S/PV.7052 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Egypt, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Uruguay to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2013/613, which contains a letter dated 16 October 2013 from the Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept paper on the item under consideration. I shall now give the floor to the members of the Security Council.

I would like to thanks the presidency of Azerbaijan for having convened today’s important open debate — important not only for the members of the Security Council but also for the general membership. Argentina has historically advocated that efforts to improve transparency, inclusivity, openness, democratization and efficiency in the work of the Security Council should be ongoing. Argentina is therefore honoured to have the responsibility of chairing the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. It is fundamental to recognize the positive developments that have taken place in recent years, including the holding of debates such as today’s, which provide an opportunity to all Members not members of the Council to make proposals to improve our working methods and democratize our decision-making mechanism. Those developments are attributable to the commitment of Council members, whom we thank, and to their continuing responsibility to improve the Council’s working methods. However, that shared responsibility to improve our working methods is also a response to the ongoing support and initiatives of the general membership, which appreciate all opportunities to engage in a more interactive dialogue with the Council so as to air the concerns of all Member States. Argentina has engaged with enthusiasm in its chairmanship the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, as it has always done during its previous chairmanships of the Working Group. We acknowledge that the other members of the Council have consistently supported our efforts to seek practical ways of making the Council’s work more transparent and of improving its dialogue with the general membership, the troop-contributing countries (TCCs) and police-contributing countries (PCCs), and other bodies. In August, we adopted note S/2013/515 on Security Council dialogue with the broader membership and other bodies in response to a commitment undertaken years ago by the Council. Some of its elements are reflected in note 507 of 2010. The note contains provisions on open meetings, interactive dialogues, Arria Formula meetings, invitations to the President of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Chairs of country-specific configurations to informal dialogues, the need for subsidiary bodies to submit substantive information to the wider membership and to add momentum to their work, and the modalities of wrap- up meetings. The last item on that list must be stressed. Several members of the Council acknowledge that its methodology should and must be improved. Argentina recognizes in particular the commitment of the Working Group to take up the issue of wrap-up meetings so as to develop them to their full potential for providing summaries of the Security Council’s monthly activities and for highlighting for the general membership the varying approaches and priorities of Council members on agenda items. The wrap-up meetings are very valuable, and we therefore urge all members to convene them at the end of their respective presidencies and to raise in the Working Group the issue of how to enhance their interactive aspects and effectiveness. Yesterday, 28 October, we adopted presidential note S/2013/630, concerning consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries. With respect to the note, the Working Group was always aware of the fact that consultations with TCCs and PCCs are critical because they improve the Council’s ability to take effective and timely decisions in exercising its responsibilities. Like many other aspects, consultations with TCCs and PCCs must be improved on an ongoing basis, as reflected in the fact that in every debate on working methods, the issue of dialogue with TCCs and PCCs is noted by many members. In note 630, the members of the Security Council acknowledge the need to fully utilize all existing options and to continue to improve consultations. The note, which complements resolutions and presidential notes on this matter, addresses two major aspects: consultations with TCCs and PCCs and the provision of information to those countries. It calls for consultations with TCCs and PCCS, including at their request, with respect to urgent situations that affect their operations, in particular regarding the security of their personnel in the field. It also calls for consultations in other important circumstances in a peacekeeping operation, such as the transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding, drawdown, an increase or decrease in personnel, and termination. I note that in addition to the meetings organized with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, the Council could convene informal meetings with a view to engaging in an interactive dialogue with TCCs and PCCs. With respect to the provision of information, the note indicates that the Secretariat will provide potential TCCs and PCCs with all the information they require to take the decisions to participate in a peacekeeping operation. The note addresses a variety of issues, and I reiterate that it answers all of the concerns of the general membership, which have been heard and heeded. The note points out that, with respect to the renewal of mandates, the Secretary-General shall provide a copy of his reports to the TCCs and PCCs sufficiently in advance of meetings. To conclude, as on previous occasions when Argentina has chaired the Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, we are convinced that, without impact on its decision-making abilities, the Council could and must be more transparent in its its relations with the general membership. I am grateful for the support I have received from all the other members of the Working Group, who have without exception worked in a constructive spirit, which I trust we will continue to enjoy. I also thank the group of members that are engaged in an analysis of the concerns of general membership in respect of this issue, as well as all members taking part in today’s debate. Their views assist in the ongoing task of improving our working methods.

I thank the Azerbaijani presidency of the Security Council for convening this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council and for providing a very useful concept paper to guide our discussions (S/2013/613, annex). This open debate has become an established annual tradition. It is a good tradition, since it allows non-members of the Council to share their views on improving the working methods of the Council. This debate can feed the discussions in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Matters. Since the beginning of the year, the Luxembourg has actively contributed to the Working Group, which is chaired with competence and commitment by Ambassador Perceval of Argentina. I thank my colleague and her team for their efforts to improve the efficiency and enhance the transparency of the work of the Council. Thanks to these efforts, this year we have adopted presidential notes S/2013/515 and S/2013/630 to strengthen exchanges and dialogue with non-member States, in particular countries that contribute troops and police to peacekeeping missions. The two notes strengthen the provisions of note S/2010/507. They give the body to the commitment undertaken by our Heads of State and Government on participation, accountability and transparency at the World Summit of 2005. Tangible progress has been made in recent years. I note the increased use of new technologies, such as video-teleconferencing, the improvement of the Security Council web site, the more frequent resort to Arria Formula meetings and interactive informal dialogues, for example to address issues related to the International Criminal Court. Upon accession to Security Council membership, Luxembourg also took stock of the efforts made to consult with newly elected members about the leadership of subsidiary bodies. We hope that this process will be made ​more inclusive in the future, on the basis of note S/2013/937, adopted in December 2012. In our view, however, there is still room to improve the working methods of the Council, particularly in five areas. First, the Peacebuilding Commission can provide additional information useful in situations of transition and thereby facilitate informed decision-making by the Council. I would therefore reiterate our suggestion that the chairs of the Commission’s country-specific configurations to participate, on a case-by-case basis, in the informal consultations of the Council. Secondly, we must continue to ensure the best possible interaction between the Security Council and regional and subregional organizations, such as the African Union, in the context of crisis prevention. The Council should seek to make the best use of the expertise available to these organizations and other stakeholders, such as the European Union. Thirdly, the Security Council should further employ the means at its disposal to prevent conflicts. We of course welcome the more regular holding, since the beginning of the year, of meetings summarizing the month’s work, which allows us not only to draw lessons from the concluding month but also to look into situations that could potentially require the Council’s attention in future. Nevertheless, we are convinced that greater recourse to horizon-scanning briefings from the Secretariat will make it possible for the Council to more resolutely take a preventive approach and, ultimately, to better assume its responsibilities. Fourthly, the Security Council would benefit from further utilizing the various sources of information available in the United Nations system. The light shed by special committees on the prevention of genocide and the responsibility to protect could be useful when populations are at risk of mass atrocities. The regular contributions of the Special Representatives on children and armed conflict and on combating sexual violence in armed conflict also seem to us to be important. Lastly, we support the proposals and considerations under way for the right of the veto not be used to block a decision by the Council to prevent or halt genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In our view, such progress would make it possible to strengthen the Council’s credibility and its ability to act. In conclusion, I would like in advance to thank the many Member States that will put forward proposals in the course of this open debate. In particular, I am grateful for the efforts of our colleagues in the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, which, in line with the work of the group of five small nations, are committed to strengthen the responsibility, coherence and transparency of the Security Council. We count on everyone’s suggestions to help the Council to rise to the level of the task that the Member States have conferred upon it by virtue of the Charter of the United Nations, namely, to take the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and to act on behalf of Members to carry out the duties incumbent upon the Council by virtue of that responsibility.

The United States welcomes today’s open debate, and we thank Ambassador Perceval for her diligent work as Chair of the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and other Procedural Questions. Our discussions of the working methods of the Council are important to ensuring that this body remains able to address the challenges of the twenty- first century. On behalf of the membership of the United Nations, the Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is essential that, in carrying out that role, its work be as effective, efficient and transparent as possible. Article 30 of the Charter mandates the Council to adopt its own rules of procedure. In doing so, we must recognize the need for other Member States, which play a vital role in supporting and enforcing our decisions, to be informed of and appropriately involved in the Council’s work. Peacekeeping is one of the most important tools that the international community has at its disposal, and we recognize the importance of close cooperation with troop- and police-contributing countries. We therefore welcome the fact that the Informal Working Group recently considered ways in which such cooperation could be strengthened. We continue to urge both Council members and troop- and police-contributing countries to take full advantage of the private meetings the Council holds in advance of each mandate renewal. In addition to formal meetings, the Council may need at times to meet informally with troop- and police-contributing countries to discuss urgent issues that may arise. The Council did just that in May when the troop contributors to the United Nations Diseangement Observer Force (UNDOF) met with Council members to discuss the deteriorating security environment in UNDOF’s area of operations and threats to United Nations peacekeepers there. That productive exchange contributed to the development of solutions to overcome the new challenges that UNDOF peacekeepers faced. We should consider such meetings in future for other peacekeeping operations, when appropriate. Increased cooperation with regional and other relevant organizations has been a hallmark of our work during the past 12 months. Yesterday’s ministerial-level meeting on strengthening cooperation with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (see S/PV.7050) marked a deepening of the Council’s ties with that important organization. On Yemen, the Secretary- General of the Gulf Cooperation Council briefed the Security Council on the implementation of the transition plan at a high-level meeting in September (see S/PV.7037). Finally, the open debate in August presided over by President Fernández of Argentina (see S/PV.7015) allowed Member States to discuss the Council’s cooperation with a range of regional and subregional organizations. The presidential statement adopted during that meeting (S/PRST/2013/12) is a useful compilation of the Council’s practice in this area. The Council has continued to welcome the Chairs of the various country-specific configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission to participate in Council meetings. The United States has consistently pushed for greater transparency in the work of subsidiary bodies. The Counter-Terrorism Committee has held more open meetings and has increased its interaction with civil society during the past year. Sanctions Committee Chairs have also organized open briefings for the broader United Nations membership to discuss sanctions regime objectives and committee activities. The Council’s continued use of Arria Formula meetings and its extension of invitations to non-governmental organizations and expert briefers, such as the important meeting in July with the members of the Syrian opposition coalition, are an important tool for us to better hear views beyond those of Member States. We should take advantage of opportunities to make greater use of that format. As President of the Security Council in July, the United States was responsible for preparing the Council’s general report to the General Assembly (A/68/2), which is scheduled for adoption tomorrow. In summarizing the Council’s work over the course of the year, we aim to strike a careful balance to maintain a useful amount of substance while also keeping the report as concise and legible as possible. We hope the report will be a useful tool for those interested in reviewing the Council’s work. In the same vein, my delegation organized a briefing at the end of our presidency to share the highlights of the month with Member States. We believe that such informal briefings offer the greatest opportunity for a meaningful discussion of the Council’s work with the broader membership. A more effective Security Council must remain our collective goal. Increased transparency by the Council and engagement with the broader United Nations membership can support that goal. But proposals must be carefully assessed to ensure that transparency and effectiveness are mutually reinforcing and not at cross- purposes. Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate and for building on our recent practice by holding this meeting as an open debate to enable Member States not on the Council to participate. The number of those inscribed on the speakers’ list reflects the high level of interest on this issue and its importance to all Members. An efficient and transparent Security Council is in the interests of all Member States as we confront new and different challenges to international peace and security. There have been many positive developments in recent years, including more open meetings, Arria Formula meetings, the use of video conferencing, meetings with troop-contributing countries and horizon-scanning and wrap-up meetings. In many ways, the Security Council has proved the most adaptable of all United Nations bodies. But today I want to focus on just two aspects of this issue. The first concerns the procedural aspects of the Council’s work, and the second examines how our working methods allow us to exercise our responsibilities in the area of conflict prevention. The Councl is regularly engaged on matters that are current threats to international peace and security. But if we engage and exert influence at the right moment, we could prevent those situations from becoming threats. Then we will be fully exercising our responsibilities. On the first issue, the imperative for an efficient Council is indisputable. The Council agenda is already full and it is growing. The time for meaningful discussion and exchange within the Council is being squeezed as a result. A larger Council, which we fully support, would redouble that pressure. Those points alone make a clear case for ensuring that the work of the Council is made as efficient as possible. There are a number of ways in which we can achieve a more efficient Council, as we demonstrated during the presidency of the United Kingdom in June. Simply by starting meetings promptly and fully observing the guidelines set out in presidential note S/2010/507 with regard to the length of interventions, we concluded a substantial amount of business in June. But we should go further. I, for one, would support implementing in the Security Council the African Union Peace and Security Council practice of turning off the microphones of speakers who have exceeded their allotted time. That would expedite business and allow more speakers to be heard. It is entirely possible to keep to short interventions without limiting the ability of Member States to fully express their views. I am sure that this would also be the case if we adopted the African Union practice. I congratulate Ambassador Perceval, as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for restating and building on established measures for conducting business efficiently and transparently. Presidential note 507 has been an important reference point in that regard, as have the two notes issued earlier this year (S/2013/515 and S/2013/630). We should make sure that we implement their contents fully. My second point, with regard to maintaining international peace and security, is as much about conflict prevention as it is about conflict management or resolution. The Council should take full advantage of mechanisms at its disposal, such as horizon scanning, to exercise a preventative function. Horizon-scanning meetings are an opportunity for the Secretariat to brief on issues of concern. Discussions on any other business or requests for urgent Council meetings can also be held on rapidly evolving and emerging situations. Many Council members have used those mechanisms in recent months. In the past week, Council members used those tools to discuss the situations in the eastern part of the Democratic People’s Republic of the Congo (see S/PV.7046) and the Sudan (see S/PV.7048). It is very welcome that Council members are approaching our conflict-prevention responsibilities in that proactive way. Prior to that, such discussions have covered Egypt and the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force. We also welcome the Secretariat’s readiness to bring troubling situations to the attention of the Council, as was recently done with the Maldives and Guinea, making Article 99 of the Charter an active tool for conflict prevention. Horizon-scanning briefings have covered Syria and its neighbouring countries, the Sahel and the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, among many other issues. The Council issued a press statement following the discussion of Guinea (SC/11159) in the past week, and we hope that the parties in Guinea will act on it, because elsewhere we have seen that positive responses to Council products following those forward-looking discussions are possible. The parties in the Sudan and South Sudan have been made fully aware of the Council’s views on the various issues in urgent need of resolution, including Abyei. The presidential statement on Yemen (S/PRST/2013/3), issued in February, sent a clear message to would-be spoilers seeking to undermine the National Dialogue and transition in Yemen. Adopting a conflict-prevention mind-set and using such mechanisms of working practices gives the Council a powerful tool kit to examine and respond to emerging crises. We should not be afraid to use it. Early effective responses from the Council can go a long way towards preventing further deterioration. We have only to look at the situation in Syria to see how a lack of action over many months allowed the conflict to escalate, with the horrific consequences that we see today. A modern, transparent, efficient Council is plainly in the interests of all Member States. The risks of not achieving that goal are equally plain, particularly in the area of conflict prevention. As I said in June at the end of the presidency of the United Kingdom (see S/PV.6992), improving the working methods is not merely desirable, it is essential.

