General Assembly Session 63 meeting 56

Miss Alipate (Tonga)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Pacific small island developing States, namely Fiji, Nauru, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and my own country, the Kingdom of Tonga. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion on agenda item 9, on the report of the Security Council, and agenda item 111, on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

We wish to commend the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica, the current President of the Security Council, for his presentation of the annual report of the Council (A/63/2) on behalf of its members.

When we embarked on the reform of the Security Council, it was with a vision to make the Council more representative, more effective, more efficient and more relevant. It has to live up to the realities of the twenty-first century. This is imperative, given the concerns of the Council's increased workload and the consequent overstretching of its capacity.

In 2001, the Secretary-General pledged to move the United Nations from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention, specifically encouraging the Security Council to consider innovative mechanisms as well as any other early warning or prevention cases brought to its attention by Member States.

Opinions that sudden threats to international peace and security, such as climate change, should not be dealt with by the Security Council deny the very role which the Charter has assigned to it and clearly contradict the very spirit of the current reform process. The Security Council is not only competent, but also mandated to deal with threats to international peace and security. It is of utmost importance to all organs of the United Nations to fulfil their respective mandates.

The solution is therefore not to limit the scope of the work of the Council. The increased workload of the Council is reflective of the changing times and evolving challenges. Consequently, the solution has to include flexibility and relevance. The capacity of the Council needs to be enhanced so it can be flexible enough to take on new challenges within its purview as stipulated in the Charter. Thus, we should continue to focus on how to make the Security Council more, not less, relevant to address today's threats.

In terms of improving the transparency of the Council's working methods, we maintain our support for an increased amount of open debates and meetings, provisions for more regular structured briefings to address the concerns of non-members, an increased level of input in the decision-making process from the United Nations membership for determining the format for particular Council meetings, improving the effectiveness of the wrap-up sessions and encouraging and facilitating improved interaction with troop-contributing countries by conducting regular meetings to discuss substantive matters and concerns. This is particularly relevant for those troop contributors which are not members of the Security Council.

On the issue of equitable representation and the increase in the membership of the Security Council, the Security Council should be more broadly representative of the international community as a whole and the geopolitical realities of today. To achieve these goals, the Council should be expanded both in permanent and non-permanent categories. We are of the view that during the debate on the topic, which has continued over a period of 14 years, we have had ample opportunity to express our opinions on the matter.

We welcome the decision by the President of the General Assembly to convene the intergovernmental negotiations in an informal plenary on 21 November 2008 and pledge our support and hope for a successful and speedy conclusion.

Mr. Lima (Cape Verde)

I would like to thank the President of the General Assembly for having convened this meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the report of the Security Council (A/63/2) on agenda item 111, the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters.

We listened carefully to the introductory statement by the President of the Security Council, Mr. Jorge Urbina of Costa Rica. We also listened to his enlightening comments made in his national capacity and would like to thank him for his presentation of relevant comments and his frankness in analysing the function of this important organ of the United Nations.

Everything that has been said in the debate on this subject up to this point can only encourage us to continue to work towards change and to break with sometimes old-fashioned approaches and a system that, as we see by its deficiencies in transparency, has seen its day. From this point going forward, we need more inclusive work to make the Security Council truly an instrument for the governance of the world, in sync with the twenty-first century.

The world has changed. The aspirations that have seen light since the creation of the United Nations are not based on the relationship of force inherited from the last World War, but on shared ideals and renewed faith in modernity. Of course, we are still facing so many historic challenges, but the world of 2008 is not the world of 1948. This has to be understood once and for all.

Those who were irreconcilable enemies are now working together to design a way forward towards a future of progress and a world at peace for their descendants. Those who were colonized are sovereign today, those who had suffered under apartheid are now in charge of their country, those who were treated as underdeveloped, who suffered from the ostracism of unjust, inadequate and unequal State relations are now the driving forces of progress in the world, having emerged as respected and respectable economic Powers.

The world has changed. It is no longer possible to see its evolution and to build our common future through the lens of a bygone era. My point is that the structures and mentalities of the old world that still exist in United Nations bodies must give way to more representative structures and mentalities -- those of the emerging twenty-first century that are more adapted to the changes we have witnessed. There must be more openness to the legitimate demands of the peoples of this new world.

