S/PV.6300 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/2010/165, containing a letter dated 1 April 2010 from the Permanent Representative of Japan addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept paper for this debate. In accordance with the understanding reached among Council members, I wish to remind all speakers, Council and non-Council members, to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously and to allow the many delegations to speak within the allocated time. Delegations with lengthy statements are requested to deliver a condensed version and to circulate the full text. I shall now give the floor to the Council members.

I would first like to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this open debate on the Security Council’s working methods. This is an issue of great importance to the entire United Nations membership, and regular exchanges in such settings are extremely helpful in understanding and addressing mutual concerns and expectations. Indeed, the Security Council is the principal organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security and, as such, not only what it does, but also how it does it are matters of legitimate interest to the entire international community. In that regard, although there is broad recognition of the seriousness and productivity of the Council, criticism of its working methods and, in particular, of the way in which it interacts with the outside world is abundant. The debate on the matter revolves mainly around a number of shortcomings that are seen to undermine the work of the Council. Indeed, there have been repeated arguments about the deficit of democracy, legitimacy, legality, accountability and representativeness in the Council. I am not arguing about whether these are right or wrong, but I believe that we need to be aware of these perceptions if we are to address them properly. After all, legitimacy and credibility are products of performance and develop in line with the fulfilment of expectations. Of course, given the special nature of the Security Council, one has to be aware of the inherent limitations of what can be achieved through an exercise focused only on working methods in the absence of a wider reform initiative. In fact, all principal organs of the United Nations, including the General Assembly, must go through a reform process to ensure the coherence and integrity of the Organization. However, this does not mean that improvements in working methods are either impossible or ineffective without reforming the Council. On the contrary, many of these negative perceptions have been somewhat alleviated by small but effective measures taken over the years regarding the Council’s working methods. The presidential note in document S/2006/507, prepared under Japan’s presidency in 2006, is an excellent example of what could be done through such initiatives. Furthermore, it would be artificial and distorting to see the Council through the lens of permanent-versus-elected members, as they all bear collective responsibility for international peace and security. The Council belongs to us all — not only to the 15 but to the entire United Nations membership. Hence, there is a collective responsibility to make it work better. Therefore, it would be wiser for us today to approach this issue in a practical rather than a philosophical manner. We need to be realistic and to focus on what is feasible as opposed to what is ideal. We must act with common sense and with a view to finding the right balance between effectiveness, transparency and credibility. In this regard, the full and effective implementation of the agreed measures in S/2006/507 and subsequent notes is certainly what is needed most. Of course, we should also continue trying to further improve and expand on document S/2006/507 in light of the evolving practices of the Council and the specific needs of international relations, and taking into account the views of non-members. The ongoing process in the Working Group on Procedures presents an important opportunity in this direction, and we very much welcome Japan’s leadership in this regard. Given the excellent working relationship currently prevailing in the Council, I have full confidence that a satisfactory outcome will be achieved to that process. The Council’s working methods, I believe, can be taken up in two distinct but related categories. One is related to the Council’s internal working culture and the other pertains to its relationship with interlocutors outside the Council. Today, in view of the time constraints and public nature of this debate, I will focus on the latter aspect and try to offer some practical ideas and suggestions, many of which are in fact already cited in document S/2006/507. The primary aim in addressing the Council’s relations with non-members should be to increase the transparency of its work, to make it more interactive with partners, and to ensure that it is better informed on issues it is dealing with. Any success in this direction will make the Council more effective and its decisions more implementable. To that end, we should fist continue trying to have more open formal meetings as opposed to closed consultations. The statistics show that this is indeed possible without having any negative effect on the work of the Council. On the contrary, it makes the Council more accessible and credible. We should also try to have a closer working relationship with the troop- and police-contributing countries, especially with respect to the missions in which they participate. There are many ways of doing this, but more frequent and substantive meetings with them come at the top of the list. We are already making some strides in this direction in the context of the peacekeeping reform we embarked upon last year, but there is room for more progress. In this regard, we can also consider sharing the reports and draft resolutions concerning their missions with the troop-contributing countries, simultaneously with the Council members, and seek their views and inputs in a timely manner. Likewise, organizing informal, interactive dialogue meetings with countries that the Council deals with as part of its agenda can also be a step in the right direction. Those “15+n” meetings will give us the opportunity to listen to their side of the story and receive first-hand information as to the situation on the ground. Such exchanges need not always be at the ambassadorial level, and we can consider also holding them among the experts or coordinators. Another valuable idea that I understand is repeated almost every time we have this discussion is the utility of having regular meetings with the Presidents of the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. In addition to the Presidents of the Council meeting with them every month, which has been partly implemented, we might also consider inviting them to our working luncheons with the Secretary-General. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the need for and benefit of regular consultations with regional and subregional organizations, such as the African Union, which can complement the work of the Council and create a synergy of efforts. Given the overlapping agendas and common objectives, that point needs no further explanation but full implementation. The same is valid for the Arria Formula meetings, whereby we have the opportunity to listen to non-member stakeholders and representatives of non-governmental organizations, who often provide clear, uncensored and eye-opening assessments of the questions we grapple with in the Council. The informal character of these meetings is in itself an advantage that needs to be tapped more often. In the same vein, the Security Council’s missions could and should be used more effectively in communicating our messages, contacting our interlocutors on the ground and getting a better first- hand assessment of the situation. The terms of reference and objectives of these missions should thus be prepared very carefully so as to better serve our larger purposes. Finally, the Presidents of the Council should be given a more systematic role in conveying the gist of our closed consultations to non-members and the media. The practice of issuing oral remarks after consultations is thus very useful, but we should avoid micromanaging the exercise and allow more leeway to the Presidents in informing the interested parties about the Council’s deliberations. Before concluding, I would like to touch very briefly upon another issue that is somewhat pertinent to our internal working culture, but is also of critical importance to the legitimacy and credibility of the Council’s decisions. It concerns how we prepare and negotiate the Council’s documents, be they resolutions or press and presidential statements. Indeed, the tendency in the Council is to hold advance consultations on many of those documents among a limited number of countries, such as groups of friends, before sharing them with the rest of the Council members. One might argue in favour of the practical utility of having directly interested countries agree on the basic parameters of documents in a way that facilitates consensus-building. However, that should by no means limit the full involvement of all Council members in the work of the Council. Otherwise, the ownership and thus the implementability of the Council’s decisions would be weakened. Moreover, the fact that the Council often acts as a quasi-judicial body whose decisions, such as sanctions, affect international law as well, involving every member fully in decision-shaping and decision-making processes, is of even further significance in that respect. I have spoken at length. I know that there are many more speakers on the list, so let me stop here and congratulate you once again, Sir, not only for this particular meeting, but for Japan’s continued leadership in improving the working methods of the Council. I am confident that today’s meeting and our efforts within the Council will empower the Council and make it a more effective, transparent and coherent body — a goal commonly shared by the United Nations membership.

The drafting by Security Council members in 2006 of recommendations on the Council’s working methods, which were incorporated into the relevant note of the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), was very significant for strengthening the principles of transparency and effectiveness in the work of the Security Council. In recent years, Security Council members have made significant progress in these areas through constructive dialogue with interested Member States that are non-members of the Council. The number of open meetings of the Council has increased. The Council President has adopted the systematic practice of holding briefings for Member States, including on the Council’s programme of work. The subsidiary bodies of the Council present regular reports on their work. The quality of the Council’s annual reports has improved. Comprehensive and regularly updated information on the work of the Council is posted on its website. Items on the Security Council’s agenda are added and removed in an orderly manner. Opportunities for contact between the Security Council and interested States have increased, including as part of the Arria Formula meetings and the so-called informal interactive dialogues. The Security Council is actively cooperating with countries contributing troops and police to United Nations peacekeeping operations through the Peacebuilding Commission and its country configurations. An additional impulse was given to dialogue with regional organizations with a view to fully harnessing the potential of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. This is by no means a full list of the real achievements in improving the working methods of the Security Council. We believe that Member States will take reciprocal steps and demonstrate even greater interest in cooperating with the Security Council. In practice, despite the increased number of open meetings of the Council and briefings by the President of the Security Council, low Member attendance persists. It is important for countries that contribute troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations to participate more actively in the discussions at their regular meetings with the Council and to offer specific assessments and opinions for Council members could use in their work. In other words, we must note that, to date, opportunities that are currently available have not been fully exploited by non-members. Article 30 of the Charter defines the prerogative of the Security Council to establish its own rules of procedure. In implementation of that role, it is striving methodically in its Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions to improve its working methods. Russia notes the professional leadership of the Group by its current Chair, the Permanent Representative of Japan, Mr. Takasu. Academic and unrealistic approaches in this area could have a negative impact on the productivity of the Security Council’s work. It is important to maintain a balance between openness in the work of the Security Council, on the one hand, and ensuring the effectiveness, functionality and appropriate confidentiality of its work, on the other. Security Council members are prepared to further heed the good advice on improving its working methods. We trust that today’s meeting will facilitate the gathering of more information on the opinions and preferences of non-members of the Council. However, decisions in this area will be taken only by members of the Council in the context of their Charter-mandated responsibilities.

I would like to thank you, Sir, for convening this open debate on the implementation of the measures set out in the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507 on the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation recognizes the efforts made by Japan as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions to continue to improve the transparency and efficiency of the Council’s work and its interaction with the wider United Nations membership. We feel that the Security Council’s reflections on its working methods are part of a more wide-ranging exercise of interest to United Nations Members regarding comprehensive reform of the Council. As an urgent matter, such reform must be adapted to the new global balances and challenges. As an elected member of the Security Council, Mexico shares these objectives. Our actions in the Security Council have been and will continue to be guided by the principles of transparency, democratization and accountability. Today’s debate is particularly important in pursuing the discussion that began in 2006 with the adoption of presidential note S/2006/507, which has led to significant improvements in the Council’s working methods. Nonetheless, although much remains to be done, it is essential that the Informal Working Group on Documentation continue to discuss and analyse in-depth the implementation of the recommendations in document S/2006/507, and define the updating necessary to continuing to improve the Council’s working methods. Mexico hopes that this will lead to the adoption in the coming months of a comprehensive presidential note. To achieve that goal and to continue to strengthen the Council’s transparency, the participation of all States Members of the Organization in this discussion is necessary. Since the adoption of presidential note S/2006/507, the Council has held a greater number of open meetings and open debates, not only on matters relating to the Council’s agenda, but also on cross- cutting themes that impact on peacekeeping and international security. Similarly, since 2008 it has improved the content of its annual report to the General Assembly in response to a long-standing demand by the membership. There is also greater interaction between police- and troop-contributing countries and the Council. Despite these improvements, not all of the recommendations in document S/2006/507 have been implemented and new concerns have arisen that must be taken into account by the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. On transparency, my delegation considers it necessary to continue to increase the number of open meetings of the Council and to ensure that informal consultations are convened only when strictly necessary, thus promoting greater interaction among Council members. It is important to question the relevance of holding informal consultations to hear statements and briefings that could be given in open meetings, although they provide additional information for the Council’s internal work. It is also necessary to continue to enhance the internal transparency of the Council. At present, most decisions are taken by consensus, which ensures greater political impact for Security Council decisions. Such unity will be preserved only if we maintain internal transparency. Regarding effectiveness, the Council must continue to explore and, if possible, codify the various meeting formats that allow it to address all threats to international peace and security and to interact with all States and actors involved in a conflict, including civil society. Recent informal interactive dialogues on Chad and Sri Lanka, as well as the increased number of Arria Formula meetings, are successful demonstrations of the Council’s new flexibility in executing its responsibilities. On the issue of inclusiveness, the practice whereby new Presidents of the Security Council submit the monthly agenda to Member States and the media must be perpetuated. However, this practice should be expanded and systematized in order to strengthen the consistency of discussions with the Organization’s wider membership. An additional resource that has proved useful in that area is the regular informational briefings of Security Council members by the respective regional groups. As an elected member of the Security Council, my delegation has participated actively in these informational meetings with the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States. I conclude by referring to a matter of great importance. As stated in Article 24 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council acts on behalf of Member States in maintaining international peace and security. To protect this essential principle, the Security Council must continue to fine-tune its working methods in order to ensure that its decisions are effectively implemented by all Member States, as provided by Article 25 of the Charter, and ultimately to enhance its credibility.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate. I also take this opportunity to thank the Member States for their care and support for the work of the Security Council. The Charter of the United Nations entrusts the Security Council with the solemn responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. In today’s complex state of international affairs, fraught with security challenges of all kinds and with expectations high on the part of the Member States, the Security Council finds itself facing colossal tasks. In recent years, the Council has striven to meet its responsibilities and made active efforts to improve its working methods and enhance the transparency of its work. The Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions has carried out fruitful work, and the President’s note contained in document S/2006/507 marks an important step towards further improvement of the rules and procedures of the Security Council. Efforts in this regard have also benefited from constructive views and proposals put forward by Member States. We should build on the results achieved so far, base our actions on reality, and continue to tap potentials for the improvement of the Council’s working methods so as to make its work more equitable, efficient and transparent. I believe that we should focus our efforts on the following aspects. First, we should widely seek the views of non-members of the Council and strengthen communication and interaction with them. Useful practices in this regard include monthly briefings by the presidency of the Security Council to non-members of the Council and dialogues with troop-contributing countries (TCCs). We hope that the Council fully hears the views and proposals of the Member States. We also hope that the latter will make the best use of such occasions as open meetings and meetings with TCCs to air their views so that the Council can be informed of their valuable opinions. Secondly, we should seek practical results in the enhancement of transparency. Efforts to enhance transparency should stress the participation of Member States and the practical results achieved, instead of becoming a matter of formality. Open meetings are more transparent and enjoy the broader participation of Member States. As such, they offer an important platform for non-members of the Council to participate in the work of the Council. We hope that open meetings will be more results-oriented so that non-members of the Council are given an opportunity to present their views and proposals. The themes of open meetings should have a more narrow focus and should not be too general. Thirdly, we should focus our energy on addressing major and urgent threats to international peace and security. We support the annual review by the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions of items on the Security Council’s agenda in order to keep the agenda current, save resources and increase efficiency. Recent years have seen an excessive increase in thematic items, some of which are beyond the Council’s sphere of competence. This trend should be a matter of concern to Member States. Fourthly, we should further improve the timeliness and quality of Council documents. The surge in quantity of documents adopted by the Security Council in recent years demonstrates the increase in the Council’s workload, but also serves as a reminder that greater attention should be paid to the quality of documents and their practical implementation. Reports of the Secretary-General should strive to be more targeted and timely so as to become living documents that genuinely reflect problems and present recommendations. Due attention should be given to making relevant documents available in all six official languages in a timely manner, which is an important step in enhancing the transparency and openness of the Security Council. Improving the working methods of the Security Council is a long-term task that cannot be accomplished all at once. We are willing to work with others in making unremitting efforts in this regard. We are convinced that, with the continuous improvement of its working methods and incessant innovation of its practice, the Security Council will be better able to fulfil the mission entrusted to it by the States Members of the United Nations.