We are grateful for the convening of this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council, as well as for the concept paper (S/2013/613, annex) that was circulated to that end. We hope that our deliberations today will help renew the commitment to make progress in improving the efficiency, transparency and interactivity of the Security Council. Similarly, I would like to thank the Permanent Representative of Argentina, Mrs. María Cristina Perceval, for her presentation and her outstanding work as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. In recent years, the working methods of the Security Council have evolved in a positive direction thanks to several factors, including the contributions and proposals that have been made both by the members of the Council as well as those outside it. While sometimes the rhythm of those changes is not at the pace many of us want, they continue to demonstrate the primary importance that Member States attribute to the matter. First, we acknowledge the progress made in improving some practices and measures, which are reflected in note S/2010/507 and the successive notes of the presidency. In that regard, the progress that has been achieved in the Informal Working Group this year and the measures taken to improve the internal aspects of the Council’s work are commendable. Secondly, we note that the access to information by delegations of Member States that do not belong to the Council has been improving over time. That is due, in part, to the growing call for member countries to inform their counterparts on all matters that, for obvious reasons, do not deserve confidentiality owing to their sensitivity. I must say that our delegation has contributed to that practice. In the same vein, the improvements to the Council’s website, which contains abundant and valuable information, have been moving in a positive direction. It is also worth mentioning the work undertaken by some non-governmental organizations seeking to give greater access to the Council’s work to delegations, academics and even the general public. Among those, Security Council Report deserves special mention. However, Guatemala believes there is still room for progress in certain areas. In that regard, we would like to highlight some of the practices that can be improved or implemented systematically. First, we believe it is important to maintain the Council’s trend of holding public meetings with some regularity. Including the entire membership when it comes to issues affecting international peace and security undoubtedly contributes to achieving an understanding of the seriousness of conflict situations. Secondly, we believe it is essential to further promote interaction between the Security Council and troop- and police-contributing countries. Guatemala believes that strengthening the flow of information can broaden the base of countries that participate in that important work of the Organization. We also recall the importance of maintaining the interaction between the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and troop- and police-contributing countries. We commend, in this regard, the work done this year by the delegation of Pakistan as Chair of the informal working group on the issue. Thirdly, we would give priority to continuing to improve interaction between the chairs of the subsidiary bodies with all Member States. For example, the briefings in which all Council members participate have proved very useful and facilitate the exchange of information on the work of the subsidiary bodies. In the same vein, we highlight the importance of continuing to consider the question of the selection criteria for experts of the subsidiary bodies of the Security Council, in accordance with the note by the President contained in document S/2006/997. Fourthly, we believe that closer cooperation between the Council and regional and subregional organizations is necessary for crisis management in armed conflict, and that, among other things, the number of consultations between the Security Council and regional and subregional organizations that play an active role in crisis resolution and the resolution of armed conflicts should be increased. Fifthly, we have found that the practice of holding wrap-up meetings — a practice that has been resumed this year  — to be useful, as are the briefings on the work of the Council held at the end of each presidency, as mechanisms to increase the transparency of its work. In conclusion, we believe that we must continue to innovate and adopt other measures to improve the working methods of the Security Council, and that, with the political will of Member States, particularly the permanent members, this can be achieved. Transparency, accountability and coherence are key elements that the Security Council should observe in all its activities, approaches and procedures.

China thanks Azerbaijan for convening today’s meeting. This is the sixth time that the Security Council has held an open debate on its working methods. This fully demonstrates the importance that the Security Council attaches to improving its working methods. The Charter of the United Nations entrusts the Security Council with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. As the core of the United Nations collective security machinery, the Security Council has major responsibilities in responding to threats and challenges of all kinds to international security. Following the Cold War, the Security Council has conducted preventive diplomacy efforts, resolved disputes through mediation and good offices, and made important efforts and obtained positive results in peacekeeping, post-conflict rebuilding and peacebuilding. In recent years, the broader United Nations membership has been asking the Security Council to improve its working methods and transparency so as to better fulfil the responsibility entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations. China fully understands that concern and pays sincere attention to the broader membership. China has been making sincere efforts, with other members of the Council, to push for positive results in improving the Council’s working methods. There has been an increase in the number of open meetings held every year. The President of the Council holds monthly briefings to non-members on the progress of the Council’s work, and this has now become Council practice. The Council also attaches importance to informal interactive dialogues and Arria Formula meetings, inter alia. In that way, the Council can strengthen its exchanges and interaction with Member States, regional organizations and civil society. This year, the Security Council has adopted presidential statements on improving the efficiency of the open meetings of the Security Council, maintaining regular communications with the Peacebuilding Commission and its country-specific configurations, and increasing its exchanges with regional organizations and troop-contributing countries. The Charter of the United Nations provides that the Security Council formulate its own rules of procedure. China earnestly supports the full implementation of the 2010 note by the President of the Council (S/2010/507) on improving the Council’s working methods, which sums up experiences and explores specific measures and recommendations for improving the working methods of the Council, increasing its transparency and improving its authority and efficiency so as to facilitate the Council playing a greater role in maintaining international peace and security. I would like to make the following points. First, in order to better fulfil its responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, the Council should focus its resources and efforts on dealing with major and pressing issues that are significant for international peace and security. In recent years, the number of thematic debates in the Council has been on the increase. Some of these debates have even exceeded the mandate of the Council and eroded the scope of work of other United Nations bodies. The Security Council and other United Nations bodies have their respective functions and they should use their comparative advantages and expertise and avoid duplication of efforts. Secondly, broad consensus should be reached through full negotiations and patient consultations during the Council’s decision-making process. It should be ensured that all members of the Council have sufficient time to study the relevant draft resolutions or draft presidential statements. The Council should avoid forcibly pushing for drafts on which there are major differences of opinion in order to preserve the unity of the Council. Thirdly, the Security Council should heed the opinions of the Member States, especially the ideas of the countries involved. China supports the strengthening of the Council’s coordination and cooperation with regional organizations, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, so as to fully utilize the comparative advantages of regional organizations in dealing with issues in which they have advantages. Fourthly, the Security Council should endeavour to strengthen its communication and interaction with troop-contributing countries. We support the Security Council in fully utilizing the working groups on peacekeeping and troop-contributing countries and other mechanisms to strengthen communication and exchanges and take into account the ideas of troop-contributing countries. The concerns of troop- contributing countries should also be heeded in peacekeeping deployments and mandate adjustments. Fifthly, the Security Council should, through an increase in its open debates, allow Member States to better understand the work of the Security Council. We can also use the Arria Formula and other types of meetings to listen to the ideas of other countries so as to strengthen the Council’s interaction and dialogue with States that are not members of the Council.