For so many years now, we have endlessly discussed reform of the Security Council and it seems that each time our efforts are doomed to failure or that we keep going around in circles like people involved in mystical incantations. All of this brings us back to square one where we are denied the hope of moving forward.

The time has come to abandon this ritual incantation and to start a new cycle of negotiations with the sole goal of success this time around. We need to resolutely move on to this new decisive stage in intergovernmental negotiations. We need to set aside the clever trick and little deals among partners of the moment to clearly and persistently tackle the challenge with a real political desire to reach lasting solutions which will enable the Security Council to be more efficient, to take into account the views of all and to take decisions in the interest of peace, security and the well-being of all.

Accordingly, we must accept that the smallest, most vulnerable States will have a voice. We must accept that Africa be duly represented and that its enormous potential plays in its favour. Africa is not and will never be a mere pawn on the chessboard of the world. Africa wants to be a full-fledged partner in building new international relations based on equity, ethics and renewed political determination to build peace, to handle sustainable development and to take joint responsibility for climate change.

We seek to get to grips on a solution and not to be a source of problems of the world. Africa wants to combat the inequalities of international relations. It wants to resist the iniquitous jeopardy suffered until now. Furthermore, it will always be against the version of history that wants it to remain subjected, living on the crumbs magnanimously left in a world where only the powerful remain solvent.

That is why Africa is calling for -- and it is only fair to accord it -- two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats, as we have been requesting since the Ezulwini Consensus.

Intergovernmental negotiations which will soon be starting must open the way to a new era of constructive discussions about and adequate proposals for a Security Council that is adapted to the twenty-first century. We should not be subjected to any delaying tactics, the consequence of which would be hard to tolerate. Now we need to lance this abscess.

In this regard, we are pleased to note that the statements that we have heard from the beginning of this debate are clearer in their proposals, more in accord with the political will underpinning them and reveal more profoundly the underlying reasons for them. There is a healthy trend in these discussions which bodes well for future debates.

At the same time, a lot of time has been lost in fruitless or, regrettably, deceiving debates. The discussion we are looking forward to must be open and not based on any kind of trickery or delaying tactic. Participants must be prepared to accept the ideas and opinions of all sides. Together we should reduce the distance that still separates us, work towards finding common ground and, in a realistic way, give the world a functional, credible, efficient and democratic organ that can represent the aspirations of peoples and the will of States. We are ready to work with all to create that crucial instrument for a better governance of the world.

Let us make no mistake about who the adversaries are in this debate. Let us not seek easy culprits for our collective inertia or scapegoats with low morals. No useless or futile invective about the intentions or the ulterior motives of one and another in this new page that we are opening in the history of that unique precious body, namely, the Security Council. Above all, the small countries are not responsible for the current situation. We are all aware of the changes that must take place for the Security Council to be more effective, more suited to our times and, in particular, better able to handle the security of all. We need to have the political will to be successful in this task, without which we are doomed to this little parlour game, in which one gets exhausted in specious reckoning to figure out who is eligible and who is not, who is with whom or who is against what.

Let us avoid falling into the trap of simplicity, because our designated tasks now are anything but simple. Let us not believe that proposals -- however such intelligent and legitimate they might be -- that take into account only the interests of one group to the detriment of the others can enable all obstacles to be removed, all challenges surpassed and the difficulties overcome. We would like to believe that, but the experience of 15 years of endless discussions indicates the opposite. Who will take the responsibility of leading us once again into a dead end?

I would like to state very clearly that what we want now is not to sit in the back rows of a silent film theatre, but precisely to participate in solutions to our common problems and to be the guarantors of those solutions. What we want is an in-depth change in world governance, so that it can better serve peoples and the international community. What we want is that account be taken of the interests of all, in particular, of the smallest, the poorest and most vulnerable countries. This is not, in our view, about a frantic race to obtain some all-powerful right of veto, but about our right to contribute, at least to making the veto irrelevant, thereby shifting the challenges and balance of power into another area: that of dialogue and the interests of all in the face of the great threats of our time. That is why we wish to see the implementation of decision 62/557 as soon as possible.

We would like to begin the intergovernmental negotiations as soon as possible, but without haste and while safeguarding the work of the existing legitimate organs. I would not want our Assembly to become a talking shop in search of the lost ark of the Security Council. May the negotiations begin and may everyone take a stand and express his opinion in all honesty.

