Security Council meeting 5968

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, Iceland, India, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Slovakia, Switzerland, Tonga and Uruguay, in which they request to be invited to participate in the consideration of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the consideration without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

It is so decided.

The President

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations.

I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2008/528, containing a letter dated 4 August 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Belgium addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept paper on the item under consideration.

I also wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2008/418, containing a letter dated 20 June 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Switzerland addressed to the President of the Security Council.

I welcome the participation of the Secretary-General, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, at this meeting and invite him to take the floor.

The Secretary-General

Thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to address the Council on such an important subject. I welcome this open debate on implementation of measures intended to make the Council more efficient and transparent, and I am grateful to you, Mr. President, for bringing us together. Let me also express my appreciation for the tireless efforts of the delegations of Japan, Slovakia and Panama, as successive Chairs of the Council's revitalized Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions.

Over the past years, the Security Council has faced increasingly complex responsibilities in the maintenance of international peace and security. At the same time, we have experienced a surge in the demand for United Nations conflict prevention and management, peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities.

This makes it essential for the Council to keep addressing issues related to its working methods, including by implementing the measures set out in the note of the President of the Council two years ago. These measures are a key step in making the United Nations more efficient, effective and accountable in the face of a growing array of new challenges.

I commend the Council for its efforts so far. Consider what progress has been made in implementing the measures since the adoption of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) in July 2006. The Secretariat has also taken steps to make the recommendations in the note a reality, including those related to the timeliness and content of my reports to the Council, those on the familiarization of duly elected Council members, and the main technical points regarding wider and more user-friendly dissemination of information on the Council's programme and activities to non-Council members.

Since taking office, I have stressed the importance of full accountability as a fundamental organizing principle and operational guideline for the work of the Organization. As a Secretariat, we must ensure that we work and deliver as one to meet the mandates that the Security Council gives us and, at the same time, hold ourselves accountable for our behaviour and for outcomes. I am confident that the Security Council, which carries out its responsibilities on behalf of all Member States, is also guided by this principle. I appreciate that the members of the Council are committed to interacting with the wider United Nations membership through greater transparency, openness in decision-making and inclusiveness. I consider this to be pivotal to the way the Council works and is perceived by the international community.

Since 1994, when the Security Council held its first debate on this issue, it has come a long way. I trust that the Council will consolidate the gains that have been made and keep moving forward. I look forward to working with the Council in strengthening even further the cooperation between it and the Secretariat. I shall keep extending my full support to the Security Council and its members for their tireless efforts to make this indispensable organ more efficient, transparent and inclusive.

The President

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement.

In accordance with the understanding reached among Council members, I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate the text in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

Mr. Natalegawa (Indonesia)

As a country that has consistently advocated reform of the working methods of the Security Council, Indonesia naturally strongly supports the convening of the present debate. We welcome, in particular, its open nature, as the Council can thereby benefit from the views of the wider membership of the United Nations.

We appreciate very much the important statement made by the Secretary-General reflecting the importance he attaches to the subject we are considering today.

Indonesia associates itself with the statement to be delivered later today by the representative of Cuba, on behalf on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

My delegation attaches great weight to the measures identified in the note by the President of the Security Council contained in document S/2006/507 (19 July 2006). It is our belief that a systematic and concerted application of such measures would indeed help promote the Council's transparency, interaction with non-Council members and efficiency. My delegation is therefore encouraged to note that the two years since the note's issuance have seen some progress in its implementation.

While welcoming this development, Indonesia can also see room for further progress. It is our conviction that the objectives of greater transparency, interaction with non-Council members and efficiency are compatible. Indeed, they are quite inseparable from efforts to further enhance the legitimacy of the Council's decisions and their effectiveness.

Transparency has recently been enhanced. Monthly programmes of work and forecasts have been made available. The United Nations Journal announces both formal and informal consultations of the Council and, to a certain degree, the meetings of the subsidiary organs. Not least, we have seen efforts to give renewed impetus to open meetings.

However, not infrequently, the monthly programme of work and forecast of the Council bears little resemblance to the actual work of the Council in a given month. Unforeseen crises invariably seize the Council's attention. Meetings, including formal and informal consultations, are convened at short notice. It is incumbent that the Council recognizes that this way of working is increasingly becoming the norm, rather than the exception. Thus, it would be appropriate for the Council to further develop an information dissemination system that responds to the dynamism of a fast evolving situation and yet is comprehensive and inclusive in its reach, in order to ensure that the wider membership of the United Nations is informed in a timely and accurate manner of the Council's activities.

We welcome the increased resort to open, formal meetings as another facet of transparency. In order to increase transparency, especially at an early stage of consideration of an issue, the Council should strive for open meetings. Indeed, unless there are strong, irrefutable arguments to the contrary, we believe that reports by the Secretary-General, already published and available to Member States, should be presented and considered at open meetings of the Security Council. It would be to the Council's advantage to hear the views of interested Member States at that stage as well. Consideration of any follow-up action by the Council may take place at its subsequent informal consultations.

Nevertheless, care needs to be exercised in evaluating the actual significance of the reported increased resort to formal meetings. We must ensure, for example, that the potential contributions of such formal meetings are fully harvested. The views of the wider membership deserve full consideration. However, not infrequently, presidential statements are issued immediately after open debates and resolutions are adopted before the views of the concerned countries are fully heard. The Council should allow sufficient time to incorporate the valuable inputs from concerned Member States.

Also, we must be cognizant of the possibility that, as resort to formal meetings becomes more common, there may be a tendency for substantive consideration of Council decisions to take place outside of formal meetings, and even outside of consultations of the whole, through such processes as the "groups of friends".

The latter brings us to the question of greater interaction with non-Council members. We support the efforts of the Council to consult with the wider membership of the United Nations and other relevant stakeholders, particularly when drafting resolutions, presidential statements and press statements. We believe such interaction has the potential not only to enhance the quality of the Council's decisions, but also to engender an equally important sense of common ownership in them, thereby strengthening the prospects for their effective implementation.

