General Assembly Session 63 meeting 55

Mr. Sin Son Ho (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

More than 60 years have already elapsed since the Security Council of the United Nations came into existence with a mission of maintaining global peace and security. But, to our regret, the world has never been at peace. In most cases, the Security Council is being used to serve the interests of specific countries, disregarding all fundamental principles, such as respect for sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, which constitute a cornerstone in international relations.

In today's world, sanctions and coercive measures are imposed against sovereign States under the pretext of conflict resolution and righteous struggles to safeguard sovereignty are condemned as threats to international peace and security. Abuses of power by the Security Council, such as dealing with issues beyond its mandate, have become evermore serious. Furthermore, the debates over the last 15 years on reform of the Security Council have produced no result, due to the serious conflicting views among Member States, including permanent Council members. Consequently, Member States have increasingly less confidence in the Security Council.

The Security Council should remain the United Nations body responsible for global peace and security and never be used as a tool to legitimize the pursuance of strategic interests of certain countries. For that reason, it is important, first and foremost, to ensure that the principle of impartiality is strictly observed in all activities of the Security Council. Peaceful settlement of conflicts through dialogue and negotiations among the parties concerned should be the main remedy in every case.

Sanctions and coercive measures, such as the use of force, should be rejected, as they only aggravate conflicts. That necessitates establishing a mechanism to make Security Council resolutions effective only after endorsement by the General Assembly. The Security Council should not be a court that unjustifiably handles only developing countries. That is also imperative for the democratization of the United Nations and the fair settlement of conflicts.

Secondly, the Security Council should be reformed as early as possible, given the current rapidly changing world situation. In that regard, it is important to ensure that non-member States of the Council and other developing countries, which are the overwhelming majority of the United Nations membership, are fully represented.

With regard to expansion of the Security Council, the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would like to reiterate its consistent position on first enlarging the Council's non-permanent membership, which can be easily agreed, and deferring enlargement of the permanent category of membership to a later stage.

Even if the permanent membership is to be expanded, a country like Japan, a war-criminal State that has not paid for its past crimes but, rather, distorts its past history of aggression, should never be allowed to occupy a permanent seat in the Council.

Even today, Japan -- far from honestly reflecting on its past crimes against humanity and making sincere reparations -- resorts to despicable acts to seize Tok Islet, which is a sacred territory of Korea, and suppresses the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan, an organization of overseas Korean citizens of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Worse still, Japan has also attempted to raise issues irrelevant to world peace and security in the Security Council, such as the so-called abduction issue, only evoking the alarm and denunciation of Member States, as revealed last June.

If a permanent seat were given to such an irresponsible and brazen-faced Japan, it would be the same as encouraging Japan's ambition for its old dream of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. That would be extremely dangerous for the entire United Nations membership.

Last but not least, it is equally important that Security Council reform should encompass measures to ensure transparency in the activities of the Council by opening informal consultations to the public and allowing interested countries, including parties to conflicts, to attend informal meetings.

In conclusion, the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea expresses its confidence that, under the leadership of the President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, realistic and practical approaches will be devised to achieve reform of the Security Council, and reaffirms its commitment to actively participate in deliberations on the reform of the Council.

Mr. Kaiser (Czech Republic)

At the outset, I would like to thank the President of the General Assembly for convening this meeting and Ambassador Jorge Urbina, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica and current President of the Security Council, for his detailed presentation of the annual report of the Council (A/63/2). That report testifies to the enormous workload on that key body of the United Nations, stemming from its mandate to maintain global peace and security. The Czech Republic acknowledges all the efforts that are being undertaken to bring peaceful solutions to various conflicts in many regions of our world today.

I would like to use this opportunity to share some thoughts of the Czech delegation concerning Security Council reform. We believe that that subject should be considered one of the priorities of the sixty-third session of the General Assembly. After many years of preparatory discussions, the time has come to move that agenda forward. Let us therefore fully implement decision 62/557 that has finally opened the door for a meaningful intergovernmental process. That unanimous decision is binding on all of us. From that perspective, we have taken due note of the plans recently announced by the President of the General Assembly.

