S/PV.9079Resumption1 Security Council

The President: I would like to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than three minutes in order to enable the Security Council to carry out its work as expeditiously as possible. Flashing lights on the collars of the microphone will prompt all speakers to bring their remarks to a close after three minutes. I now give the floor to the representative of Italy.

Mr. Stefanile (Italy): A more transparent and functional Security Council is vital to gaining public opinion’s trust in the ability of the United Nations to ensure international peace and security. That is why we welcome this open debate and very much appreciate the presentations by the briefers. We also commend your efforts, Mr. President, as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. The Council is a collective organ whose members, permanent and non-permanent, should operate on an equal footing as much as possible. The distribution of duties among Council members should therefore be fairer and more balanced where both the chairships of subsidiary bodies and the practice of penholderships and co-penholderships are concerned. More generally, the 10 non-permanent members should be allowed a greater role in contributing to the work of the Council and promoting better working methods. Among other things, we deem it particularly important to ensure closer cooperation between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and we look forward to seeing the Council regularly request, deliberate and draw on the PBC’s specific, strategic and targeted advice. We are also in favour of consolidating and further expanding the practice of inviting briefers from civil society, especially women, to Council meetings in order to enable Council members to hear different voices and points of view before deliberating. Furthermore, we believe that it is important to hold Security Council meetings in an open format as often as possible, while closed meetings should be kept to a minimum, based on the rule of exception according to which they were intended to be held. The improvement of working methods is also part of the broader discussion on comprehensive reform of the Security Council, which should aim to be a more transparent, accountable, efficient and, in our view, democratic body. Improved accessibility to the Council should be an essential element of the reform, as we believe that a greater number of countries should shoulder the responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Special attention should be devoted to the regions of the world that are currently underrepresented. In our view, the expansion of the Security Council should contemplate a drastically reinforced presence of the African continent and Arab, Asian, and Latin American countries, as well as the possibility for small States and small island developing States to be regularly represented. The issue of the use of the veto, regardless of whether it is actually used or its use is simply threatened, is also key, as it represents the root cause of the Council’s inaction. The use of the veto in the Council over the past month with regard to the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and more recently the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, further confirmed the paralysing effect that the power of the veto can have on the Council’s ability to act. That is why Italy supports all initiatives aimed at encouraging self-restraint in the exercise of right of the veto, such as the French-Mexican initiative and the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, and why we were among the sponsors of resolution 76/262. That is also the reason why we are unable to support any reform of the Security Council that would consider the expansion of the category of permanent members, as that would generate additional veto powers and further discrimination with regard to the roles of the members of the Council.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Argentina.

Ms. Squeff (Argentina) (spoke in Spanish): Argentina thanks Albania for convening this open debate on a topic that has always been of particular interest to us. My delegation reiterates that presidential note S/2017/507 is a valuable tool for increasing the transparency, inclusiveness and efficiency of the Security Council, as well as a balanced text that can serve as a useful guide on agreed measures and best practices related to the Council’s working methods. My country has historically advocated the need for constant efforts to improve transparency, inclusiveness, openness, democratization and efficiency in the work of the Security Council. In that regard, we firmly believe that it is possible and imperative for the Council to be more transparent and democratic in its relationship with the wider membership without affecting the effectiveness of its decision-making. Undeniably, the working methods of this organ have seen improvements in recent years, which, of course, has been as a consequence of the efforts of the elected members, who, through their patience and commitment, have successfully engineered such results. We recall that, in February 2000, during its presidency of the Security Council, Argentina urged for the adoption of a note by the President of the Council calling for recently elected members to be invited as observers at informal consultations during the month prior to the beginning of their terms on the Council. During Argentina’s previous chairmanship of the Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, for the two-year period from 2013 to 2014, numerous notes introduced by the Chair on topics such as consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries, dialogue with non-Council members, the participation of Council members in the drafting of Council products and their broader drafting responsibility and others were adopted. Argentina values the regular review of the implementation of presidential note S/2017/507 and subsequent notes, the identification of best practices and possible shortcomings, as well as the consideration of necessary adjustments. In that regard, we urge the Informal Working Group to continue its work with a view to creating a single comprehensive document that can consolidate and streamline all decisions on working methods. Dialogue between the Council and other bodies, whether within the United Nations system or not, is essential to enabling the Security Council to carry out its functions. The organizations that we consider crucial to fulfilling the mandate of the Council include the Peacebuilding Commission, the International Criminal Court and humanitarian assistance organizations. The Security Council has many responsibilities, and fulfilling them demands effective coordination with other stakeholders. The Council’s job is to maintain international peace and security and Argentina does not want to see it absorbing the functions of other bodies. In conclusion, we know that the goal here is to improve the working methods of the Security