I would like to join my other colleagues in thanking you, Sir, for organizing this open debate on a topic that is of particular importance to all States, members and non-members of the Security Council alike, given the mission entrusted to the Council by the Charter of the United Nations as the main agent in the maintenance of international peace and security. We believe that our well-established practice of holding this annual debate, in which many delegations participate, is an important achievement that confirms  — as if it were necessary  — the particular importance that Member States give to the activities, work and decisions of the Security Council. We remain convinced that the Council will continue to be attentive to the views and proposals expressed during these debates to further improve its working methods. I also wish to congratulate our colleague Mrs. María Cristina Perceval, Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, and her whole team for their dedication, perseverance and vigorous activities, which have already allowed for specific measures to be adopted, as contained in notes S/2013/515 and S/2013/630, aimed at strengthen relations between the Council and its various partners. The growing number of items on the Council’s agenda as a result, in particular, of the growing threats to international peace and security, has given rise to a pressing and persistent need to re-examine our working methods with a view to improving the Council’s effectiveness, enhancing its transparency and strengthening its cooperation with other institutions and concerned parties. It cannot be denied that the Council has made a great effort by taking specific steps towards improving its working methods. We continue to believe that this is a work in progress that will continue in the years to come. We welcome the fact that over the past two years of our Council membership, we were able to contribute, together with other Council members, to the adoption of a package of measures, through five presidential notes, to strengthen the implementation of the note in document S/2010/507, dealing with a broad range of issues, including the utilization of resources and the management and organization of Council meetings and of cooperation with other United Nations bodies, troop- and police-contributing countries and other actors. All this notwithstanding, we are convinced that Council members and, more generally, other Members of the United Nations, must continue working to improve working methods. I will permit myself in this regard to make the following remarks and observations. First, we noticed improvement in the organization of and preparations for open debates to allow for broader participation by Members of the United Nations. In our view, their contributions must be taken into account in Council discussions. Moreover, the choice of topics for open debates must be diversified, while ensuring that their scope remains within the mandate entrusted to the Security Council by the Charter. Secondly, the trend towards holding ever more meetings in public is in itself positive. However, the Council must retain full leeway to meet under other formats when it deems it useful and appropriate for the topic under discussion. Thirdly, it is important foster greater interaction among Council members during informal consultations. In practice, this allows for discussions to be more focused and better structured and to take fully into account the information provided by the Secretariat and Council members during consultations. I know that in practice it is difficult for consultations to be made genuine interactions, but it is possible, for example, for the President, at the very beginning of consultations, to propose organizing the discussion around two or three points. I think that that would enhance the interactive nature of consultations. Fourthly, while we note the improvement since last year in the process of assigning chairmanships of the subsidiary organs, we believe that more must be done to ensure that elected Council members can be fully consulted and involved in that process and that their points of view are taken into consideration as far as possible. Fifthly, the work of Council’s subsidiary bodies is of the utmost importance and is attracting ever greater interest. More regular interaction between those bodies with the broader membership and other actors, such as United Nations agencies and regional and subregional organizations, would be beneficial. As Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, we worked, with the agreement of the Council members, to hold as many open meetings as possible, with the participation of other Member States and other actors. Sixthly, we welcome the recent adoption of note 630, on cooperation between troop- and police-contributing countries and the Council. It provides for specific measures to make the most out of such interactions. It is clear that the complementary roles of those two partners in maintaining international peace and security calls for ongoing consideration to strengthen the means for cooperation between the two entities. In the same context, the Council should step up its interaction with the Peacebuilding Commission and its country-specific configurations, which have become major actors in maintaining civic peace and promoting development in post-conflict situations. While we welcome the provisions in note 515, there is a need for more creativity to ensure optimal coordination and cooperation between the Council and the Commission in the interests of peace and stability. Over recent years, we have had the chance in our personal and national capacity to appreciate the invaluable contribution of the Chairs of the country-specific configurations to our debates, and we continue to believe that there should be more possibilities for such interaction with the Council. Since we are only a few weeks away from the end of our mandate, I could not conclude my remarks without paying particular tribute to the staff of the Security Council Affairs Division and its Director, Movses Abelian, for their unwavering dedication and the professionalism with which they interact with Council members, in particular when members assume the presidency. I thank them for their availability and commend their perfect mastery of procedural and other aspects of the work of the Security Council and their preservation of its institutional memory.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this open debate on the implementation of note S/2010/507, on the working methods of the Security Council, which is, in itself, an exercise of transparency and accountability. I would also like to thank Ambassador María Cristina Perceval of Argentina for her able leadership of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and for her unique talent in advancing important reforms for the benefit of the United Nations membership as a whole. I commend in particular the Ambassador of Argentina for the concept paper contained in document S/2013/630 on the enhancement of consultations between the Security Council and troop- and police-contributing countries adopted yesterday, which, as Ambassador Perceval stated, will enable those countries to effectively contribute to decisions regarding peacekeeping operations. It is clear that there have been efforts over the past few years to improve the Council’s working methods. However, the recent positive trends should not obscure the underlying need for more reforms that match the realities. We still have a long way to go to achieve the milestones set by our Heads of State and Government during the 2005 World Summit on the working methods of the Security Council, mainly to make it more broadly representative, increase its efficiency and effectiveness, enhance its transparency and accountability, improve the implementation of its decisions and reinforce its legitimacy. Indeed, Rwandans yesterday and Syrians today can attest to the danger of being abandoned by the Security Council in times of need. Gridlock and ineffectiveness within the Council caused by the political interests of some members have cost millions of lives. For Rwanda, the veto or even the threat of veto calls for all of us to give it due attention. In that regard, we regret the frequent abuse of that privilege and call on the permanent members to refrain from using the veto, particularly in the case of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Our country is also concerned by the trend of continued infringement on the right to equal and timely participation by all members of the Council in negotiations and processes. We deplore the worrying trend to divide the Council into two different bodies, one being more equal than others, that could even receive separate briefings by the Secretariat on important issues on the Council’s agenda. We also note with regret the continued practice whereby draft products of the Council, mainly resolutions and presidential statements, are shared between permanent members ahead of time but circulated among the elected 10 only a few days — or even a few hours — before their adoption. Cooperation between the Security Council with regional and subregional organizations is another critical area as far as working methods of the Council are concerned. We have witnessed tremendous achievements over the years on that issue, but we still believe that interaction with regional and subregional organizations should be further streamlined. It is important to hold regular consultations between political organs and the secretariats of the concerned organizations. In that regard, we wish to stress once again the need for respect for decisions of the African Union, as well as for timely and meaningful consultations with the continent on decisions related to African conflicts, which unfortunately constitute 70 per cent of the Council’s agenda. Consultations with other organs of the United Nations should also be strengthened. One of them, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), is the ideal partner of the Security Council, as it deals with post-conflict situations and consolidation of peace. In that regard, Rwanda is of the view that the members of the PBC that are also members of the Security Council have the primary responsibility to ensure that the Council can draw on the advice of the PBC in a timely and meaningful manner, and that the PBC is able to meet the Council’s expectations. Like the Permanent Representative of Luxembourg, we wish to reiterate our belief that the contribution of configuration chairs can be valuable in close consultations with the Council as well as in drafting resolutions on countries on the PBC’s agenda. Yesterday, we had a private meeting with representatives of the International Court of Justice, and we believe that the Security Council could also consider requesting advisory opinions of the Court on issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security. Before concluding, Rwanda expresses its appreciation to Pakistan for reviving the wrap-up sessions in January 2013. We have all witnessed how, over the past months, this type of meeting has become useful both to the general membership of the United Nations and to the Council members themselves. I hope that more Council members, particularly the newly elected countries, will embrace the practice. In the same vein, we support the holding of more interactive dialogues, Arria Formula meetings and open debates, particularly on country-specific situations, to allow the general membership to contribute to the discussion and share their experience. I would conclude by stressing that enhancing the legitimacy of the Security Council will ultimately require deep reforms, including the expansion of its membership in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, with the same rights and privileges as constantly requested by the African Group and the L.69 group, of which Rwanda is a member. But for the immediate term, we the States Members of the United Nations request a responsive, engaging and accountable Security Council that is up to the complex task ahead of it.

At the outset, we thank the Azerbaijani presidency for organizing today’s debate. We also commend Ambassador Perceval for her leadership as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Today’s debate provides an opportunity to assess the status of our collective efforts to improve the working methods of the Council and to allow non-members of the Council to share their observations and proposals. We believe that any effort to improve the working methods of the Council must focus on three goals — enhancing transparency, strengthening interaction with the wider United Nations members, and increasing efficiency. Such efforts are essential for the Council to effectively meet its task of maintaining international peace and security. In recent years, we have seen some improvement in the realization of those aims. More open debates are being organized, and meetings with troop- and police-contributing countries now take place on a more regular basis. Further measures to improve interactivity have been duly reflected in note by the President of the Security Council adopted in August 2013 (S/2013/515). Presidencies have also promoted useful practices aimed at increasing efficiency, such as the strict application of the five-minute rule when making statements and holding video-teleconferences in briefings in order to have updates from the field. However, we believe more can be done. Allow me to point out some areas that require further concerted efforts. First, with regard to enhancing transparency, the Republic of Korea supports the Council’s holding of more meetings and briefings that are open to the entire membership of the United Nations. The increase trend of holding wrap-up sessions and briefings by the presidencies is a step in the right direction. Such efforts should be coupled with meaningful measures to enhance the effectiveness of such meetings, including through having specific scope and focus and pursuing necessary follow-up measures. That openness should apply to the work of the subsidiary bodies of the Council as well. As Chair of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, I would mention that we plan to convene an open interactive briefing for all Member States on the current status and future of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). We will continue our efforts to keep the membership informed of the work of the Committee and seek valuable input from it. Secondly, the Council should make additional efforts to enhance interaction with the United Nations membership and other relevant stakeholders. We support enhanced interaction between the Council and other organs of the United Nations. It is important to ensure that regular meetings are held between the Presidents of the Security Council and the General Assembly. The Council’s interaction with the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission on cross-cutting issues such as conflict prevention and peacebuilding are also of great value. That will help us to have a more integrated approach to methods related to peace and security. Given the increasing importance of the role of regional and subregional organizations in dealing with challenges to peace and security, we also support the enhanced consultations with regional organizations, as was the case in yesterday’s high-level meeting (S/PV.7050). Cooperation with regional institutions can complement the work of the Council and, through those efforts, create synergy. In addition, informal interactive discussions and meetings with troop- and police-contributing countries for peacekeeping operations should also continue to be an important part of the Council’s activities. The President’s note contained in document S/2013/630, adopted last week, can serve as an important basis to further the Council’s efforts to that end. Thirdly, to deal with the ever increasing volume and diversity of its workload, it is imperative that the Council undertake more efforts to increase its overall efficiency. In that regard, the Council should continue its efforts to implement the measures laid out in documents S/2010/507 and S/2012/402. Better planning of its work, by adjusting mandate renewal periods and the timing of reports, and more focused and concise statements are among the areas that could be improved. Improving the working methods of the Security Council is indeed an important component in enhancing the effectiveness and overall legitimacy of its work. The Council should therefore continue to pursue that objective collectively and vigorously.