There is no doubt that the main task today is to launch the intergovernmental negotiations that will eventually lead to a reform of the Security Council that will adapt it to the new realities of the twenty-first century, while safeguarding its effectiveness and functionality. Only by so doing will we truly implement decision 62/557. There is absolutely no reason for any further delays, nor any need to spend much time on preparatory work, since the format and modalities of the intergovernmental process are well defined by that same decision 62/557, namely, an informal plenary of the General Assembly with its rules of procedures. Subsequently, the basis of the negotiations consists of all proposals submitted so far by all Member States and groupings.

The Czech delegation is convinced that under the able leadership of Ambassador Tanin we will proceed quickly, while preserving the basic principles of transparency, openness and inclusiveness that are absolutely indispensable to maintain the confidence and active participation of each and every Member State of the United Nations interested in the reform process. Our delegation is ready to participate in an open and cooperative spirit. At this juncture, we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the future negotiations. At the same time, we believe that any reasonable reform of the Security Council should lead to an expansion of its membership in both the permanent and the non-permanent categories and make it more equitable. It should also take into account the legitimate ambitions and needs of small and mid-sized countries.

The previous 15 years of thorough debates should not be lost. Undoubtedly, the deliberations of the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform have created a solid platform on which we can build. Thus, it has fulfilled its mandate. However, none of its future activities should block or slow down the proceedings in the next phase, namely, the intergovernmental process. There is no reason for creating any preconditions on the upcoming deliberations of the General Assembly.

Over recent months, the determination of the vast majority of Member States to make a decisive step forward has been echoed again and again. The challenges of today's world require us to create a stronger and more representative and effective United Nations system, including the Security Council. That is a task given to us by our political leaders at the 2005 Summit. The Czech Republic is ready to work hard towards that goal. Let us start sooner rather than later.

Mr. Swe (Myanmar)

At the outset, I would like to thank the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica for introducing the annual report of the Security Council (A/63/2).

Under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter, States Members of the United Nations confer on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that, in carrying out its duties, the Council acts on their behalf. The Security Council is accountable to the General Assembly and the annual report represents the fulfilment of that important Charter obligation. The report indicates that the Council had yet another year of intensive work.

The principal approach of the report remains similar to that of last year. The report is informative, but not analytical. While we value the information provided in the report, we consider that the Security Council should strive for a report that goes beyond the listing of its activities and meetings.

The Security Council is entrusted with the vitally important responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, and the decisions that it makes impact on millions of people around the world. That underscores the urgency of reforming the Council, so that it can meet the challenges of a new era. The debate on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters is taking place with that sense of urgency.

The question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council has been on our agenda for some time. However, our collective efforts in the Working Group established under General Assembly resolution 48/26 have not borne fruit.

We share the view that reform of the Council must be an integral part of the ongoing reform process of the United Nations and that the reform of the United Nations will remain incomplete without an actual reform of the Council. It must be stressed that any reform of the Council will be meaningless if the restructured Council does not become more representative, more effective and more transparent in its decision-making process.

Momentum for reform of the Security Council was given a shot in the arm by the 2005 World Summit. Expectations were raised with regard to the prospect of reaching agreement on a formula that would garner the widest possible support. Subsequently, positive developments have emerged from consultations. The important role of the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform as the most appropriate democratic forum was reaffirmed. Accordingly, the Working Group was mandated to continue its work. Furthermore, the General Assembly also agreed to launch an intergovernmental negotiation process on Council reform (decision 61/561). The momentum generated during the sixty-first session was maintained by the President of the General Assembly at its sixty-second session.

Regrettably, all subsequent attempts have not resulted in significant headway, due to entrenched positions. We are discouraged by the conclusion of the task force that there is insufficient support for launching the intergovernmental negotiations. It is clear from this conclusion that flexibility and compromise will be required of the major interest groups if the discussions on Council reform are to move forward. Such flexibility and compromise will be possible only with a renewed demonstration of political will.

The outcome of the present stage of the discussions on the question of Security Council reform demonstrates that we will not be able to overcome the present impasse. As was the case in discussions on Council reform in the past years, the category of membership is the most challenging. The Council's membership must therefore be expanded in both the permanent and non-permanent categories to reflect the present reality and to strengthen the legitimacy of the Council's decisions.

The expansion of the Council must take into account the need for representation of developing countries, which are currently underrepresented in the Council. The representation of African countries must also be adequately addressed. At the same time, the Council's agenda, procedures and working methods are equally important in making the Council more transparent and democratic.