As a country that strongly espouses greater cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations, Indonesia naturally attaches particular importance to the ways and means that might facilitate interaction between them. In line with resolution 1631 (2005) and the World Summit Outcome document, the Security Council has on some occasions conducted enhanced consultations and cooperation with regional and subregional organizations, as well as the Group of 77 and China, the NAM and other groupings, to speak on specific subjects in its open debates.

Investment in such interaction would help enhance the wealth of information, insights and the spectrum of perspectives that guide the Council's deliberation and decisions and also promote synergy between the Council's efforts and those of regional organizations. Of particular significance is the promotion of interaction between the Security Council and the troop-contributing countries (TCCs), not only in the drawing up of mandates, but also in their implementation and when the situation on the ground demands it.

In short, more interaction between the Council and the wider membership of the United Nations should be promoted. A footnote, however, may be needed. It is important that such interaction be inclusive, involving each member of the Council, consistent in its application, reflecting the Council's readiness to engage with parties that may make contributions to its decision-making, and transparent. Taken to the extreme, we are concerned by situations in which discussions on draft resolutions and statements are carried out outside the Council proper, leaving less than optimal opportunities for deliberation on them within the Council.

No doubt, we are all for the promotion of efficiency in the Council's working methods. In that connection, Indonesia wishes to acknowledge the important steps the Secretariat has taken in carrying out several of the recommendations identified in the note by the President contained in document S/2006/507. I should now like to share some concluding thoughts.

Form follows function. We believe that in considering the various facets of the Council's working methods, including the possible format of Council meetings, it is important that we not lose sight of the underlying objectives or aims of the activity in question. With regard to consolidation and further progress, we believe that it is important that the progress already made in the implementation of the note by the President be consolidated and that renewed and concerted efforts be made where progress is yet to be made.

As a matter of principle, Indonesia shall consistently place a premium on working methods that promote transparency and greater interaction between the Council and the wider membership. Not least, we shall consistently place a premium on working methods that offer the best chance for the Council to speak with a common voice in carrying out its Charter-mandated responsibilities. It is imperative that the Council be transparent as well as equitable and just in its approach to all threats and disputes that imperil international peace and stability. We seek a Council that safeguards the interests of all and whose decisions and actions are in full consonance with the established principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Li Kexin (China)

First of all, I would like to thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his statement. I also wish to thank the Secretariat for its strong support for the day-to-day work of the Security Council. We would also like to thank Costa Rica and the other members of the group of five small nations for their initiative in convening this meeting.

In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the members of the Security Council act on behalf of all Member States in shouldering the noble mission of maintaining international peace and security. Successfully carrying out that task depends upon the political will of Member States and, to a certain extent, on whether the Council has in place a set of working methods that are scientific, reasonable and effective. An ancient Chinese saying illustrates that same idea: in order to do a good job, a craftsman must first sharpen his tools. With regard to the Security Council, working methods that are reasonable and applicable constitute an indispensable tool in accomplishing our mission.

Profound changes are taking place in the international situation. The agenda and practices of the Security Council have also been adjusted from time to time. The Council's workload has increased drastically. The Security Council faces many new situations and problems. In order to better carry out its duties and increase its ability to confront various challenges to international peace and security, the Council must learn from its experience, keep up with the times and adopt more scientific and advanced working methods. This is not only a concern for the members of the Council, but also for the overall membership.

With regard to improving the working methods of the Security Council, in recent years the Council has undertaken many useful efforts. The note by the President contained in document S/2006/507 reflected the positive will and determination of the Council to increase its effectiveness and transparency. There has also been an increase in recent years in the number of public meetings. Coordination with troop-contributing countries has also been strengthened. In the course of taking decisions, the members of the Council are trying their best to consider and adopt the reasonable opinions of various parties.

Generally speaking, the Security Council has made progress in enhancing its transparency, increasing its interaction with non-members of the Council and strengthening its effectiveness. However, this is no time for complacency. We must recognize that both the general membership of the United Nations and civil society have greater expectations as regards the Council and its working methods. Improving working methods is a long-term endeavour that should always be part of the Council's agenda and should be given priority consideration. Improving working methods is also an incremental undertaking. We must safeguard what we have achieved, maintain the momentum and continue to make progress. Improving working methods should also be a results-oriented undertaking that closely integrates debate on related issues and includes concrete measures.

China supports the Security Council's improvement of its working methods. We would like to thank the delegation of Belgium for the concept paper (S/2008/528) it has prepared for this open debate, with whose relevant analysis we agree. I should now like to make a few comments.

First, with regard to enhancing transparency, China supports the Security Council's holding of more open meetings. However, we believe that it is necessary for us to improve how public meetings are conducted. We should avoid reducing such meetings to lengthy and pro forma exercises. The interactive nature of public meetings should also be strengthened. The President of the Security Council or his or her designate should, in a timely, comprehensive and accurate manner, brief non-members of the Security Council about its work.

Secondly, with regard to increasing communication with non-members of the Security Council, China has always believed that the Council should do its best to listen to the opinions of all parties in addressing concrete issues, especially the parties to the issue and the countries of the region concerned. During meetings with troop-contributing countries, those countries should be encouraged to provide input. We also encourage the members of the Security Council to strengthen informal communications with non-members of the Council. The format used by the Council to carry out informal dialogues with organizations such as the African Union should also be further exploited. At the same time, the Council should also step up its exchanges and sharing of information with other United Nations bodies, especially the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council.

Thirdly, with regard to increasing its effectiveness given the drastic growth in the number of items on the Security Council's agenda, the Council should concentrate on priorities and focus its attention on the most urgent issues. When placing new items on its agenda, the Council should adopt a responsible and cautious attitude. We agree on the need for a review of the current items on the agenda, in order to save resources and enhance efficiency. We are also concerned about the excessive attention given to theoretical issues. In addition, during consultations, full consideration should be given to the technical difficulties faced by Member States. Draft texts should also be circulated to all members as soon as possible, in order that countries may have enough time to consult their capitals.