Cape Verde is not one of those countries that promotes a general position as long as it benefits then. We will work in a spirit of openness, watching out for the interests of all countries but holding a course set collectively with the aim of finding a solution acceptable to the greatest number and leading towards the expected changes in the Security Council. No one is expected to depend on the ambitions of some or the interests of others, however legitimate. No one is expected to act as a stepping stone for those who place individual goals above collective interests. Like many who want to see global governance restored, we want to serve as a bridge between visions of the world that are still far from each other. We want to serve as the anchor point for the constructive convergence of the various possible options. We want to unite, without trampling on anyone's rights, and move towards consensus with the consent of all. That is the miracle that is expected of us and we know today that we can succeed, because nothing is impossible for those who aspire to success.

The Acting President

We have heard the last speaker in the debate on these items.

May I take it that the General Assembly takes note of the report of the Security Council, contained in document A/63/2?

The Acting President

Several representatives have requested to exercise the right of reply. May I remind members that statements in the exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Okuda (Japan)

Thank you, Sir, for allowing us to exercise the right of reply. My comments are related to the statement by the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

First, Japan firmly believes that the qualifications of a given country for permanent membership in the Security Council should be based on that country's real contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. Since its accession to the United Nations, Japan, as a nation committed to peace, has worked hard to promote disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, supporting United Nations action for peace and stability in the world, such as peacekeeping operations, and contributing to world development and prosperity.

Secondly, it is regrettable that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea indiscreetly referred to the abduction issue, the unfortunate past and other issues. My delegation cannot accept such a reference. The abduction issue is a humanitarian matter that needs to be resolved. Japan has been facing up to its past with sincerity and consistency since the end of the Second World War. Japan has always maintained its policy to resolve any issues, including the abduction and any territorial issues, through dialogue and consultations.

With regard to Japan's position on Security Council reform, it has been publicly stated many times in the General Assembly and other forums. It is well known that Japan stands ready to contribute actively and constructively to international peace and security at any time.

Mr. Hassan (Sudan)

Yesterday, we followed what was said about the Sudan in the statement made by the so-called country Saint Vincent. Perhaps it is the fate of the Sudan, a leading country in its continent, an African country with a long history and an old cultural heritage, to have been beleaguered by the conflict in Darfur, which has opened the door to each and everyone, from all walks of life, to talk shamelessly about the Sudan in the manner in which the representative of Saint Vincent spoke yesterday. We would not have cared and we would not have wanted to waste valuable time in these deliberations to reply to inconsequential and petty remarks. However, the delegation of the Sudan asked for the floor to clarify a few facts.

First, what the representative of Saint Vincent does not know, or what he perhaps is deliberately ignoring, is that the Security Council, about which he is talking, sent an international commission of inquiry to Darfur in 2004. That commission submitted its report to the Council at the beginning of 2005, in document S/2005/60. He should consult that report, because the report of the commission that visited Darfur and undertook investigations emphasized categorically to the Secretary-General and the Security Council that what is happening in Darfur is not genocide and does not even resemble genocide.

Secondly, of course, we all know that there is one State, well known to all of us here, which has, unlike all other members of the international community, described what is happening in Darfur as genocide. I do not need to mention the name of that country, but I will mention certain fixed principles.

It is not surprising that major countries with colonial interests and ambitions have their own agendas towards small, developing nations. That is what history, both past and contemporary, has taught us. It is a pity, however, and regrettably so, that a country, a fellow developing nation, should come to this forum not to express its own position but rather to regurgitate what was taught to it. This is indeed strange.

The report of the Security Council to which the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines refers does not include a single clause that mentions genocide or ethnic cleansing, but if Saint Vincent and the Grenadines wishes to declare itself a guardian of international peace and security, why did its representative not have the courage to refer equally to what the world is witnessing now -- massacres in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan? Why did he not make even the slightest reference to those who have tainted the international arena and turned international relations into a butcher shop? Why did he not mention that? Instead, he finds himself shamelessly blaming the Sudan.

The Sudan sees today's meeting as a forum for transparent deliberations by the General Assembly on the reform and expansion of the Security Council -- not on the issue of Darfur. Under no circumstances did we expect this forum to be exploited by those who are beating the drums of war.

In conclusion, there is a difference between those who express their own position -- even if we disagree with them -- and those who stand here by proxy to repeat the words dictated to them by others.