I would first like to thank the Japanese presidency for convening today’s open debate. We are grateful to Japan for its chairmanship of the Informal Working Group of the Council on this topic. We also wish to say a special word of thanks to the group of five small States for their important contributions to the subject we are discussing today. We believe that any effort to improve the working methods of the Council must focus on two goals: enhancing transparency and strengthening interaction between the Council and the United Nations membership at large. The Council must also aim at maximum transparency vis-à-vis the broader public, in particular through its cooperation with the media. In recent years, we have seen some improvement in the realization of these aims. The Council has increased the number of its open debates and briefings. The consultation process which the Council has established with the troop- and police-contributing countries before deciding on the mandate of a mission or its renewal is another step in the right direction. In some instances, so-called informal interactive dialogues have provided the Security Council and interested countries with a useful framework for a direct informal exchange on issues of concern to the Council. This is a path that we should explore further. I should also like to commend the initiative of Uganda to organize an informal meeting with Member States on the occasion of the presentation of the most recent annual report of the Council to the General Assembly. We hope that this practice will be continued. At the same time, there are other areas in which we still see substantial potential for improving the Council’s working methods. One example is the cooperation between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). It has been our experience that chairpersons of country-specific configurations of the PBC contribute in a very useful manner to the public meetings of the Council on the country situations they deal with. At the same time, it has also been very helpful to listen to their additional comments during subsequent Council consultations, but so far, that has of course been possible only when the chairperson in question also happens to represent a Council member. We believe that it would be beneficial for the Council to have the chairs of all country-specific configurations of the PBC — I repeat, all country-specific configurations of the PBC — participate in the relevant consultations of the Council independently of whether they represent Council members or not. One important way to improve interaction between the Council and whole groups of the membership is an intensified cooperation with regional and subregional organizations. The Security Council debated this subject under the presidency of China (see S/PV.6257) and agreed that an increasing interaction of this kind contributes to the coherent and effective implementation of the Council’s resolutions. That is certainly true for cooperation between the Council and the European Union, which has a strong interest in contributing to the work of the Council in many areas of mutual concern, and even more so since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Austria has made a special effort to contribute towards increased transparency and interaction in the subsidiary Council bodies that it has honour to chair. In the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals, Austria is maintaining close dialogue with the specially affected countries and the host countries of the Tribunals. We also organized an Arria Formula meeting on residual issues of the Tribunals, open to all United Nations Member States. We introduced regular biannual briefings, we issued an annual summary of the activities of the Group and, for the first time ever, a chapter on the Working Group was included in the latest annual report of the Security Council (A/64/2). Furthermore, I would like to highlight some developments in the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities, which Austria also chairs. Resolution 1904 (2009) of December 2009 substantially improves the procedures under the 1267 sanctions regime in terms of due process. For the first time ever, individuals and entities seeking de-listing will have the chance to present their cases to an independent and impartial ombudsperson to be appointed by the Secretary-General. It also directs the ombudsperson to forward to petitioners all information about the negative decision provided by the Committee, including explanatory comments. Security Council resolution 1904 (2009) represents a significant step forward in improving the fairness and transparency of the 1267 sanctions regime, thus enhancing both its effectiveness and its legitimacy. This is an area which has been discussed quite often in recent debates on today’s subject. Still, much depends on the practical implementation of that resolution, especially on the appointment of an eminent ombudsperson in the near future. Adding to something my Turkish colleague said, let me say that transparency and interaction are constant challenges in the relations not only between the Council and the wider membership but at times also within the Council itself. With regard to some issues on the agenda of the Council, its decisions are prepared within various special formats. We are well aware of the political and practical reasons for which these formats have developed, but experience also shows how important inclusiveness and transparency can be for achieving and preserving the unity of the Council. The Council’s working methods have developed over the years, yet they will remain a work in progress. As the work of the Security Council adapts to changed circumstances, so should the Council’s working methods. Involvement of the wider membership will remain key in order to serve the interests of the entire world Organization. Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate today. Japan has made an important contribution over recent years to the development of Security Council working methods, including through your leadership on the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507, which has helpfully codified and clarified our working practices. Our guiding principle should be effectiveness, and I would like to highlight seven points, picking up the themes of your concept paper for this debate (S/2010/165). First, we welcome the positive trends identified in your paper towards greater transparency of Council working methods. A particular responsibility falls on the presidency each month to keep other Member States informed of the Council’s work. We have made such briefings a priority during our recent presidencies and encourage others to make this a consistent practice. Second, we need to make sure that the current arrangements for meetings of the Council in these new temporary premises do not impede interaction between Council members and other Member States. Third, we need to balance transparency with effectiveness. The Security Council needs to be able to discuss some sensitive matters out of the public eye. But when we do meet in private the onus is on us as Council members to make sure that we have a genuinely interactive discussion. On occasion, our private consultations differ little from formal meetings in the Chamber. I hope that we can make a collective effort to make the informal consultations a forum for real debate. The Secretariat should help by keeping its briefings short and operationally focused. Fourth, broadening the range of views available to the Security Council can often help its effectiveness. The United Kingdom and France have led efforts to improve the Council’s dialogue with troop- and police- contributing countries. Under our presidency in August last year, the Council adopted a presidential statement (S/PRST/2009/24) which reaffirmed the Council’s intention to further strengthen its cooperation with those countries and the need to build on this progress. We commend the current presidency for providing summaries of troop-contributing country meetings at the start of Council discussions. But it is not just the troop-contributing countries. As the Permanent Representative of Austria has said, we should also seek more focused advice from the Peacebuilding Commission as we discuss peacekeeping mandates. Fifth, we welcome the recent innovation of informal interactive dialogues, which has widened the scope for interaction with non-members. This has enabled the Council to discuss sensitive issues in a flexible format, and we encourage further use of such informal formats for Council meetings. Sixth, Security Council missions can be an effective tool for the Council to understand and influence high-priority issues. We now need to consider how to maximize their operational effectiveness. The Council must be clear from the outset on its objectives and must design the format of the mission accordingly, including, where appropriate, by sending missions composed of a limited number of Council members. Seventh, the Council should pay greater attention to conflict prevention. There should be a greater openness to discussions in the Council on situations of emerging conflict, so that we can determine an effective preventive response. We would like to see more frequent briefings by the Secretariat, on an ad hoc basis, on situations of emerging concern. The Secretary-General and his senior officials should be invited to brief the Security Council as a matter of routine when they return from visits to countries on the Council’s agenda or other countries of concern. We would also support regular briefings from the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities. In conclusion, note S/2006/507 covers a lot of ground, and today the Council will hear many proposals for how it might be improved. It is right that the Council’s procedures as a whole should be reviewed, but we would encourage you, Mr. President, to identify for agreement by the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions a short list of priority areas for implementation, which it would be the responsibility of future presidencies to take forward. We look forward to participating actively in that ongoing debate.

I would like at the outset to thank you, Mr. President, for your earnest efforts and your initiative to discuss and assess the implementation of the measures set out in the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) on the Council’s working methods, with a view to enhancing transparency and interaction between the Security Council and non-member States, to enhance the effectiveness of the Council’s work and to broaden the legitimacy of its resolutions. Developing the Council’s working methods is an integral part of the Security Council reform for which we have all been calling. Yet the international realities have changed and the Security Council’s tasks have evolved, especially with the increase in peacekeeping forces and political missions and the establishment of sanctions committees. Still, the Council, through its Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, has taken a number of positive steps in this respect, and we are confident, Mr. President, that your chairmanship of the Working Group will enable us to achieve further progress in the full implementation of the measures set out in presidential note S/2006/507. Lebanon welcomes the steps taken by the Security Council and its presidency to enhance transparency, as that is the window through which non-member States can be informed about the work of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. With a view to further enhancing the transparency to which we aspire, Lebanon proposes an increase in the number of open meetings as opposed to closed meetings, in line with rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure, and, as appropriate, an increase in the number of Arria Formula meetings and informal interactive sessions, so as to enhance open-door diplomacy and allow non-member States to have their say as well. Such practices help increase interaction between the Security Council and the States that entrust it to act on their behalf to maintain international peace and security under Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations. Nonetheless, if open meetings are to proceed in a more effective manner, we believe that it would be useful for statements to be shorter and repetitive formalities less frequent so as to focus more on the concrete results that must be reached. Furthermore, Lebanon welcomes the current approach to involving regional organizations and other groups in open meetings so as to benefit from their experiences and to listen to their presentations, as was the case during the presidency of China early this year when we discussed the theme of cooperation between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations in maintaining international peace and security (see S/PV.6257). Lebanon also calls for increased interaction between the Security Council and the heads of other United Nations bodies, such as the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and Peacebuilding Commission. In addition, Lebanon believes that States involved in conflicts under consideration by the Council should attend closed consultations, because it is essential to hear their views by virtue of their direct involvement with said conflicts. On the other hand, Lebanon welcomes the coordinating meetings that take place between the Council and troop-contributing countries and calls for their expansion to include host States as well. Lebanon also supports the idea of hearing briefings by the Secretary-General’s representatives in open plenary meeting and not in closed, except in exceptional circumstances. As for the Security Council’s subsidiary organs, notwithstanding the steps proposed in the President’s Note contained in document S/2006/507, they remain insufficient. Lebanon therefore proposes that the agendas of the Security Council’s subsidiary organs be published and circulated prior to their meetings, including on the website of each body, in order to inform States of their work. We also call for increasing the number of meetings between the heads of the subsidiary organs, especially the Sanctions Committees, and non-members of the Security Council to inform them on a regular basis of the details of the meetings held and resolutions adopted, as this would increase transparency and dialogue. Lebanon joins in the numerous appeals for the definitive adoption of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council after more than 60 years of considering them to be provisional. We also stress the need to involve all Council members in preparing draft resolutions and presidential statements. When we speak of effectiveness, we have to consider the Security Council resolutions that have not yet been implemented and to find a mechanism to secure their implementation. I will offer the Arab- Israeli conflict as an example because it is the oldest item on the agenda of the Security Council. Dozens of resolutions have been adopted in this respect, but the occupation continues and the settlements are unchanged. That is why we must stop the rhetoric and move towards implementation. In conclusion, Lebanon calls for convening an open meeting at least once a year to consider the working methods of the Security Council, which are not a goal in themselves but a means towards further transparency, effectiveness and interaction. Lebanon is aware that agreeing the most suitable rules for the working methods of the Council is related not only to the proposed ideas, but also to the political will of States.

Thank you, Mr. President, for initiating this very important meeting and for providing a valuable concept paper to facilitate our discussions this morning. The working methods of any organization constitute a very critical ingredient of its performance and overall success. We therefore welcome this debate as a practical step to reinforce not only the efficiency and transparency of the Council, but also its interaction and dialogue with non-members of the Council. I would like to elaborate on three elements that are crucial to the improvement of the Security Council’s working methods. The first element is transparency. We believe that transparency in the work of the Council will not only promote accountability, but will also earn the Council the confidence of the broader United Nations membership and the global public. In accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, more formal meetings, such as today’s debate, and access to information will allow for the proper evaluation of the effectiveness and inadequacies of the Council. The monthly briefing to non-members of the Council on the programme of work, the monthly assessment of the Council’s presidency, and greater coverage of the activities of the various subsidiary bodies of the Council are very commendable. Through consultations and enhanced content, more useful information is now being provided to non-members of the Council in the annual reports. We believe that both the analytical and the narrative quality of the work can be further enhanced with information provided in the monthly assessment of the presidency. The traditional practice of subjecting the reports to an assessment by members of the Council is also encouraged. Presidential statements constitute valuable means of providing information to non-members of the Council on the decisions of the Council. To improve their usefulness, they need to be more concrete and specific in terms of content. We also believe that the presidents of the Council should return to flexibility in addressing the media, while lead countries should be encouraged to provide more statements as appropriate. The value of informal consultations should be enhanced through the provision of information to non- members of the Council on the outcomes of discussions as appropriate. The Council may also use other variants of this method, such as informal interactive discussions, in promoting inclusiveness in its work. On interaction and dialogue with non-members of the Council, we welcome efforts made to increase interaction with the broader United Nations membership, troop- and police-contributing countries and regional organizations. We support the practice of holding informal consultations with General Assembly members, as introduced by Viet Nam in 2008 and sustained by Uganda in 2009, before the adoption of the annual report. Mindful of the value of local perspectives and specialized knowledge in guiding the decisions of the Council, we feel that it is necessary to maintain and improve the practice of inviting concerned countries and parties to deliberations on missions, mandates and other issues on the Council’s agenda. In terms of efficiency, Security Council field missions are valuable in enhancing the efficiency of the Council and in providing the right perspectives on local realities. Through dialogue with various actors at the national and regional levels, Council members become aware of the impact of their decisions. Our view is that the work of the Council would be greatly improved and enhanced by more visits and longer engagements with actors in Africa, considering the heavy presence of African issues on the agenda of the Security Council. The timely circulation of the reports of the Secretary-General to Council members and to troop- contributing countries is crucial to the efficient work of the Council. The implementation of this requirement has been hindered by the cumbersome process of producing reports. The Council may need to consider reviewing the time frames required for the production of these reports on a case-by-case basis, and allocating more time for the submission of the reports. At the World Summit in 2005, our leaders envisaged a reformed Council that would be broadly representative, democratic, efficient and indeed transparent — a Council would enjoy enhanced effectiveness and legitimacy in the implementation of its own decisions. Fortunately, the Council’s working methods and procedures contain the essential tools for achieving these ideals. What is needed now, and urgently, is to overcome the challenges of inflexibility and the lack of will to implement note S/2006/507 and the subsequent notes of 2007 and 2008.