In connection with the Council's agenda, we are particularly concerned by the failure of the Council to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. The Non-Aligned Movement, which represents the overwhelming number of the membership of the United Nations, has stressed on many occasions that the Council's decision to initiate formal and informal debates on the situation in any Member State or any matter that does not constitute a threat to international peace and security is contrary to Article 24 of the Charter.

Reform of the Council's procedures and working methods must be aimed at promoting transparency and accountability in the Council's treatment of issues of interest to Member States. The Council's lack of willingness to hold open debates on such issues and its restriction on participation in their consideration are at odds with Article 31 of the Charter, under which any United Nations member may participate in any Council debate on issues that it considers affect it.

To promote greater transparency and accountability, the rest of the Member States should be afforded more opportunities to engage in the substantive work of the Council. My delegation considers that continued improvement in the working methods of the Security Council should not be held hostage to progress on the issues of membership expansion and representation. In that regard, we should strive for more progress.

The continued impasse on the question of Security Council reform is highly lamentable. It negatively reflects on the United Nations system as a whole. As the Working Group stated, a realistic approach is the only way forward. Compromise and flexibility on all sides are essential if we are to overcome the deadlock.

At the 2005 World Summit, the heads of State and Government expressed support for the early reform of the Security Council as an essential element of the overall reform of the Organization. It is incumbent on us to continue to work for an overall agreement, based on the progress achieved so far, in a spirit of cooperation and accommodation. The momentum that has been generated must be maintained. My delegation will continue to support the President's efforts to move the present discussions forward.

Mr. Nhleko (Swaziland)

I have the utmost honour to speak on behalf of the Kingdom of Swaziland on agenda item 111, entitled, "Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters".

At the outset, my delegation wishes to align itself with the statement delivered at the 53rd meeting by the Chair of the Group of African States, Mauritius.

The subject before us is of long standing. A lot of effort has been expended, but we still fall short of a conclusive resolution. While we agree on accelerated talks and negotiation on the matter, regrettably our words are not matched by actions. The stakes have long been laid and we need to move with urgency, since the democratization of the Security Council has been very inconsequential.

It would be unbecoming of me, at the early stages of my address, if I did not reaffirm and recapture the principles and intents of the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, which remain beacons of hope for Africa and, by extension, for my own country. Nobody needs a reminder of what is contained in the Ezulwini Consensus, and we will not tire in our efforts to fight for justice characterized by equitable geographical representation in the Security Council. The status quo does not inspire confidence in the United Nations as a credible body that shelters the weak and the unfortunate.

The principles of Ezulwini are very compelling to the African cause. This is by no means a ploy to avoid being realistic. The truth of the matter is that the present regime is surreal. The Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform has been constituted since 1994. My delegation reaffirms its unwavering support for the Working Group. Its report makes it succinctly clear that the Security Council should be reformed to ensure that it better represents the world of today. That premise is a good one for negotiations, as some of the Permanent Five can attest.

The intergovernmental process should be undertaken without delay. It is encouraging that the Working Group has identified some common elements. The Kingdom of Swaziland wishes to express its desire to hammer away at such commonalities so that we move quickly to negotiate on the more difficult ones. For this, we support the efforts of the President of the General Assembly to implement a strategy of aggregation to simplification in the areas of categories of membership, extent of expansion, regional representation and the right of veto.

We seek not only structural reform of the Security Council, but also reform of the Council's working methods, which should demonstrate the virtues of transparency, fairness and participation by the membership. This reform should be undertaken in partnership with the Security Council body set up for that purpose.

The "no reform" option is actually not an option at all. Member States should carry this agenda forward as a way to vindicate the United Nations as a just and altruistic body. Failure to act will project injustice, impotency and parochialism far into the future. We must remain firm in our determination to keep the agenda moving forward.

Africa has a commanding oversight regarding the selection and allocation of the two permanent seats. This is true to the virtues of the propensity to collective action and justifiable distribution.

I conclude by giving prominence to the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration, as both are credible springboards for Africa to achieve greater, and justifiable, leverage in its quest for justice in the Security Council.

Mr. Menon (Singapore)

The annual report of the Security Council that we have before us (A/63/2) provides a good overview of the scope and volume of issues dealt with by the Council in the past year. We would like to commend Viet Nam for its consultative efforts in drafting the expanded introductory section of the report.

Today's debate allows us to discuss the priorities and challenges facing this important organ of the United Nations. At the same time, we also sense a renewed interest on the part of the wider membership in Security Council reform following the September decision by the General Assembly to commence intergovernmental negotiations on this long-standing question.

