General Assembly Session 60 meeting 94

The Acting President

I should like, on behalf of all the members of the General Assembly, to extend our deepest sympathy to the Government and the people of Indonesia for the tragic loss of life and material damage that have resulted from the recent earthquake in the area.

May I also express the hope that the international community will show its solidarity and respond promptly and generously to any request for help made by that country.

The Acting President

Members will recall that the General Assembly held a joint debate on agenda items 9 and 117 at its 47th and 50th plenary meetings, on 10 and 11 November 2005.

Members will recall also that the General Assembly held the High-level Plenary Meeting on agenda items 46 and 120 at its 2nd and 4th to 8th plenary meetings, on 14 to 16 September 2005, and also adopted a number of resolutions under those two items.

With regard to items 117 and 120 of the agenda, the President of the General Assembly indicated, in his letter dated 27 June 2006, that it would be necessary to continue consideration in plenary of those items on a date that would take into account the programme of the General Assembly. He also stressed, recalling the recommendation made by the 2005 world summit, that the issue of Security Council reform was an essential aspect of the process of United Nations reform.

On 20 April 2006, Member States were able to discuss this important question in the framework of the Open-ended Working Group charged with considering the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

The significant number of States inscribed on the list of speakers is evidence of the General Assembly's interest in, and commitment to, seeking a solution that would meet with the broadest possible consensus. I hope, therefore, that we will have a fruitful and constructive debate.

Mr. Yousfi (Algeria)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the African Group.

At the outset, I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the President of the General Assembly for having convened this plenary meeting devoted to the important topic of the reform of the Security Council. This gathering provides us with an opportunity to restate the African common position on the reform of that body as outlined in the Ezulwini consensus, contained in the Sirte Declaration and reaffirmed at the Khartoum and Banjul summits. But first at all, I would like to underline some of the guiding principles of our approach.

First, the reform of the Security Council is an important and integral part of the wider reform process of the United Nations. Secondly, in order to enhance the Council's legitimacy, effectiveness and capacity to address threats and challenges to international peace and security, the reform must be comprehensive in addressing both the expansion of its membership and the improvement of its method of work and decision-making so as to achieve greater transparency and accountability.

Thirdly, Africa is determined to redress the historical injustice of being the only continent lacking representation in the permanent member category of the Security Council and to ensure its legitimate right to be fully represented in all decision-making organs of the United Nations, in particular the Security Council.

With regard to the elements of the African common position, it is worth noting that the Ezulwini consensus clearly stated that, as far as Africa is concerned, full representation means no fewer than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and the privileges of permanent membership, including the right of veto, and five non-permanent seats -- that is to say, two additional seats for Africa. The selection of Africa's representatives in the Security Council, as well as the question of the criteria for the selection, should be the responsibility of the African Union.

In the spirit of achieving those objectives while contributing to the reform the Security Council based on the principles of democracy and equitable representation of all geographical regions, the African Group submitted draft resolution A/60/L.41 during the Assembly's current session.

On that basis, the African Group is ready to engage in a constructive dialogue with the entire membership in order to achieve a Security Council reform that meets Africa's legitimate aspiration, as well as those of other regions -- a reform that, preferably, will enjoy consensus.

Mr. Martirosyan (Armenia)

On behalf of the States members of the Group of Eastern European States eligible for non-permanent membership of the Security Council, I would like to thank the President of the General Assembly for having convened this meeting.

It is the long-standing position of our Group that making the Security Council more representative and balanced and its work more effective and transparent is vital if we are to adapt the United Nations to the realities of the twenty-first century.

The issue of Security Council enlargement is of particular relevance to the Eastern European Group. Its member States are by any standards underrepresented in that body as currently structured. I remind the Assembly of the fact that since 1991 the Eastern European Group has more than doubled its membership, with, most recently, the Republic of Montenegro joining the United Nations as its one-hundred-and-ninety-second Member. It is therefore our common and long-standing position, expressed, inter alia, in the letter of the Chairman of the Group dated 28 February 2005 (A/59/723), that any increase in the non-permanent membership of the Security Council should ensure the enhanced representation of the Eastern European Group by allocating that Group at least one additional non-permanent seat in an enlarged Security Council.

We also believe that the existing regional groups should be retained for the purposes of the distribution of seats on and election to the Security Council.