The United States appreciates the commitment of Japan to improving the working methods of the Security Council and your initiative, Mr. President, in convening this open debate. We should like to recognize your outstanding work, Sir, as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, and the excellent management of these issues by your Mission. The Council has the solemn responsibility to take the primary role in preserving international peace and security on behalf of the entire membership of the United Nations. It is important that, in carrying out this role, our work be as effective, efficient and transparent as possible. Article 30 of the Charter of the United Nations mandates the Council to adopt its own rules of procedure. In doing so, the Council understands the importance of making sure that other Member States who are our partners in the maintenance of international peace and security are informed of and appropriately involved in the work of the Council. The present debate focuses on the implementation of the annex to the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507. That note was the result of intensive work in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Issues and was a significant step forward. The Security Council undertook a number of measures to improve the transparency of its work. All Council members have made significant contributions to this effort. With respect to transparency, for example, the Council established a new practice whereby the new Council Presidents brief non-members of the Council shortly after the adoption of the programme of work each month. The annual report of the Security Council includes a high level of detail that expands the information available to the general membership and provides a snapshot of the problems faced by the Council in its work and how these problems have been addressed. The Council has also increased its interaction and dialogue with non-Council members in a variety of ways, including through informal discussions with interested parties to seek their views. Open Security Council meetings, such as the one we are in today, provide the opportunity for general Members to participate, and we are pleased that about 20 per cent of the membership is doing so today. Another example was the open debate the Security Council organized on the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) last fall (see S/PV.6191). The Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) purposely developed an open and transparent three-day event for all United Nations Member States, relevant non-governmental organizations and civil society to present findings on the implementation of the resolution. The event was well attended and included a civil society plenary session side event organized by the Stanley Foundation. We again encourage as many Members as possible to attend open meetings, which are the Council’s preferred method of meeting whenever possible. The subsidiary bodies of the Council have also increased their number of open meetings. The Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, the Permanent Representative of Turkey, Ambassador Apakan, in conjunction with Counter-Terrorism Executive Director Mike Smith, has already held two open meetings this year, the first on the challenge of effective judicial cooperation and the second on maritime security and terrorist acts committed at sea. United Nations peacekeeping is one of the most important tools the Security Council has at its disposal, and we recognize the importance of close cooperation with troop- and police-contributing countries in this effort. In line with the New Horizon initiative of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Security Council has made a concerted effort to engage troop- and police-contributors in earlier and more meaningful consultation at least a week in advance of Security Council consultations on mandates. The Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations has also sought to improve the mechanisms for cooperation with troop- and police-contributing countries and to engage in regular dialogue about how to fine tune that cooperation. Over the course of the past year, the Council has engaged Member States and other interested stakeholders in a series of open debates covering a range of issues on its peacekeeping agenda, including cooperation with troop- and police-contributing countries, peacekeeping reform, the relationship between peacebuilding and peacekeeping, mediation, and cooperation with regional organizations so that we can together ensure that United Nations peacekeeping continues to be an effective means to save lives, end conflict and rebuild shattered societies. Making the work of the Council more efficient requires constant effort. In this regard, we all face the challenge of balancing the substance with the length of each of our statements so that we can convey our message as succinctly and clearly as possible. All of us, whether we are Council members or not, should strive to do better on this score so that meetings can be conducted in a manner that allows as many Member States to speak as possible, with as many other States present to hear them. Today’s debate offers an opportunity for the Council to hear first hand whether the practical applications of the innovations listed in presidential note S/2006/507 have helped Member States to follow the work of the Council. We intend to listen carefully to constructive comments in order to assess the effectiveness of practices and measures taken by the Council to enhance transparency, dialogue and efficiency. This information will inform the future efforts of the Council’s Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions.

I thank the delegation of Japan for having organized this open debate on the implementation of the presidential note of July 2006, contained in document S/2006/507. This debate provides the opportunity to assess the status of our ongoing efforts to improve the working methods of the Council and to allow non-members to share their observations and proposals. We view the working methods as a tool to enable the Council to act with greater effectiveness. They must provide for the maintenance of a relationship of transparency and interaction with the entire membership of the United Nations at the various stages of the decision-making process. The credibility and effective authority of Council decisions are linked to that process. Expanding the openness of the Council and strengthening its transparency and its interaction with the rest of the United Nations are also means of pursuing the goal of effectiveness. Effectiveness is by no means opposed to openness; quite the contrary. The Council acts in the name of all Members of our Organization. It therefore cannot act effectively unless it respects two conditions. It must both take into account the concerns of Member States and give an account of its work to them. That is possible only through openness and transparency. Since our most recent open debate on working methods in August 2008 (see S/PV.5968), we have made tangible progress that has contributed to the transparency of Council decisions in a number of areas that are important to all the Members of the United Nations. First of all, cooperation in the crucial area of peacekeeping has been improved. In particular, it has been possible to establish more substantial dialogue between troop-contributing countries and the Council in the context of the Franco-British initiative on improving the planning and monitoring of peacekeeping operations, launched in January 2009. I underscore the interest that has been shown in organizing working meetings with troop- and police- contributing countries prior to Council consultations. That interstice allows for the effective participation of military advisors and specialists in police-related and political issues from the States providing contingents, and it improves background discussions. We must continue in this direction. Secondly, dialogue with regional organizations has evolved, as evidenced by the Council’s debate organized on this topic under the Chinese presidency in January 2010 (see S/PV.6257). Finally, the Council is organizing an increasing number of open debates on a broad range of subjects in order to benefit from the opinions of experts, practitioners and the entire United Nations system. This allows it ultimately to better address the new challenges of peacekeeping and international security, improve its consideration of these issues, and take new measures as a result. The excellent quality of the texts recently adopted by the Council on threats related to terrorism, drug-trafficking, organized crime and corruption are proof of that. In conclusion, I commend Japan’s excellent work in its capacity as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. My delegation contributes with interest to the current evaluation of document S/2006/507 and is prepared to learn new things from it on the basis of experience and practice. We believe that the following principles must continue to guide our thinking. First, the Security Council’s work must be appropriately distributed between public meetings and private consultations in order to facilitate the resolution of issues under consideration. In this regard, the members of the Council must bear in mind that they have considerable leeway in terms of organizing their meetings. Secondly, the Council must continue to use that flexibility to innovate by establishing new meeting formats that are better adapted to the issues addressed and more regular and flexible. My delegation is thus in favour of establishing new formats that are more flexible at each phase of the Council’s decision-making and negotiation process, without believing it necessary to codify them. The members of the Council must make the most of the flexibility that they have in their working methods and thus continue to engage in their considerations in a dynamic manner.

Thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this important debate. Bosnia and Herzegovina welcomes the efforts of the Security Council to improve its working methods, which have been particularly intensified in recent years. The first open debate in 1994 had historical significance and launched a true evolution, resulting in the adoption of the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507. The measures contained in the note and their implementation reaffirm the principles of efficiency, transparency, interaction and dialogue with non-members, which are recognized not only by States members of the Security Council itself, but also by the broader United Nations membership. In today’s debate, together with non-member States, we have the opportunity to exchange views and assess the implementation of the measures set out in the annex of note S/2006/507, with the aim of improving their implementation. Bosnia and Herzegovina attaches high importance to the implementation of the measures identified in document S/2006/507, for we are confident that it could help to promote the Security Council’s transparency, interaction with the United Nations membership and efficiency. We are grateful to the presidency for the concept paper (S/2010/165) on the implementation of document S/2006/507. We would also agree with the analysis provided in it. Indeed, the Security Council has made progress in implementing the measures set out in document S/2006/507 and, by doing so, has achieved better efficiency and transparency, as well as interaction and dialogue with non-members. Furthermore, we share the same views when it comes to the challenges in implementing the measures. Some of these challenges could be addressed through additional efforts by the Security Council, including in the field of information-sharing, where there is room for improvement. The general approach of Bosnia and Herzegovina to issues related to working methods is based on the need to find a proper and adequate balance among generally accepted principles or guidelines on efficiency, transparency and interaction and dialogue with non-members. These principles are compatible, but in practice they very often contradict each other. Bearing in mind the primary responsibility of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, we would like to express the position of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the following issues related to the working methods. First, on consultations, the Security Council needs enough flexibility to allow it to choose the best format for a meeting depending on the issue being considered. While recognizing the importance of informal consultations to the decision-making process, we underline the need to balance informal consultations with public meetings. It is indicative that rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council states that “Unless it decides otherwise, the Security Council shall meet in public”. Therefore, in the spirit of this rule, the Security Council should hold public meetings as often as possible. We also believe that it is particularly important to strengthen the interactive nature of public meetings. Secondly, with respect to strengthening interactions with troop- and police-contributing countries, regional organizations, the Peacebuilding Commission, parties that have direct interests in an issue, and the broader United Nations membership, we welcome the progress and development of new practices, including informal interactive dialogues. We believe such interaction has the potential to enhance the quality of the Security Council’s decisions and to generate a sense of common ownership, strengthening in that way the prospects for effective implementation. Of particular significance is the interaction between the Security Council and troop-contributing countries, both in drawing up and in implementing mandates. We also urge the Secretariat to ensure the timely circulation of the reports prepared by the Secretary-General to the Security Council members, as well as to troop- contributing countries, thus contributing to the efficiency of their work. We welcome increased interaction with regional and subregional organizations as important partners of the Security Council. The Security Council should also increase exchanges and the sharing of information with other United Nations bodies, especially the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Thirdly, on the way forward, the presidential note was designed to improve the efficiency of the work of the Security Council. We believe that, through its practical implementation, this goal will be largely achieved. We also believe that the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions should continue to work in order to agree on new measures in a reasonable time frame. Furthermore, we prefer the option of creating a new, consolidated text that could include the measures contained in notes S/2006/507, S/2007/784 and S/2008/847. Finally, we are convinced that this open debate will significantly contribute to the future work of the Informal Working Group.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this timely open debate on the implementation of the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507. Let me join other delegations in expressing our appreciation for Japan’s contributions to improving the Council’s working methods. Under your able chairmanship, the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions has been looking into ways to enhance the Council’s transparency, accountability and efficiency. Such efforts, which my delegation actively supports, will benefit from further interaction and dialogue with the wider membership today. Under Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter, Member States confer on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree to carry out the decisions of the Council in accordance with the Charter. These two aspects — that the Council’s authority is delegated and that its decisions bind sovereign States — explain and justify the interest of all delegations in the working methods of the Council. Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter also provide indispensable parameters for the interaction between the Security Council and Member States at large. They establish the right of concerned parties to participate without a vote in the deliberations of the Council on matters affecting their interests. The Council’s constant dialogue with the wider membership on method and substance is therefore a political imperative. It is also beneficial to this organ, as it helps to make its decisions more inclusive and potentially more effective. Efforts must continue to be made to increase meaningful access for non-members in accordance with the Charter. This must apply to subsidiary bodies of the Security Council as well. They should seek the views of Member States with a legitimate interest in their areas of work or directly affected by their decisions, including by inviting representatives of such members to participate in meetings as appropriate. Security Council consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries are another aspect of the organ’s working methods that are especially important to the wider membership. Significant progress has been made in that area, but more can be done. For example, consultations should be held as early as possible in the negotiation of mandate renewals for peacekeeping missions so that the views of troop- and police- contributing countries can be considered by the Council fully and in a timely manner. Such interaction would be made easier and more effective if contributing countries had access to reports of the Secretary-General and draft resolutions as early as possible in the process. Closer interaction between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission should be pursued. Let me express our support for the proposals made in that regard by the Permanent Representative of Austria. Credible and systematic information sharing is key to consistent dialogue between Council members, non-members, interested parties and regional and subregional organizations. I would like to echo the words of the Permanent Representative of Nigeria in stressing the importance of more frequent dialogue with the African Union, taking into account the importance of such interaction to deliberations on many issues on the Council’s agenda. Private meetings may be needed, and often are, to help to effectively address an issue being considered by the Council. However, the Council should continue to strive to hold as many public meetings as possible, in line with the letter and the spirit of rule 48 of its provisional rules of procedure. Those and other relevant issues are being currently discussed in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions as we assess the implementation of presidential note S/2006/507. We hope that the Council will be able to agree on the text of a revised comprehensive presidential note. By doing so, we would provide Member States and the general public with a single user-friendly updated text comprising relevant practices relating to the working methods of the Council. As Brazil has said in the past, improving the working methods of the Security Council is not sufficient to ensure its long-term transparency, accountability and legitimacy. For that to happen, its composition must reflect cotemporary political realities. The overwhelming support expressed in December 2009 for moving the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform to a text-based phase shows that the United Nations membership fully understands that political need. Brazil continues to hold the view that the Council should be expanded in the permanent and non- permanent categories of membership, with the inclusion of developing countries in both. We also believe that there is ample support for that position. We will continue to work with like-minded delegations, in constant dialogue with all Member States, in favour of a solution that can garner the widest possible political acceptance.