What matters most to small States like Singapore are the Council's effectiveness and transparency and its involvement of non-Council members on issues of direct concern to them. As a member of the Group of Five Small States (S-5), Singapore believes strongly that the Security Council must improve its working methods in order to make the Council more accessible and, by extension, more effective. We welcome the increase in public meetings and improved access over the past year.

But much more needs to be done to enhance the Council's transparency and accountability. At present, States that are directly involved in the various issues addressed by the Council do not always have the opportunity to express their views in Council meetings. And even when it is decided that meetings will be open to the wider membership, those decisions often come so late that many States are unable to prepare and make substantive contributions.

Last Tuesday, during the meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council Reform, the President of the General Assembly spoke about the very first meeting of the Security Council, on 17 January 1946, which was held at Church House, London. What the President did not say, and which might come as a surprise to many of us in this Assembly, is that the first meetings of the Council were in fact held in the open and on record, with reports of the frank exchanges available for all to read. It is said that there was so much transparency at that first meeting that the representative of the United Kingdom, without realizing that his microphone was switched on, was heard to complain, "That bloody Chairman has double-crossed me again!" It is therefore disheartening to see how much the Council has regressed since its early days.

Moving on to the broader question of Security Council reform, we realize that progress has been difficult because of the divergent interests, aspirations and objectives of the United Nations membership. The September decision by the General Assembly to commence intergovernmental negotiations was a finely balanced but fairly positive outcome. We can appreciate the ambivalence with which some Members States might participate in discussions on Council reform. However, my delegation shares the view of Member States that see today's discussion, the meetings of the Open-ended Working Group and informal plenary meetings to be held in the future as opportunities to move forward on this matter. Most of us agree that the status quo is unacceptable. I hope that we can work together in a pragmatic and realistic manner to achieve meaningful progress on Security Council reform.

Singapore's position on this subject is well known. We have articulated our position on various occasions, and I will not dwell too much on the details. We believe that reform of the Security Council is needed in order to strengthen the United Nations as an organization and to better reflect geopolitical realities. The choice is clear: either we reform to forestall crises, or we wait for crises to force change on us. In this regard, we have consistently voiced our support for an expansion of seats in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. As I said at the beginning, as a member of the S-5, we feel that any reform should include working methods. After all, if the Council's working methods remain questionable, it does not matter whether it has 5, 25 or 100 members.

For small States like Singapore, reform is also about making the Security Council more representative of the Organization's membership. The President of the General Assembly has spoken of the democratization of the United Nations being his number-one priority. I am sure that everyone here has seen his banner, which reads "Towards the Democratization of the United Nations -- Every Country Counts". If we are serious about turning this rhetoric into reality, we have to ensure that the views and interests of all of us, in particular the small States, are taken into account in the reform of the Security Council.

I heard some parties argue -- I must say rather disingenuously -- during the meeting of the Open-ended Working Group last Tuesday that a majority is defined by total population. But I would remind this body that we are all Member States of this Organization. It is the small States, while modest in the size of their populations, that make up the majority of States Members of the United Nations. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that small States are not disadvantaged in any reform arrangement. With this in mind, I would like to make the following four points.

First, in any expansion of the Security Council, there should be more non-permanent seats, to provide more opportunities for small States to serve on the Council. That is an important aspect of making the Council more reflective of the views of the membership. Small States have few opportunities to serve regularly on the Council. Indeed, many have never served even a single term since becoming United Nations members. I stress this point because all too often the discussions on reform revolve around the interests of the larger and medium-sized Powers. We should not forget that small States have made valuable and constructive contributions during their stints as non-permanent members. Likewise, any increase should accurately reflect geographic distribution. We cannot have any one region dominating the non-permanent seats.

Secondly, there have recently been proposals to create a new, intermediate category of long-term renewable or re-electable seats. Again, this idea sounds like one that caters more to the larger and medium-sized countries. As I stated previously, Singapore's preferred option is to expand both the permanent and non-permanent categories. But if there ever is widespread support for going down the path of creating renewable or re-electable seats, that approach would have to be accompanied by measures like a "time-bar" to prevent larger and medium-sized countries from flip-flopping easily between the traditional non-permanent category and any new, intermediate category, to the detriment of small States.