Finally, let me express our hope that the momentum gained in the process of Security Council reform as a result of the 2005 world summit will be further strengthened and eventually lead to tangible results.

Mr. Matussek (Germany)

This is my first time addressing the General Assembly as Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations. Let me say that I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in a discussion on one of the central elements of United Nations reform.

In the last few weeks, we have seen progress on a number of important reform issues. We have inaugurated the Human Rights Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. We are working intensively on mandate review and on creating system-wide coherence. On management reform and budget reform, huge efforts are being made to come to an agreement.

All this is good; all this is commendable. And yet the more progress we make in those fields, the more the one big reform issue that we have not yet touched sticks out like a sore thumb.

United Nations reform without Security Council reform will not only be incomplete; it will not work. The reason for this is not that the Security Council is more important or on a higher level in terms of hierarchy than other United Nations bodies. The reason is that the work of the Security Council is interlinked with and affects the work of the whole of the United Nations. It is therefore with good reason that the summit last September called for "early reform of the Security Council".

We all know in our hearts that General Assembly revitalization and the reform of the working methods of the Security Council will not work without a reformed Security Council. Peacebuilding and peacekeeping will become more effective the more legitimate the Council's decisions are seen to be. To a very large extent, the outside world identifies the United Nations with its most visible organ: the Security Council. A United Nations that claims to have reformed itself without having brought the Security Council into the twenty-first century will continue to lose authority and credibility in the world.

We have been discussing Security Council reform now for over 15 years. Whatever the differences of opinion may be, there is overwhelming agreement that this reform is necessary and that we need a decision soon. The United Nations membership is also in agreement that reform of the working methods of the Council is not enough and that we need structural reform.

My colleagues in this Hall remember better than a newcomer like me the numerous attempts at reform of the working methods of the Council. Very good suggestions have been made in the context of the Open-ended Working Group and elsewhere, and on a number of recommendations broad agreement has already been reached, but we all know that those initiatives have not been implemented in a satisfactory manner so far. The so-called S-5 proposal on the working methods of the Council has the great merit of concentrating the most pertinent proposals and of creating a coherent approach to that part of reform. To a very large extent, the S-5 suggestions are also included in the G-4 proposal, but while there is compatibility on substance, we still have doubts on procedure. Will the S-5 proposals be effectively implemented if we do not achieve structural reform?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently said in a speech that the Security Council in its present form is no longer legitimate. It is also not as effective as it could be. To be legitimate and to be effective, the Security Council must represent the political realities of the twenty-first century; let major stakeholders, on which the implementation of Security Council decisions depends, participate in its decision-making; give the southern hemisphere an adequate say in Security Council matters; and commit to a meaningful reform of its working methods.

All that can be achieved only by a structural reform of the Council by enlargement in the categories of permanent and non-permanent members alike. At the fifty-ninth and sixtieth sessions of the General Assembly, we have seen that this conviction is shared by a large majority of United Nations Members. Indeed, the proposals now on the table of the General Assembly are all compatible in that sense. On the other hand, the ideas presented by the Uniting for Consensus group at the last session of the General Assembly have not been resubmitted. A general agreement to enlarge only the non-permanent category is not in sight, let alone a consensus, as the name of the group implies. Let us now put the missing pieces of United Nations reform into place and let us together find a way to make that reform reality. While we should all be forward-looking and not dwell on differences of the past, we need to recognize the results of intense interaction and debates of recent years. On that basis and with open-mindedness on all sides, reform can be achieved.

The issue is now to move on the proposals. Together with our partners in the G-4 and all those who have been supportive of Security Council reform in all regional groups, including Africa, we will continue to work to finally transform the fifteen-year discussion of Security Council reform into action. As we have said before, and as I stress again, we remain open to further discussing our reform proposal with all Member States genuinely interested in reform and to considering possible amendments with a view to broadening the basis of support.

Mr. Abdelaziz (Egypt)

Today, and at a most appropriate time, the General Assembly has resumed its consideration of one of the most important aspects of United Nations reform: the reform of the Security Council.

In the past few days, the international community has witnessed and continues to witness tragic and regrettable events that clearly threaten international peace and security in many parts of the world -- urgent crisis situations that the Security Council has failed to address for many political considerations, resulting mainly from the lack of unanimity among its permanent members, and consequently leading to the paralysis of the Council and its inability to undertake badly needed measures at the most appropriate time. That is why we should always keep in mind the interrelationship that exists between the current impasses in the work of the Security Council, on the one hand, and our efforts to expand the membership and improve the working methods of the Council, on the other.