I thank the Permanent Representative of Brazil for her kind words addressed to my country.

My delegation duly appreciates the initiative to hold this debate, at a time when improving the working methods of the Security Council is increasingly necessary owing to the challenges facing international peace and security. Gabon welcomes the ongoing crucial role played by your country Japan, Mr. President, to promote greater transparency and efficiency in the Council’s work. The concept paper that you have prepared for our consideration (see S/2010/165) sheds light on the issue that is on the agenda of today’s debate. We believe it timely, based on the recommendations contained in the annex to the note contained in document S/2006/507, approved by the Council in July 2006, to look into the functioning of this principal organ of the United Nations. My statement will focus on the two aspects of the issue at the centre of today’s debate: the working methods that structure the Council’s meetings and its relations with the Secretariat; and relations between the Council, non- member States and other United Nations bodies. While we ought to welcome the progress that the Council has already made in improving its working methods, it is nevertheless the case that many practices continue to have an impact on transparency and the Council’s effectiveness in carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. With regard to my first point, my delegation would like to speak of certain practices that to a great degree have an impact on the Council’s productivity. First of all, there is sometimes a delay in the publication of Council documents in the six official languages of the United Nations. Unfortunately, in spite of some progress made in this area, we continue to see that many documents are published just a few days before the holding of Council meetings. This situation does not give Council members the time they need to consider the documents or to consult their capitals for instructions. We also regret the failure to implement paragraphs 8 and 9 of the annex to the note contained in document S/2006/507, which called on the Secretariat to circulate briefing texts and to provide members with printed fact sheets on issues considered by the Council prior to the holding of informal consultations. In addition to those necessary improvements, it also seems crucial to strengthen the equitable distribution of information between the Secretariat and members of the Council, so as to strengthen collective responsibility in the face of threats to international peace and security. It would also be advisable if, before they brief the Council, Special Representatives of the Secretary-General could, to the extent possible, hold consultations not only with the President of the Council but also with the other members of the Council, including the non-permanent members. With regard to newly elected members, I welcome the opportunity provided to them to join private consultations several months prior to the actual commencement of their membership on the Council. Nevertheless, it would be desirable for countries presiding over the Council during the transition period to take the initiative, with the support of the Secretariat, of holding informational meetings for incoming members in order to consider practical examples relating to substantive issues and working methods of the Council. With regard to the management of crises and conflicts, my delegation thinks it would be useful for the Council to strengthen the tools at its disposal to effectively follow the development of crisis situations at the regional and subregional levels. The excellent work done by the United Nations Office for West Africa made it possible for the Organization to quickly and effectively respond to the crisis in Guinea. We are certain that the future establishment of a United Nations office in Central Africa will strengthen the capacity of the Council to prevent and manage conflicts in that subregion, which continues to face numerous challenges in the areas of peace and security. We continue to believe that the effective operationalization of regional offices will help to strengthen the Council’s preventive capacities. The Council would of course benefit from further relying on such offices, not merely to increase the number of meetings it holds on emerging conflicts — as the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom aptly pointed out — but also to make those meetings more useful and effective. Adopting resolutions is a major Council activity. In that regard, my delegation urges the authors of resolutions to undertake a greater number of inclusive consultations within the Council, so as to confer greater legitimacy on the resolutions that are adopted. I should now like to turn to the second point of my statement, namely, relations between the Council and non-members. My delegation is pleased to note that, over the years, the Council has endeavoured to improve its interaction and dialogue with non-member States. For instance, we welcome the regular consultations between the Council and troop- contributing countries, including those that are not members of the Security Council. The same goes for the President’s ongoing consultations with the President of the General Assembly and with non-members of the Council on issues having an impact on international peace and security. We also welcome the efforts made to make the report of the Security Council to the General Assembly more substantive and analytical. These exchanges are all the more important in that they illustrate the need for the United Nations to deliver as one. Regarding the participation of non-member States in Council meetings, we welcome the increasing frequency of open meetings. That enables non-member States to be involved and in that way to contribute to the search for solutions to collective security issues. The goal would be to make it possible to exchange up- to-date information and gather the views of those States, while respecting the principle of the confidentiality of information as set out in the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. This practice can also ensure greater transparency and improved interaction between the Council and non-member States. Improving the Council’s working methods is a long-term endeavour that calls for tireless effort on our part. We must proceed in stages, with a firm determination to achieve concrete results. We continue to believe that a more open, more transparent and more inclusive Security Council would respond to modern- day demands. It is certainly the surest way to enhance the Council’s legitimacy and effectiveness.

I thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this debate to assess the implementation of the measures set out in the annex to the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) and recent Security Council practice. At the outset, Uganda commends the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, chaired by Japan, for the good work it has done related to the working methods of the Council. This debate provides an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views by Members of the United Nations on how the working methods of the Security Council can be further improved. The Security Council’s agenda and workload are increasing in tandem with the fact that the international community is faced with challenging, complex situations and issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security. It is therefore essential that the Council conduct its work in an efficient and effective manner, while at the same time enhancing transparency. Although more needs to be done to that end, the Security Council has made some significant improvements in this regard. We welcome the holding of more public meetings, as evidenced by the fact that 205 out of 228 formal meetings held from August 2008 to July 2009 were public. Some of the other notable improvements in transparency include the following: giving States figuring on the Council’s agenda an opportunity to express their views and their concerns; holding consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries at least a week before the Council considers the reports of the Secretary-General on the respective missions; strengthening the working relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, through monthly meetings between their respective Presidents; and holding informal consultations with Member States on a wide range of issues, including on how the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly can be continuously improved. The proposals and suggestions of Member States need to be taken into account. We welcome the provision of timely, substantive and detailed briefings to Member States on the Council’s programme of work. It is important to afford interested Member States the opportunity to hear briefings on matters of concern to them. On the question of efficiency, given the workload of the Council and its subsidiary bodies, it is important to build on the increasing spirit of constructive discussion and consensus-seeking. That will reduce instances of lengthy deliberation. The Security Council continues to emphasize the important role that regional and subregional organizations play in conflict prevention, mediation and resolution and in peacebuilding. We welcome the strengthening of strategic partnerships with the African Union and other regional and subregional organizations, and we emphasize the need to further support building their respective capacities. In conclusion, Uganda underscores the importance of the ongoing deliberations on the urgent need to reform the Security Council to better reflect present realities. The ongoing intergovernmental negotiations need to be calm and more effective, and they need to make definite progress.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Japan. The issue of the working methods of the Security Council is crucial to the effective functioning of the Council. Enhancing transparency, efficiency and interaction with non-Council members benefits Council members and non-members alike. Such efforts are essential for the Security Council to fulfil its responsibility to act promptly and effectively for international peace and security. In all these areas, the Security Council has made good progress in recent years. The note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) was a useful compilation of the working methods of the Council, setting forth clearly the Council’s working practices. But it is also important for the Council to review the progress periodically and make necessary adjustments, in the light of current situation and taking into account comments from non-members of the Council. Some measures may need to be revisited; some others may need further effort for full implementation. We should take a pragmatic approach in order to meet sometimes conflicting requirements: first, to ensure prompt and effective action for international peace and security and, secondly, to gain the support of the wider United Nations membership for full implementation. The Security Council has been making efforts to enhance the transparency of its work. More open meetings are now organized. The presidency provides a briefing to non-members of the Council on the programme of work at the beginning of month — and this month’s was very well attended — and the programme is readily available on the Security Council website; the Journal sets out issues to be discussed not only in the Council but also in its subsidiary bodies. As President of the Security Council, I made it a practice this month to do a press stakeout after every consultations session. It is frequently not possible to share much of the content of the informal consultations because of their informal and ongoing nature. But I believe it is important for the Council to make an effort constantly to enhance transparency and share the thrust of the consultations to the extent that it will be conducive to effective implementation of its eventual decisions. The Security Council’s interaction and dialogue with non-members of the Council is essential to ensure that the Council makes informed decisions, taking into account the views of interested parties. Since a decision by the Council binds all Member States, close interaction with the broader United Nations membership, in particular countries directly involved or specially affected and countries and regional organizations with special contributions to make, will serve to enhance the effectiveness of the implementation of a decision by the Council. Above all, the recent decision for an enhanced and timely dialogue with the troop-contributing and police-contributing countries is a welcome development. The Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations is a useful forum for such interaction. The format of informal interactive dialogue allows the Security Council to have discussions with non-members of the Council that have a direct interest in the issues being discussed. Such dialogue has come to be utilized more frequently in recent years. The Security Council should continue to adopt the most appropriate modality of meeting flexibly to enhance its dialogue with interested parties. Japan is pleased with the many positive comments on the usefulness of the 2006 note by the President in enhancing the efficiency of the work of the Council. A comprehensive compilation of the working methods — the so-called blue book, published by the Japanese Mission — is a useful handbook on how the Council carries out its work, particularly for newly elected members. As the representative of Brazil stated, we believe that a periodic update of such a comprehensive note on working methods benefits members and non-members of the Council alike. The increased participation of non-member States of the Council in its open meetings, such as the recent one on post-conflict peacebuilding (see S/PV.6299) and today’s on working methods, is a welcome development. At the same time, we believe it important that the statements made in the meetings be focused and concise. We encourage all participants, members and non-members of the Council alike, to follow the guidelines established by the Council and to limit their statements in open meetings to five minutes or less in order to allow more delegations to take the floor and to make the meetings efficient and productive. Regarding the way forward, the matter of working methods is important in the context of Security Council reform as one of the five key issues identified through the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. Genuine reform of the Council must consist of meaningful change in its composition, as well as improvements in its working methods. Japan looks forward to negotiations on Security Council reform on the basis of a text at the earliest possible date. We welcome the participation of many non- members of the Council in today’s debate, which reflects the strong interest of Member States in this issue. As the Chairman of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, Japan will follow up the specific points raised in today’s debate. I would like to conclude by reaffirming that members of the Council are making efforts to ensure access by non-members of the Council and members of the press to the temporary conference area, within the physical constraints, as far as possible in line with previous arrangements. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. I give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

