and the United Nations Secretariat to take place in public meetings, unless in exceptional circumstances; and to enhance further its relationship with the United Nations Secretariat and troop- contributing countries (TCCs), including through sustained, regular and timely interaction. Meetings with TCCs should be held not only to draw up mandates, but also in their implementation when considering a change in, renewal of or termination of a mission mandate, or when there is a rapid deterioration of the situation on the ground. In that context, the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations should involve TCCs more frequently and intensively in its deliberations, especially in the very early stages of mission planning. It is also essential to uphold the primacy of and respect for the Charter of the United Nations in connection with the Council’s functions and powers. NAM stresses once again that the decision by the Security Council to initiate formal or informal discussions on the situation in any Member State of the United Nations or any issue that does not constitute a threat to international peace and security is contrary to Article 24 of the Charter. It is necessary to establish the Council’s subsidiary organs in accordance with the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter. Those organs should function in a manner that would provide adequate and timely information on their activities to the general United Nations membership. In that context, countries that are not members of the Council should be given access to its subsidiary organs, including the right to participate, as appropriate. Resort to Chapter VII of the Charter as a mechanism to address issues that do not necessarily pose a threat to international peace and security should be avoided. The provisions of other relevant Chapters, where appropriate, including Chapters VI and VIII, should be invoked before invoking Chapter VII, which should be a measure of last resort, if necessary. It is also essential to submit a more comprehensive and analytical annual report to the General Assembly, assessing the work of the Council, including cases in which the Council has failed to act, as well as the views expressed by its members during the consideration of the agenda items under its consideration. Pursuant to Articles 15 (1) and 24 (3) of the Charter of the United Nations, the Council should submit special reports for the consideration of the General Assembly and ensure that its monthly assessments are comprehensive, analytical and issued in a timely fashion. The Council should also take into account fully the recommendations of the General Assembly on matters relating to international peace and security, consistent with Article 11 (2) of the Charter. The Council must involve more closely States concerned in discussions on matters affecting them, in accordance with article 31 of the Charter and ensure that the views of Member States, obtained through public debates on cross-cutting thematic issues, are reflected in relevant resolutions and presidential statements adopted thereafter, instead of the current practice of adopting resolutions and presidential statements without reference to such discussions. Finally, the Council should formalize the rules of procedure of the Council, which have remained provisional for more than 60 years, in order to improve the Council’s transparency and accountability. NAM reiterates its concern over the increasing and continuing encroachment by the Council on issues that clearly fall within the functions and powers of other main bodies of the United Nations and their subsidiary bodies. The Security Council must fully observe all the provisions of the Charter, as well as all General Assembly resolutions, that clarify its relationship with the latter organ and other principal organs. Close cooperation and coordination among all principal organs are indispensable in order to enable the United Nations to remain relevant and capable of meeting the existing, new and emerging threats and challenges. In that context, NAM reiterates its call on the Presidents of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to meet periodically to discuss and to coordinate among themselves regarding the issues on their agendas and the programmes of work of the respective principal organs they represent, in order to establish increased coherence and complementarity among those organs in a mutually reinforcing manner, respectful of each others’ mandates, and with a view to generating a mutual understanding among them.

Since I still have a number of speakers on my list who have not yet taken the floor and given the lateness of the hour, I would suggest, with the consent of Council members, that we suspend the meeting once we have heard the statements by the representatives of Brazil and Jordan, and to reconvene at 3 p.m. Do Council members consent to that proposal? I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil.