Egypt is fully committed to the African common position, as outlined today by the Chairman of the African Group, the Permanent Representative of Algeria, and will remain committed to the positions taken and the proposals submitted by the Non-Aligned Movement.

In that connection, Egypt, like many other Member States, has constantly advocated the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. We have underlined again and again the need for the Council to reflect current political realities, with special emphasis on granting developing countries, in particular the African continent, their long-overdue and deserved representation in the permanent and non-permanent categories of Council membership. That is coupled with strong support for all ideas aimed at improving the working methods of the Council and at making it more responsive, transparent and open to the entire membership.

Some of the questions we have to address today relate to whether we attempt to make progress on both tracks, or limit ourselves to merely one track at the expense of the other? Does improving the working methods of the Council constitute a good enough outcome for our discussions? If so, what kind of improvement should we be aiming at and will it be adhered to by the Council?

While we support all endeavours aimed at improving the working methods of the Council, we note that those attempts still fall short of making meaningful changes in the Council's work in the direction of strengthening the principles of transparency and accountability. As we have noticed during the sixtieth session, the Council has increased its attempts to encroach on the prerogatives of the General Assembly. Instead of reflecting on the valid concerns raised by the majority of Member States on that very important issue, the Council has turned a blind eye and continued its attempts to address issues that fall exclusively under the purview of the General Assembly in accordance with the Charter.

Furthermore, many of us have raised valid concerns regarding the process of the selection of the Secretary-General. Those concerns did not and do not aim at undermining the role that the Council and its permanent members play in the selection process. They merely attempt to increase transparency in that process, based on the fact that any Secretary-General is a Secretary-General for the Organization and its entire membership, and not only for the Security Council. We expect serious efforts by the Council to increase the transparency in that process, far beyond informing the membership through the President of the General Assembly of the procedural aspects of the work of the Council on that issue.

In that regard, the General Assembly should also act on its own to develop a mechanism for the consideration of candidates to be recommended by the Security Council for appointment by the Assembly. That Assembly mechanism should include meetings with the candidate, and preferably a straw poll to determine his or her level of acceptability to the Assembly, in order to ensure that the candidate obtains the widest possible support from the entire membership of the Organization and that his or her official appointment by consensus at a later date is a true reflection of a transparent and democratic process.

In the meantime, concepts and suggestions aimed at addressing the question of increasing the membership of the Security Council on an incremental basis merit our consideration. The incremental approach to the expansion of Council membership should in any case fully take into account the legitimate right of Africa to be adequately represented in an expanded Council on the basis of the African common position as recently reaffirmed at the African summit in the Gambia. Any proposal that falls short of providing Africa with the number and category of seats pursued by the continent will not succeed. In that context, we believe that the African draft resolution sponsored by Egypt on this matter provides for the only viable solution to end the inequity that characterizes the current composition of the Council.

Furthermore, while we support in principle the approach reflected in the draft resolution introduced by the group of five small nations (S-5), we stress the importance of moving simultaneously on the two tracks of reform. We strongly believe that the references contained in that draft resolution regarding the use of the veto are insufficient. The exercise of the veto should not only be curtailed in cases of genocide or massive crimes against humanity, but also must not be allowed in cases where a ceasefire between two belligerent parties is being pursued in any place in the world.

Moreover, we are convinced that the process of selecting the Secretary-General should not be subjected to the veto. We hope that the sponsors of the S-5 draft resolution will expand their consultations on the various aspects of the draft, so as to avoid any controversy and to fully take into account the African position that calls for both the improvement of the working methods of the Security Council and its expansion as parallel processes leading to its comprehensive reform.

The third, and last, question before us today is the future consideration of this issue by the Open-ended Working Group. While we share some of the frustration due to the lack of progress, we still believe that the Open-ended Working Group provides the only viable mechanism to deliberate upon the issue of Security Council reform. We do not support the idea of merely appointing co-chairpersons or facilitators to undertake informal consultations in the absence of a clear intergovernmental process that would allow for all Member States to be part of the process in our continued search for a creative solution that could satisfy all of us.