I have the honour to speak today, during the first part of my intervention, on behalf of the group of five small countries (S-5). The other members of the group — Costa Rica, Jordan, Singapore and Switzerland — will also participate in this debate in their national capacities. We very much appreciate this opportunity to engage in a dialogue with the Council on its working methods. The S-5 is of the view that the decisions of the Security Council are particularly effective when they are made genuinely on behalf of the membership of the United Nations, as stipulated by the Charter. We have therefore consistently worked to encourage improvements in the working methods of the Council, in particular in the areas of transparency, access and inclusion. We continue to believe that the working methods are an indispensable part both of comprehensive reform of the Security Council and of an ongoing discussion within the Council itself. Holding periodic open debates on this topic is certainly a good approach, and again today we see that the membership has indeed a strong interest in this topic. We therefore commend you, Mr. President, on this initiative and thank you for capably steering the work of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The S-5 group has been active for more than four years, and in 2006 tabled a draft resolution in the General Assembly (A/60/L.49). That text was never acted upon by the Assembly, in particular because, at around the same time, the Council adopted its presidential note, contained in document S/2006/507. We welcomed the adoption of the note, while expressing the view that additional and more far- reaching measures would be needed to achieve the goals of legitimacy, transparency and accountability that our leaders had agreed upon in the framework of the 2005 World Summit. Thus, while we welcome this opportunity to talk about the implementation of note S/2006/507, we will also address issues that go beyond the contents of that note, as the Council has itself actually done in its own practice. The last open debate on this topic in August 2008 (see S/PV. 5968) resulted in no formal outcome, but certainly generated some recommendations on the implementation of document S/2006/507. Most of them have not been followed in the 18 months since. Generally speaking, the implementation of note S/2006/507 has been slow, partial and inconsistent. We appreciate the efforts carried out in the framework of the Informal Working Group, headed by Japan, to make implementation more consistent and effective, and look forward to tangible results and concrete steps on implementation within the current calendar year. The S-5 will continue to reach out to the Council to make constructive and positive contributions to the improvements of working methods, both formally and informally. I will now offer a few remarks, more in my national capacity, on a number of areas where we have been particularly active. It is generally recognized that the annual report of the Security Council is a central channel of communication between the Council and the rest of the membership. It offers an opportunity for constructive dialogue and accountability. The annual report therefore figures prominently in note S/2006/507, even though the relevant parts are mostly repetitions of previous agreements. We have engaged with the Council members, as well as with the President of the General Assembly, to discuss possible improvements in the preparation and consideration of the report. We are very grateful for the open and positive conversations that we have had in that regard as, generally speaking, the opportunities that we have had to exchange views with the Security Council have always been very positive and constructive meetings. The following are some of the main recommendations that came out of the discussions on the annual report. On process, we believe that holding informal consultations during the preparation and before the adoption of the annual report could be very useful. Such consultations have been organized in the past two years by the delegations of Viet Nam and, last year, Uganda, and we are grateful to them. Such consultations offer a good opportunity to discuss, in particular, the introductory part of the annual report, which is the only part that includes political analysis. We also believe that holding a public meeting, or even an open debate of the Council, when the report is adopted would be a useful measure. That would allow for more transparency, and the verbatim record could be taken into account when the report is discussed in the General Assembly. Our records indicate that the last such meeting was held in 2002 (see S/PV.4616). On the format and contents of the report, we believe that making more constructive use of the monthly evaluations prepared by the respective presidencies could enhance the quality of the report. We are also missing an illustration of linkages between issues dealt with in the report, in particular between country situations and thematic issues. We also believe that the report does not cover any cross-cutting issues. We believe that including a chapter in the report on the improvement of the working methods of the Council is necessary. It is often argued that the Council is the master of its own procedures and therefore of all matters related to working methods. There is therefore no better place than the annual report to inform Member States of relevant developments. In the past, we have seen no substantive language on working methods in the annual report. Finally, we believe that more information on the work of the Informal Working Group could be useful. Of course, the Group is informal in nature, but is also the Council’s only subsidiary body not to produce its own annual report. There are different ways of making more information available, including through the Council’s website. As the S-5, we will continue to proactively engage with Council members and the President of the General Assembly on such ideas, and we hope that concrete improvements can be achieved in the framework of the next report. The work of the subsidiary bodies is becoming ever more intense, complex and important. At the same time, access to their proceedings and information thereon continues to be difficult. We therefore attach particular importance to the implementation of the measure set out in paragraph 46 of the annex to note S/2006/507, which asks subsidiary bodies to seek the views of Member States that have a particular interest in a topic under discussion. In that spirit, we strongly welcomed the opportunity to meet as part of the S-5, with the Informal Working Group headed by Japan in July 2009 and were again very encouraged by the open exchange of views at that meeting. In connection with the work of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) concerning Al Qaeda and the Taliban and associated individuals and entities, we again welcome the adoption of resolution 1904 (2009) in December 2009 and thank the Austrian presidency for its efforts in that respect. We believe that the resolution has brought about significant changes that were long overdue in the de-listing regime of the Council, including the establishment of an ombudsperson. We therefore hope that the appointment process can be finalized soon and that the ombudsperson can start working as soon as possible. In conclusion, the format of Council meetings is a key element of access and therefore highly relevant to our agenda in the S-5. The Council has been quite creative in developing new formats, as is illustrated by the very useful report that the organization Security Council Report prepared in advance of this debate. New formats that allow non-Council members access or enable concerned parties or organizations to participate include informal interactive discussions, informal interactive dialogues and what is usually called the Kosovo model. Taking these together with older formats such as Arria Formula meetings, there is now a wide range of mechanisms available to enhance access and transparency. We continue to believe that briefings by senior United Nations officials should always be made accessible to all Member States, without prejudice to the format of subsequent consultations. We also see potential in the format of specific meeting configurations, similar to those used by the Peacebuilding Commission with some success over the past years. This could facilitate the inclusion of non-members in the Council’s deliberations. Finally, allow me a word on the new arrangements for the Security Council. This is my first opportunity to participate in the new Security Council Chamber, which is surprisingly similar to the old Security Council Chamber. We are of the view that the temporary conference room arrangements should not lead to a new wall of secrecy, but should rather be taken as an opportunity for members to seek innovative ways to interact with interested parties and with the media.

I give the floor to the representative of Egypt.

I have the honour to speak today on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. I would like at the outset to convey the Movement’s appreciation to the Japanese presidency of the Security Council for convening this open debate to discuss the progress achieved in the implementation of the measures set out in the note by President of the Security Council contained in document S/2006/507, and for the concept paper dated 5 April 2010 (see S/2010/165) to direct the discussion towards enhancing the credibility, transparency and accountability of the work of the Security Council, particularly in terms of meeting the expectations of States that are not members of the Council. The Non-Aligned Movement attaches great importance to the issue of improving the working methods of the Security Council. That is reflected in the comprehensive, clear and specific position stipulated in the relevant paragraphs of the Final Document adopted at the fifteenth Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries held in Sharm el-Sheik (S/2009/514, annex), as well as in several initiatives presented by the Movement throughout the years since the launching of the Security Council reform process. Those initiatives include, but are not limited to, the comprehensive negotiating paper submitted by the Movement in 1996, as contained in the report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council (A/51/47). The Non-Aligned Movement believes that the Security Council should stop encroaching on the functions and powers of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council by addressing issues which traditionally fall within the competence of those organs. Moreover, the Security Council should avoid resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose a threat to international peace and security and should fully utilize the provisions of other relevant chapters, where appropriate, including Chapters VI and VIII, before invoking Chapter VII, which should be a measure of last resort. Furthermore, it is vital to continue to have regular interaction between the presidency of the Security Council and the wider membership of the United Nations, which can help to enhance the quality of the annual report of the Security Council. In the same context, the Security Council should submit, pursuant to Article 15, paragraph 1, and Article 24, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, special reports for the consideration of the General Assembly and should fully take into account the recommendations of the Assembly on matters relating to international peace and security, consistent with Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Charter. In order to increase transparency, openness and consistency in exercising its mandated activities, the Security Council should increase the number of its public meetings, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, to take into account the views and contributions of the wider membership of the United Nations, particularly non-members of the Council whose issues are under discussion in the Council. Moreover, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, briefings by Special Envoys or Representatives of the Secretary-General and by members of the Secretariat should take place in public meetings. The Non-Aligned Movement appreciates the steps taken to date through the Security Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, under your chairmanship, Mr. President, including those set out in the concept paper under consideration, to increase the transparency and the efficiency of the Security Council, as well as its interaction and dialogue with non-members of the Council. The Non-Aligned Movement further believes that more steps are needed to improve the working methods of the Council through the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Movement is of the view that improving working methods requires strong political will, particularly that of the permanent members of the Council, and the adoption and implementation of many of the comprehensive proposals submitted by Member States over the years, including by the Non-Aligned Movement, to improve the working methods of the Council. Consequently, we look forward to intensified consideration of those proposals by the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions in order to consider in depth the proposals of Member States, including the well known positions and papers of the Non-Aligned Movement concerning improving the working methods of the Security Council, and we call on the Security Council to adopt further measures in that regard. That concludes my statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Allow me to add a few thoughts in my national capacity. I begin by fully associating my country with the statement I just made on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and with the statement to be delivered by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group. I stress the need to achieve tangible results on the issue of improving the working methods of the Security Council as an important part of the interlinked negotiables specified in General Assembly decision 62/557, through intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council and the process of enlargement of the Council. The Council, and particularly its permanent members, should work with the General Assembly to achieve the desired and long-anticipated results as soon as possible. Egypt believes that the main step that must be taken to improve the working methods of the Security Council is to achieve a balance in the power structure between the permanent and non-permanent members of the Council. The time has come for an agreement on a permanent set of rules of procedure to replace the current provisional rules, which have been in force for more than 60 years. Moreover, the Informal Working Group dealing with this important subject in the Council should adopt official, bold measures that would consolidate the concept of equality between countries, promote justice in the way their issues are dealt with, enhance transparency, increase interaction and encourage efficiency. Furthermore, it is imperative to revisit the relationship between the Security Council and the Organization’s other principal organs in order to restore the missing institutional balance set forth in the Charter. The International Court of Justice has a major role to play in settling any dispute that may arise between these organs with respect to their mandates in accordance with the Charter. It should be utilized whenever necessary. It is vital to give Member States whose issues are under consideration the opportunity to attend the informal consultations of the Council on an equal footing with the representatives of the Secretary- General. It is also vital to improve the quality of the annual report submitted by the Council to the General Assembly by making it more analytical and explanatory. The working methods of the Council will not be improved unless we effectively address the misuse of the veto right, or the threat of use of the veto, in a manner that would rationalize and restrict its use to cases where severe violations of human rights are being committed, including cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and grave violations of international humanitarian law, as well as to the cessation of hostilities between belligerent parties and the election of the Secretary-General. Pending the achievement of this intermediate step towards the complete elimination of the veto, the right of the veto should be granted to all new permanent members joining the Security Council within the enlargement process. In conclusion, what is missing is not additional proposals, but the additional political will to achieve real reform of the working methods of the Security Council, as well as all other negotiable terms in the Security Council reform process as outlined in General Assembly decision 62/557. The credibility and validity of the Security Council and its members will be seriously damaged unless we achieve those reforms as soon as possible.

I now give the floor to the representative of Luxembourg.

I have the honour to address the Council on behalf of the Benelux countries — Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. First of all, I would like to thank the President of the Security Council for convening this debate and for his enduring commitment to enhance the working methods and procedures of the Council. As emphasized in the concept paper for today’s debate (see S/2010/165, annex), Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations mandates the Security Council to take prompt and effective action to maintain international peace and security on behalf of all Member States. In order to fulfil this responsibility, the Security Council has adopted, and should continue to adopt, a pragmatic and incremental approach when it comes to improving its working methods. In August 2008, Belgium organized the last open debate on Security Council working methods and procedures during its presidency of the Council. At that time, it was decided to focus the debate on three closely interrelated issues, namely, transparency, interaction and efficiency. Concerning transparency, the Benelux countries welcome the fact that many efforts have been made to increase the transparency of the Security Council’s work. For example, last year’s resolution 1904 (2009), which reviewed the mandate of the Al-Qaida and Taliban Sanctions Monitoring Team, considerably increased the transparency of the process for listing and delisting. The creation of an Office of the Ombudsperson further increases transparency, efficiency and interaction. We therefore hope that an ombudsperson will be appointed shortly. With respect to the issue of access and interaction with non-members of the Council, we would like to make a number of remarks. First, as a general rule, we believe that the deliberations of Council members would be enriched if there were even more interaction with States and non-State actors associated with a conflict, which is especially important in the early stages of the consultations and should include private meetings. We welcome new formats like informal interactive discussions and informal interactive dialogues. In the case of non-State actors, it is the Council’s prerogative to decide which requests it is to grant and in which specific situation. However, we believe that the parties to a conflict should be able to submit their views to the Council in writing, which may decide to distribute them as Security Council documents. We further believe that interaction with non-State actors under the Arria formula is commendable and deserves further encouragement. Secondly, given the increasing importance and involvement of regional and subregional organizations in dealing with challenges to peace and security, we believe that the Security Council benefits from enhanced cooperation with such organizations, both in public as in private deliberations. Furthermore, the fact that a regional organization represents the views of a larger group of Member States can contribute to shorter and more efficient debates, at least when those organizations are allowed to intervene early on in the debate. Finally, the Benelux countries are strong proponents of further strengthening the relationship between the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Security Council. We welcome the fact that the PBC Chairperson or the Chairs of the country-specific configurations of the PBC are regularly invited to brief the Council. We are convinced that the PBC and its country-specific configurations could also bring added value to the work of the Council in thematic areas, such as women and peacebuilding, children and armed conflict, and the future of peacekeeping. On efficiency, the Benelux countries agree with several of the ideas presented by the group of five small countries, in particular that key provisions of thematic resolutions could be incorporated into country-specific resolutions. That would also be a matter of coherence. The Council could also reflect on how best to assess whether its decisions are being implemented, analyze obstacles to implementation and suggest mechanisms to enhance implementation. The proposals I have just mentioned could be enacted by the Security Council without delay. However, the responsibility for improving the relationship with the wider membership depends not only upon the Security Council. It is up to each of us to optimally use all means of interaction at hand. Today’ debate provides an opportunity for feedback from the wider membership to the Security Council, and vice versa, in order to improve mutual understanding. We thank Japan for its readiness to ensure follow- up to this debate in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which it chairs. We would indeed welcome an update of the note contained in document (S/2006/507). Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg will remain constructively engaged in the process of improving the working methods of the Security Council.