Council and its culture with regard to making decisions and ensuring its effectiveness. That is why Argentina welcomes the constructive discussions on the issue during the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr. Aldahhak (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): My delegation supports efforts to ensure efficiency and transparency in the work of the Security Council and to improve its working methods in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We would like to focus on the following points. First, membership of the Security Council requires all its members, and especially the President, to communicate professionally with non-member States that are being discussed as items on the Council’s agenda. They should conduct a constructive dialogue with them and take their concerns into consideration when drafting resolutions and issuing presidential and press statements, without attempting to antagonize, exclude or alienate them. Secondly, it is important to streamline the Council’s efforts, time and resources by limiting the number of intense and recurring meetings held in a short space of time about the situation in a specific country. Such meetings should not be used as a platform to put pressure on the country concerned or to offend it, but should be used for objective and constructive debate aimed at finding solutions to crises. Thirdly, the working methods and practices of the Security Council must be respected. They should not be used selectively, based on the whims and interests of certain States. Fourthly, it is important to respect individual mandates. The Security Council should work within its own mandate and not encroach on those of other United Nations bodies such as the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council or others. Neither should the General Assembly violate Article 12 of the Charter, which states that the Assembly should not make any recommendations with regard to a situation being discussed by the Council. Fifthly, it is important to mitigate the impact of Security Council sanctions on the humanitarian situation of the populations of targeted countries and to rationalize their use. Sanctions should not be considered an end in themselves. When they are implemented, we have seen that they primarily affect ordinary citizens, making them suffer and depriving them of their right to a dignified life, food, health care, development and other basic human rights. Sixthly, it is essential to limit the length of statements during open debates with the participation of many delegations, in order to ensure that all Member States have an equal opportunity to speak. However, restricting the right of States concerned in an agenda item to express their position in meetings in which their countries’ situations are being discussed thwarts their ability to present their national perspectives and respond to the concerns raised. Lastly, we welcome the participation of representatives of civil society and non-governmental organizations in open briefings, but they should bring added value to the Council’s work. Briefers should benefit the Council with their experience of the subject under discussion, and their participation should in no way constitute an attack on or offend any Member State, promote biased points of view or convey a false or non-objective picture of the situation under discussion. In conclusion, my delegation commends the efforts that were made to enable the Security Council to continue its work during the unprecedented emergency circumstances resulting from the coronavirus disease pandemic.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Slovakia.

Mr. Chatrnúch (Slovakia): Due to the time limitations, I will read an abbreviated version of our statement. At the outset, I would like to thank Albania for organizing today’s debate and the briefers for their insights. The coronavirus disease pandemic posed an unprecedented challenge to the working methods of every organ of the United Nations. In retrospect, we believe that the Council has shown remarkable resilience. As we reflect on the working arrangements devised since March 2020, we believe that some have demonstrated their value and should be given proper consideration even after the restrictions are lifted. First, we encourage continuing the practice whereby briefers join meetings of the Security Council via video link. It enables the Council to consider the participation of a larger pool of potential briefers and therefore benefit from a wider range of information sources and views informing its deliberations. Secondly, Slovakia has consistently supported efforts aimed at enhancing the openness of the work of the Security Council. In that regard, open debates have always played a central role. My delegation endorses the practice of enabling the submission of written statements from non-members of the Council during open debates. As the concept note (see S/2022/499, annex) points out, the Council implemented successful innovations in its working methods in the context of progressively deepening divisions. The decrease in unanimity on Council decisions and an overall increase in the number of vetoes cast have prevented the Council from acting on matters that continue to represent fundamental challenges to international peace and security. It is only very recently that we have seen Russia, in the position of aggressor, make shocking use of the power of the veto. That flagrant abuse of the veto and the Charter of the United Nations should become a much-needed impetus to reform of the Council. In the meantime, we would like to recall the importance of the General Assembly’s recent adoption of resolution 76/262, along with the Accountability, Coherency and Transparency group’s code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint in cases of mass atrocities. My delegation would like to underline the need to fully implement the existing measures and commitments set out in the updated note of the President of the Security Council (S/2017/507) of 2017 and the subsequent 13 notes. In the interests of time, I will mention only four points. First, we encourage further strengthening the Council’s substantive engagement and sharing of information with troop- and police-contributing countries. Secondly, the Council should consider further developing a more active and meaningful relationship with the Peacebuilding Commission, the Human Rights Council and other relevant bodies, as well as the International Criminal Court. Thirdly, the working methods of the Council’s subsidiary organs should be further improved, especially in instances that can affect the human rights of the people concerned and their right to due process. Lastly, interaction and dialogue between the Council and other Member States, particularly those directly concerned and affected by a specific situation, should be further enhanced and widened. We appreciate the recent thorough application of rule 37 and encourage its continuation.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt.