I would like to thank the Azerbaijani presidency for organizing this debate on the working methods of the Security Council. Efforts have been made since 2010 to improve the Council’s working methods. The periodic revision of the note of the President to the Security Council (S/2010/507) has provided useful codification and clarification for our way of working, enabling it to evolve towards greater transparency and better information flow. In that regard, I would like to thank the successive Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, who have promoted those efforts. The recent adoption under Argentina’s chairmanship of two notes concerning the dialogue with troop-contributing countries and interaction with non-Council member States is testament to that (S/2013/515 and S/2013/630). Among the measures taken recently that have subsequently become part of the Organization’s practices we should mention the immediate dissemination of the Council’s programme of work to the Secretariat, the President of the General Assembly and the general membership of the United Nations, and the opening up of Council meetings, with some of them wholly or partly open to the wider membership. France shares the opinion that debates on matters of general interest should be open. While codifying its way of working by implementing note 507, the Council has also shown that it is able to adapt to new demands. The Council meets more often for thematic debates that enable it to refine its approach to issues related to peace and international security, while seeking the expertise of regional organizations, specialized international agencies and non-governmental organizations. The use of video- teleconferencing to interact with various United Nations missions has also enabled it to streamline information and react faster to realities on the ground. Regular exchanges between the Council and the Department of Political Affairs, as well as the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, enable it to better anticipate crises and therefore react more effectively. Finally, creating a website has enabled the Council to quickly and ubiquitously disseminate all its communiqués, reports and other working documents. In that regard, the multilingual nature of the Council’s activities should be observed by ensuring that documents posted on the site are reproduced in every official language. We must continue our efforts within the Informal Working Group, which will be taking into account the proposals made in this open debate. We base our preparation of the Working Group’s programme every year on consideration of the suggestions made here. The Syrian crisis has highlighted the impasse that the Security Council has come up against in dealing with the use of the right of veto. A few weeks ago, the President of France spoke in the General Assembly on the importance of creating a code of conduct for the permanent members that would establish guidelines for the use of the right of veto. The Minister for Foreign Affairs also spoke on the subject. What would be involved would be for the five permanent members of the Security Council to collectively and voluntarily suspend their right of veto when a situation involving crime on a massive scale is considered to have occurred. Clearly, the criteria for such self-management must still be defined by the Council’s permanent members themselves. A voluntary step such as this would not entail revising the Charter of the United Nations. But we can work together on a series of questions. First, we have to agree on a definition of mass crime; the 2005 World Summit Outcome (General Assembly resolution 60/1) and numerous international conventions, including the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Rome Statute, can guide us. An alert mechanism or mechanisms that can trigger such self-management would also have to be defined. France is considering, for example, the possibility of a central role for the Secretary-General, in the spirit of Article 99 of the Charter. Finally, France has proposed that 50 Member States could challenge the Security Council when they believe that a crime on a massive scale has occurred. That would give us the opportunity to consider the terms whereby the five permanent members could initiate and implement the code of conduct on the use of the veto. France’s proposals  — and they are only proposals  — should enable us to begin to debate. To do that, my country would involve all the possible stakeholders, particularly research institutions, universities and non-governmental organizations that are working on this issue and could share their thinking with us. The Security Council should take this opportunity to thoroughly review its working methods in order to meet the challenges of the twenty- first century. The world is changing and the threats have changed. Let us be the actors who are willing to deal with that change and show that we are capable of innovating in order to be more effective but also more just.

We believe that today’s Security Council meeting on the subject of the Council’s working methods is very significant. This is now the sixth year in a row that the Council has discussed the issue in an open format with the participation of the wider membership of the United Nations, and it is testament to our continued attention to Member States’ proposals on how to improve the procedural aspects of our work — in the understanding that those very working methods and decisions on how they might be modified belong to the Council itself, that the issues relating to them are by nature highly sensitive in the context of Council reform, and that no populist attitudes should be tolerated in their discussion. By definition, the purpose of reforms and improvements in the work of the Security Council should be to make it function more effectively and efficiently in the interests of more completely accomplishing its tasks in the business of maintaining peace and security, which is the primary responsibility of the Council. Much has been said about transparency in the Council, and it is of course important if the members of the United Nations and the international community are to achieve the broadest possible understanding of the Council’s actions and the thinking behind its decisions. We believe that transparency, in its good form, is exemplified in the Security Council’s interactive briefings for United Nations members at the beginning and end of each month, along with the corresponding press conferences. But transparency cannot and should not cross the line beyond which it would interfere with Council members’ frank, substantive discussions. Discussions of the working methods of the Security Council often raise issues relating to the broader topic of how successfully the Council handles its fulfilment of the tasks entrusted to it under the Charter of the United Nations. But this is more a question of politics. Measuring its success by the number of decisions taken or not taken would be a simplistic approach. We have heard the critique that the Council sometimes usurps the prerogatives of other organs of the United Nations. We share those concerns. In that regard, our colleagues on the Council are well aware that we maintain a reserved attitude to initiatives that seek the consideration of generic subjects in the Council. When practically the entire membership of the General Assembly is in the Chamber, the Assembly  — or other relevant United Nations bodies  — is where such problems should be discussed. We believe that the Council should focus on country-level subjects and issues on which it can and should make concrete decisions. I would like to emphasize that all of these are important topics, but in our opinion they do not belong under the heading of the working methods of the Security Council. And, of course, such fundamental positions as the right of veto have nothing to do with the working methods of the Council. The suggestion that weakening the right of veto would help to improve the Security Council’s effectiveness is deeply deluded and would in fact have the opposite effect. The result would be the rubber-stamping of points of view reflecting the opinions of only one group of States. That is not why the United Nations was created. In order to make the Security Council more effective and responsive to the realities of our time, it is essential that a thorough job be done of improving its working methods. That is the aim of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We note that the work of the Informal Working Group runs, with characteristic precision, in harmony with the substantive and constructive action of all interested Member delegations of the Organization. In our opinion, an example of a key area of improvement in the Council’s working methods would be its interaction with other United Nations bodies on matters that lie beyond its remit. A current challenge is to further improve effective forms and methods of dialogue with the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, other United Nations entities, regional organizations and international partners. We must develop the practice of operational consultations among the Security Council membership, troop-contributing countries and peacekeeping operations. We favour a reasonable increase in the number of open debates, in the understanding that closed consultations are highly important. In that context, the Arria Formula is helpful. With respect to so-called horizon-scanning, we must not confuse it with the Council’s consideration of topical questions not on its agenda that concern specific members. The Russian delegation continues to do so, as do others. The Secretariat is capable of the same. In sum, the methodology could be used more often. As has been shown in practice, the horizon-scanning sessions have evolved into provisional discussions of issues that Council members themselves plan to discuss at a later time, or that are beyond the Council’s purview but are being discussed for the sole purpose of using a modern format. When the Council’s programme of work is extremely busy, as it is, and international life is replete with unpleasant issues, such conduct becomes unnecessary. The Council’s working methods are subject to ongoing improvements and adaptation to contemporary life. Only a few years ago, we launched the practice of holding video-teleconferencing briefings, which have become very popular. Further such examples include the use of information and communications technologies in the context of the Council’s consideration and adoption of documents and decisions. These have accelerated the Council’s response timing, which is very important in view of the fact that the Council is extremely busy and holds 10 meetings per week, such technology is helpful. We can also intensify international relations and increase the number of items on the agenda. The Russian delegation is convinced that the Council would gain from democratizing its work, which could lead to a better distribution of the responsibilities of so-called penholder institutions. Individual Council members should not view specific countries or regions as their own purview. We believe that the prevailing view that penholders on topical matters have the right to speak first is not correct. In our view, that is justified only in the case of draft decisions and when delegations introduce those to the Council. With respect to other situations, discussions should benefit from greater flexibility and be free of dogma. The draft version of presidential note S/2013/630 was before the Council yesterday, seeking to provide increased democratization in the Council’s working methods and increased discipline in terms of participation in the Council’s meetings. We do not consider it normal when some Council members participate in consultations or even official meetings only at the expert-level, rather than at the level of Permanent Representative or Deputy Permanent Representative. Such conduct lowers the political significance of the discussion. My delegation is prepared to participate in constructive discussions on this and other initiatives under the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions with a view to further improving the working methods of the Security Council, the ultimate goal of which is to support maximum effectiveness and efficiency of the Council’s work.

Pakistan welcomes the opportunity to review progress in enhancing the working methods of the Security Council. We appreciate the concept paper (S/2013/613, annex) prepared by your delegation, Sir, to facilitate the discussion. Let me also thank Ambassador María Cristina Perceval of Argentina for her effective leadership of the Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The debate has generated considerable attention because the work of the Council is of interest to the Council’s members and non-members alike. Enhancing the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the Council’s work and inclusive decision-making are important issues for all of us. Today’s debate should help Council members to further improve procedures and working methods. The Council has agreed on new measures complementing the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2010/507, but clearly there is room to do a lot more. Our focus should be on effective follow-up and implementation of the measures. In December, the Council took decisions on appointing chairpersons of subsidiary bodies in a balanced, transparent, efficient and inclusive manner. That has already made a difference as, perhaps for the first time, there was a sense of consultation surrounding the process, especially among the newly elected members. It is my delegation’s hope that the practice and trend will be reinforced in future. There is also a need to ensure that selection and appointment processes involving various expert panels and groups are more transparent, balanced and representative. The President’s August note S/2013/515 prioritizes enhanced interaction with non-members of the Council. We are pleased that the practice of holding wrap-up sessions, which was revived during Pakistan’s January presidency of the Council, has been supported and appreciated both inside and outside of the Council. In that regard, I thank all Council members that have mentioned that today, especially the Rwandan delegation. We welcome the recent adoption of note S/2013/630, on enhancing consultations with troop- contributing countries (TCCs) and police-contributing countries (PCCs), which are important stakeholders in the Council’s work. Pakistan, as Chair of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, has organized a number of meetings with the participation of TCCs and PCCs to address diverse, cross-cutting peacekeeping issues. In that context, I express our deep gratitude to Ambassador Rosenthal for recognizing that. We should now make additional efforts to increase the number of the Council’s public meetings, as compared to closed consultations. It would serve the Council well to fully implement Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter of the United Nations in order to enhance access and participation by non-members of the Security Council in the work of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. We have seen the increased use of the informal interactive dialogue, which has been useful in enabling the Council to interact and engage with greater candor, with important interlocutors. Video-teleconferencing technology has enhanced flexibility and provided more options in terms of ways to brief the Council frequently and upon short notice. Cooperation with regional organizations has increased in recent years. It merits further strengthening, including by improving coherence and consistency in approaches. Pakistan believes that the Council should rely more on diplomacy and the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter. Excessive reliance on Chapter VII can lead to impasse on several issues and create an erroneous impression of the sanctity and force of non-Chapter VII resolutions. The Council also needs to discuss from time to time its implementation of its resolutions, especially those on long-standing issues. The Council’s effectiveness, after all, will be judged by its performance in dealing with the core issues of international peace and security. The Council’s work is a collective effort. Enhanced cooperation and consultation between the permanent and non-permanent members is of fundamental importance in that regard. We have seen that dialogue between the permanent and non-permanent members works reasonably well in normal circumstances, and the Council is then seen to be functioning as a whole. But in crisis situations, there are at times gaps and breakdowns in communication. Sometimes the media are ahead of members of the Council in obtaining information. Instead of waiting to hear from the Council, people learn about the latest developments from Tweets. In fact, intra-Council dialogue and communication should be enhanced, not cut down, during crisis situations. This could be done in two ways. First, we understand that a sensitive and fast-evolving issue requires confidentiality and sufficient time for consultations between the primary interlocuters. After their internal discussions, the permanent five members may choose to brief non-permanent members in closed consultations. Second, the President, especially if the presidency is held by a non-permanent member, should be taken into confidence about various developments. The President, as deemed appropriate, may be authorized to brief the entire Council, the general membership and the media. Council presidencies are well placed to promote such dialogue and communication. As part of a comprehensive reform, the Council’s working methods are closely linked to accountability towards the general membership. Past practice indicates that elected members, being accountable to regional groups and to the entire United Nations membership, are keener to improve working methods. The best way to enhance the representative and democratic character of the Council is to reinforce the norms of accountability and transparency. This, coupled with the cooperation of the permanent members, would lead to more synergy in the Council around the common objective of improving its working methods.