The decision to hold this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council indicates a growing understanding of the need to make the body more transparent and accessible to non-members and, therefore, more effective. The positive response to widespread expressions of interest in the work of the Council is certainly to be encouraged. My delegation also wishes to express appreciation for the efforts of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland to promote today’s debate. Brazil supports their continued efforts related to this issue, as well as many of the concrete proposals and ideas that they have presented in the past. Both the justifications for that interest and the political guidance for consideration of the issue before us are found in the Charter. Article 2 incorporates the principle of the sovereign equality of all Member States, and Article 24 establishes that the Council acts on behalf of all Members on matters regarding international peace and security. The latter provision, as interpreted and implemented in the light of the principle of sovereign equality, implies that the quite exceptional authority given to this organ entails the obligation of accountability to those on whose behalf the Council acts. Therefore, transparency to and interaction with all Member States, as appropriate, are imperatives arising from the Charter itself. In giving concrete meaning to those imperatives, every possible measure should be taken to ensure that relevant information is adequately provided to non-members and that their inputs are obtained in a timely manner and seriously considered by the Council in its decision-making process. Progress has been made in pursuing those goals, and credit must be given to several delegations that have been particularly keen to hold the Council accountable to all Member States, in accordance with the Charter. However, as indicated in the concept paper prepared for this debate (S/2008/528, annex), further progress is needed in implementing or consolidating the implementation of measures to which Council members have already committed. Some examples are: substantive and detailed briefings to non-members shortly after informal consultations of the whole; the sharing of draft resolutions and draft presidential statements, as appropriate, as soon as they have been introduced within informal consultations of the whole; meaningful communication with Member States that are parties to a conflict and/or with other interested and affected parties; and a preference for the holding of open meetings, particularly at an early stage in the consideration of a matter. Brazil views the discussion on the working methods of the Security Council as intrinsically linked to a meaningful change in the Council’s composition and therefore in its structure: the two aspects of reform must go hand in hand. Just as transparency and accountability cannot take deep root in a Council that is insufficiently representative of a diverse membership and that does not reflect contemporary political realities, an enlarged Council will need new working methods in order to become fully accountable. It is not politically realistic to expect to meaningfully and permanently alter the Council’s working methods without expanding its composition. It is no coincidence that no progress has been made on either aspect of Council reform since the mid-1990s. That is one of the reasons why Brazil believes that intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform must commence without delay or preconditions and on an inclusive basis, in accordance with the Charter. It is also one of the reasons why Council expansion must take place in both membership categories. A larger number of non-permanent members would increase the possibilities for small countries to participate in the work of the organ. By the same token, the addition of new permanent members that are able and willing to contribute to peace and security and to promote greater Council openness to non-members would strengthen initiatives promoting enhanced accountability to the membership. It is therefore essential to adopt an integrated approach to Security Council reform, one that reinforces the mutual support that the two aspects — working methods and composition — can provide to each other. We very much hope that those considerations, as well as the wealth of ideas to be communicated by other delegations in today’s debate, will be duly reflected upon by the Council and thus that they will prove to be useful to this organ in its efforts to increase the involvement of non-members in its work.

I now call on the representative of Jordan.