Ms. Moustafa (Egypt) (spoke in Arabic): My delegation once again welcomes Albania’s presidency of the Security Council for this month and commends the way it has led the work of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. We listened to the valuable briefings by Ms. Sievers and Ms. Landgren and appreciate today’s open debate between the Council and the wider membership, which is a practical way of improving the Council’s working methods. Egypt also values presidential note S/2017/507 and other proposals that can contribute to improving the work of the Council and making it more effective. In that context, we would like to share the following points with a view to improving the working methods of the Council and its subsidiary bodies. First, there should be more Council briefings to all Member States. Their views regarding the programme of work must be heard, and they should be kept informed about the Council’s visits and various activities. The Chairs of the subsidiary bodies and their committees should also brief Member States periodically. Secondly, the number of various public meetings, whether of the Security Council itself or its subsidiary bodies and Sanctions Committees, should also be increased. We would like to point out that the Security Council represents all Member States and acts on their behalf, and its meetings should therefore be public, with the exception of those that address issues relating to the national security of States and are kept closed at their request. Thirdly, in order to ensure genuine and serious discussions between the Council and the wider membership, Member States must be informed about draft resolutions and presidential statements before the Council and the consultations about them. Member States must be given every possible opportunity to provide the Council with their views and proposals about those draft resolutions and presidential statements. Fourthly, it is important to strengthen coordination between the Security Council and the neighbours of States in conflict situations, as well as with regional organizations, especially the League of Arab States and the African Union. Fifthly, the Security Council should strengthen its consultations with troop- and police-contributing countries pertaining to United Nations peacekeeping missions, as provided for in paragraph 91 of presidential note S/2017/507. Sixthly, it is crucial that the subsidiary bodies of the Council, especially their Sanctions Committees and panels of experts, hold consultations with the countries concerned when preparing the related reports. Lastly, the countries concerned must be invited to participate in the meetings of the relevant subsidiary bodies and committees, as stipulated in paragraphs 101 to 110 of presidential note S/2017/507. In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that while numerous proposals have been made regarding improving the working methods of the Council and its subsidiary bodies and Sanctions Committees, what is essential is ensuring that there is sufficient political will to implement them and a belief that developing those methods will constitute added value, which will lend them greater credibility in the eyes of the wider membership. The opposite is obviously true as well.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of the Central African Republic.