I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Finland.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. First, allow me to thank Japan for its long-term commitment to improving the working methods of the Security Council. This debate on the implementation of the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507 is welcome and timely. We also appreciate the tireless and constructive efforts of the group of five small countries on this issue. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. In fulfilling that task, maximum transparency and interaction with the wider membership of the United Nations is of paramount importance. Improving working methods enhances the Council’s legitimacy as it acts on behalf of all States Members of the United Nations. Transparency plays a key role. We think it is crucial that all Member States receive enough information about the Council’s work. This is especially vital for small States, which rarely have the opportunity to serve as members of the Council. That is why we underscore the regularity and quality of briefings to non-members of the Council. It has been agreed previously by the members of the Council that interactive wrap-up sessions at the end of each presidency would be a useful tool for increasing openness and the availability of information. Such sessions provide an opportunity for assessing the Council’s work and discussing lessons learned. This practice has unfortunately been discontinued, and the Nordic countries wish to encourage Council members to take it up again. Regular open debates have increased the openness of the Council. The Nordic countries attach great importance to these discussions and commend Council members for upholding this practice. We believe, however, that there is scope for improving the quality of these debates. First, we would like to welcome consultation with non-member States in the process of drafting the concept papers for these debates. We also welcome an increased focus on how the thematic debates can become more action-oriented and can feed into future Council decisions on the topic, making sure that key provisions of the thematic resolutions are incorporated into country-specific resolutions. In that context, I would like to commend the work of the independent not-for-profit organization Security Council Report, which has significantly increased transparency with its reporting. The improvements to the Council website and webcasts of the Council’s meetings provided by the Secretariat also warrant mention. The Nordic countries welcome the significant progress achieved in enhancing the transparency and fairness of the listing and de-listing procedures of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). Resolution 1904 (2009) and previous resolutions on the issue have added transparency and clarity to the procedures of the Committee by introducing a number of important innovations, such as periodic review of all the names on the 1267 list and the obligation to add narrative summaries of reasons for their listing. The establishment of the office of the ombudsperson, as called for in resolution 1904 (2009), will mark an important milestone in further enhancing the transparency of the procedures of the Committee and in strengthening the due process rights of listed individuals and entities. We are pleased to see that the ombudsman institution — an idea originally introduced by one of the Nordic countries — is now becoming a reality. Given the importance of the mandate, the Nordic countries now look forward to the swift appointment of the ombudsperson. Once fully implemented, resolution 1904 (2009) will represent an important step forward. The Nordic countries, however, believe that the procedures for listing and de-listing need to be kept under constant review and that the Council needs to remain open to further procedural improvements in the regime. We welcome the past years’ initiatives aiming to improve the interaction between the Council and troop- and police-contributing countries. Troop- and police- contributing countries should be better engaged in all stages of decision-making regarding peacekeeping operations, starting with the planning of the mandates. This would also be crucial for potential troop- contributors. Furthermore, the existing practice of informal consultations between the Council and troop- contributing countries could be used more extensively and efficiently. In this regard, I want to mention the New Horizon initiative of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which aims to develop United Nations peacekeeping activities. A number of the recommendations aim to improve the interaction among the Council, the Secretariat and troop- and police-contributing countries. We warmly welcome those proposals. I would like to express my appreciation to Japan for organizing five meetings with troop-contributing countries last year during its chairmanship of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations. The meetings provided a good opportunity for the Council to get input from those countries on various aspects of peacekeeping. We hope that this practice will continue. I would also like to highlight the importance of promoting the relationship between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission in order to guarantee smooth transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding. We wish to emphasize our continued support for the practice of inviting Commission Chairs to brief the Council on a regular basis. There is still scope for increased cooperation and we see the current review of the Peacebuilding Commission as an opportunity to promote this important relationship. The concept paper in document S/2010/165 highlights the challenges associated with the short time period between the election of non-permanent members and the beginning of their term. The annual workshop organized in Doral Arrowwood, sponsored by Finland, aims at addressing this problem, which is particularly relevant for smaller delegations. Its purpose is to give the new members an in-depth orientation and familiarization with the practices, procedures and working methods of the Council in order to help them to be ready from day one of their term. Reports of the workshops have been distributed as official documents of the Security Council in the hope that they will contribute to a better understanding of the complexity of the work of the Council. The first time the Security Council’s working methods were the topic of an open debate was in 1994 (see S/PV.3483). The second was in 2008, during the Belgian presidency (see S/PV.5968). As today’s debate has illustrated, the topic is too important for an ad hoc approach. The Nordic countries would therefore like to suggest that the Council consider holding open debates on Security Council working methods on an annual basis. Finally, the Nordic countries continue to emphasize the ongoing reform of the Council’s working methods and procedures, so that it can fulfil its task in a more transparent, inclusive and participatory manner. At the same time, the yardstick of success cannot be openness and transparency per se, but the extent to which they improve the Council’s ability to fulfil its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

I thank the representative of Finland for organizing the orientation workshop every year. It is beneficial for all of us. I now give the floor to the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

I have the honour to speak today on behalf of the 14 States members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), and to align CARICOM with the statement made by the representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. CARICOM welcomes the initiative of Japan, in its capacity as President of the Security Council, for convening this open debate and for its concept paper of 1 April (see S/2010/165), which is invaluable in shaping today’s debate on working methods. CARICOM would also like to thank the members of the Council for their insights today and their own inputs on this issue. CARICOM, more than most, takes particular interest in the areas of transparency, efficiency and interaction with non-members. Our interest is born of our historical absence from this Chamber, and, indeed the appalling dearth of small island developing States (SIDS) in general among the membership of the Security Council. The last CARICOM State to serve on the Security Council began its term one decade ago. One year later, in 2001, Singapore became the last of the SIDS to hold Council membership. Seventy-three of the 192 United Nations Member States have never served on the Council. Of those 73 Member States, 29 are SIDS. Therefore, although SIDS comprise only 20 per cent of the United Nations membership, they represent a full 40 per cent of the States that have never served on the Council. Over 78 per cent of SIDS have never held a non-permanent seat on the Security Council — a percentage that is replicated within our own CARICOM region. As such, our historical position as Council outsiders has made CARICOM acutely sensitive to the practical effects of working methods on transparency and interaction with non- members. From our unenviable position of largely being on the outside looking in, CARICOM recognizes that recent measures and adjustments by the Council have resulted in some improvements. However, a great deal more can and must be done. In that regard, and within the context and constraints of this open debate, CARICOM stresses the following four points. First, it is critical for the Security Council to accept that reform of its working methods, however far-reaching or effective, must necessarily take place within the context of wider Security Council reform, including an increase in permanent and non-permanent membership. Non-members will have little interest in interacting with a body whose legitimacy is compromised by its stodgy refusal to reflect changing global dynamics. Working methods therefore represent a single component of a comprehensive reform exercise, and must proceed in tandem with these complementary reforms. I note parenthetically that many Members today bemoan the workload of the Council, but efficiency demands that most organizations, bodies and businesses, when faced with an increased workload, expand to deal with and handle the increased workload. Secondly, as a general rule, the Security Council should refrain from encroaching upon the functions and powers that the Charter or tradition has placed within the purview of the General Assembly. It is far better for the Council to construe its mandate strictly, and do a small number of things well, than it is for it to be more expansive and do a host of tasks poorly. The seemingly inexorable mission creep of the Security Council is troubling, particularly to Member States like ours, which have been primarily creatures of the General Assembly alone. Any unnecessary encroachment by the 15 members of the Council into the functions and powers of the other 177 non-members will serve to undercut the compelling logic and unique goals under which the United Nations was established. Thirdly, further adjustments to working methods are required to enhance the transparency, openness and interaction of the Council with the wider membership. CARICOM recognizes the Council’s need for efficiency and, indeed, supports greatly enhancing this efficiency and effectiveness. However, optimizing transparency, interaction and efficiency is not a zero- sum exercise. In this regard, we view as particularly useful the suggestions that have been made and refined by the group of five small countries regarding, inter alia, reports, consultations and the implementation of decisions. Fourthly, CARICOM is curious as to the broad and expansive reading that some States give to Article 30 of the Charter. The argument that only the Council — operating in a vacuum and advising itself — can adjust its working methods unfortunately raises more thorny questions than it answers. For example, CARICOM questions how, as a practical matter, working methods can be determined solely within a body in which two thirds of its members are replaced every few years. If we are to accept the concept paper’s assertion that “[f]or many elected members, learning the procedural aspects of the Security Council is a challenge” (S/2010/165, para. 12) how can those elected members, in a limited period of time, both learn and reform the working methods, only to be replaced by a host of new elected members that will have to repeat the process again? And why would incoming members that would not have contributed to the Council’s working methods in any way feel any fealty to them? Only the permanent members of the Council would have any degree of influence or allegiance to such an arrangement. It is impossible to read Article 30 in such a way as to make it immune from the General Assembly’s explicit authority to discuss and make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the Charter relating to the functions of any organ of the United Nations — including the Council — and to make recommendations to the Council on these matters. Articles 10 through 12 of the Charter establish the scope of the General Assembly’s powers and its limits with absolute clarity. The Council may have the responsibility of formally adopting its rules of procedure, but the General Assembly is clearly empowered not only to discuss the Council’s working methods but to make recommendations to the Council, whether or not those recommendations touch on and concern the rules of procedure. Given the acknowledged role of the General Assembly in conferring legitimacy on bodies, decisions and norms, the Council would be well advised to adopt rather than to resist the relevant recommendations that may yet arise from the wider membership. In conclusion, the welcome changes to the Council’s methods thus far, as outlined in the concept paper, have served to highlight the promise and possibility of further beneficial changes. It is universally accepted, we believe, that the Council is not operating at its optimum efficiency, transparency, accessibility or effectiveness. Adjustments in working methods, as part and parcel of a wider range of reforms, can assist in remedying these acknowledged deficiencies. The continued evolution of the Council and its working methods is therefore necessary and desirable. The Security Council is not a cocoon, a vacuum or an impregnable and fossilized bunker. It is of this world and of this membership. It must therefore reflect this world and respond to this membership. CARICOM hopes that one or more of our members will soon grace the inner sanctum of the Council again. That hope notwithstanding, we desire a Council whose working methods establish it as a nimble, efficient, transparent and accessible body that is open to the views of the wider membership and reflective of changing global realities.

I now give the floor to the representative of Sierra Leone.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the African Group at this open debate on the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) and to express our continued support for Japan’s presidency in the month of April, and particularly for convening a session on this all important subject to assess the implementation of the measures set out in the annex to document S/2006/507, following the debate of August 2008 (see S/PV.5968). At the outset, the African Group aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and further wishes to reiterate its correspondence of 23 December 2009 addressed to the facilitator of the ongoing reform process. The fact that the rules of procedure of this very important organ of the Organization remain provisional clearly points to a lacuna in the working methods of the Council. Clearly, there is a missing link in the working methods of the Council, which makes it extremely expedient for the organ to undergo a reality check. This explains why the African Group has consistently called for a thorough reform that would make the Council responsive to the urgent needs of the increasingly turbulent world of the twenty-first century. In addressing the theme of today’s open debate on working methods, I must hasten to reaffirm that we support an expeditious and comprehensive reform process, embracing all the negotiable clusters, that will make the Security Council more representative, transparent, inclusive, accountable, effective and efficient in executing its responsibilities in order to ensure that its decisions are legitimate and representative of the views and positions of the wider membership. We acknowledge that the Security Council has made significant progress in taking measures to promote some degree of efficiency and transparency in the manner in which it conducts its business, thanks to the efforts of its Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and especially with the adoption of the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2006/507 and subsequent notes related to the working methods of the Council. We encourage further efforts in this direction through the practice of incoming Presidents to brief non-members on the programme of work at the beginning of each month. The introduction of written annual reports covering the operations of the subsidiary bodies, including the latest measure requiring each Council’s presidency to prepare a published assessment of its operations, among other things, are all steps in the right direction of making the Council more responsive to the general membership. Despite the aforementioned noteworthy attempts of the Council to live up to the expectations of its members and non-members, it is the considered view of the African Group that the measures are not far- reaching enough to endow the Council with sufficient capacity to deliver on its moral obligations as a representative, transparent, democratic and accountable decision-making body charged with the principal responsibility of the United Nations, and some of whose decisions are binding on the entire membership. Africa favours a more accessible, democratic, representative, accountable and effective Security Council that responds to the exigencies of our time. In this connection, I should like to state the African common position on the Council’s working methods, as adopted at the fourteenth ordinary session of the Assembly of the African Union in Addis Ababa on 31 January 2010, which complements the African common position on Security Council reform, as contained in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. The Security Council should increase the number of public meetings, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter of the United Nations; allow for briefings by special envoys or special representatives of the Secretary-General and representatives of the Secretariat to take place in public meetings, unless there are exceptional circumstances; enhance its relationship with the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries, including through sustained, regular and timely interaction to allow for the effective planning and implementation of mission objectives; uphold the primacy of and respect for the Charter in connection with its functions and powers and in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Charter; provide adequate and timely information on its activities to the general membership of the United Nations; avoid any attempt to use it to pursue national political agendas and ensure non-selectivity and impartiality in its work; refrain from resorting to Chapter VII of the Charter as an umbrella for addressing issues that do not necessarily pose a threat to international peace and security, but fully utilize the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII before invoking Chapter VII, which should be a measure of last resort, if necessary; avoid any recourse to the imposition, prolongation or extension of sanctions against any State under the pretext or with the aim of achieving the political objectives of one or a few States, rather than in the general interest of the international community; and formalize its provisional rules of procedure in order to improve its transparency and accountability. Given that the Security Council and the General Assembly must work closely together within their respective spheres in seeking solutions to the plethora of challenges confronting the international community, we have emphasized the need for regular consultations and the effective and timely exchange and flow of information between the Assembly and the Council, and for the submission of more comprehensive and analytical reports to the General Assembly, including special subject-oriented reports and informative press releases on current issues of international concern. Africa is strongly of the view that efforts aimed at restructuring the Security Council should not be subjected to a predetermined timetable. Even though we recognize the need to deal with the issue as a matter of urgency, we are of the view that all five clusters should be accorded the same sense of expediency. The Sirte Declaration and the Ezulwini Consensus, which are our guiding instruments in the matter of the reform of the Security Council, further underscore the need to improve the balance of competence between the General Assembly and the Security Council. The proverbial delicate umbilical cord essentially interlinks all the clusters. Thus, no attempt should be made to exclude or even render any one of them less important in the reform process.

I now call on the representative of Slovakia.