Mr. Chabi (Morocco)

May I begin by thanking you, Sir, for allowing my delegation to exercise its right of reply.

My delegation questions the tenor of the remarks by the representative of South Africa in our debate on the report of the Security Council. He stated that the Security Council was unable to resolve the issue of the Sahara. This is not just a distortion of truth but, even worse, shows bad faith with regard to one of the principal organs of the United Nations.

The truth is simple; we do not need to disguise it. Allow me to outline this to the General Assembly and recall for the representative of South Africa that the Security Council is playing an active role in putting an end to these various regional conflicts, pursuant to the provisions of the Charter, contrary to the allegations of the representative of South Africa.

Over a period of a year and a half, the Security Council has adopted three resolutions of substance which, today, consolidate an entire negotiation process and have allowed four negotiation rounds to be held. This new and promising momentum has been made possible thanks to our action, which has been welcomed by the international community, in particular by the Security Council, where, need I recall, South Africa is indeed present. This is a result of the credible efforts made by the Kingdom of Morocco. Three resolutions -- 1754 (2007), 1783 (2007) and 1813 (2008) -- were adopted unanimously by the Security Council, with South Africa among them. I would say here that resolution 1813 (2008) was adopted on 30 April 2008 under the South African presidency of the Security Council.

My country is certainly not alone in observing a certain incoherence between South Africa's desire to play a main role on our continent on the one hand and, on the other, its inclination to undermine and diminish the patient work which the Security Council has carried out with regard to the Sahara by adopting a negative view towards the salutary moves taken to resolve the disagreements. Here, we can understand that what is happening might be disconcerting for South Africa because it does not tally with its view, which is far from being shared by the majority of Member States. South Africa cannot act as a spoiler or lead this Assembly astray by ignoring the significant efforts of the Security Council and the international community.

Lastly, my country hopes that South Africa will abandon its biased position and contribute in a neutral, constructive and responsible way to a negotiated political solution to the Sahara dispute. Were it to do so, it would make a contribution to overcoming the difficulties and obstacles with regard to the construction of the Maghreb. My country wishes to see this become an area of peace, democracy and shared prosperity.

Mr. Shin Boo-nam (Republic of Korea)

I would like to exercise the right of reply in regard to what the representative of Japan mentioned about territorial issues.

I formally reiterate the position of the Republic of Korea that Dokdo Island has always been an integral part of our territory, which is proven by historical records, geographical facts and supported by the rules and principles of international law.

Mr. Sin Song Chol (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would again like to comment on the statement made by the representative of Japan in this General Assembly.

Whenever opportunities are provided, Japan has pretended that the issue of its past crimes against humanity is groundless. This is truly hypocritical and brazen-faced behaviour which turns over the facts that are historically real and proven. As is already well known, Japan stands alone as the only country in the world that did not even reflect on its tremendous crimes against humanity and did not make proper and honest reparations.

In the past, Japan forcibly drafted 8.4 million Koreans, killed more than 1 million and forced more than 200,000 women and girls into sexual slavery as comfort women for the Japanese army. After its defeat in the war, Japan destroyed documents related to its crimes in fear of having those crimes disclosed to the world at large. Destroying documents will not be enough to delete Japan's dirty crime-laden traces.

Japan claims that it has apologized for its tremendous large-scale crimes against humanity, but it is indeed only a tricky and malicious move to divert international opinion. It is de jure and de facto a customary practice of Japan to say that it has repented for its past crimes when it finds itself cornered at a political impasse. And it denies everything it has promised to do as soon as the environment becomes more favourable.

Recently, high-level officials of the Government of Japan have openly declared and asserted that there is no evidence or documentation that prove the possible nature of comfort women with respect to the Japanese army; the Government even went so far as to deny completely the involvement of its Government and army in these dirty crimes. This is the authentic nature of Japan's position towards its blood-stained history. To this day, many of the survivors live through pain and trauma as a result of that sexual slavery.

At present, with formal authorization from and connivance by the Japanese Government, factual content about past crimes has been removed from or distorted in history textbooks in Japan, and those responsible for human slaughter in the past are praised and honoured as heroes.