Mr. Nzessioue (Central African Republic) (spoke in French): At the outset, the Central African Republic would like to congratulate Albania on its presidency of the Security Council. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the initiative to convene this open debate, which enables us to hold an exchange of views on the Security Council’s working methods. It has now been almost 10 not-so-glorious years since the Central African Republic first found itself on the Security Council’s agenda. From our experience, we have observed a negative trend whereby the penholdership has been held by either one or a very limited number of countries. As a result, the decisions that are imposed are often unilateral and serve the penholders’ national agendas rather than addressing the reality on the ground and helping to find solutions. Penholders often steer the drafting of Council documents without holding the appropriate consultations with the countries on the Council’s agenda or, worse still, while ignoring their main points of view and concerns. For example, the concerns of the Central African Republic were not taken into account during the latest negotiations on the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic, which obliged us to make sure that we shared them with Council members. Such an approach can only have a negative impact on efforts to resolve crises and implement the mandates of United Nations missions. All members of the Council should have the same opportunities to participate fully and meaningfully in the drafting of Council documents, including resolutions, presidential statements and press releases, in line with paragraphs 78 and 79 of presidential note S/2017/507. The Security Council should extend that opportunity to all of its members, permanent and non-permanent alike, on an equal and equitable footing. When it comes to African affairs, special attention must be paid to the views of the three African members of the Council, which have the necessary capacity and expertise to take on that difficult task. For example, when the crisis broke out in my country in 2013, it was Africa that first came to our aid. The same was true when it came to negotiating a peace agreement, where Africa assumed a leadership role that led to the signing on 6 February 2019 of the Political Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in the Central African Republic. Today Africa continues to lead the process for the revitalization of the peace agreement in the Central African Republic. For us it is therefore self-evident that Africa’s voice must be reflected within the Security Council and that reforming the Council in order to grant Africa a permanent seat is essential. That would make the Council’s work more effective and ensure that its documents are drafted in an inclusive way that enables the full participation of all members. Texts must be drafted by penholders and co-penholders in an impartial and responsible manner and based on credible sources of information, in order to help the Council to take appropriate, effective and timely decisions. Finally, with regard to sanctions regimes, the Central African Republic believes it is crucial to implement a mechanism for their regular evaluation, based on well-defined criteria, in order to objectively judge the consistency, coherence, appropriateness and effectiveness of sanctions with regard to their objectives.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Cyprus.

Ms. Ioannou (Cyprus): We thank Albania for organizing this debate, as we believe that the Council should continue to improve its working methods and the ways in which it relates to the wider membership. We propose the following concrete steps within the scope of the guiding questions included in the concept note (S/2022/499, annex). First, where exceptional circumstances prohibit the Council from functioning as intended, we acknowledge that presidential note S/2021/1074 reflects the importance of ensuring that it can function without interruption. However, we need to add some content to that minimal acknowledgement, because in our view that general statement might not be sufficient for the Council to deal effectively with a serious crisis, such as that in Ukraine, if it is unable to function fully and properly. While a serious crisis may be less likely to occur in conditions of pandemic lockdowns, for example, the Council needs to have contingency plans for all eventualities. These plans need not be overly prescriptive, given that the nature of every single crisis cannot be foreseen, but they do need to include the ability to physically gather a representative from each Council member for decisions to be made, and they do need to designate, for example, a location beyond the Council Chamber for meetings to take place if the United Nations headquarters is affected by a disaster. In further codifying its functioning under unforeseen circumstances, the Council must ensure that it can take all necessary action without delay, that it can enforce its decisions, that its work is transparent and accessible to non-members of the Council, and that it can effectively interact with those Member States that are directly affected by its work. Secondly, as we have stated many times before, the Council needs to do better vis-à-vis the Member States that are directly affected by its work. Establishing an informal channel through the presidency might help the Council to account for the perspective of the conflict State under discussion, especially prior to consideration of the situation in that State. We reiterate our suggestion that the Member State primarily involved in the situation under discussion be invited to offer its perspective in closed consultations, before the Council begins its closed deliberations. Increased interaction and transparency are even more warranted in cases where the Council has deployed a peacekeeping operation in a Member State, not only because good cooperation between the host Government and the peacekeeping operation is crucial for the latter’s success, but because host-country consent and cooperation have been central to peacekeeping since its inception. Thirdly, we see room for improvement in terms of the availability of information on the Council’s work to all its non-members. While we welcome wrap-up sessions and monthly reports, we see the need for more frequent debriefings on the work of the Council and more open channels of communication with respect to changes to its programme of work. Over and above this, of course, we would like to see an effort to directly provide affected States with information relating to the work of the Council that specifically affects them. We believe that affected States should not have to rely on the goodwill of individual members of the Council or the penholder for this information. Lastly, let me say a word on how technology might advance the functioning of the Council in the wake of the coronavirus disease experience. While technology can add value in cases where, for example, briefers cannot attend a meeting physically, the use of technology should be measured by its contribution to the core function of the Council. Technology cannot substitute for the knowledge of local circumstances that the Council needs to have to deal with a situation effectively; this knowledge is best gained through visits on the ground. And while high-level participation is facilitated by technology and can help draw attention to certain issues, our priority should remain the Council’s ability to take action and implement its decisions.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Libya.