Improving the Council's working methods is going to pose a daunting challenge for its work. Fortunately, the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions is playing a positive role by continuously considering and debating this issue. China encourages the Working Group to maintain enthusiasm for its work and to put forward useful suggestions on enhancing transparency and efficiency, as well as to carry out its work in a dynamic way in order to achieve tangible results. It is our hope that, with the common efforts of all members, positive changes can take place continuously in the work of the Council.

Mr. Ettalhi (Libya)

I would like to welcome the presence of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, among us, and thank him for his statement. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, and, through you, the group of five small countries, for choosing the timing of this debate and its subject. At the outset, we would like to align ourselves with the statement to be made later by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.

This is the first time since 1994 that we have held an open debate on the reform of the working methods of the Council. Such a reform would be carried out on the basis of the concept paper before us, which has accurately laid out the framework of the discussion. The formal aspects of the note in document S/2006/507 do not undermine the importance of this debate, and, has been said, format is a twin of freedom. The note codifies practices that have been imposed since the 1990s to accommodate the changes that have taken place in the international environment and the increasing acceptance of the role of the United Nations in dispute settlement. We have therefore left behind the atmosphere of confidentiality of previous decades and established rules for announcements, statements and important briefings. There is no doubt that doing so offers a response to some of the demands of the international community, in particular after the holding of the 2005 World Summit.

Despite all of that, ensuring continuous improvement means, by definition, that such efforts must be continued. The note is not the first attempt -- and will not the last -- and, as stated in its introduction, it is no more than a number of measures that were previously agreed upon.

To summarize, complex texts that are difficult to understand do not provide an adequate response to the issues evoked, including those contained in the Secretariat's document addressed to the Council dated 17 February 2007. That response highlights the fact that progress must be made on other elements, and a balance must be struck between the question of whether to hold informal consultations or meetings on the one hand and the type of meetings to be held on the other. Informal consultations, which take up most of our time must only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances. How can we respond to demands for reform and deal with matters that are important to all those who work for the Council, under Articles 24 and 30 of the Charter, when we are dealing with a nearly invisible body that is continuously in session behind closed doors, without any need or any objective justification for such an institution?

Concerning meetings, if the note considers public meetings more important than private meetings, the many types of open meetings and public meetings and the reasons for selecting each one of them need more objective checks and definitions. We believe that an open debate, which is closer to a public debate, under rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure, must be considered more important than debates in any other format. That has not, regretfully, been the case. There is still hesitation -- albeit often selective -- within the Council in resorting to that format.

We have no doubt that more transparency would enhance the legitimacy of our resolutions and promote their wider acceptance. Such acceptance will be achieved when the background and the different points of view in our debates are known by all and our commitment to the principles of the United Nations and Article 24 of the Charter can be verified by all. Some might say that an increase in transparency would be at the expense of the efficiency that is so important for a body responsible for international peace and security. But in focusing on efficiency, we should look beyond mere decision-making: an increase in transparency will not affect efficiency if it is carried out in the following manner.

First, we must expand open debates, particularly on issues that have been under lengthy consideration by the Council, so that open debates become the rule and anything else the exception. The limitation of open debates or their late announcement affects the right of those interested in addressing the Council to do so and makes their participation more rhetorical than actual or effective.

Secondly, we must develop the other formats of open debates, particularly press briefings, so that they allow wider participation, which would respond to the needs of smaller States for comprehensive briefings. Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, in particular, address that matter.

Thirdly, we must develop and codify the participation of States that are not members of the Council in the work of the subsidiary bodies of the Council.

Fourthly, we must deepen the Council's relationship with regional organizations such as the African Union, since many of the issues that are considered before the Council have a direct impact on their members.

There is no doubt that procedural matters evoke differences among Member States, something that the United Nations has known since its inception. The adoption of the rules of procedure of the Council has been frozen for a long time, and those rules remain provisional. There are many demands, of course, from within the Council and General Assembly as well as from outside, that we take some sort of action concerning this issue.

A working group has been established and continues to undertake very important efforts under the leadership of Ambassador Arias. We are committed, under the terms of concept paper S/2006/507, to continue to work for that purpose. The working group has presented today a very important issue concerning its work. We support its work and we would like to get a briefing as soon as possible on that matter.

Mr. Jurica (Croatia)

Allow me to first of all welcome the presence among us of the Secretary-General at this debate and to thank him for his statement.

The Security Council today is, by general account, a remarkably more robust and intensive body than was the case a decade or more ago. Nowadays, the United Nations is becoming involved in an ever-increasing number of conflicts. There is an ever-increasing demand for United Nations peacekeepers and monitors. Sanctions and other effective measures are being applied to more and more cases worldwide. In addition, there is the modern scourge of terrorism and new threats such as the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction, all of which require special and detailed attention by the United Nations, its subsidiary bodies, in particular the Security Council, and Member States.

When all of that is taken into consideration, the question remains: how can we comprehensively, adequately and effectively address those issues while at the same time not detrimentally affecting the work of this unique international body in the implementation of its mandate?

As we have just mentioned, the agenda of the Security Council has become increasingly active in recent years. It is only natural that the interest of the general membership in its working methods has also increased. Questions have already been put forward on issues such as the transparency of the Council's work, the Council's effectiveness and efficiency, as well as interaction, cooperation and the general participation in the work of the Security Council by members and non-members alike, including troop-contributing countries, and the evolving role of regional organizations vis-à-vis the United Nations. Moreover, as was emphasized in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (General Assembly resolution 60/1), achieving greater transparency and better and more effective implementation of sanctions regimes imposed by the Security Council is another issue that merits continued debate.