Singapore sees no reason why any country should have two bites of the cherry. In other words, once a country declares its decision to run for a seat in the intermediate category, and regardless of the outcome of that election, it should be precluded from running for a traditional two-year non-permanent seat for a certain number of years afterwards. Likewise, a country running for a two-year non-permanent seat should be barred from running for a renewable seat for the same period.

Without such restrictions, many small States may well get the short end of the stick, since it is usually the larger countries that have the resources to run consecutive or concurrent campaigns. We must ensure a fair playing field for all Member States. The right to serve on the Council cannot be restricted to only larger and medium-sized countries.

Thirdly, any reform arrangement should strike a good balance between the size and effectiveness of the Security Council. Members often ask whether we can enlarge the Council without making it more unwieldy. For balance and thoroughness, why not consider the flip side? Can we improve the existing Council structure by reforming both categories of its current composition? As the Ambassador of Costa Rica said in his statement at the Open-ended Working Group meeting last Tuesday, we might want to ask ourselves whether the current composition of the Security Council, especially in the permanent category, reflects today's geopolitical realities.

Perhaps it might be worthwhile, as part of our ongoing exercise, to take a more clinical approach. We may want to go back to first principles and consider how best to reflect current geopolitical realities within the composition of the Council's permanent and non-permanent membership. Maybe we need to undertake some fundamental restructuring of the Council's composition -- let me assure you that I am not here to speak heresy. The broader point I am trying to make is that we should leave no stone unturned in our deliberations if we are to seek the most optimal solution in this quest for reform.

Fourthly, there is the question of the veto. We remain opposed to granting the veto to any additional members. It will only complicate decision-making and increase the chances of gridlock in the Security Council. That said, we also recognize that the permanent five will not readily give up their right to veto. But one cannot be overly pragmatic; we simply cannot avoid addressing the issue of the veto in any reform arrangement.

If the Council's permanent members will not give up their veto then, as a start, they should exercise leadership by agreeing to withhold the veto when considering compelling cases, such as instances of genocide or ethnic cleansing. At the minimum, they should be prepared to explain any use of the veto to the other Member States. After all, there should be no privileges without responsibilities.

My aim today was to highlight some long-standing concerns that are shared by Singapore and other small States. As a small country, Singapore has no aspirations for permanent membership. However, we are mindful of the interests of small States. We would like to reiterate that Security Council reform cannot only serve the interests of the larger and medium Powers. The views and interests of small States, which make up the majority of the United Nations, must also be taken into account. Otherwise, there will be little progress on this issue.

Mr. Beck (Solomon Islands)

I thank the President of the General Assembly for convening this plenary meeting. I would like to join others in thanking Ambassador Jorge Urbina of Costa Rica, current President of the Security Council, for presenting the Council's informative report (A/63/2). My delegation welcomes the discussion on this document.

It is hoped that in the face of today's global financial and climate change crises, the Council will also look at their security implications. As stated in the past, the Security Council must be proactive and place emerging threats on its agenda.

In the past, the scarcity of water and the failure of agriculture, as well as droughts and other natural calamities, has forced people to migrate. For small island developing States such as mine, migratory movement from low-lying islands to larger islands is already happening. The threat of conflict is real as people leave their ancestral land to go to completely new settings under a different land tenure system and into another ethnic domain.

Solomon Islands is a country of half a million people speaking some 87 different languages. Other low-lying countries in our region are already discussing, at the presidential level, moving to a third country. In this context, we must not address these issues only from the development perspective, but also from a security angle. The Pacific island States will be submitting a draft resolution along those lines as we believe that these threats could worsen if left unaddressed.

In our opinion, the financial crisis will have an impact on official development assistance. Poverty is the root cause of much of today's conflict. President Lula da Silva once said that peace cannot rise from the ashes of poverty and that no amount of peacekeeping will bring peace if the marginalized and the most vulnerable remain unattended. We have seen billions of dollars made available to stabilize the financial crisis and hope, from a security perspective, a stimulus package could be directed to the least developed countries and small island developing States.

The issue of Security Council reform has become important as a matter of preserving international peace and security. However, we are mindful that the issue has been discussed for the last 15 years. As my delegation stated recently at the second Open-ended Working Group meeting, the road to reforming our Security Council has been marked by so many twist and turns that we have measured the journey in terms of the countless meetings of the Open-ended Working Group, convened to justify reforms, while not actually having carried out these reforms.