Mr. Elsonni (Libya): I thank the President for arranging today’s meeting and giving us the opportunity to speak on this important topic. I also want to thank the briefers today. My statement will be brief. I intend to make on a few precise points on the topic before the Council today, specifically as it relates to countries affected or countries on the agenda of the Security Council. I would start by referring to the rights of countries on the Council’s agenda or of countries under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. There are four main issues of concern, and we think that they are related to the Council’s working methods. Most of the speakers today spoke about the 15 members of the Security Council, but we did not hear much about the rights of countries on the Security Council’s agenda. For example, when we talk about the drafting of and consultations on Council resolutions, what is the norm? The norm is that the penholder will produce a draft, circulate it among the members of the Council, and then, depending on the goodwill of some representatives in the Council, the country affected will be notified. However, Council members are not mandated to do so. Bilateral relations therefore play a part, which puts countries affected at the mercy of such relations, which is not fair. What we are requesting is to be properly consulted. The point of view of the country should be reflected in the draft resolution related to it. The country concerned should at least be officially heard. The same thing goes with presidential statements and press releases that come out of the Council. Drafts are circulated, Council members share comments with each other, and we are lucky if our good friends tell us what is going on. And our comments, when we provide them, are not necessarily quoted as those of the State concerned, as if the matter does not belong to us. That is neither right nor proper. Thirdly, there is a similar situation in terms of the work of the sanctions committees. For example, whenever the Panel of Experts produces a report, it is presented to Council members. We get a chance to read it in a closed office, but our views and comments on the findings are not taken into consideration. We do not have the slightest bit of room to question some of the errors that reports contain, which could be simple human mistakes and not necessarily something to do with the substance. Yet, the report comes out, and then we have to argue about the avoidable inaccuracies in it. The exemptions to sanctions-related matters as well as embargo issues are also a concern. We hear about them, and we know about them, but through our own channels. We are not officially informed that there is an exemption request that has been sent with respect to the country concerned. Everything that I am saying has happened with my country, Libya, for the past 11 years. I am sure that there are many other countries that are facing the same situation. This is something related to working methods. The affected country has the right to be notified and to give comments. The Council can then take the comments or leave them, but that is a separate issue. Fourthly, and finally, there have been difficulties in terms of appointing special representatives of the Secretary-General. The Council has been facing this issue frequently, including with regard to my country. Whenever the Secretary-General tries to appoint a special representative, he must deal with the dynamics of the Council to get its members’ approval. But the country concerned itself is only notified, not consulted, and its point of view is not necessarily taken seriously. The proper way should be that whenever a special representative is proposed, there is a consultation with the country concerned and with political players in that country, to reach consensus on the proposed special representative. After that, the proposed appointment can be presented to the Security Council so it can reach its own consensus, if needed. But it is not fair to appoint a special representative without the country — or the political parties, or whoever is involved in the country — not having the right to say yes or no; we should have a say in the matter. We could cite many examples on this point. To summarize, the issue before us is not one of negotiations among Council members. It is a question of the right of the countries affected, specifically those under Chapter VII, which have the right to provide their input and should be taken seriously. It should not be just a favour done to the country in question to notify it of what drafts are in process or resolutions being discussed, and so on.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

Mr. Geisler (Germany): Germany welcomes Albania’s initiative to discuss working methods and thanks the briefers for their insightful briefings. During its last tenure in the Security Council, in 2019-2020, Germany attached great importance to fostering the transparency and accountability of the Council. We therefore welcome the increased number of open and public debates. We encourage future presidencies to continue along these lines, and we call on Council members to stop blocking certain topics from being discussed publicly, as a matter of principle. Time and again non-members of the Security Council are directly affected by the situation in countries that the Council discusses. These States have a legitimate interest in making their voice heard. In line with paragraph 74 of note of the President S/2017/507, which stipulates that the Security Council’s work is a collective endeavour, we believe that presidencies should, to the greatest extent possible, give these countries the opportunity to participate in accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. Artificially limiting the number of participants would seriously undermine the Council’s inclusivity and legitimacy. During its most recent Security Council tenure, Germany actively fostered the participation of civil- society briefers in Council debates. We