I commend you, Mr. President, for convening this sixth open debate on the Council’s working methods. This is a persuasive interest of all Member States, and our working methods must enhance the Council’s engagement with the broader membership. Increased transparency and consultation enhance the legitimacy and thus the effectiveness of the Council, which is always necessary but doubly so when reform of the Council’s membership is at a standstill. We have many of the necessary tools. The key, as usual, is implementation, and that requires a genuine will to change practices. Opening up the working methods of the Council has been a slow and, let us be frank, tortured process. but we have made some real progress. Portugal did a pioneering job during its Council membership through its chairing the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Argentina — Ambassador Perceval and her team — has continued this influential leadership through their chairmanship. We also recognize and value the strong voices outside the Council, pressing us to do better. We welcome the establishment in May this year of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group and the active role it is playing. Its contributions have informed our recent work. The adoption of the note by the President on 28 August (S/2013/515) was a significant advance. That note focuses on enhancing the Council’s transparency and dialogue with non-Council members, and it captures many of the themes identified in a concept note circulated by Azerbaijan for today’s debate (S/2013/613, annex). We must now ensure its actual implementation. If the Council is to be effective, it must, by definition, be informed. Regular open debates that enable the Council to reflect on the membership’s inputs are critical. Informal and Arria Formula meetings, which engage non-governmental organizations and other actors — including, on a regular basis, special advisers to the Secretray-General — are also important. The Council should also keep itself informed through more briefings by regional and subregional organizations. An informed Council can also better anticipate and respond quickly to threats to peace and security. We see great benefit in the Council receiving regular horizon-scanning briefings from the Department of Political Affairs on situations of emerging concern. As President of the Council in September, Australia convened a horizon-scanning briefing — regrettably only the second this year, although we thank the Department of Political Affairs for its own initiatives in bringing many issues to our attention. We also welcome the Council’s renewed commitment, through note 515, to invite the chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission’s country-specific configurations to brief the Council. We believe this is intrinsic to our work. The Council can discharge its responsibility to the broader membership only if it is keeping the whole membership informed of its deliberations. In September, my own delegation conducted substantive briefings at the beginning and end of our Council presidency to ensure that non-members were informed of important developments. We think this practice should be institutionalized. Regular press stakeouts are also important, particularly following closed meetings. Much of the Council’s work takes place in its subsidiary bodies and therefore is seldom visible to the membership. It is unfathomable, frankly, that the Council has allowed a situation whereby only five of its 21 subsidiary bodies are mandated to openly brief the Council on their work. Transparency is particularly important in those subsidiary bodies that administer binding obligations on all States, including the sanctions regimes. While that is captured in note 515, much more needs to be done to make it a reality. Australia, as Chair of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) — the Iran sanctions Committee — initiated in June an open briefing to all Member States on that Committee’s work. As Chair of the 1737 (2006) Committee and of the Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011) concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities, on 18 November Australia will provide a joint briefing to the broader United Nations membership with the Chairs of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) Counter-Terrorism; the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), on non-proliferation; the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the President of the Financial Action Task Force. The effectiveness of the work of those Committees depends on the implementation efforts of all Member States, and it seems obvious that all Member States should be more engaged in that vital aspect of the Council’s work on peace and security. Troop- and police-contributing countries are at the forefront of implementing many decisions by the Council. The security environments in which peacekeepers operate, especially in an era when the Council has mandated historically robust operations, require that we ensure a level of information, communication and consultation that enables us to put together sustainable operations. The voices of contributing countries need to be heard prior to key Council decisions. That is why the Council’s presidential note S/2013/630, issued yesterday, is so important. The note goes further than previous measures to enable troop- and police-contributing countries to better engage with the Council, including at their own request. Even when the Council is informed, transparent and accountable — even when it is — there are times when it is unable to act. The Council has at times come under widespread and, frankly, justified criticism for its inability to discharge its responsibility to maintain peace and security. Much of this revolves around the use of, or the threat of, the veto. As a long-standing proponent of limiting the use of the veto — Australia has historically opposed it — we welcome France’s recent call for permanent members to renounce their veto powers voluntarily in instances of mass-atrocity crimes. The French Permanent Representative’s comments this morning are very encouraging. This is an important discussion we need to have.

I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than four minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate their texts in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber. I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland.

I am pleased to take the floor in my capacity as the coordinator of Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT), a cross-regional group of 22 States. ACT is currently composed of Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, Gabon, Hungary, Ireland, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Maldives, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tanzania and Uruguay. ACT was launched in May 2013 as a new initiative to improve the working methods of the Security Council. The name is an acronym - accountability, coherence and transparency — which stands for our common conviction that these qualities are needed in all the Council’s activities. ACT is convinced that the Council, whatever its composition, can and should improve its working methods through a set of pragmatic and concrete measures. Let me be clear: ACT is independent of the negotiations on the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. ACT takes no position on the reform, composition and enlargement of the Council, and it will remain outside of that process. ACT intends to work constructively with members of the Security Council and with the broader United Nations membership to increase the involvement of non-Council members and the accountability of the Council to the entire United Nations membership. Today’s meeting is an opportunity to enhance that dialogue, and ACT welcomes today’s open debate organized by Azerbaijan and the excellent concept note (S/2013/613) distributed. ACT encourages all States Members of the United Nations to dedicate their energy and their knowledge to the improvement of the Security Council’s working methods. Under the Charter of the United Nations, Member States confer on the Security Council’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council acts on behalf of all Member States, and all Member States agree to accept and carry out those decisions. Therefore, all of us have a fundamental interest in the Council’s decisions and the process leading to them. Recently, the Council’s responses to activities in different areas have shown how much support is needed from Member States. Member States have been ready to join their efforts together, to take risks and, sometimes, to grieve the loss of nationals engaged in missions. That is valid for the domain of peacekeeping operations, but it is also true in regard to special political missions and to economic and/or other sanctions. In the latter case, all Member States are obliged to implement measures in connection with listed individuals and entities. In all domains, the effectiveness of all decisions — mandatory or not — greatly depends on the support and level of implementation by the Member States. It is therefore crucial for every country to be more involved in the Council’s decision-shaping and decision-making. It is our right and our responsibility. The Security Council itself would benefit from the full support of the wider membership. Moreover, the relationship of the Council with other organs can and should be strengthened, for instance, with regional and other international organizations. Concrete action is also needed to improve the Security Council’s practice of referring situations to the International Criminal Court. Dynamics should be improved between the Council and the peacebuilding configurations, too, in order to maximize the impact on the ground. ACT recognizes past efforts of the Security Council to improve and adapt its working methods. ACT also commends former and present chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, and acknowledges the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2013/515) on working methods issued in August, which detailed ways to improve the Council’s dialogue with non-Council members and bodies. ACT takes note with appreciation of the greater level of interactivity achieved in recent months through, for instance, horizon-scanning sessions and interactive wrap-ups. In 2013, wrap-ups have taken place regularly and in different formats. We are seeing greater interest on the part of Member States, with steadily increasing attendance being a clear demonstration of the value, relevance and demand for such mechanisms. While ACT warmly welcomes resolution 2118 (2013), aimed at destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, we should not forget the Council’s long paralysis in addressing other aspects of the Syrian crisis, which is a particularly vivid illustration of the need and the imperative to make progress in the field of working methods. ACT welcomes the proposal made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for France, Mr. Laurent Fabius, that the five permanent members themselves voluntarily regulate their right to exercise a veto in the case of mass atrocity crimes. We are convinced that this pledge indicates the need to find new avenues in order to respond efficiently to crises and to live up to the responsibilities deposited in the hands of the Council. ACT encourages the other permanent members to further explore that proposal. ACT has organized itself in subgroups that have started their work and have already developed concrete ideas on issues ranging from accountability, transparency, follow-up to the note S/2010/507, and improvements in working methods relating to peacekeeping and conflict prevention. During today’s debate, various ACT members will inform the Council about the practical work under way in the subgroups. As our work continues to gain momentum, ACT may broaden the scope of its efforts according to needs and relevant developments. We are aware that many of our suggestions are already included in the past commitments assumed by the Security Council in existing President’s notes. We encourage the Security Council to ensure the full and consistent implementation of the commitments in the President’s notes, and indeed other existing and future recommendations on working methods. Moreover, ACT will monitor the Council’s existing commitments in all aspects in order to promote transparency and improve the accessibility of information. Our suggestions and interests cover a wide range of issues, but ultimately have one goal  — a Security Council that carries out its duties in the maintenance of international peace and security in a more effective and open manner. All Member States, including members of ACT, have a responsibility to support the Council and to hold it accountable for the consistent and effective implementation of its resolutions and decisions. Today’s debate on working methods is the fourth in what has become, since 2010, an annual practice. It is an important milestone for all of us and one that we strongly encourage Council members to uphold. ACT pledges to continue to carry on that important dialogue with all Member States, and in particular with the members of the Security Council, constructively and openly.

I now give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Let me first thank you, Mr. President, and the delegation of Azerbaijan for its initiative in organizing today’s important open debate on the Council’s working methods. Improving working methods is a continuing task. Indeed, there is always room to improve the transparency of the Council’s work and to enhance its relationship with the broader membership, the General Assembly and other United Nations organs, as well as with regional and subregional organizations. That is what brings us to the Council today. We welcome the recent measures the Council has taken to improve its working methods. We also commend the continuous efforts in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, led by Argentina. On our part, we continue to support all efforts within and outside the Council to improve working methods with the sole aim of strengthening and enabling the Council to better discharge the role entrusted by the Charter of the United Nations. As a member of the recently established Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, Portugal aligns itself with the statement just made by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of ACT members. Portugal has considered particular aspects related to the implementation of note S/2010/507 and subsequent notes by the President of the Security Council. I would like, therefore, to concentrate on four of those aspects and to suggest concrete measures for improvement. The first aspect concerns open debates. Open debates have become regular features of the Council’s monthly programme of work. We welcome them as they fit into the trend we expect the Council to follow, which is to have more open meetings with greater participation by the broader United Nations membership. However, open debates are meant to allow the Council to listen to the broader membership. That is why we suggest that whenever an open debate is expected to have an outcome, the Council should consider adopting the outcome statement at a later time so that it can reflect on the input of non-Council members, as the Council deems relevant. Greater interactivity in open debates could be encouraged by alternating the statements of Council members with those of non-members and by promoting the use of a summary at the end of a debate. The Council has done the latter in the past, and we think that it could be a useful practice to revive, such as in certain open debates in which the Council launches discussions on new themes. Allow me to point out something that we all, not only non-Council members, should do. We should follow note 507 and not exceed five minutes in making our interventions — a point also stressed by the representative of the United Kingdom this morning. That is an effort we encourage all to make for the sake of efficiency in all open debates. Secondly, with respect to wrap-up sessions, we see the practice resumed since January as very positive. I commend the delegation of Pakistan for kicking off so promptly and effectively the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2012/922. Wrap-up meetings have since been organized as formal private meetings, with the attendance of interested non-Council members. Alternatively, some presidencies have opted for informal briefings to the broader membership at the end of their respective presidencies. Those have also proved very useful and have allowed for an informal exchange of views between non-Council members and the presidencies on the work done. We strongly suggest the continuation of such practices. However, with respect to formal wrap-up meetings, we believe that they would benefit from being more future-oriented, more concise or else focused on specific issues of relevance and timeliness in the Council. Such formats — both wrap-ups and informal briefings — should have two aims, namely, more information and more interactivity. Those two goals could be usefully combined. For instance, nothing prevents presidencies, after convening a private wrap- up meeting in which only Council members speak, from inviting interested non-Council members to an informal briefing in another room on the same or the following day, where interactivity can then take place. Alternatively, may we suggest that the Council periodically open up wrap-up meetings for genuine participation and interventions by non-members. That would hardly be a first: the Council has done that successfully before on several occasions. My two next remarks concern aspects of the Council’s internal work, although they remain relevant to the implementation of note 507, since they relate to the transparency, inclusiveness and effectiveness of the Council’s work. First, with respect to the issue of penholders, which was touched upon by the representative of the Russian Federation this morning and on which the Informal Working Group initiated a reflection last year, the question here concerns the implementation of note 507, in particular how to give real meaning to the notion of participation in the preparation and drafting of Security Council decisions, as called for in paragraph 42 of the note. One decisive step in the right direction would be to introduce the practice of joint-penholdership or co-penholdership to initiate and chair the drafting process. Such a practice, in our view, would help promote broader participation by Council members in the decision-making process, in particular those from the same region as that of a particular situation under consideration who are willing to raise their level of participation, or those with a special interest in it, for instance those who Chair the Sanctions Committees or subsidiary bodies directly related to a given situation. At the same time, such joint-penholdership would help share the burden of keeping all Council members informed about initiatives from the earliest possible stage. Finally, with respect to the appointment of the chairpersons of subsidiary organs, a point just mentioned by the representatives of Morocco and Pakistan moments ago, it is important for the Council to give concrete meaning to the consensus reached in December through the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2012/937, that is, to establish an informal process with the participation of all Council members and in consultation with the newly elected members. The current practice would gain if such a process of facilitation were made more participatory and inclusive. Instead of relying on a single facilitator in the outreach to and consultation with Council members, including incoming ones, the Council should usefully involve other co-facilitators in the process, including outgoing chairpersons, in order to take advantage of their experience. That would allow for a more transparent, inclusive and participatory process leading to the appointment of chairpersons. Building on last year’s consensus, that could be the next concrete step towards improving the upcoming process of appointing chairpersons with respect to transparency and the participation of all Council members. Those are just a few concrete ideas. We are convinced that they would serve to strengthen the Council’s effectiveness by improving its relationship with the broader membership and by promoting enhanced participation in its decision-making.