Finally, we cannot overemphasize the need to make reform and expansion of the Security Council an integral part of the United Nations reform agenda. That need is growing as events unfold throughout the world. Reform of the Council is needed in order to enhance the legitimacy of the Council's decisions and its ability to address the challenges of the twenty-first century more effectively and with a better understanding of the cultural and civilizational aspects of today's problems. Reform is needed so as not to allow individual Member States to implement Security Council resolutions on their own. Reform is needed to make the Council transparent and accountable. We need to ensure that all of us are part of the decision-making process on vital matters relating to international peace and security. Finally, we need a Security Council able to act when it comes to the protection of civilians and children in armed conflict -- rather than just holding open debates on the matter, such as the one scheduled for next Monday, while failing to implement the letter and spirit of that protection because of political considerations.

Mr. Maurer (Switzerland)

The final document of the 2005 world summit, which was approved last September by all Member States, highlights the central role of Security Council reform. It also underlines the fact that that reform contains two distinct elements of equal importance, namely, enlargement in the membership of the Security Council and improvement of its working methods.

As part of the follow-up to the summit, Switzerland -- together with its partners Costa Rica, Jordan, Singapore and Liechtenstein -- prepared a draft resolution on the working methods of the Council. That text (A/60/L.49) was introduced on 17 March 2006 under item 120 of the Assembly agenda.

The measures proposed in the draft resolution are the result of discussions carried out over 10 years in the General Assembly. They concern in particular the following aspects: strengthening transparency in the decision-making process, particularly with regard to the work of the Security Council's subsidiary organs; increasing opportunities for countries that are not members of the Council to be able to participate in its work; intensifying consultations with troop-contributing countries, interested neighbouring States and regional organizations; making better use of experience acquired in the implementation of Council decisions; promoting the responsibility to protect by discouraging as much as possible the use of the veto in cases of genocide or crimes against humanity; establishing fair and clear procedures to enable persons affected by sanctions who believe that sanctions have been wrongly applied to present their points of view; and facilitating the rapid integration of non-permanent members in the Council's work.

The draft resolution that we have put forth seeks to respond to the expectations of many Member States that would like to be more involved in the work of the Security Council. Those expectations are justified for the following reasons. All Members of the United Nations are concerned about the way in which the Security Council exercises its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. All Member States contribute, according to their capacities, to the financing of peace operations, and many countries contribute troops. All Member States have to implement the decisions taken by the Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.

I would also like to stress that improving the Council's working methods is also very much in the interest of the Security Council itself. By involving all Member States more closely, the Council strengthens not only the effectiveness of its action but also its legitimacy and its authority to act in the name of all.

The five countries responsible for the draft resolution all favour enlarging the Security Council, even though their views on the best model to follow are not identical. All five of us are firmly convinced that the Council must become more representative of the modern world. However, we also consider that the enlargement of the Council and the improvement of its working methods are two distinct goals that should be treated in parallel processes if possible, but separately. Unlike the enlargement of the Security Council, the improvement of working methods would not necessitate an amendment to the Charter of the United Nations. That is an area in which it is possible to achieve rapid progress, in the interest of all Member States of the Organization.

In the context of this important debate, Switzerland wishes to reaffirm and to explain its position with regard to the right of veto.

We realize that any modification of the right to veto would have to follow the tortuous route of an amendment to the United Nations Charter. We also realize that, with or without a veto, the support of the great Powers and their willingness to play an active part are essential to the success of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security. Finally, we acknowledge that the use of the veto has declined considerably since the end of the Cold War. Even so, it is unfortunately still the case that the right to veto continues to be used excessively and in an abusive manner. It is not acceptable that the use of the veto, or the threat to use it, should paralyze the United Nations in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity or in serious crisis situations that require resolute action by the international community.

The following explains the position that Switzerland advocates with regard to the veto in the ongoing debate on Security Council reform.

First, in the framework of improvements to the Security Council's working methods, Switzerland wishes to see rules put in place regarding a more selective use of the veto. Our draft resolution proposes two rules. The first would be to ask permanent members who oppose a draft resolution to explain their motives when they make use of their right of veto. The second would invite the permanent members to refrain from using the veto in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity and serious and systematic violations of human rights or of international humanitarian law. To formulate this rule is simply to translate into concrete terms a central element of the responsibility to protect that was adopted by the Member States at the 2005 world summit. It should be noted that the two rules that I have just mentioned do not affect the substance of the right of veto, and thus they would not necessitate a formal amendment to the Charter.