Croatia welcomes the good work and progress achieved so far in approaching those issues by both elected and non-elected members of the Council. We especially thank the delegations of Japan, Slovakia and Panama for their excellent stewardship of the Council's Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, as well as the so-called group of the Small Five, an important group whose efforts have gone a long way in stimulating those debates. We would especially like to offer our appreciation to Ambassador Kenzo Oshima of Japan, whose efforts while chairing the Working Group led to the Council approving the note contained in document S/2006/507, which is the subject of today's debate.

Croatia supports the recommendation contained in the note, while at the same time believing that implementation of certain points contained therein needs to strike a balance between desirability and expeditiousness. We welcome the achievement of greater transparency in the Council's work through briefings by the presidency to non-Council members, including regular meetings with troop-contributing countries, and an increasing number of open meetings of the Council.

Even though my delegation supports having more open meetings, that idea should be tempered with a sense of what Council members wish to achieve in those meetings. While some may recall that prior to the 1990s, the Council conducted more of its business in open rather than closed meetings, one needs to keep in mind that the Council's agenda at the time was far less ordered and indeed less full.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the Security Council's primary mandate is maintaining international peace and security, and that, and only that, should be the driving force in deciding the format of its meetings. Any reflections on or possible reform of working methods must be conducted in that light so as to help facilitate the more efficient and effective functioning of the Security Council as a whole.

Conversely, the Council may wish to make better use of the wish for consultations and participation in its deliberations by countries particularly affected, including possibly countries host to peacekeeping operations, neighbouring States or even countries that are targeted for sanctions or that have sanctions implemented against them. My delegation has long believed that including or consulting with a country host to a peacekeeping operation during discussions among Council members on the future of that country can be beneficial to the Council's decision-making process.

Included in that are regional and subregional organizations. Such organizations are often ideally placed to help or advise the Security Council on overcoming crises erupting on a local or regional level. Using their expertise or having them pronounce on various crises not only should become common practice during open meetings, but also should be taken up during consultations among Council members, possibly by having them brief one or more interested Council members upon request.

The President's note and its recommendations were designed to improve the efficiency of the work of the Council. We believe that, through its practical implementation, that goal will be largely achieved. At the same time, we believe that the question of reforming or improving the working methods is not a static process and that further modifications to the aforementioned note through the Council's Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions may be appropriate at some time in the future.

Mr. Lacroix (France)

First of all, my delegation would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and you, Mr. President, for having organized this open meeting on the implementation of measures adopted in July 2006 to improve the effectiveness and transparency of the work of the Security Council and to enhance its interaction with the other States Members of the United Nations.

France has always been concerned that the working methods of the Security Council should enable the Council not only to act effectively, which is fundamental to its credibility as the principal organ for maintaining international peace and security, but also to maintain a transparent and interactive relationship with the entire membership of the United Nations.

Fourteen years ago, in this same type of debate on working methods, the Permanent Representative of France noted that there was a certain "malaise" in relations between the Council and other Member States, and noted that the malaise was largely due to the fact that the Council's work was being conducted behind closed doors and without publicity. There was frustration on the part of non-members with the lack of information from Council members, who had little opportunity to exchange information with Member States with an interest in the agenda items. To improve that situation, France proposed a return to the spirit of rule 48 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, where it says: "Unless it decides otherwise, the Security Council shall meet in public".

That 1994 debate launched a real evolution. The opportunities for public meetings were extended, with the holding of policy debates, making it possible to hear the views of States interested in various ways in the items under consideration, as well as the organization of public exchanges of views among Council members on subjects not warranting private treatment. Since then, the Council has continued to improve its methods and procedures in that spirit of openness, and the note by the President of July 2006 was both the embodiment and amplification of those efforts.

It is worth mentioning that that evolution coincided with the development of the Council as an active body, seeking to play fully its key role in resolving issues of maintaining international peace and security. That demonstrates well, we believe, that the opening of the Council to the outside and the enhancement of its transparency and its interaction with the rest of the United Nations also responded to the objective of effectiveness -- which is in no way opposed to openness. Quite the contrary.

The Council acts on behalf of all Member States and can act effectively only if it respects two conditions. It must take into consideration the concerns of Member States but also be accountable to them, which is possible only if there is openness and transparency. Of course, as we already emphasized in 1994, effectiveness also requires an appropriate split of Security Council activity between public meetings and the private consultations that are necessary to the conduct of negotiations and to the development of compromises.

In that respect, we believe the figures given in the President's concept paper (S/2008/528, annex) indicate a good balance. They show that the percentage of official Security Council meetings since 2006 has always been slightly greater than that of consultation meetings, while the proportion of official private meetings is very low. That balance seems satisfactory, in that it enables the Council to conduct the negotiations necessary to prepare decisions, which need a high number of informal meetings, and at the same time to interact sufficiently with the other Member States in official meetings.

My delegation also believes that the list of possible formats for meetings in the annex to the note (S/2006/507) gives the Council enough flexibility to allow it to choose the best format depending on the issue being considered. Once again, the spirit of rule 48 means that official meetings should be public as far as possible.

My delegation should like to note that consultations should remain what they are: informal meetings for preparing decisions and for negotiations. We do not believe it would be desirable to regulate them more. On the contrary, they should remain informal and interactive, in keeping with their purpose, and not aim to replace the substance of official meetings.

Still on the subject of transparency, my delegation should like to recall the considerable progress emphasized in the concept paper, which was achieved thanks to the distribution of programmes of work and meeting announcements through modern means of communication. Direct informational notes to non-members of the Council from the Council President and the Chairs of subsidiary bodies are also extremely useful in that regard.

Something more important than it might appear and that should be explored is how we add and remove agenda items on the list of matters of which the Council is seized. The present modalities for removing from the list items of which the Council is no longer seized are most restrictive and in a very specific way make it difficult to add certain items. Thus, the list is not always as precise as it should be about the substance of the Council's deliberations: either it contains obsolete items or does not precisely mention other items. I believe that we need a more flexible way of managing the list to make it a better source of information on the matters of which the Council is seized.