I now give the floor to the representative of India.

Let me, at the outset, thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. I also thank your delegation for authoring the concept paper (S/2013/613, annex), which gives a perspective on the various issues being discussed under the broad rubric of working methods. I would also like to put on record our deep appreciation of Ambassador María Cristina Perceval’s stewardship of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions during the year 2013. In the 2005 World Summit Outcome (General Assembly resolution 60/1), Heads of State and Government supported an early reform of the Security Council and recommended that the Council should continue to adapt its working methods to the exigencies and imperatives of a vastly altered global order. It is a matter of regret that so far very little has been done to achieve either of those mandates. As the primary organ of the United Nations system for the maintenance of international peace and security, the working methods of the Council are of interest to the entire international community, and not only to Council members or the permanent members. As your concept paper has rightly mentioned, Mr. President, issues of transparency and interaction with non-members of the Council, troop- and police-contributing countries and relevant United Nation bodies are important for the overall efficiency of the Council and urgently need to be addressed. I would like to briefly share India’s perspective on how the Security Council could improve on its performance. Let me start by quoting the famous writer and poet Victor Hugo, who said, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”. The reform of the Security Council in tune with contemporary realities is an idea whose time has come. The permanent members of the Council must recognize, not only individually but also collectively, that the Council must be reformed to make it reflect the contemporary realities of the international system. It is self-evident that the expansion of the Security Council to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities would improve its representative character and grant greater legitimacy and credibility to its decisions. Also, the improvement of the Council’s working methods would enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. We strongly believe that real improvements in the working methods need change in both processes and approach, which requires a reform in the composition of the Council. The most important change required in the working methods is to make them transparent and inclusive. The Security Council needs to increase access to documentation and information and curb the tendency to hold closed meetings that have no records. Even worse is the practice of taking decisions among the five permanent members to the exclusion of other Council members, as was seen just last month on an important issue of international peace and security. During the past few years, my delegation has strongly supported efforts within the Informal Working Group aimed at improvements in the Council’s working methods. I will offer a few specific suggestions in that regard. First, the Council should amend its procedures so that items do not permanently remain on its agenda. Second, the reporting cycle should be practical and results-oriented, so that issues do not come up for consideration simply as a matter of routine, putting pressure on the limited time the Council has at its disposal. Third, Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter must be fully implemented through consultations with non-Security Council members on a regular basis, especially members with a special interest in the substantive matter under consideration by the Council. There is a need to strengthen the trend of meeting more often in public, including through holding public briefings and debates. Fourth, penholders should allow greater and systematic participation of elected members as co-penholders. Fifth, non-members should be given systematic access to subsidiary bodies of the Security Council, including the right to participate. Furthermore, the participation of troop- and police-contributing countries in decision-making concerning peacekeeping operations must cover the establishment, conduct, review and termination of peacekeeping operations, including the extension and change of mandates, as well as for specific operational issues. Sixth, there is a need to ensure more informative annual Security Council reporting to the General Assembly. The Council should also concentrate its time and efforts on dealing with issues concerning its primary responsibility concerning international peace and security, as mandated by the Charter of the United Nations, rather than encroaching upon the mandate of the General Assembly and other United Nations organs. Seventh, before mandating measures under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Council should first make serious efforts for the pacific settlement of disputes through measures under Chapter VI. In conclusion, let me reiterate India’s considered view that genuine reform of the working methods of the Security Council requires comprehensive reform in the membership of the Council, with expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories, and not only improvement in its working procedures. This is essential both for the Council’s credibility and for the continued confidence of the international community in this institution. It is our sincere expectation that these ideas will be pursued by Council members so that the views expressed by the wider United Nations membership find resonance in the Council’s work and working methods.

I give the floor to the representative of Brazil.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this important open debate on the working methods of the Security Council and for circulating the concept note that guides our discussions today (S/2013/613, annex). Allow me to also take this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador María Cristina Perceval on Argentina’s leadership in the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Brazil welcomes the adoption of presidential note S/2013/515 and the commitments of Council members therein to increasing the efficiency and the transparency of the Council’s work, as well as to improve dialogue with non-Council members and other bodies. We also welcome the adoption of presidential note S/2013/630, which encourages a more interactive dialogue between Council members and troop and police-contributing countries. It is of utmost importance that the views of the troop- and police-contributing countries be fully taken into account by the Council. For this to happen, consultations with them should be held as early as possible in the negotiation of mandate renewals of peacekeeping missions. My country has long advocated for a Security Council that is more transparent, efficient, inclusive, accountable and accessible to the broader membership. The Security Council acts on behalf of all United Nations Members and has the political responsibility to maintain a permanent and meaningful dialogue with the whole membership. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the holding of wrap-up sessions at the end of each presidency is becoming a regular practice among Council members. We expect that those sessions can gradually become more open to the effective participation of non-members. Monthly discussions of the Council’s work are a valuable tool for the broader membership to have a better understanding of its deliberations and of the issues on its agenda. Since it is of utmost importance to enhance the transparency of the Council’s work, Brazil believes that the Security Council should meet as often as possible in public. We reiterate our understanding that private meetings should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, it is our belief that the Security Council should consult more regularly  — formally or informally  — with non-members. It is disappointing that, although binding on all Member States, Security Council decisions seldom are discussed with the openness desired by the majority of the membership. In line with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, it is important to allow all United Nations Members to express their views and to influence decisions whenever they may have a special interest in substantive matters under consideration by the Council. Encouraging the wider participation of the membership in the Security Council’s deliberations is the path to enhancing the legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of its decisions. Greater transparency is also much needed in the activities of the Council’s subsidiary organs. Substantive and interactive briefings with Member States offer an opportunity to all interested delegations to provide inputs to the work of those bodies. It is imperative to strengthen the relationship between the Security Council and other United Nations bodies. Closer cooperation is needed not only with the General Assembly, but also with the Economic and Social Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). Brazil believes that the PBC’s advisory role to the Security Council has not been explored to its full capacity. Greater interaction between the two bodies could be fostered. We once again encourage the participation of the Chairs of PBC configurations in the Council’s debates and consultations. We also welcome the expansion of consultation and cooperation with relevant regional and subregional organizations, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. As we have stated in the past, the interpretation and implementation of Council decisions is an important part of the discussions regarding working methods. The establishment of objective parameters, especially when the use of coercive measures is contemplated, would clearly contribute to increasing the accountability and effectiveness of Council decisions, and to avoiding the loose interpretations of mandates. We also encourage the Security Council to dedicate more of its time and efforts to preventive diplomacy. The Council’s exercise of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security should be informed by the principle that prevention is always the best policy to reduce the risk of armed conflict and the human costs associated with it. Let me take this opportunity to welcome the launching of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group. Brazil shares with the group the understanding that reform of the working methods of the Security Council is much needed and commends the pragmatic and concrete approach that is being pursued by ACT. Since we are speaking of accountability, I must reiterate that when matters of the utmost interest to this Council are dealt with outside this body, the least we can expect is regular reporting. Such reporting has been seriously inadequate in situations such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where a more forthcoming approach and regular briefings by the Quartet are clearly due. We commend France for presenting a proposal regarding the use of veto. We believe that this is a clear demonstration of the necessity and urgency of considering substantive decisions to update the organ. The decision of Saudi Arabia not to take its seat on the Council until the organ is reformed is also very relevant to our discussions. It only reinforces the widely held view that the more we protract the unavoidable reform, the more often the Council will be confronted with the serious limitations that jeopardize its capacity to maintain international peace and security. In conclusion, Brazil would like to underline that the working methods of the Security Council cannot be entirely improved without a comprehensive reform of the body that brings the Council in line with today’s geopolitical realities and make it truly capable of addressing the challenges of the twenty-first century. In this context, we welcome the initiative taken by the President of the General Assembly to establish an advisory group to draft a text that would serve as a basis for the intergovernmental negotiations in the General Assembly. This initiative has the potential to overcome the artificial delays imposed on negotiations and materialize the existing widespread political support for Council reform. As the General Assembly nears its seventieth session in 2015, concrete outcomes should finally be achieved on this important matter. We remain convinced that such reform is the only way to achieve a more representative, legitimate, efficient, effective and accountable Security Council.

I now give the floor to the representative of Saudi Arabia.

I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. I would also like to associate myself with the statement made by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, as well as that to be delivered on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The international community’s attention is focused on the Council more than ever before. Innocent people throughout the world yearn for the Security Council to save them from the scourges of war by implementing its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security without further delay, which will make the world a safer place. On that basis, the process of reforming the Security Council and its working methods must be inclusive, comprehensive and designed to strengthen the Council’s ability to fulfil its mission, reflect contemporary realities and the diversity of the international community, and take into consideration the interests of the entire United Nations membership. The change in the Security Council’s structure should reflect the current situation, as well as new developments in the international arena. It should reflect the equitable geographic distribution of Member States and preserve its ability and effectiveness in fulfilling its duties, including in preventing conflicts and international disputes before they escalate and lead to grave consequences. The Security Council should benefit from the expertise of regional and subregional organizations in solving and preventing conflicts. We emphasize the need for all States to abide by the Council’s resolutions equally and without selectivity. The Middle East has long suffered from continuous violations of international peace and security without effective and efficient intervention. That has led to calamities in the region and within the international community. We are perplexed by the double standard applied to the Middle East. Instead of the Council preserving the prestige of the United Nations and safeguarding its efficiency and credibility, that double standard will definitely lead to a loss of confidence among the peoples of the region in international institutions, in particular in the Security Council. With regard to the situation in the occupied Palestinian Arab territories, the Security Council has considered that issue almost since the day it was established. It is unable to maintain international peace and security or restore the rights of the legitimate holders. Israel persists in violating international law and in changing the situation on the ground. The Syrian crisis has festered without being addressed in a manner conducive to achieving the aspirations of the Syrian people and reflecting the will of the international community, as represented in the resolutions on the issue adopted by the General Assembly, which have not been appropriately translated into reality by the Council. That confirms once again the gravity of delaying the adoption of appropriate resolutions at the right time to achieve peace in the region and the world. Those delays lead to the spread of anarchy, wars, killing and destruction. My delegation emphasizes the need for the Council to consider the aspirations and hopes of the peoples of the world and the region.