welcome the fact that this has become a best practice. Germany is very concerned that in some recent cases civil- society briefers have had to face threats after making statements in the Council. That is utterly unacceptable. We call on each States Member of the United Nations to allow civil-society briefers to speak openly in the Council and to counter all forms of pressure on them. We also wish to increase the Council’s effectiveness and legitimacy by strengthening its cooperation with other United Nations bodies. We currently see a need to discuss threats to international peace and security and to agree on preventive measures and peace consolidation. For that reason, a clear and complementary division of labour between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) will be key. For quite a while now Germany has pushed for closer coordination and greater complementarity between both forums. We are happy to see that Kenya, as the current coordinator between the Security Council and the PBC, is actively working towards greater coherence. We will continue to support those efforts. Finally but most importantly, the use of the veto remains the main reason why the Security Council is not currently living up to its tasks as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The blatant abuse of the veto on a draft resolution on Ukraine in February (see S/PV.8979) once again brought that to the fore. Such action has to stop. We were a proud co-sponsor of resolution 76/262, and we support initiatives to limit the use of the veto such as the one by France and Mexico in cases where the Security Council faces situations of mass atrocities or genocide.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Algeria.

Mr. Koudri (Algeria) (spoke in Arabic): At the outset, I would like to take this opportunity to once again express the congratulations of my country’s delegation to the Republic of Albania on its wise leadership of the work of the Security Council this month. I also wish to thank the briefers for their comprehensive presentations. In recent years the Council has made tireless efforts to strengthen its working methods and increase transparency, in particular through the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Presidential note S/2017/507 was also an important milestone in improving the Council’s working methods. Improving the Council’s working methods is an ongoing process. It is a collective endeavour undertaken by the members of the Council as well as all Member States. Advising on best practices is not an end in itself; rather, best practices constitute a means to strengthen the effectiveness of the Council and guarantee implementation, given their impact on the Council’s ability to effectively and efficiently carry out its mandate. Today’s meeting on the working methods of the Security Council is taking place at a time when the world is recovering to various degrees from the effects of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We must draw lessons and move forward towards becoming a United Nations that carries out its responsibilities with maximum efficiency and reflects our commitment to the values and objectives of multilateral action. In the context of today’s debate, I would like to underscore the following points that we consider key in terms of building upon the practices that were adopted during the pandemic and to ensure that the Council is ready to face such circumstances in future. First, the Council must be flexible. That flexibility was of great importance during the pandemic and a decisive factor in the Council’s effectiveness. Secondly, the use of modern technologies has become a new reality. Ensuring the continuity of the Council’s work was the greatest challenge during the pandemic, and that challenge was addressed thanks to the technological capacity of the Secretariat and the political will of Member States. However, there are shortcomings that must be addressed, in particular ensuring that public debates held in a virtual format allow for the broadest possible participation of States Members of the United Nations. However, the measures adopted during that period should not become rules for working methods under ordinary circumstances. Rather, they should be exclusively employed in similar circumstances. Thirdly, it is important to maintain interaction with States that are not members of the Council, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states that the Council acts on their behalf. That requires full transparency in dealing between the Council and Member States. In that context, as a candidate for the membership of the Security Council for the period 2024-2025, Algeria calls for strengthening interaction between the Informal Working Group of the Security Council on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and States that are preparing to join the Council so that they are better prepared and able to participate more effectively in the Council’s work. Fourthly, it is essential for the Council to remain united. Its unity is what allowed it to face the challenges brought by the pandemic. We underscore the importance of the Council’s unity, in particular during decision-taking amid a complex world and increased challenges. It is imperative to overcome differences between Member States through dialogue and finding solutions that meet our common interests and strengthen genuine multilateralism. Fifthly, a comprehensive approach should be taken to understand the nature of conflicts. Broad, transparent and open communication, in particular with the involvement of regional organizations, should be the norm in order to allow the Council to develop a more comprehensive global vision that allows its members to take better decisions. Improving the Council’s working methods is a long-term task. Algeria stands ready to contribute to it. We are fully convinced that by constantly improving its working methods, the Council will be able to better carry out its tasks pursuant to the Charter of the United Nations.