On the question of interaction with all Member States, the concept paper rightly notes the importance of consultation with Member States not members of the Council that are directly involved or specifically affected when preparing and drafting decisions. Measures making possible effective participation by such States and by representatives of regional organizations in official meetings of the Council would also be very useful. My delegation believes that the best possible use should be made of possible procedural modalities to enhance the interactivity of our meetings.

In conclusion, my delegation commends Ambassador Arias for the manner in which he is chairing the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Under his chairmanship, the Group has done useful work on the list of matters of which the Council is seized. The Working Group has accepted Ambassador Arias's proposal that it should continue to work on that issue, along with three other matters that are at the heart of today's debate: the format of meetings and the implementation of paragraph 26 of document S/2006/507 regarding increased transparency of open meetings and paragraph 35 on various options for meetings; participation by Council members at various stages of decision-making and negotiation, including their association with the work of subsidiary bodies; and the role of the President of the Council and the Chairs of subsidiary bodies with respect to the broader public and to documentation and procedure.

It seems to us that the programme of work adopted by the Working Group should enable it to engage in useful thinking on methods and procedures with a view to presenting possible recommendations to the Council by the end of the year. That could be one of the outcomes of today's discussion.

Mr. Wolff (United States)

The United States welcomes this opportunity to have an exchange of views with other United Nations Member States on the implementation of the measures set out in the annex to the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), issued in July 2006. The Council takes seriously the Charter mandate in Article 30, that it shall adopt its rules of procedure, and takes equally seriously the importance of making sure that other United Nations Members, our partners in the maintenance of international peace and security, are informed and appropriately involved in the Council's work.

For over a decade there has been an ongoing dynamic effort in the Security Council to ensure that information concerning the Council's work is readily available to all United Nations Member States. Increased use of Internet websites has facilitated this process.

The elected members of the Council have made significant contributions to this effort, particularly through their active participation in the Security Council's Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. All members of the Council have supported the effort to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Council's work. In July 2006, they expressed their commitment to implementing the measures devised for that purpose.

The Security Council has issued a steady stream of notes by its President aimed at demystifying Council practice and procedures. The notes have been published as official United Nations documents and are listed in the Security Council's report for the year in which they were adopted. Most also appear in a topical index published in February 2006. They cover a broad range of relevant subjects, including the agenda, the annual report, briefings, documentation, meetings and formats. Highlights of these notes are presented in a concise and user-friendly list in the annex to document S/2006/507.

Today's debate offers an opportunity for the Council to meet with the beneficiaries of that list to hear first-hand whether the practical application of the innovations listed in the annex to document S/2006/507 have helped them to follow the Council's work. It is a consumer survey which gives Member States an opportunity to voice their views on implementation.

At the same time, receptivity to the measures taken by the Council remains disappointing. We had hoped that the briefings by the Council's President would provide first-hand information to Member States, but attendance at those briefings has been sparse. Similarly, despite the Council's efforts to have greater recourse to public meetings, the Chamber is often half-empty. Nor has identification of the formats used in Council meetings -- designed to assist other Member States in understanding the nature and purpose of the scheduled exchanges of views -- stimulated participation. In May, when the Chairmen of the Council's Committees briefed on counter-terrorism activities, a topic of concern certainly to all Member States, less than 10 non-members of the Council joined the debate.

We hope the wider membership will take better advantage of the improvements already made to Council working methods, and we intend to listen carefully to constructive comments in order to assess the effectiveness of practices and measures taken by the Council to enhance efficiency and transparency. That information will inform the future efforts of the Council's Working Group on documentation and procedure.

Mr. Le Luong Minh (Viet Nam)

I thank you, Mr. President, for taking the initiative to organize this important open debate of the Council. I thank the Secretary-General for his participation and his statement.

My delegation has always strongly advocated the convening of an open debate which would provide an opportunity for all interested United Nations Member States to share their assessments of the progress in the implementation of the presidential note contained in document S/2006/507 of July 2006 and contribute ideas on how to further its effective implementation.

We share the views contained in the statement to be delivered by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), which stresses that reform of the Security Council should not be confined only to the question of the equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council, but should also address substantive issues relating to the Council's agenda, working methods and decision-making process. We further share the view of NAM that transparency, openness and consistency are key elements that the Council should observe.

From a body that used to meet only a few times a month, the Council has turned into one that held 219 formal meetings and 177 consultations of the whole between August 2007 and July 2008. We commend the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, as well as the Secretariat, for their efforts to enhance the implementation of the measures agreed upon through the July 2006 note with a view to making the work of the Council more efficient. We are encouraged by positive developments to that end, particularly a growing trend towards transparency, with an unprecedentedly large number of open meetings held by the Council, and more intensive participation by non-member States in the Council's work than ever before.

Regarding the commitment set out in paragraph 29 of the July 2006 note, during the first six months of this year, the countries concerned spoke first on 25 occasions in 34 Council meetings with their presence. We also appreciate the efforts of all Council members to intensify consultations with the broader United Nations membership, in particular interested Member States, their neighbouring countries and regional organizations and groups of friends. To further the Council's work in this direction, while supporting all the recommendations by NAM contained in the aforementioned statement, I wish to emphasize the importance of the following measures.

First, due attention should be given to the Council's regular consultations with the parties concerned, including regional and international organizations. We consider as useful practices such as the President's briefings to the public and the media and the July presidency's consultation with not only Council members, but also the United Nations membership at large, in the process of preparing the annual report on the work of the Council to be submitted to the General Assembly, and we believe that such practices should become routine.

Secondly, Member States should be allowed -- in fact, they should be invited -- to present their views before the Council takes action concerning them. That would make the Council's decisions accepted as more legitimate and fairer, and thus more conducive to cooperation by Member States in the process of implementation.