I now give the floor to the representative of Sweden.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Let me, first of all, thank Azerbaijan for organizing today’s debate and for providing a very good concept note (S/2013/613 annex). We appreciate that these debates are turning into yearly events, since the working methods of the Council indeed concern the membership as a whole. Since last year’s open debate (see S/PV.6870), the attention to this matter has increased further. Argentina has continued the excellent leadership of Portugal of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The adoption of note S/2013/515 during the presidency of Argentina in August was a welcome step in which the Security Council committed to a number of measures for increased transparency and consultations. Outside the Council, the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group has joined together in order to push for a reform of working methods. We welcome the establishment of the group and fully support the statement made on its behalf made by the representative of Switzerland. The two most central aspects of the discussion on working methods continue to be transparency and the possibility of non-members to interact with the members of the Council in a substantive way. That is why note 515 is important and encouraging. With the Council’s commitment to enhancing its interaction with Member States, as well as with other United Nations entities and regional and subregional organizations, it is our hope that more concrete steps will be forthcoming. The issue now is the implementation of the commitments contained in the notes that have been adopted over the past years. We continue to underscore the need for regular, informative briefings to non-members of the Council, and welcome the wrap-up sessions that have been held so far. As the Council continues to review the concept of wrap-up sessions, we would suggest an interactive model whereby non-Council members are invited to participate. That relates to a number of situations, in particular to discussions on peacekeeping missions in which troop- and police-contributing countries should be involved to the greatest extent possible. We welcome the most recent note S/2013/630 in that regard. There is also room for improving the quality of open debates by ensuring that concept papers and outcome documents reflect the input of all participating countries. The adoption of note S/2012/922 on ways to improve open debates is welcome in that regard. The Nordic countries welcome all efforts to enhance transparency. Therefore, we continue to support the work of Security Council Report, which provides valuable insight and knowledge about Council activities, including working methods, to the wider membership. Given the ever-increasing workload of the Council, let me also stress the importance of efficiency. We encourage the continued implementation of note S/2012/402, including technical improvements, such as the more frequent use of video-teleconferences. Efficiency also relates to the internal distribution of labour among Council members. We welcome the adoption of note S/2012/937 focusing on the selection of chairs of the subsidiary bodies. We still encourage the Council to be more forthcoming with the scheduling of those meetings in order for the broader membership to be better informed. The discussion on penholding should also continue. In our view, elected members of the Council could have a greater role in drafting and presenting products of the Council. Nothing is more important for the Council than to prevent and respond to conflict. The Council should continue to actively seek ways to improve its ability in that regard. We would therefore encourage the Council to return to horizon-scanning briefings at the beginning of every month. That concept offers the Council a chance of early warning, and thus the possibility of acting before a conflict erupts. A broader approach to prevention and conflict resolution also relates to the connection between thematic issues and country-specific situations. The Council could do more to integrate those perspectives. In closing, the Nordic countries call on the Council to continue on its path of reforming its working methods. There is still plenty to do.

I now give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

The holding of this debate shows the Council’s openness to considering improvements in its working methods, and that is why we welcome Azerbaijan’s initiative. In addition, Mexico welcomes and is grateful for the work carried out by Ambassador Perceval and her diligent leadership of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The progress that has been made in recent years on some of the practices of the Security Council is undeniable. The larger number of open debates and public meetings and the increasing interaction between the Council and police- and troop-contributing countries are the direct result of the adoption of the note by the President contained in document S/2010/507. Unfortunately, progress has been uneven, and questions remain concerning the holding of monthly wrap-up meetings and whether that should become the norm — an idea that has met with resistance among some members of the Security Council. The rejection of such simple proposals reinforces the stereotype of a Security Council characterized by secrecy and prevents a more dynamic and transparent relationship between those who sit at this table, whether for two years or forever, and those — like ourselves — who simply observe as spectators. Mexico would like to take this opportunity to highlight the excellent information that the representatives of the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries provide to the rest of the regional Group on a monthly basis. The elected members of the Security Council are those who have historically promoted and continue to promote reforms to the working methods and those who are more conscious of the value and importance of transparency in their work. However, on many occasions, those countries are marginalized in negotiations and only included in the process once decisions are already agreed. The democratic principles that rightly motivate the Council should begin at home. We express our satisfaction with the recent establishment of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group. We hope that the work of the group will help make the work of the Security Council more efficient, transparent, inclusive and legitimate. We also believe that it is crucial to strengthen cooperation between the Council and regional and subregional organizations on issues of armed conflict and crisis management, in particular when the Council is acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We must also foster greater interaction with other Security Council bodies, in particular the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, when considering decisions with financial implications, such as the establishment or renewal of the mandates of special political missions. Every day, the importance of changing the way in which the Council ensures peace and security becomes more apparent, as already mentioned by previous speakers. The paralysis that has for prevented any action on the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic for more than two years now is a reminder that the current composition of the Security Council and its functioning need to be restructured in order to respond in an effective and democratic way to the challenges on the international agenda. Mexico welcomes the recent proposal by France to develop a code of good conduct among the five permanent members of the Council, so that when the Council is considering war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, the five permanent members collectively renounce their right of veto. We are willing to work together to advance that initiative. In conclusion, allow me to say that such realistic improvements in the working methods of the Security Council, the one proposed by the French delegation and the ACT group, will undoubtedly contribute to strengthening the Council’s ability to maintain international peace and security.

I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt.

Egypt associates itself with the statement to be delivered by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. At the outset, I would like to commend the Azerbaijani presidency of the Security Council for convening this open debate on the working methods of the Security Council. I would like also to take this opportunity to congratulate the countries that were elected this month as members of the Security Council for the next two years and to thank Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan and Togo for their efforts during their membership during 2012 and 2013. Today’s open debate is the sixth debate on the Security Council’s working methods. We hope that the views expressed by non-members of the Council will be reflected in any outcome of this debate in order to enhance the transparency and inclusiveness of the Council’s work. We also expect the Security Council to add to its upcoming annual report — which the Council is to adopt tomorrow — more detailed information on the measures taken to improve the Council’s working methods in order to properly assess the progress achieved in this regard. The effective functioning of the Security Council has a direct impact on the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations indicates that the Council acts on behalf of the entire membership of the United Nations. Therefore, the Council’s working methods do not belong only to its 15 members; they are the collective responsibility of the general membership. For that reason, reforming the Security Council’s working methods is one of the five inextricably linked items to be negotiated in the overall reform and expansion of the Council in accordance with General Assembly decision 62/557. Egypt appreciates the efforts by the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions under the chairmanship of Argentina to improve the Council’s working methods. Yet, more efforts should be exerted to promote the full implementation of the note by the President contained in document S/2010/507 and subsequent notes. We must also be more ambitious and advance our discussions beyond those notes. For example, reaching an agreement on the Security Council’s provisional rules of procedure, which have been in force for over 60 years, would be a major step towards improving the working methods of the Council. The working methods of the Security Council will not be improved unless we effectively address the use of the veto. In that regard, we note with interest the proposal by President Hollande of France, which was reflected in his statement in the general debate of the General Assembly at its sixty-eighth session (see A/68/PV.5): that the permanent members collectively refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Let me recall here that Africa is opposed to the veto as a matter of principle. We believe that it should be abolished. However, as long as it continues to exist, and as a matter of common justice, it should be extended to all permanent members of the prospective enlarged Security Council, in full application of the principle of equality between current and new permanent members. Private meetings, informal consultations and closed meetings should be kept to a minimum. Issues to be covered at any briefing by the Secretariat should be determined in coordination with the concerned State and after the approval by all members of the Security Council. Interventions after such briefings should not be restricted to Council members. The concerned party should be given the opportunity to express its views on such briefings. Any decision by the Security Council to initiate formal or informal discussions on a situation in any Member State or other issues that do not constitute a threat to international peace and security is contrary to Article 24 of the Charter. We urge the Council to strictly follow its mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. Through note S/2013/515, Council members agreed to make more effective use of public meetings, informal interactive dialogues and Arria Formula meetings. These meetings should be used effectively by providing for real opportunities and more meaningful exchanges of view to take into account the contributions of non-Council members, in particular those that may be directly affected by decisions of the Council. A mere quantitative increase in such meetings without a qualitative benefit or outcome would be a waste of time and resources. The participation of troop- and police-contributing countries in decision-making concerning peacekeeping operations must cover their establishment, review and termination, including the extension or change of mandates. We welcome as a step forward the recently adopted note by the President S/2013/630 on enhancing consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries. Wrap-up sessions have proven useful in taking stock of the activities of the Security Council at the end of each month. We thank those Council members that have held wrap-up sessions at the end of their presidencies. This practice complements that whereby Council Presidents brief the wider membership on the programme of work at the beginning of each month. Monthly assessments are important in providing a more coherent account of the main aspects of the work of the Council during that month. In note S/2012/922, Council Presidents were encouraged to submit the monthly assessments soon after the end of their respective presidencies. We note, however, that the latest monthly assessment posted on the Security Council’s website relates to April, under the presidency of Rwanda. We appreciate the continued efforts of the Secretariat in developing the Security Council’s website, making it more informative and user-friendly, as well as in publishing its programme of work and the monthly forecast in a timely manner. Finally, there is still much room for improvement. We count on all members of the Council, in particular its permanent members, to make greater progress in improving the Council’s working methods so as to strengthen its ability to carry out its mandate of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

I now give the floor to the representative of Hungary.

Hungary, as a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, aligns itself fully with the statement made on the group’s behalf by the representative of Switzerland. Our statement in full written form will be made available to all Member States. In order to save time, I would like to focus here on six concrete proposals, all of which are related to the interlinkages between the work of the Council and questions of accountability for major international crimes. First, the open debate on the International Criminal Court (ICC) held under the Guatemalan presidency in October 2012 (see S/PV.6849) was a crucial initiative in examining the important link between peace, security and accountability. We hope that such debates will be held on a regular basis in the future. Secondly, the question of accountability in general is an issue that concerns not only the Security Council but other bodies within the United Nations. Interaction between the different bodies should be regular, and developments in other forums should be taken into consideration by the Security Council. Thirdly, in cases where the Security Council has to act to maintain international peace and security, we encourage the Council to develop a coherent accountability strategy with clear criteria to guide its future decisions and to send an important message to Member States. Fourthly, the work of the Council in the field of accountability deserves better reflection on the Council’s website. In that regard, we note that at present there is no information on the reasons and basis for the establishment of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda by the Council, and not a word is devoted to the role of the Council in ICC-related proceedings, as set forth in the Rome Statute. Fifthly, when the Council uses its prerogative to refer cases to the ICC, it has the responsibility to do so in a predictable and even-handed manner, and then to provide support by setting up appropriate follow-up mechanisms and procedures. So far we have seen only partial results in this area. Last but not least, Hungary appreciates and very much supports the repeated initiatives of France proposing that the permanent members of the Council voluntarily refrain from using their veto power in situations of mass atrocities. Hungary believes that any and every proposal that brings the Council closer to its ultimate raison d’être and the fulfilment of its responsibilities in a flawless and predictable manner merits serious consideration.

I now give the floor to the representative of Estonia.