Over the years we have stated and restated our position on Security Council reform. Since 2005, we have also seen interest groups pronouncing themselves on Security Council reforms; hence we will not discuss something that is already common knowledge.

The unanimous decision of 15 September 2008, mandating the commencement of intergovernmental negotiations before 28 February 2009 (decision 62/557), brings a sense of direction. My delegation is particularly pleased with and supportive of the commitment of the President, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, to launching the long-awaited intergovernmental negotiations. That decisive action demonstrates true leadership which we commend and would like to build on.

Within the recent Open-ended Working Group, my delegation expressed concern about seeing a debate on the varying interpretations of decision 62/557. My delegation hopes that, under the President's leadership, the eagerness of the Assembly to reform one of the principal organs of our institution will be evident. My delegation is pleased to hear from the opening statement yesterday, that the President will soon present a working plan for the Working Group to commence its work. We hope not to get bogged down with procedural matters in this process.

Since our leaders spoke on the subject, the General Assembly has spearheaded a number of reforms in recent years and we hope that Security Council reform will be accomplished in a similar manner. The reform process will be conducted through the informal plenary of the General Assembly and within the Assembly's rules of procedures to ensure that transparency, accountability and inclusiveness are maintained throughout the process.

Allow me to conclude by congratulating Ambassador Tanin on his appointment as Vice-Chair of the Open-ended Working Group and of the intergovernmental negotiations. My delegation assures the President and his facilitator of our support and cooperation as we continue to look to them for firm and clear leadership in this important matter.

Mr. Ettalhi (Libya)

At the outset, I would like, on behalf of the members of the League of Arab States, to congratulate the President of the General Assembly on this successful debate on two important items we have been studying for several years. Our consideration of these items stems from our interest in finding an outlet that would lead to Security Council reform which is a sine qua non for overall United Nations reform.

The League of Arab States welcomes the recommendations contained in the report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council (A/62/47) especially as concerns the initiation of intergovernmental negotiations.

In this connection, the Arab League emphasizes the need to render these negotiations open, inclusive and transparent. They should take into consideration the positions of all Member States and regional groups.

Member States deployed considerable efforts during the previous General Assembly session to bring about concrete progress in Security Council expansion and reform within the framework of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council. At the end of the session, decision 62/557 was adopted which reflects a consensus among Member States that intergovernmental negotiations on the matter should start no later than February 2009.

The Working Group was entrusted with looking into methods for preparing for the intergovernmental negotiations, their facilitation and the submission of a report to an informal General Assembly meeting no later than 28 February 2009.

The Arab States underscore their commitment to constructive cooperation with all parties towards Security Council reform in order to make that body more consistent with today's realities, and hence, better able and more effective in carrying out its role in the area of the maintenance of international peace and security, as enshrined in the Charter.

Once again, the Arab States stress the unified Arab position calling for permanent Arab representation in an expanded Security Council, as mentioned in a letter dated 13 June 2008 addressed by the Chairperson of the Arab Group for the month of June to the President of the Security Council. This letter, contained in the report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council (A/62/47), states the Arab Group's view that Security Council reform should include true reform through the Council's modus operandi, respecting transparency and openness in the Council's activities and proceedings.

The reform process should bring about the participation of non-Council members, particularly those countries that are directly concerned with issues under discussion, as set out in Article 31 of the Charter. Informal, closed consultations should be limited, and more open discussions should be available to increase transparency rather than restrict participation by Member States. More inclusive briefings for non-Council members should also take place.

With regard to the item entitled "Report of the Security Council", the Arab Group expresses its appreciation for the initiative of the delegation of Viet Nam to hold an inclusive briefing for Member States on the report before its submission. At the same time, it believes that the report before us today (A/63/2) does not give a clear picture of what is transpiring in the Council. Nor does it reflect the Council's commitment to the content of General Assembly resolutions, in particular as regards avoiding the narrative aspect and including in the report an analysis of the reasons that prompted the Council to adopt such resolutions as well as the various positions of States, especially the permanent members, and the reasons standing between the Council and its taking decisive positions related to important issues, such as the maintenance of international peace and security.

We hope that the future reports of the Security Council will be more useful and incorporate the detailed reasons that prevent the Council from carrying out its mandate in the area of the maintenance of international peace and security in certain regions. By the same token, we hope that the General Assembly will take timely action to make up for the Council's occasional impotence, given the occasional use or threat of use of the veto.