Secondly, whatever model is adopted for the enlargement of the Security Council, Switzerland, like many other countries, opposes the allocation of new rights of veto, because that would complicate even further the decision-making process within the Council and would pose an increased risk of paralysis.

We regret that in recent years the permanent members of the Security Council have refused to discuss or to act on the problematic aspects of the veto and have not taken seriously their responsibility to protect. This provides ammunition to all those who may think that the right of veto is not linked to a particular responsibility in the area of international peace and security but is simply a privilege that is used to defend particular interests. This contributes to a culture of inactivity in the face of certain crises, a fact that we, together with others, deplore.

Switzerland welcomes the fact that the Security Council reactivated the internal working group on documentation and on working methods last February. I would like to seize this opportunity to thank Japan for its exemplary commitment in its capacity as chair of the working group. We note with satisfaction that specific measures have been decided, several of which are a direct response to the demands set out in the draft resolution of the group of five small nations -- the "Small Five" (S-5). This is a first tangible and important step in the right direction.

We expect the Security Council to continue its work and in the coming months to address a number of other unresolved issues. I would like to mention three aspects that are particularly urgent.

The first is the use of the veto, where it is important and ultimately quite easy to establish the two rules mentioned above.

The second is the improvement of the working of the Council's subsidiary organs, in particular the sanctions committees. The demand for greater transparency and increased participation applies with regard not only to the Council's decision-making process but also to the work of the subsidiary organs. Too often the sanctions committees require a long time -- sometimes several years -- to take decisions and then do not communicate them, or do not communicate them correctly, to the States concerned. It is in the working of the subsidiary organs that the most serious problems regarding transparency occur, with regard to both the rules and procedures and the decisions taken.

The third area in which improvements need to be made rapidly is that of the procedures for establishing lists of persons and entities targeted by sanctions. It is not only necessary to improve those procedures but also to establish a satisfactory review mechanism that would enable those who claim that their name has been wrongly entered on a list to present their point of view. We hope that the thinking now going on in the Security Council will rapidly lead to tangible improvements.

We continue to believe that the best course of action would be to adopt and to implement the draft resolution that we have proposed. This resolution is legitimate, because it expresses the expectations of a large majority of Member States. It is pragmatic, because it asks the Security Council to consider a series of specific proposals in areas that have proved to be particularly problematic in recent years. It is flexible, because it establishes a framework for reform that can be enlarged or adapted in the course of implementation and because it encourages a dialogue between the Assembly and the Council on a subject of mutual interest. It conforms fully to the Charter, because it respects the distribution of responsibilities between the Assembly and the Council. It is useful, even if there is no absolute unanimity about the measures proposed, because it sends a strong political signal in favour of an improvement of the working methods. Finally, the draft resolution represents a first tangible step towards a more comprehensive reform of the Council. It facilitates discussion on enlargement and thus should be supported by all countries that wish for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council.

To conclude, I welcome once again the fact that the Security Council, following the submission of our draft resolution, has decided to take specific measures to improve its working methods. Switzerland will closely watch the Council's implementation of those measures and will be equally attentive to the manner in which the Council addresses other open issues, such as the use of the veto, the subsidiary bodies and fair de-listing procedures. We are convinced that our draft resolution would facilitate the reform of the Council's working methods. We will continue to follow this question closely together with our partners, while keeping open the option of asking the General Assembly to take action on our draft resolution.

Mr. Spatafora (Italy)

I wish to join my colleagues in thanking you, Sir, for this opportunity to, we hope, be able to advance the agenda of United Nations reform, including comprehensive reform of the Security Council. I will focus on just a few points, also in my capacity as the focal point for the Uniting for Consensus group.

The time is right for reform and, therefore, for negotiations. Uniting for Consensus is a strong believer in the need for negotiations -- negotiations that we have never had. The time is now right for a truly fresh approach, not an exercise that will pretend to have a fresh approach but that at the end of the day will have been just an exercise in window-dressing. If we want to succeed, the negotiations will have to be pragmatic, inclusive and results-oriented, based on flexible positions and following a bottom-up approach, preserving, throughout the process and through non-divisive solutions that we will have sought and agreed upon, ownership by all Member States, be they main players or medium or small countries. Let us not forget that, for example, the small island developing States alone constitute more than 20 per cent of the membership.