At the outset, Sir, I would like to thank you for organizing today’s open debate on the Security Council’s working methods — the sixth of its kind — and for the very comprehensive concept paper (S/2013/613, annex). As a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group, we fully support the statement delivered by the representative of Switzerland on the group’s behalf. In order to respect the time constraints, a longer version of our statement has been distributed. As set out in the Charter, the Members of the United Nations have conferred the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security to this 15-member body. It is therefore hard to overestimate the role of its working methods. How the Council works and how its decisions are taken is of the utmost importance to every single country in the Organization. Let me focus today on the transparency and accountability of these processes. Estonia attaches great value to transparency in all decision-making processes and therefore highly praises any steps taken with that as a consideration. As the Council’s decisions affect all of us, we expect to be involved in that process. Therefore, the greater the transparency that accompanies them, the easier their implementation will be. Through enhanced engagement with the interested parties, transparency can be improved on all levels. The Council has demonstrated responsibility to the wider membership by adopting presidential note S/2010/507 and more recently, in August, note S/2013/515, committing to closer collaboration and engagement with non-members. Estonia considers the implementation of those decisions to be instrumental for the future. Many of the incorporated commitments have already been implemented. We have witnessed a growing trend in open debates and other public metings. That trend should continue: open meetings should become the norm, rather than the exception. In that regard, we would like to recall, as an excellent example, the open debate organized a year ago by Guatemala on peace and justice, with a special focus on the role of the International Criminal Court (see S/PV.6849). That was the first thematic debate focusing on the relationship of the Council with the Court, and it was, we believe, a timely and fruitful exercise. Estonia therefore strongly encourages members of the Security Council to organize a follow-up debate on the topic. We would also like to commend the Council for organizing informal interactive dialogues and Arria Formula meetings with other interested parties. The informal introductory briefings on the Council’s programme of work, as well as the recently reintroduced wrap-up meetings, are also of the great value to the wider membership. Estonia encourages both the Council’s current and newly elected members to continue that practice during their presidencies, so that it can become an integral part of the Council’s work. Transparency is a multilayered issue. It should be enhanced both horizontally and vertically. In a decision-making process, the wider membership’s involvement should start at an early stage and continue through to the end of a decision’s implementation. On the other hand, an even wider range of different stakeholders, including civil society, should be involved in the work of the Council. We believe that exclusion creates frustration, while participation increases ownership — and thus responsibility and accountability as well. A great deal has in fact been done, but there is still room for improvement. An example of the lack of transparency in the work of the Council was the process that led to adoption of the long-awaited resolution 2118 (2013), on Syrian chemical weapons, which for the first time in history determined that the use of chemical weapons anywhere constituted a threat to international peace and security. We certainly welcome the resolution, but the process of making the decision showed that transparency could be enhanced. With respect to accountability, which is another important goal that the Council should pursued, we again cannot overlook Syria, the most tragic ongoing conflict. The Council has been paralysed for too long, and the international community has therefore not been able to assume its responsibility to protect the people of Syria, who have been systematically attacked and killed by their own Government, a Government that has not lived up to the rightful expectations of its own people to a peaceful and stable living environment. We would call upon the Council to reflect on its working methods — on how such a situation has occurred and how it could be avoided in future. One of the issues to explore is the veto and its use. Estonia would call on the permanent members of the Council to seriously consider refraining from its use in cases of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity. In that regard, Estonia welcomes the French proposal to define a way the permanent members of the Council could decide to collectively renounce their veto powers in the event of a mass crime. Finally, as a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, Estonia is ready to work closely with the Council in order to identify further ways to increase transparency and interaction between all States Members of the United Nations and the Council.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

Allow me, at the outset, to thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s important open debate. I would also thank you for your concept note highlighting the need to further deliberate on ways to improve the Council’s work (S/2013/613). My delegation associates itself with the statement to be made by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. It is encouraging that, as reflected in the Council’s presidential note of 28 August (S/2013/515), the Council will strive to improve dialogue with non-members of the Council and representatives of other bodies, as part of its commitment made in 2010 to enhance Council’s efficiency and transparency and to increase its interaction and dialogue with external stakeholders. In undertaking the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security in an effective manner, the Security Council must take actions and decisions that garner support and cooperation from the greater United Nations membership. Accordingly, greater communication, understanding and input from the Member States is vital to enriching the Council’s decision-making capacity and to the achievement of its aims. As the Council is entrusted with its responsibilities on behalf of the entire United Nations membership, its meaningful engagement with the non-members of the Council reflects its intention to heed and voice the aspirations of the whole of the United Nations, and not just those of a privileged few. The Council should therefore show a greater degree of transparency, accountability and efficiency and democratic values. In order to help enhance the working methods of the Council and increase inclusiveness therein, Indonesia would like to share its views as follows. First, Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter of the United Nations should be implemented in an effective manner by consulting with non-members of the Security Council on a regular basis, especially those with a special interest in the substantive matters under consideration by the Council. The Council should also seek those countries’ views in order to ensure that countries are able to implement the Council’s decisions. Furthermore, Member States particularly affected by sanctions should be given an opportunity, at their request, to participate in meetings of the relevant Sanctions Committees. The Council should also grant affected non-members access to its subsidiary bodies, including the right to participate and give substantial input. Secondly, the Council should hold regular, timely and meaningful consultations with troop-contributing countries, financial contributors and other countries that are directly concerned or affected by a peacekeeping operation before and during the decision-making process for establishing, conducting, reviewing and terminating a peacekeeping operation, including for a change of mandates and specific operational issues. Thirdly, draft resolutions, presidential statements and other documents submitted at informal consultations of the whole of the Council, if so authorized by authors of the drafts, should also be promptly made available to non-members of the Council. Fourthly, the reasons for exercising a veto should be explained at the time of doing so, and a copy of the explanation should be circulated to all Member States. Fifthly and lastly, as a general rule, the Council should meet in a public forum that is open to all Member States. It could decide to meet in private on an exceptional basis. Accordingly, we welcome the Council’s enhanced engagement with troop- and police-contributing countries, relevant regional and subregional organizations and the Peacebuilding Commission. The constructive steps taken should be maintained and enhanced. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate Indonesia’s commitment to supporting the Council in its work and in its efforts to incorporate greater transparency, inclusiveness, accountability, efficiency and democratic values as it carries out its responsibilities.

I now give the floor to the representative of Malaysia.

I shall deliver a shorter version of my statement, while the full text is being circulated in the Chamber. I wish to commend the Azerbaijani presidency on its initiative to convene today’s meeting on the working methods of the Security Council. Malaysia wishes to align itself with the statement to be delivered by the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Malaysia welcomed the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2010/507, which remains a landmark document aimed at developing and improving the work of the Council. Malaysia recognizes that the Council’s working methods have continued to evolve. The most recent note on its working methods, issued on 28 August (S/2013/515), focuses on ways to improve the Council’s dialogue with non-Council members and bodies. The note continues the series of commitments on the part of the Council that include making more effective use of public meetings, expanding consultation and cooperation with regional and subregional organizations, providing opportunities to hear the broader membership’s views on the Council’s working methods, including in open debates, maintaining regular communication with the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and its country- specific configurations, convening wrap-up meetings and informal briefings and improving consultations with police- and troop-contributing countries (TCCs). One critical issue that has marked much of the discourse on working methods between the Council and the membership at large is the debate concerning Article 30 of the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates that the Council shall adopt its rules of procedure. On the other hand, Article 10 of the Charter states that the General Assembly may make recommendations to the Council on its powers and functions. A key to resolving that debate is whether all Members are willing to ease that tension and work together to help make the Council function more effectively. Members must be prepared to leave their entrenched national interests behind in order to enable the matter to progress and make the Council an organ that serves the wider membership. In taking steps to increase transparency and improve the efficiency of its working methods, the Council must also address shortcomings raised by non-Council members, as it has done with such past issues as the early distribution of draft Council documents to non-members, the convening of more public meetings and increases in the frequency and types of formats used for informal interactions with non-members. Malaysia appreciates the practical measures the Council has taken to provide frequent dialogues and exchanges between it and non-members. In that regard, we welcome the holding of Arria Formula meetings as a means to ensure closer interaction with non-Council members and regional and subregional organizations. We also commend the Council for its ongoing briefings and consultations with TCCs. The Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations should involve TCCs more frequently in its deliberations through timely and regular interaction. The Council’s request, in resolution 2076 (2012), that the Secretary-General consult with countries contributing troops to the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is a clear example of the benefits of consulting TCCs. Malaysia is of the view that given the linkages between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, the Council has benefited tremendously from its increased interaction with the PBC. Due to the advisory nature of the PBC’s role, its views should be duly considered when the peacekeeping mandates are discussed. In conclusion, Malaysia believes that more steps will have to be taken to improve the Council’s working methods, and will require Member States, particularly the permanent members of the Council, to display the necessary political will. It is incumbent upon all of us to put aside our individual political agendas and work for practical, attainable changes. The reform of working methods is part of a larger, comprehensive reform. What is required is structural reform of the Council — reform that makes it more representative of the United Nations membership, thereby ensuring greater effectiveness and legitimacy in its work.

I now give the floor to the representative of Slovenia.

I would first like to thank the Azerbaijani presidency for convening today’s open debate. Slovenia is a member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency (ACT) group and aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the representative of Switzerland on behalf of the ACT. Ensuring the legitimacy, efficiency and strength of the Security Council, as the body entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, should be based on transparent, accountable and coherent procedures in order to address the concerns of the entire international community and involve all Members of the United Nations. Open briefings and debates have been an opportunity for States to share their views and actively engage in the work of the Council. We also warmly welcome the practice that some of the permanent Council members, as well as those from non-permanent-member States, have begun of distributing concept papers, and we call on the other members to follow their example. We should consider further improvements relating to the order of speakers and the adoption of outcome documents, which present an opportunity to help strengthen the Council. Drafts of presidential statements and resolutions should be made available before they are adopted, and non-Council members should be consulted about them — when, of course, appropriate. The availability of modern technologies makes such action possible in a variety of ways. Decisions should be adopted at the end of debates, not the beginning. Transparency should be a core element of the Council’s working methods and can serve as a way to engage non-members in its work. When mandates are being drafted, we would welcome early participation in the process on the part of all Council members, as well as consultations with the regional organizations concerned. For the sake of transparency, we would encourage the Council to open meetings for briefings by United Nations officials and relevant special rapporteurs to all United Nations Members, while allowing for the possibility of holding consultations privately afterwards. Every Member of the United Nations has had to deal with an increasing number of decisions by the Council. Since all States Members of the United Nations have a responsibility to support the Council and hold it accountable for the consistent and effective implementation of its decisions, we believe that each and every resolution or decision of the Council should be accompanied by an action plan for its implementation, which should, of course, be regularly monitored. In recent decades, we have witnessed the evolution of new areas of conflict and issues of concern to the international community, an evolution that the Security Council should reflect by reviewing its agenda. States that have been entrusted with membership in this body must uphold and promote international law and ensure that their own decisions are firmly rooted in that body of law. Accountability and the fight against impunity must be a foundation for their work when dealing with breaches of international peace and security. In that regard, the International Criminal Court (ICC) should be perceived as an effective mechanism, one that is based on firm respect for the rule of law, the protection of civilians and the punishment of grave atrocities regardless of the perpetrator in a conflict. We encourage Council members to refer cases of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community to the ICC and to establish an effective follow-up mechanism for such actions. In addition, we repeat our call to the permanent members to refrain from the use of the veto in situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or serious violations of international humanitarian law. We welcome France’s initiative condemning the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities and encourage the other permanent members of the Council to address the issue seriously and in good faith. To conclude, it is crucial to ensure that the Security Council continues to regularly assess how its practice matches the goals as outlined in presidential note contained in document S/2010/507 and all its updates, and that it continues to collect and build on the valuable input from the United Nations membership as a whole on ways to further improve its working methods.

There are still a number of speakers remaining on the list for this meeting. Given the lateness of the hour, I intend, with the concurrence of the members of the Council, to suspend the meeting until 3 p.m.