I wish to start by commending you, Mr. President, and the delegation of Japan for having taken the important 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 by stating our appreciation of the inspiring and succinct concept paper prepared for this occasion, contained in document S/2010/165. I also appreciate this timely opportunity to discuss matters of profound interest to all of the Members of the United Nations. It is our duty not only to take stock of the progress made on the working methods of the Security Council, but above all to take a step towards fostering better dynamics within the Security Council in this area. We strongly believe that by increasing transparency, efficiency and interaction with non- members, the Council and the whole Organization can build in Member States the necessary trust and sense of ownership of the Council’s decisions and actions, which we are all bound to implement under the Charter of the United Nations. In this regard, the efficiency and transparency of the Council’s work, on the one hand, and its authority stemming from the Charter, on the other, are closely linked. Therefore, the efforts aimed at the full and timely implementation of Security Council decisions should take due account of the nature of the Council’s decision-making mechanisms and its systematic interactions with non-members, especially those directly affected, concerned and interested by the topics on its agenda. Slovakia proudly sees itself as part of the process of adjusting the Security Council’s working methods to the current and future needs of the international community. In the year 2007, when Slovakia had the honour to chair the Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, we worked diligently to further the excellent work so ably commenced and carried out by the delegation of Japan in 2006. Today, we are pleased to observe the progress that has been made, particularly in terms of transparency, the involvement of non-members in the work of the Council, and the speed of its decision- making process. It is evident that a more analytical and forward-looking approach benefits the Security Council and ultimately the United Nations membership as a whole. This progress enhances the credibility of the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole as it contributes to building the confidence of the wider international community in the Organization. We believe that working methods are one area of the reform process in which there have been considerable and commendable improvements. Of course, the time is not yet ripe for complacency, and we need to bear in mind that the full implementation of the note is a work in progress. Slovakia believes that further improvements are both desirable and possible in several areas, including strengthening the transparency and openness of the work of the Council, including and in particular regarding the work of its subsidiary bodies. Further progress can be made in enhancing interaction between the Council and other Member States, in particular those directly affected, concerned and interested. This could be achieved through better use of private Council meetings and more regular use of Arria Formula meetings, and by the holding of regular consultations between the Council and non-members on relevant issues. We are very pleased to see that it has indeed recently become much more common for countries directly concerned to take the floor before Council members. We believe that this should be a standard practice in accordance with Article 32 of the Charter. We also appreciate the fact that representatives of regional and subregional organizations are now more often invited to take part in various forms of the work of the Council. The mechanism of Security Council private meetings with troop-contributing countries should be prompt, flexible and substantive, in particular in cases of important or unexpected developments while implementing mission mandates. The maximum relevance of the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly should be ensured, including by making it more substantive and analytical and by holding an interactive discussion with the General Assembly on it. There should be provision for stronger interaction between bodies dealing with issues connected with peace and security, such as the Peacebuilding Commission or the Economic and Social Council, and the Security Council. In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that Slovakia remains fully committed to the cause of increasing the transparency, effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council, a process initiated by the decision of heads of State and Government at the 2005 World Summit and put in motion by the note S/2006/507 and subsequent notes. We believe that adjusting the working methods of the Council is an important part of the overall endeavour to create and maintain effective multilateralism, and the best way to generate the broadest possible support for sustainable solutions in the area of peace and security.

I now call on the representative of Italy.

I wish to thank the Japanese presidency for having organized this open debate. We are pleased to see this topic return, the last such debate having been held in August 2008 (see S/PV.5968). There are at least two merits to this type of discussion. It places all Member States in a position to know the main issues related to the Security Council’s working methods, and it helps us to identify concrete solutions for improving them. We have heard, also over the last weeks and months, some interesting ideas on improving working methods, beginning with the proposals of the group of small five countries, to which we pay tribute for the excellent work they have long promoted on this question. Italy is moving along the same lines and has put on the table a series of suggestions aimed at impacting the Security Council’s working methods for the sake of greater transparency and greater access to and participation in the Council. There are many aspects of the working methods that still need improvement: old concerns, such as the demand to increase and give renewed impetus to open meetings, for example; and more recent ones, like the issues of sanctions regimes and relationships with troop-contributing countries, where significant changes have been introduced but much remains to be done. The presidential note contained in document S/2006/507 is a significant point of reference in this process. We fully endorse an update of its contents, which could serve as a guide to all Member States in this endeavour. It is not my intention today to make a list of what we have achieved and what we have not. I will focus my remarks instead on a matter of procedure and, if I may say so, of good will. As we all know, some innovations to working methods would require amendments to the Charter. What I am proposing today, however, is a renewed commitment and effort by all Council Members to implement at least some of the measures we are discussing that do not require these amendments. In other words, we can use this debate to identify measures that can be enacted immediately. Let us consider, for example, the following three proposals on interaction with non-Council members. There is a widely supported request to improve such interaction, especially with troop- and police- contributing countries. They should be more engaged in the Council’s proceedings through open meetings and informal consultations, and by creating standard procedures for hearing their views. This is also true for the regional organizations most involved in questions being debated. If our goal is to interact with today’s world, we certainly cannot exclude regional organizations. There is also significant support for greater use of the Arria Formula, which allows civil society and non-governmental organizations to enter into dialogue with the Council. Lastly, there are demands to increase recourse to open meetings and reduce to a minimum the number of closed meetings and informal consultations. At the very least, there should be post-meeting briefings by the President to non-member States or at least to interested States. In another room of this building, we are engaged in a process of reform of the Security Council, in which a comprehensive package that entails amendments to the United Nations Charter, also on working methods, is being discussed. But implementing the proposals that I have just mentioned would not require a Charter amendment. We should therefore decide that these demands shall enter into the Council’s practices effectively as soon as possible. In this way, we would provide an immediate answer to primary needs that are easy to fulfil. I wish to say A final word on one prerequisite for a substantial and lasting reform of working methods. As we all know, the search for major innovations in working methods has been promoted most enthusiastically by countries that are not permanent members of the Council and are seeking access to a body on which they cannot be seated for perpetuity. Of these, a key role is played by the small States. This is understandable since, as we know, the current exclusionary practices make Council membership virtually off-limits to them. In our view, this is a clear demonstration of the fact that only a Council in which the principles of accountability, elections and rotation are enhanced would assure a genuine and ongoing effort towards reform of its working methods. Those who know that they will spend limited periods of time in the Council will do everything possible, once they get there, to ensure that in the future the room will be more open, accessible and transparent. I conclude here in deference to the five-minute rule, another innovation in working methods that we can put into practice immediately.

I now give the floor to the representative of Jordan.

I wish to extend the sincere appreciation of my delegation, Mr. President, for your initiative to hold this very useful and timely open debate on the implementation of the note contained in document S/2006/507. We are also very grateful for the very important concept paper that you have circulated. Jordan associates itself with the statements made by the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of five small countries and by the representative of Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Since Jordan is a major troop- and police- contributing country, I shall focus my comments on the working methods of the Security Council in the area of United Nations peacekeeping. Progress was achieved last year in enhancing the working methods of the Security Council when dealing with peacekeeping-related issues. The Council has made noteworthy commitments and begun to put them into action. This can be seen in the holding of various open and inclusive thematic debates on peacekeeping issues, and also in the valuable work of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, chaired by Japan, which offers a forum for in-depth and interactive discussions. Another significant positive development was the evolution of the French and British initiative on managing peacekeeping operations, which emphasized the importance of engaging with troop- and police- contributing countries. Another was the high-level meeting on peacekeeping held by the President of the United States, which reaffirmed the importance of renewing and strengthening cooperation among all the stakeholders, including the members of the Security Council and troop-contributing countries, as the only way to respond to the ever-growing challenges of United Nations peacekeeping. By all accounts, these positive developments have allowed for a high-quality interactive dialogue among the relevant actors, and resulted in a great deal of goodwill and tangible change in the working methods. Yet, if this positive momentum is to be maintained and further fostered, the Council should ensure the full and effective implementation of resolution 1353 (2001) and presidential statement S/PRST/2009/24, which provide a framework for cooperation between the Security Council, the troop- and police-contributing countries, and the Secretariat. The consultation mechanisms and the detailed procedures laid out in these important reference documents should be optimally utilized so as to forge a stronger relationship between the Security Council and the troop- and police-contributing countries. The sorely needed commitment of the wider membership to United Nations peacekeeping can be further strengthened by holding open, public meetings. In this regard, we encourage the Security Council to continue, deepen and expand the practice of holding thematic debates and open meetings related to peacekeeping, which allows the wider membership to contribute with their perspectives and ideas. These meetings should include input from the field, for example by the special representatives of the Secretary-General. This practice has proven to be greatly beneficial, as we witnessed in the Council’s debate on transition and exit strategies, held under the French presidency (see S/PV.6270). These meetings should also result in concrete advice or guidance by the Council based on the proposals of the participants and without prejudice to the role of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34). We also encourage the President of the Security Council to brief the members of the C-34 during its sessions and, when appropriate, on the major developments and initiatives regarding peacekeeping in the Council. This will help to achieve more coordinated joint action. In the same vein, the President of the Security Council can arrange regular meetings with regional groups such as the Non-Aligned Movement, the European Union and any other interested groups that contribute to peacekeeping, as well as regional organizations. Strengthening consultation with troop- contributing countries should remain a priority for the Council’s members. The experience and expertise of the troop- and police-contributing countries can substantially assist the Council in making appropriate, effective and timely decisions on United Nations peacekeeping operations. Therefore, meaningful and substantial consultation should continue to be held between the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop- contributing countries, including at the request of troop-contributing countries and during the entire life cycle of the peacekeeping missions. I need not reiterate the importance of these consultations to the troop- and police-contributing countries, in particular when it comes to the safety and security of their troops. United Nations peacekeeping remains one of the international community’s most effective tools for maintaining international peace and security. The demand for personnel, equipment and enabling assets for United Nations peacekeeping is thus likely to continue, and even grow. One should note that enhancing the working methods of the Security Council and its efficiency, transparency, openness, consistency and inclusiveness in the decision-making process is essential to sustaining the confidence and contribution of the current troop- and police- contributing countries in the Council. Furthermore, it can also contribute to broadening the base of contributors to United Nations peacekeeping in order to enhance the collective burden-sharing and to meet the future requirements of United Nations peacekeeping. Therefore, we encourage Council members to induce real and systematic change in its working methods. This change is absolutely necessary and certainly achievable.

I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Portugal.

I want to thank you, Mr. President, for having organized this open meeting. We commend Japan’s strong and constant commitment to this crucial issue. I shall deliver a condensed version of my statement so that I can abide by the five-minute recommendation. The full version will be distributed. I will focus my remarks on the three areas identified in the concept paper (S/2010/165): transparency, interaction with non-members of the Council and efficiency. But I will add what, in our view, is another important aspect, that is, accountability, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The note contained in document S/2006/507 was not the end of the journey. Surely, we must build on that important undertaking and acknowledge the fruits that its implementation has generated so far, which are rightly identified in the concept note. But we should not lose our ambition. We should never give up efforts to find further appropriate and effective ways to improve the Security Council’s working methods. In that vein, I wish to recognize the important proposals made by the delegations of the five small countries, as well as to commend their continuous efforts and those of other delegations in advancing this agenda at the United Nations. Elected members have historically been the ones to push for change in the working methods of the Council. We believe that they must build on available experience, in particular that of other elected members, to further this discussion and strengthen this agenda when they serve in the Council. Enhancing the transparency, efficiency and accountability of the Council is the principal goal of this exercise. It is a substantive concern, not a formal one. The question is not just to open up the meetings of the Security Council when the real decision-making continues to be done behind closed doors. Nor is this a matter of debating openly or interacting with the general membership when decisions on matters discussed have already been shaped. It is not a matter of simply improving the image of the Security Council before the general membership. The real question is how to make the Council more operational and efficient, with better use of time and resources and the full engagement and participation of all its members. How can we strengthen its global influence as a body that acts on behalf of all United Nations Members by bringing it closer to them? The real question is, ultimately, how to strengthen its authority through a more open and participatory decision-making process, through a better understanding of its decisions and through enhanced accountability. In that regard, allow me to put forward seven concrete proposals. First and foremost, the Council and its members must continuously strive to preserve the adequate involvement of all Council members, improve information exchange and promote participation and initiative in its internal decision-making process. Secondly, we should strive to revive fully rule 48. The trend of meeting more and more often in public should be continued and strengthened, while reducing the number of informal consultations, which still today represent half the number of meetings of the Security Council. Thirdly, direct dialogue with concerned States and parties, including troop contributors, should be increased. Enabling efficient interaction and consultation to take place with those States and parties in a formal setting of the Security Council or through private consultations, Arria Formula meetings or other creative formats, as appropriate, would immensely assist the Council in the process leading to its deliberations. Fourthly, we must make sure that briefings by the Secretariat on situations under its consideration are, as a rule, delivered at Security Council meetings with the participation of non-members of the Council, thus avoiding, as much as possible, consultations of the whole for that purpose. Fifthly, we should value the participation of the wider membership. That goal would be best served if, in open thematic debates, Member States outside the Security Council would speak first, and Security Council members at the end, while allowing some time between the meeting and the adoption of the possible outcome, thus demonstrating that the Council is listening and willing to incorporate valuable views from the wider membership — which is precisely the purpose of these open debates. Sixthly, with regard to enhancing the role of Council presidencies, the Council should encourage a more active and substantive role in briefing delegations outside the Council, in presenting personal assessments on the work of the Council and in speaking to the press as means of enhancing public visibility of Council’s work. Finally, we believe it essential to give accountability a fuller meaning. In that sense, we have to identify practical ways of increasing the influence of the general membership in determining the agenda of the Security Council, just as we need to ensure better and more transparent annual Council reporting to the General Assembly. Reviving the former practice of including monthly assessments by the Presidents that reflect their perspectives on the substantive work of the Security Council would contribute to that goal. In that context, it is crucial to ensure that the Security Council continues to hold open debates like this one to assess regularly how its practice matches those aims and to collect valuable inputs from the wider membership on ways to improve it further. My delegation is ready to cooperate with you, Mr. President, with the Council and with all other interested delegations to develop those and other concrete ideas to further this agenda as our common endeavour.

I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa.