If the political will is there, if all of us come to realize that, after so many years of fruitless positioning, the time is right for at least allowing for an incremental type of reform, a reform that should not prevent further stages of reform in the future, based on more advanced and innovative principles -- regional representation as such, for example -- then I am sure that our common endeavour, with a win-win approach for everybody, could definitely and finally bring us to a breakthrough. It would thus allow all of us together to fruitfully engage in a process of bridge-building towards a non-divisive agreement on comprehensive reform of the Security Council.

As for today's consultations, I will not reiterate and illustrate here positions that at this point are well-known to everybody. As far as the Unity for Consensus Group is concerned, its positions have been on the record since July 2005, in document A/59/L.68, which was introduced in comprehensive statements by Ambassador Rock of Canada, Ambassador Akram of Pakistan and other colleagues (see A/59/PV.115). Those principles and those positions stand and are as valid today as they were one year ago. I thank my colleague from Germany, Ambassador Matussek, for giving me the opportunity to clarify once more why the Unity for Consensus has not submitted its proposal once more.

We have not submitted it because we did not want to risk the perception that we were injecting a dose of rigidity into the process. We want to facilitate matters, and we felt that re-submitting the draft resolution was not necessary. We want to set aside the "my product is better than yours" approach. I think that if we all just set aside attempts to sell our own approaches for a moment we could really be open-minded. That is the reason why, as we have said several times, we have not submitted something that contains ideas and positions that are as valid today as they were one year ago. I will not elaborate further on them, as I do not wish to duplicate what other colleagues will say.

What I would like to do here is to launch a strong appeal to the entire membership, to all my colleagues, to finally engage in negotiations, with a constructive and flexible approach. I think that it would be wise and would indeed favour a result-oriented approach to reflect along the lines indicated by Secretary-General Kofi Annan some weeks ago in his remarks during the lunch that, through the International Association of Permanent Representatives, we had organized in his honour.

There are three options before us concerning Security Council reform. The first is to do nothing, which everybody will agree is not an option. The second is to go on pursuing what would be, in our view, the optimal model of reform. That approach would imply, as far as substance is concerned, no flexibility in our negotiating positions, or just marginal flexibility. With such an approach, Kofi Annan told us, the result would be that we would go on discussing this for another five, 10 or 15 years. But the fact is that we need to have a more representative, democratic and accountable Security Council which would thus have more credibility and authority now, not 10 or 20 years from now.

That is why we have to seriously consider the third option, which is to focus with a pragmatic approach on the conditions and on those elements that will allow us to have early reform. May I recall that in certain respects a kind of early reform was the one traditionally advocated by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) as a fallback position. What does this kind of reform imply? It implies that we will not have to abandon what we consider to be the optimal reform.

What we will have to do is temporarily sideline from our radar screen of possible reforms those aspects on which, at this particular geopolitical juncture, it has been proved that we cannot succeed in building bridges across the membership at large. It is certain that we cannot afford the luxury of a divisive reform that would leave behind and demotivate one or other sector of the membership, thereby weakening the Organization.

On the contrary, we will have to strengthen in each and every one of us the feeling of pride of belonging to and owning this House. The strengthening of our ownership has to be the benchmark of any reform, and specifically also of a possible early reform, if the strengthening of the Organization is what we are aiming at.

If there is one fundamental principle that should always guide us in our search in good faith for a breakthrough on the issue of Security Council reform, that principle would indeed relate to the need to safeguard, also in this field, our ownership of this House. We have here a principle that was reaffirmed in the final statement adopted at the Special Ministerial Meeting of the Group of 77 and China -- which is to say the large majority of the membership: 132 countries out of 192 -- held at Putrajaya, Malaysia, on 29 May 2006:

"We affirm that the sovereign equality of Member States, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, must be respected, including throughout the reform process ... . Any attempt ... to exclude some Member States from contributing to the decision-making processes in the Organization contradicts the spirit and letter of the Charter." (A/60/879, annex, para. 24)

Along the same lines, Ambassador Kumalo emphasized in the press statement issued on behalf of the Group of 77 and China on 26 April that "The Group of 77 and China believes that the right of every Member State to have an equal say in the decision-making of the Organization must be upheld". It goes without saying that if that fundamental principle, based on the Charter, has to be applied to management reform, it should also apply to other fields of reform. There cannot be selectivity: "We like this principle for management reform, but we do not like it for Security Council reform".