The President: I now give the floor to representative of the Sudan.

Mr. Mohamed (Sudan): At the outset, may I express my appreciation to the Albanian presidency of the Security Council for having convened this meeting and inviting non-Council members to participate in the debate on the working methods of the Council. The Security Council is entrusted by the Charter of the United Nations with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. To carry out that task effectively, the Council’s work must be transparent, objective and resilient for the benefit of the greater international community as a whole rather than of a specific group of elite countries, with a view to improving the efficiency of the Council’s working methods. That being said, I should like to highlight the following points. There has been a debate in recent years about the Security Council’s encroachment on the powers of other organs of the Organization, particularly the General Assembly. The reform of the Council’s working methods under Article 24 requires the Council to adhere to its Charter-mandated functions. A quick glance at the Council’s agenda reveals that it is rapidly expanding, necessitating a pause for reflection and meaningful review. It is critical that the Security Council’s tasks and responsibilities be distributed democratically, transparently and objectively among its members. The so-called penholdership is a particular source of concern in that regard. For instance, on what grounds does one country become a penholder while another does not? What are the limits of the penholder’s responsibilities? How can we ensure that the penholder does not turn into a stick-holder? Penholdership reform is but an actualization of the principle of the sovereign equality of all States Members of the United Nations. It was also possible to bring about, especially compared with the reform debated at length on the veto power and the permanent membership of the Council. Moreover, penholding was based more or less on the past colonial relationship between the penholding Member State and the Member State against which the pen is being held. That is a bizarre contradiction, which runs counter to the principal objective of the United Nations Charter regarding decolonization. Penholdership, per se, has manifested itself as a robust one-dimensional power of overseeing the national self-interest of the penholding State to the detriment of the State under quasi-trusteeship. One can hardly equate it with a system of governance or an advisory task relating to the swift navigation of the State, which was put on hold from its status quo to an experimental correctness of its situation. One would think that it would enshrine an equitable and positive sharing of expertise, wisdom and political experience, with a view to improving the dire condition of the target State by the strange paroxysm of perpetual holding. One would aspire that it would engender effectiveness and specific capacities of the purported delinquent State in order to maximize its exposure, with multilateral oversight equipped with those best vestiges of statehood to help the State under the holding regime to become involved in a positive engagement. Penholdership therefore seems to lack transparency. It is nothing more than a self-mandated authoritarian guardianship that holds the State in a post-modern box, managed by a one-dimensional patronship. Penholdership is in need of restructuring, reviewing and reinventing, if it is not outdated. If it continues, it must respect the multilateral interests of the State under the penholdership and the fact that it enjoys equitable sovereignty and has dignity and pride. As it tends to be an absolute directorship — a facility, not a blatant subduing or overlordship — it should be freed from politicization, whereby a State under a regime of sanctions is not stripped of its statehood and membership rights. Penholding is procedural. It is never meant to be substantive, perpetual or manipulative to undermine one’s State national interests, in particular its multilateral rights to enjoy membership of all United Nations institutions and committees. It does not consider positively the balance of interests that encompass the State for whose oversight the pen was held. It should not be a mandatory vehicle for maximizing the overseeing State’s national self- interests to the total detriment of the State that was put on hold. We adhere to the stand that the sanctions mechanism must be reviewed in order to take into consideration the following remarks. There should be an assessment of the potential impact of the sanctions on the target State. The States under sanctions regimes should be involved in the assessment process. Sanctions should be fine-tuned to reverse the resultant suffering. Claims of impacted States should be given priority in humanitarian assistance. Improving the Security Council’s working methods is a long-term endeavour. We are confident that the Security Council will be better able to carry out the mandate given to it by the States Members of the United Nations if it continually and persistently improves its working methods and practices. The meeting rose at 6 p.m.