Thirdly, more open debates, such as the one we are having today, should be convened in order to give the general United Nations membership greater opportunities to express their views on related issues. In order to avoid abuse in that regard and the perception of double standards in any Member State's support for that measure, it must be coupled with efforts to avoid Council involvement in issues not falling within the purview of its mandate, which is the maintenance of international peace and security. Transparency must not be promoted at the cost of making the work of the Council overlap with that of other bodies, such as the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and development and other agencies, and hence of weakening their coordination.

Fourthly, resort to Chapter VII of the Charter in order to address issues that, by their nature, are not threats to international peace and security must be avoided so as not to create a confrontational atmosphere or situations in which the Council cannot act or speak with one voice, or even situations that could lead to the possibility of vetoes. My delegation and the majority of Member States believe that, pending their eventual elimination, vetoes should be confined to matters truly appropriate for consideration under that Chapter.

As a responsible non-permanent member of the Security Council, Viet Nam has been trying its best to contribute to the improvement of the Council's working methods, in the interest of the entire United Nations membership and of international peace and security. In carrying out our task as President of the Council last month, we were guided by the aforementioned concerns. We look forward to working with the other members of the Council and of the United Nations at large in that direction.

Mr. Arias (Panama)

First of all, permit me to thank you, Mr. President, and your delegation for the holding of this public debate on a topic of particular importance to my delegation. We are confident that your dedication and leadership will ensure that our deliberations today will have concrete results that will optimize the Council's work. We also highlight the Secretary-General's presence at this debate, which clearly shows the Organization's commitment to promoting the effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council. In addition, I wish to acknowledge the efforts of the Small Five group, in particular Ambassador Urbina and the delegation of Costa Rica, to promote this debate.

The Security Council's working methods are not an end in themselves, but one of the ways to ensure that the Council fulfils, as efficiently and effectively as possible, the obligations and responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter of the United Nations.

Before making a few specific comments, we believe we should point out that the Security Council, because it is an organ whose membership is limited, will always have a problem of representativity. What is more, today it is generally accepted that the Council does not reflect current socio-political realities. That lack of representativity means that the Council's working methods must be aimed at, inter alia, correcting that deficiency to the extent possible.

From that perspective, we shall analyse a number of the topics that, concerning the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), have been presented in the current presidency's concept paper (S/2008/528) and that we believe to be of particular importance.

With regard to the holding of Council meetings, it is important to note that article 48 of the provisional rules of procedure states that the Security Council, unless it decides otherwise, should meet in public. In Panama's opinion, unless there are important reasons justifying the opposite, all Member States should be allowed unconditional access to Council meetings. That alone would contribute significantly to the transparency of the Council's work, its interaction with Member States and, hence, its effectiveness. Likewise, it is vital that the Secretariat's reports be disseminated to all Member States in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the Council's effectiveness depends on the appropriateness of its decisions and on their due implementation. To that end, it is particularly important that the Council take its decisions after it has become thoroughly familiar with the relevant situations and their consequences. In order to gain such a level of understanding, it is necessary to know and understand the views of each and every country that could be affected by the Council's decisions. Such Council consultations should be broadened to permit greater participation in the Council's deliberations by persons or groups other than Member States. In addition, such consultations should be held as often as required. In particular, however, they should be held sufficiently in advance so that they can achieve the desired goal of informing the Council's decisions.

In that context, it should be pointed out that the adoption of the mechanism known as the Arria Formula meeting was a significant step forward in the process of enhancing the transparency of the Council's work. The Arria Formula must now be formalized and broadened with a view to greater participation. That principle applies both to the Council and to its subsidiary bodies. In that connection, Panama wishes to reaffirm its support for the practice of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict of inviting to its meetings countries affected by its decisions, as an example to be followed by all subsidiary bodies of the Security Council. We believe that that practice has particular relevance for the Counter-Terrorism Committee as a subsidiary body.

Finally, Panama would like to reiterate that the thematic debates of the Security Council should be aimed principally at discussing matters under the Council's consideration and informing the Council as to the positions of Member States in that regard, and that such debates should not serve as a way for Member States to air their views on general issues. There are other, more appropriate forums for that purpose, in particular the General Assembly.

In conclusion, I should like to reiterate our position that the Security Council's working methods are not an end in themselves, but one of the ways to ensure that the Council can carry out the duties and responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter.

Mr. Urbina (Costa Rica)

I should like to welcome the presence of the Secretary-General, which shows his interest in the well-being and the strengthening of the entire Organization.

I wish to thank the Belgian delegation and you in particular, Mr. President, for having granted the request made two months ago by the delegations of Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, and my own delegation, that an open debate be held on the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507), submitted in 2006.

As Council members are well aware, agreement to hold this debate was not easy to reach. The idea that the working methods of the Security Council are the exclusive domain of its members is a stumbling block that has always been difficult to overcome.

Costa Rica speaks today, unsurprisingly, as a member of the General Assembly. This is our only permanent status, which guides our perspective and our interests and which cannot be different from the interests of the Organization when considered as a whole.

The premise established in Article 24 of the Charter, according to which Member States acknowledge that the Security Council acts on Members' behalf, seems to be a one-way street. Member States must recognize that the Council acts on their behalf, but the Council does not often recognize that it acts on behalf of the member States. This perception, according to which the Council is an autonomous organ independent of the membership of the United Nations, must yield to the unshakeable realities of our time. We live in an age in which the transparency of decision-making processes and the accountability of representatives to the represented have been established as solid principles in all organizations, independent of their nature.

Let's be clear: no one is attempting to take decisions that, because of their nature, fall under the purview of the Council and no one is expecting a revolution in the working methods of the Council. An important group of Member States, as reflected in the requests received by the President, aspires simply to have the Council listen to their assessments of the way it carries out its duties and to some suggestions, which may very well improve the efficacy and the legitimacy of the Council's decisions.