Let us keep this principle at the centre of our aspirations when all of us engage in negotiations with a view to comprehensive Security Council reform. Our motto, should be, like that of migrants in their quest and endeavours for a better future and a better life, "courage, pride, dreams, achievements". That is precisely what this house is all about.

Mr. Maqungo (South Africa)

We thank you, Ambassador Diarra, for convening this meeting. Our heads of State or Government in September committed themselves to continuing the efforts to achieve an early decision on reform of the Security Council and requested the General Assembly to review the progress thereof. This meeting is in line with that commitment.

The statement made by the Secretary-General that no reform of the United Nations would be complete without the reform of the Security Council remains true. The United Nations Charter has placed a significant responsibility on the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. That responsibility gives the Council a far-reaching impact on the lives of many people in the world. That fact gives urgency to the efforts to expand and transform the Security Council.

South Africa believes that the objective of reform should be that of creating a Security Council which is truly representative of the membership and able to respond effectively to international crises, as mandated by the Charter of the United Nations.

This debate comes at a time when the threats associated with the current international security environment have exacerbated the difficulties confronting the Security Council. Those threats include, among others, the spread of terrorism and the fear of the use weapons of mass destruction. The crisis in the Middle East also contributes to that instability. However, the manner in which those threats are dealt with within the Council is still far from comprehensive. The exercise of the veto by the five permanent members makes the resolution of those threats a prerogative of the few. Therefore, the reformed Council should be able to address our collective security concerns in an even manner and be accountable to the entire membership of the United Nations.

There are various proposals on this issue and our view is that any proposal that seeks to reform the Security Council has to equally address both the enlargement and the improvement of its working methods. Those two aspects cannot and should not be separated. We need comprehensive reform that will make the Security Council more representative, more effective and more democratic. It is for that reason that my delegation is opposed to any approach that addresses only one element of the reform of the Security Council. Equally, any approach that seeks to differentiate between representation from other regions and representation from Africa will also not be appropriate. Africa has to be represented in the Security Council in the same capacity as other regions.

There have been calls to continue the discussion of the expansion of the Security Council within the Open-ended Working Group. The Working Group was established because Member States recognized the need to reform the Council, but we all know how disappointing it has been that, since its establishment, the Working Group has remained deadlocked, particularly on the vital issue of enlarging the Security Council. Therefore, when the heads of State took the decision to intensify the efforts to resolve that issue as part of the overall reform of the United Nations, they were aware of the futile discussions in the Open-ended Working Group. By requesting this body to find common ground, the heads of States and Governments recognized that the Open-ended Working Group had outlived its usefulness and that a new reality had to come into place. The General Assembly would therefore be failing in its responsibility if it were to delegate the reform of the Council back to the same Open-ended Working Group.

The African Union summit in Banjul, the Gambia, reaffirmed Africa's demand of two permanent seats with veto rights and five non-permanent seats on the expanded Security Council. Africa's position is informed by the fact that, inter alia, it is the only continent without permanent representation in the Security Council, despite the fact that the agenda of the Council is predominantly Africa-related. However, we are also cognizant of the fact that the decision to reform the Security Council will have to be taken by the General membership of the United Nations. It is for that reason that we welcome this debate because it provides an opportunity for all of us to find common ground on the reform of the Security Council.

My delegation believes that, in the spirit of cooperation, the reform of the Security Council is possible. We hope that the political will displayed during the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights Council will prevail and enable us to address the imbalance within the Security Council. We, as Member States, have the responsibility to ensure that the Security Council remains the universal vehicle of our efforts in the maintenance of peace and security by taking that bold step to reform it. The time has come to arrest the erosion of the Council's credibility and to seek agreement on the composition and working methods of a reformed Council. Let us create a Security Council that will serve us all in the context of the new geopolitical realities.

Mr. Oshima (Japan)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe9' in position 6842: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">I should like to thank...an important decision on that crucial matter.</p>', 6842, 6843, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 6843
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">I should like to thank...an important decision on that crucial matter.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 6842