It cannot be denied that that is what is happening now. A country like Japan that denies the resolution once and for all of the issue of past crimes will surely repeat, again and again, the same path of crimes against humanity. That is the lesson that we have all learned throughout history. That is why we take so seriously the issue of Japan's crimes and its recent political moves against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, including open moves to seize Tok Islet, which is the sacred territory of Korea, and its violent and organized repression of Korean residents in Japan.

If a permanent seat is given to such an irresponsible and brazen-faced country as Japan, it will be the same as encouraging Japan's ambitions for its old dream of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which will give rise to an extremely dangerous threat to the entire international community.

Mr. Laher (South Africa)

We reiterate our position on what we view as the regular working methods of the Security Council with regard to addressing the situation in Western Sahara. Our view is based on our experience as a non-permanent of the Security Council for the last two years. We would also like to reiterate our view that the Security Council should consider the conflict in Western Sahara through a balanced approach, based on the principle of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.

Mr. Okuda (Japan)

The first remark I would like to make is with regard to the statement made by the representative of the Republic of Korea. Japan maintains a consistent policy about Takeshima Island, which we will not repeat on this occasion. Both countries have their own positions on this issue. However, the important thing is for both countries to work together for a mature partnership in the future.

The second remark I would like to make is with regard to the statement made by the representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. With respect to our position on the past, we explained our position in exercising our right of reply, and I will not repeat what I said then. However, I have to mention that Japan has conducted talks with the Democratic People's Republic on the issue of the resolution of issues relating to the unfortunate past as part of the process of normalization talks aimed at establishing diplomatic relations, and it will continue to do so. The allegation by the Democratic People's Republic that Japan refuses to settle the issue of the past simply does not reflect the facts. For our part, we wish to remind the Democratic People's Republic that it must take concrete steps to advance normalization talks.

Mr. Chabi (Morocco)

I would like to stress that the position of South Africa on the question of the Sahara is not balanced. The partiality of the position of that country on the disputes in the Sahara is well known. That country has repeatedly demonstrated flagrant bias, contrary to the efforts of the international community to resolve this dispute. For its part, the Kingdom of Morocco remains actively engaged to find a solution to this question with the support of the international community and under the aegis of the United Nations.

Mr. Sin Song Chol (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

I apologize on behalf of my delegation for taking the floor once again. My delegation considers that it has the obligation to reiterate its position with regard to the issue of Japan's crimes, since the Japanese delegation seems not to understand even the essence of its crimes.

Japan's crimes are not only issues of the past, but are also issues of the present. The recent rash acts and blind behaviour in which Japan has used every possible means and ways to grab Tok Islet, which is the sacred territory of Korea, and its flagrant violation of the human rights of Korean residents in Japan and the repression of their sovereign right to organize are typical examples.

Crimes perpetrated by Japan can neither be made to fade away with the passing of days nor be covered up, no matter how desperately Japan tries to do so. That is why the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea asserts that Japan has no right to become a permanent member of the Security Council, which has the mission of maintaining international peace and security.

Japan must, first of all, completely liquidate its crimes of the past, if it truly longs to get inspire the trust of the international community. Japan's insincerity has reached such an extreme that even its allies have adopted resolutions urging Japan to liquidate its past crimes as soon as possible. Japan would be wise to think about and follow the examples shown by other countries in honestly resolving issues of the past, instead of trying to evade its responsibility.

With regard to the very irresponsible remark just made by the delegation of Japan, no, Tok Islet is fully part of the sovereign territory of Korea. There is no room for further consultation or talks or whatever form of dialogue there could be. Once again, I reiterate: Tok Islet is Korean territory.

That is why we say that Japan is causing instability in the North-East Asia region. Through this kind of very irresponsible statements by the Japanese delegation, we can easily see that. The more Japan tries to evade its responsibility, the more it will lose the trust of the international community.

Mr. Shin Boo-nam (Republic of Korea)

I would like to exercise the second right of reply regarding the territorial issue raised by the Japanese delegate. I would like to reiterate the Korean Government's firm position that Tok Islet is not the object of either a diplomatic negotiation or a territorial dispute between two countries.

The Acting President

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 9 and agenda item 111.

The Acting President

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 415: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg007-bk06-pa01"> The Fifth Committee r...r term of office beginning on 1 January 2009?</p>', 415, 416, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 416
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg007-bk06-pa01"> The Fifth Committee r...r term of office beginning on 1 January 2009?</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 415