The attitude of some members of the Council, who seem hesitant to examine the Council's working methods in an open debate, seems to indicate that more than simply a change in the norms of the Council is necessary -- there needs to be a change in the Council's attitude. That is what these last few months have shown us since we became members of the Council. It seems that the culture that has become entrenched here in the last few years has fostered the unity of this body as an end in itself, which was not always the case. The diversity of interests among the permanent members and the elected members should not be mentioned, even less so the possibility of clarifying procedural matters or deciding the format of a meeting through a vote. Of all the cultural norms of the Council, however, the most detrimental is the attitude of exclusion in relation to the great majority of Member States, whose presence in the Council is very rare, if even having taken place at all.

The 2006 note by the President marks an important milestone in the history of the Security Council. This is an opportune moment to recognize the work of the former representative of Japan, Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, as well as Ambassadors Peter Burian of Slovakia and Ricardo Arias of Panama, who succeeded Mr. Oshima in the chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Certainly, the note represents the crystallization of a process that had been going on for the fifteen years prior. It analysed and resolved, at least in theory, many of the concerns of the membership of this Organization. Nevertheless, the periodic examination of the Council's practices makes it possible to conclude that the challenge of consistently implementing adopted agreements and rules still remains.

Notwithstanding the decisions that have been made, Costa Rica believes this Council should be interested even more in the input that can be given by those who have a legitimate interest or are going to be directly affected by the Council's decisions. Despite the agreements reached in this direction, its practice reveals important shortcomings.

The frequent use of informal mechanisms should be the usual practice before reaching agreements in the Council. A decision-making process that does not include transparent and direct communication of the Council, as a whole, with interested parties cannot be considered legitimate.

Another subject that deserves greater attention is the public aspect of the actions of the Council. Although it is true that there has been progress in the number of public meetings as compared to other years, we are far from the spirit of the norm, which establishes that every meeting of the Council is a public meeting as a general rule, unless expressly decided otherwise.

We recognize that there are situations that demand discretion, but we disagree with a practice that has in fact inverted the language of the norm. It is also true that public meetings demand a greater degree of preparation and require greater responsibility from all of us. However, none of this justifies the non-compliance of a stipulation that was adopted by the Council and whose compliance is demanded by a large part of the membership of the Organization.

In looking at the six meeting formats of paragraph 35 of the President's note, four guarantee greater access to countries which are not members of the Security Council. The Secretariat has the duty to facilitate the application of this existing rule, which favours transparency and accountability, by presenting open formats for all meetings as a first option in the proposed programme of work, prepared by each presidency of the Council. It is up to the members of the Council to argue and to convince others regarding the use of a private format on an exceptional basis.

With regard to the implementation of paragraph 27 of the note, I will not dwell on that subject much, but, before I conclude, I want to reiterate the shared responsibility of all members of the Organization, whether they are members of the Security Council or not, to contribute to the correct implementation of all agreements on the working methods of the Council.

We often witness a lack of interest of many members of the Organization in the work of the Council, a lack of attention to the information that is available and the sparse use made of the opportunities offered. Those opportunities must be taken advantage of, rights must be exercised and the responsibility must be assumed.

We have defended, in the abstract, the opening of channels for participation prior to the taking of decisions. We are willing to do so concretely in accordance with the explicit requests of interested parties. Not all of the doors of the Council are closed, and we are willing to work to open them up more and more. But these doors will remain open only if interest is shown in using them. We spoke before of the need for a change in the prevailing culture more than a change in norms. This change in the prevailing culture includes all of us: the Council, the Secretariat and each and every one of the Member States.

I wish to conclude by affirming that the holding of this debate, which is an important achievement, must be a responsible and constructive exercise. I would also conclude by affirming that all of us, especially the members of the Council, must keep in mind that all exercise of accountability has, by virtue of its nature, ingredients of criticism, which should not perturb anyone. The price of constructive and beneficial criticism is the possibility of the misuse of these opportunities, and this is a small price to pay for the gains that are derived from a frank and constructive exchange.

If we can share this spirit -- being open to dialogue, to constructive criticism and to creative suggestions -- we should agree that it is not necessary, neither is it possible, to have to wait another 14 years to have a further opportunity to debate about matters regarding the working methods of the Council with all the Member States. We advocate for periodic open debates on these issues every two years, so that each elected member can have at least one opportunity, during its tenure of membership of the Council, to debate the working methods of this organ. Today, we are sure that this exchange will enrich the discussions at the core of the Working Group on Documentation with a view to making decisions, and we are going to work to make this happen.

Mr. Kumalo (South Africa)

We too welcome the participation of the Secretary-General in our debate today. My delegation also wishes to associate itself with the statement that Cuba will make on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, a statement that goes to great lengths to point out some of the working methods that need to be considered during this debate.

The Charter of the United Nations has endowed the Security Council with a mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security and the power to take decisions that bind sovereign States. By doing so, it gives the Council a far-reaching impact on the lives of many people in the world.

For this reason, we welcome the improvements in the working methods of the Security Council as detailed in document S/2006/507. While they are modest measures, they remain meaningful steps towards improving the work of the Council and are an effort to try to enhance the efficiency and transparency of the Council's work. The challenge is to ensure that these measures are fully implemented and made permanent, so that the Security Council can be predictable.

In recent years, the Security Council has adopted various measures aimed at improving its working methods. However, as long as the rules of procedure of the Council remain provisional, those changes will always seem inadequate. Even if the working methods were dramatically improved in accordance with all the suggestions that have been made so far, the core problem would remain, namely, that over the past 60 years, the Security Council has witnessed the gradual erosion of its credibility and authority. Its representativity has been challenged increasingly, as it addresses matters that have expanded beyond the vision that the founders of the United Nations foresaw in 1945.

In our view, the Security Council must be reformed to address both enlargement in its categories of membership and improvement in its working methods. Anything less is papering over the cracks in the foundation on which this organ was built more than 60 years ago.