My delegation wishes thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to participate in this very important debate on the implementation of the note contained in document S/2006/507. We also wish to thank you not only for your work as President of the Council, but also in connection with your work on the working methods of the Council. South Africa strongly supports the continued evaluation of the Security Council’s working methods, in cooperation with the broader membership, as an essential element of the broader reform of the Security Council in order to make it more transparent and accountable, and thus to enhance the legitimacy of its mandate. In that regard, my delegation welcomes the modest improvements made in the working methods of the Council since the last open debate on the implementation of note S/2006/507, in 2008. We particularly welcome the improvements aimed at enhancing the Council’s engagement with the broader membership of the United Nations. As the presidency’s concept paper (S/2010/165) reminds us, the Security Council is mandated by the Charter to act on behalf of the United Nations membership to ensure prompt and effective action on its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. That means that the Council represents the broader membership of the United Nations in the execution of its mandate, which places particular responsibility on the Council to ensure that its work is transparent, predictable and consistent. In essence, it requires the Council to act in an accountable manner. It is therefore obligated to regularly engage with the broader membership in the execution of its mandate. It is becoming increasingly self-evident that the Security Council cannot act alone in implementing its mandate. It needs credible partners, as envisaged in Chapter VII of the Charter. South Africa is proud to have been given the opportunity to contribute to building and enhancing cooperation between the Security Council and the African Union during its most recent tenure in the Council. Annual meetings between the Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council are now a regular feature of the Security Council’s programme of work. We will continue to advocate for a strong and deeper relationship and cooperation between those two important organs in the maintenance of peace and security in Africa. It is our hope that those engagements will allow the Security Council to address more effectively the various conflicts on the African continent, which form such a large part of its agenda. South Africa is of the firm view that both Councils can benefit from that interaction and collectively improve the response of the international community to conflict situations, or even potential conflict situations. It is critical that the Security Council quickly redeem itself vis-à-vis the view held by some that its mandate is only to approve peacekeeping operations. Peacemaking is not always merely equal to the deployment of troops to conflict situations. It is a continuum from mediation to conflict prevention to peacekeeping, where required, and to peacebuilding, peace consolidation and sustainable development. The United Nations must avail itself of different tools to deal with different situations. For example, there is growing consensus that peacekeeping and peacebuilding must not be seen as sequential, but rather should be seen and implemented in an integrated way. To what extent, therefore, is the Security Council prepared to allow sufficient space for the Peacebuilding Commission to participate in the development of Security Council mandates? Further improvements are needed in the Council’s engagement with troop- and police-contributing countries. It is our view that the Security Council’s early engagement with troop- and police-contributing countries is a step in the right direction and should become entrenched. These engagements should be structured in a manner that will afford those countries the opportunity to directly contribute to the discussion in the Council relating to the renewal of mandates of peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping is after all a partnership between the Security Council and the General Assembly. In addition to the aforementioned improvements, my delegation has also taken note with interest of the recent innovations in the Council on increasing its interactions with parties concerned with a conflict, such as engagements in 2009 with Sri Lanka, Chad, the African Union and the League of Arab States. South Africa reiterates its view that all parties involved in conflicts should be engaged in the process of the Council’s deliberations and decision-making on issues on its agenda and when responding to crises. The Council can only benefit from such interactions. In our view, they will allow the Council to respond appropriately in the execution of its mandate to maintain international peace and security. Having acknowledged the improvements, I now turn to remaining questions relating to the working methods of the Council. The question my delegation wants to ask is whether the Council has significantly improved its transparency. Even though some improvements have been recorded, it is our opinion that these are not sufficient. It is true that today more Council meetings are held in pubic than a few years ago. It is also true that recent innovations have increased engagement with relevant parties, including with troop- and police-contributing countries. We also acknowledge that the Council has improved the flow of information on its programme of work through regular monthly meeting to the membership by the presidency — a convention my delegation actively promoted during its tenure in the Council. However, when we reflect on this body’s decision-making process we have to conclude that there is need for improvement. The Council’s deliberations on draft resolutions, for example, should be open for genuine deliberations amongst all of its members, including the elected 10, and should not be the exclusive domain of a few. Like many other delegations, South Africa acknowledges the value of consultations of the whole for the efficiency of the Council. However, it is incumbent on the members of the Security Council to be accountable in this process. South Africa wishes to encourage Council members to continue the practice of providing information to non-members on the outcome of consultations. I remind the Council that the Charter states that it acts on behalf of the United Nations membership. This necessarily implies that that membership has the right to remain informed of developments in the Council. Transparency in its work contributes to the credibility of the Council. When the United Nations was established in 1945, South Africa fulfilled a central role in drafting the Charter and designing its institutions. We believe that the international community needs a Security Council. This body was established to maintain international peace and to provide the international community with an effective mechanism to prevent the outbreak of war. It has often failed but, fortunately, its successes outweigh its failures. It is our view that for it to be more effective, the Council, first and foremost, needs to become more representative and requires expansion in both categories of its membership. Equally, it needs to address the problems in its working methods, of which we have named but a few, in an honest, transparent and effective manner. Maintaining the status quo will only contribute to the further erosion of its credibility and legitimacy as the premier organ mandated to ensure there is peace, security and stability in the world.

I now give the floor to the representative of Slovenia.

Let me express my gratitude to you, Mr. President, for taking the initiative and convening today’s open debate on the working methods of the Security Council and for preparing an excellent concept paper (S/2010/165, annex) to guide our discussion, focusing on the implementation of measures annexed to presidential note S/2006/507 of 19 July 2006. We believe it is both timely and appropriate for the Council and the wider United Nations membership to have this opportunity, since this is only the third time in 16 years that the Council has had a debate in an open format on this important issue. We wish to express our appreciation for Japan’s continued leadership and for the efforts of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions that you, Mr. President, currently chair. We also welcome and support the initiatives of the group of five small countries in this regard. The increasingly numerous activities undertaken by the Security Council have brought with them an enhanced impact on the membership at large. Non-members of the Council should therefore be better informed about the Council’s work and should have an opportunity to contribute to that work. Further adapting the Security Council’s working methods is one of the most important areas of reform of the Council, and one on which there is a broad sense of agreement. Slovenia welcomes the progress that has been made in recent years, in particular with regard to increasing the Council’s transparency and efficiency, as well as its inclusiveness and interaction with non- member States. We welcome the progress achieved thus far with regard to regular briefings by the presidency to non-members at the beginning of each month, which provide a useful forecast of and information on the monthly programme of work of the Council. We also appreciate the consultations with non-members that have been organized by Uganda and Viet Nam during the past two years, before the adoption of the annual report of the Security Council. However there is a need for increased and widened interaction and dialogue between the Security Council and other United Nations Members, particularly directly affected, concerned and interested States, in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, and with relevant regional organizations. Arria Formula meetings should be used more frequently. We welcome recent innovative approaches, such as informal interactive discussions and dialogue. In debates on situation-specific issues, parties directly affected or particularly interested should be allowed to speak prior to Council members to present their views. The timing and quality of interaction with troop- and police-contributing countries could be further improved. We would welcome a further increase in the number of public meetings, in particular briefings by United Nations officials, as well as regular and timely briefings by Council members to non-members on the work of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. We welcome the holding of outcome-oriented thematic debates and we support the inclusion of key provisions of thematic resolutions in country-specific resolutions, as appropriate. Non-members of the Council would also benefit if the President of the Security Council made draft resolutions and draft presidential statements available to non-member States as soon as they are introduced within informal consultations of the whole. The Security Council should emphasize the importance of the rule of law in dealing with matters on its agenda. This embraces references to upholding and promoting international law and ensuring that its own decisions are firmly rooted in that body of law, including the Charter, general principles of law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. We welcome further consideration of ways to improve the transparency and the work of the sanctions committees, such as establishing the listing and de-listing procedures for individuals and entities and establishing an independent office of an ombudsman. We urge the permanent members to consider not casting a non-concurring vote within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter in the event of genocide, crimes against humanity or serious violations of international humanitarian law. In conclusion, we support initiatives to improve the efficiency of the Council’s work and to improve its daily conduct of business — for example, allowing full participation of all members of the Council in the preparation of decisions, et cetera, and enhancing the capacity of newly elected members to fully discharge their duties. Security Council working methods have developed over the years. However they still remain a work in progress and require regular review and implementation to further increase the Council’s transparency, accountability and efficiency. Involvement of the wider membership in the work of the Security Council will remain key to better serving the whole Organization.

I now give the floor to the representative of Peru.

I commend and congratulate you, Mr. President, for your initiative to include on the Council’s programme of work this open debate, which offers us a further opportunity to exchange views and submit proposals on a matter of particular importance and of great interest to all Members of the Organization. After a gap of 18 months, the Security Council is holding another debate on its working methods. We see that as a positive sign of the commitment of Council members, in particular permanent members, to continually assess and seek to improve the Council’s work. However, it is also important to remember that this topic is an integral part of the overall reform process of the Security Council, which involves the discussion of other issues that seek comprehensively to render the Council more transparent, efficient and legitimate. From reading the paper annexed to your letter of 1 April, Sir, it is clear that the Security Council has implemented actions to make its work more transparent and to promote greater participation by non-member States and civil society actors. On 19 July 2006, the President of the Security Council issued a note (S/2006/507), whose annex contained a series of provisions seeking to update and modernize some areas of the working methods. It was drafted by a working group to which Peru, then a non-permanent member of the Council, contributed. Document S/2006/507 set out a series of guidelines summarizing the practice of the Council that included additional adjustments to its procedures. That document is an important step forward in improving the working methods of the Security Council, which was furthered by the open debate held in August 2008 (see S/PV.5968) and the subsequent — I must say partial — implementation of some measures aimed at promoting greater openness in the Council’s work. However, in the view of my delegation, there remains ample room for increasing the transparency, effectiveness and accountability of the Council’s work. It is essential to conduct a fair and comprehensive self- assessment that enables us to identify what new steps should be taken to enhance transparency, efficiency and interaction with non-members of the Council. I must underline that such ideas should be considered and developed in a balanced way in such a way that no one concept takes precedence over another. The need to seek greater efficiency in the Council’s work should not be at the expense of reducing transparency or increasing openness, participation or access to information by non-members of the Council. If the aforementioned principles are fully adopted as pillars of the working methods, it will be more feasible to implement the measures and suggestions raised by a great majority of delegations, which ultimately seek, as I have said, to make the Security Council’s work more legitimate and render it strong and efficient. It is essential to strengthen the institutional mechanisms for interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly that are already reflected in the Organization’s Charter, such as in its Article 15, which provides that the General Assembly should receive and consider annual and special reports from the Security Council, and Article 24, which specifically provides that the Security Council will submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for its consideration. In that regard, it is unquestionable that States not members of the Council have a right to greater access to information that should be substantive, not merely descriptive, as is the case in the annual reports. Clearly, this is directly linked to the question of working methods. The need to improve and strengthen the systems of interaction is extremely urgent, all the more as all of can see how the various cross-cutting issues, such as security, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, are becoming interconnected with development. Undeniable, there is overwhelming agreement among Members on the need to make substantive and steady progress in improving the Council’s working methods so that they heed and reflect the realities of the twenty-first century. This would help ensure that the Council is seen as an organ projecting legitimacy in the eyes not only of the membership but also of international public opinion. It is in that light that Peru hopes to see concrete progress by the Security Council in achieving that objective.

I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland, who is the last speaker this morning.

I thank you, Mr. President, for having taken the initiative to convene this open debate. I also congratulate you on your active role as Chair of the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The debate two years ago raised many useful ideas. That is why we look forward to having such discussions annually. My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of five small countries. Allow me to add some comments. You have provided us, Sir, with an excellent concept paper (S/2010/165, annex). It shows that working methods have been substantially improved. It states that an increasing number of decisions taken by the Council need to be implemented by all States Members of the United Nations. It is thus essential that States not members of the Council be informed of its deliberations as soon as possible and be able to contribute to the Council’s decision-making process. Measures to improve the working methods can be divided into three categories: first, technical improvements that can be implemented quickly; secondly, existing practices that should be applied in a more systematic way; and, lastly, the politically more sensitive issues that we believe best resolved case by case. From a purely technical perspective, effectiveness and transparency could be increased by using the latest information technology. For example, the briefing notes submitted by the Secretariat in informal consultations or the draft outcomes discussed by experts could be posted on the Council website. We welcome the fact that in recent months non-member States have been regularly briefed on the monthly programme of work. However, we regret that briefings after informal consultations are still largely ad hoc and continue to depend on the goodwill and availability of certain members of the Council President’s delegation. Given the growing tendency to organize meetings of experts, we strongly encourage the Council to promote transparency in that regard by announcing such meetings in the Journal of the United Nations and by organizing briefings on them. We welcome the greater written coverage of meetings of subsidiary bodies. Other measures should be considered to make the work of the subsidiary bodies more accessible. With regard to politically sensitive matters, we have often seen the Council reluctant to address situations that are not on its formal agenda, but that nevertheless require its attention. Recently, the Council considered informal formats to address such situations. That is an interesting and innovative approach. Interaction between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission has been improved. We support a regular dialogue between the Council and the President of that Commission. We would welcome the Council further involving the countries concerned and inviting the Chairs of their respective configurations to participate in the relevant informal consultations. Lastly, thematic issues, such as human rights, the protection of civilians and women and peace and security, should be further integrated in the discussions of country-specific situations and systematically included in the terms of reference of Security Council missions. We hope that this open debate will lead to an in- depth review of presidential note S/2006/507 and will promote the adoption of an updated version of that note by the end of this year. An action plan for its implementation with a clear timeline could be prepared. We are ready to work with the Council in that process.

I shall now suspend the meeting. It will resume at 3 p.m.