Permit me at the outset to thank you, Mr. President, for your swift favourable response to the request of the group of five small States — the Small Five group — that this meeting be held to consider the Security Council’s working methods. My delegation wishes to associate itself with the statement made by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the Small Five group. I should like to thank you, Mr. President, for your concept paper for this meeting (S/2008/528, annex), which presents a forward-looking vision that forms the basis for our open debate. At the time of its publication, we recognized the importance of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) and of the Council’s implementation of the recommendations it sets out. We must also recognize the fact that there continue to be many areas in which no progress has been made. That gives additional importance to our work today and opens the way for new vision and new ideas regarding ways to improve the Council’s working methods. Today, the scope of Security Council resolutions is unlimited. Their impact has been expanded over the past few years to affect the entire membership of the Organization on a large number of issues, including, inter alia, counter-terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, human rights, peacekeeping operations and children and armed conflict. In that connection, the breadth of their impact should be matched with comprehensive engagement. That would not only enable us to enhance the transparency and effectiveness of the Council’s work in implementing its resolutions, but would also ensure commitment, a swift and positive response and superior performance on the part of all States in attaining the Council’s ultimate objective of maintaining international peace and security. Since my country, Jordan, is among the largest contributors of troops to peacekeeping operations, I shall focus on improving the Council’s working methods in the area of peacekeeping operations, in particular enhancing the interaction between Security Council members and troop-contributing countries and promoting consultation between them. In recent decades, the international security environment has undergone drastic changes that have transformed the nature of peacekeeping operations and the ways in which they are planned, managed and implemented. Those drastic changes require new and effective kinds of responses on the part of the international community. By necessity, the response of the troop-contributing countries, including Jordan, to current challenges to international peace and security is part and parcel of the response of the international community. The troop-contributing countries continue to be seen as an asset — a source of forces for peacekeeping missions. Jordan considers that troop- contributing countries should be dealt with on the basis of a true partnership in an international response to crisis. The only way to bring about such a strategic change is to improve the working methods of the Security Council. Considerations that are of great interest to the troop- contributing countries — and their motivations — include the following. First is the safety and security of troops and equipment and the question of whether security conditions are conducive to carrying out the tasks to be accomplished under Council resolutions. Consultations with troop-contributing countries are vital not only to establish an appropriate security environment before the deployment of forces, but also to facilitate the decisions taken by the Governments concerned. Secondly, participation by the Permanent Missions of troop-contributing countries in the strategic evaluation of the situation in a conflict area, even if it is being carried out under the direction of the Security Council, would enable us to develop strategic options that are more comprehensive and not limited to the current tasks of the mission, but to include future phases of the force deployment and the United Nations presence in the host country. Thirdly, risk assessment is very important. Such assessments are undertaken by the Secretariat under the direction of the Council and aim at achieving coordination and harmonization between the mandate imposed by the Council and the resources provided by the troop-contributing countries. The credibility of the national forces of those troop-contributing countries and their ability to implement the task is based, to a large extent, on that coordination. The Permanent Missions of the troop-contributing countries could, at this stage, contribute greatly to providing and evaluating credible alternatives. Fourthly, early consultations on the impact of making adjustments to the mission with a view to achieving a specific goal, whether by increasing or decreasing troop levels, amending the mission, amending the tools or means at its disposal, or ending its mandate because of political or emergency developments, would help countries to deal with the impact of those changes and adapt to them. From my previous experience as a military observer in peacekeeping operations and as one of the former planners of Jordanian participation in peacekeeping operations, I must state here that we in Jordan consider the resolution adopted by the Council concerning any given peacekeeping operation as the fundamental, principal reference point for preparing our forces to join and engage in peacekeeping operations. The main point here is that the resolution is the final result of a long planning process undertaken under the direction of this Council and mostly in isolation from any effective, methodical or effective contribution of troop-contributing countries. That is a result of the fact that the priorities and evaluations of those troop-contributing countries are taken into account at a later stage, after the adoption of a resolution by the Council. We therefore call for the promotion of consultations between Council members and troop-contributing countries in the formulation of Council resolutions and presidential statements concerning those operations. We urge the members of this Council to provide troop-contributing countries with the draft texts of such resolutions or presidential statements at an early stage, if the sponsor of the resolution believes that is possible. Such a contribution to the process will promote the transparency called for in the work of the Council and help us to explain those resolutions to our Governments. We believe that the burden of making full use of the opportunity to interact with the Council within its regular consultations and meetings falls on the troop- contributing countries. The current nature of such meetings restricts our effective and active participation and does not lead to the results that we all look forward to. It would be better for the Council to encourage discussions with troop-contributing countries in accordance with resolution 1353 (2001), and we encourage the presence of military and political experts in the participating missions at the earliest stage, before the consideration of those matters. We hope that the Council will continue to encourage the representatives of the Secretary-General to attend those meetings, provide briefings and interact with troop-contributing countries. We attach special importance to the timing of those meetings, so that they can be announced at an early stage as often as possible and not on the eve of the adoption of a resolution or at a later period, after its adoption. Consultations with troop-contributing countries are an essential matter in helping the Governments of those States to take the decision to participate in peacekeeping missions. Because we welcome the holding of this meeting, we hope that this open debate will not be a single and isolated event, that the Council will continue to engage positively and interact with the wider membership of the United Nations, and that, at the end of this dialogue, we will continue to make progress on the working methods of the Council. We hope that the measures presented by the representative of Switzerland in that respect will be followed up on and accorded special attention. My delegation sincerely urges the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions to take into account the results of this open debate in its upcoming meetings. I welcome this open debate and emphasize the fact that Jordan is committed to positively participating in peacekeeping operations in service of international peace and security.

As previously agreed, I would now like to suspend our work. We will reconvene at 3 p.m.