In the past decades, permanent members of the Security Council have sought to utilize the Council to further issues in their own interest. There have also been occasions where resolutions of the Council have been brought up for decision with little or no opportunity for meaningful discussion by its entire membership. We have always had been troubled by the fact that issues such as Kosovo, Western Sahara, non-proliferation, and even Georgia, are regarded as of interest, at least to some members of the Council, to the exclusion of other issues. On the question of the Middle East, people around the world are well aware that the Council has remained paralysed in trying to address the plight of the Palestinian people 40 years after the illegal occupation of their land.

This problem is further complicated when the Council deals with issues that involve groups of friends and contact groups that draw on States Members of the United Nations from outside the Council. Typically, these small groups are dominated by or entirely comprised of developed countries. They usually operate in secrecy and seek to impose their views on the rest of the membership of the Security Council by drafting resolutions that the Council is then expected to endorse without any further discussion. For South Africa, given our desire for transparency and political inclusiveness, the small group phenomenon presents a significant problem.

Yet, we indeed endorse innovations that involve the groups of friends and contact groups as useful tools for the Council to reach out to consult with the broader membership. However, these outreach innovations will only be beneficial if they complement the work of the Council in an open, accountable and transparent manner.

On numerous occasions, the Council has been criticized for its tendency to encroach upon areas of responsibility assigned to other United Nations bodies, such as the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council, thus weakening the United Nations as a whole and opening the Council's agenda for manipulation and the promotion of bilateral agendas. The Council can stem the erosion of its credibility and transcend the divisions and the national interests of its members by uniformly discharging its Charter-based mandate to maintain international peace and security.

The international community needs a Security Council that is representative and functions in an effective and predictable manner. The fact that the Council has always operated through provisional rules of procedure is central to this debate. It also does not help that, when the Council was created, the membership of the United Nations as a whole constituted 51 countries -- a number that has now almost quadrupled -- and that since its creation the Council has been expanded only once -- over 40 years ago. Again, until the Council is fully representative and can operate in a manner that is easily understood, its credibility, legitimacy and even its working methods will always be challenged.

Mr. Dolgov (Russia)

Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank you and your delegation for organizing today's Council meeting on its working methods. We believe that a dialogue on these important issues requires a balanced, professional approach, and one that does not politicize the substance of the item under discussion.

Russia, as a permanent member of the Council, favours increasing the effectiveness of the Council's work, while maintaining its expeditiousness, with a reasonable balance between transparency and effectiveness in its work. We will not forget that the important thing is to build the Council's capacity to carry out its prerogatives under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The questions of enhancing the working methods of the Council lie within its exclusive competency. These questions must be considered within the Security Council Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. Work in this area is not public, yet it should be done on a planned basis and through rational, constructive interaction with all interested delegations of States Members of the United Nations.

In recent years, significant progress has been achieved in increasing the openness of the work of the Council, as evidenced by the regular practices of holding open meetings, of inviting interested parties to them, of briefings by the President of the Council for United Nations Members, and of consultation with a wide range of international participants.

Increasing the quality of its interaction with other members of the Organization in connection with issues falling under the Council's competency is a key element in improving the Council's working methods. It is currently our practice to establish ways and means to carry out dialogue between the Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, other United Nations bodies, regional organizations and international partners. The current mechanisms for interaction work; however, there is no doubt in this regard that, working together, we could focus on finding additional ways to enhance them.

We support further strengthening the practice of holding active consultations between members of the Council and countries contributing troops to peacekeeping operations, in order to ensure that those countries can participate at the earliest stages of planning for such operations. In doing that we must fully utilize exiting procedures as well as previously adopted Council decisions in this area. This has to work like a two-way street. It is important that the Council also receive the fullest assessment possible from troop-contributing countries with regard to the relevant issues. We believe that troop-contributing countries will participate more actively with members during Council meetings.

We believe that increasing transparency in the work of the Council could benefit from the Russian initiative on reinvigorating the Military Staff Committee to ensure the relevant level of military expertise as the Council develops the military aspects of its peacekeeping operations. The time has come for that body to function with its full Council membership. We believe that implementing this proposal should be of interest to both the permanent and non-permanent members of the Council. Under the provisions of the Charter, there is an opportunity for constructive involvement in the Committee's work by interested countries contributing troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations.

We believe that any enhancement of the working methods of the Security Council must continue to take place on a regular basis within the Working Group especially established by the Council for that purpose, which is currently headed by Ambassador Arias. We welcome the very constructive cooperation that exists in that body. That work should be subordinate to the priority task of effective and expeditious work on the part of the Council in maintaining international peace and security, in strict compliance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Sir John Sawers (United Kingdom)

I would like to begin by thanking the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica for calling today's debate, as well as you, Mr. President, for convening the meeting. I should also like to thank the Secretary-General for the interest that he has shown in the meeting.

Continually improving the way we work is a practice relevant to all international organizations. Its basic objective is at the heart of my Prime Minister's initiative on international institutional reform. All organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council, have a responsibility to ensure that they work effectively and transparently. The views expressed here, including by non-members of the Council, will inform the ongoing work of the Council on its working methods.

The United Kingdom played a full and active part in the drafting of the 2006 note (S/2006/507) by the President and fully supports its implementation. There is much being done already. Individual Council members have an obligation to do all they can to promote and implement the measures we have agreed. For example, during the United Kingdom's presidencies of the Council we made it a priority to notify Council members in advance of a meeting of the main themes under consideration, to help focus the discussion. We also briefed non-members of the Council at the beginning and end of our presidencies, as well as immediately following each discussion of the Council.

Beyond those times during which we held the presidency, we have sought the view of a wide range of interlocutors on issues under discussion by the Council -- for example, through the use of Arria Formula meetings. A case in point is our work on Somalia, where an Arria Formula meeting in March provided an opportunity to hear views from outside organizations involved in Somalia. That fed directly into the Council's work. We also hosted an Arria Formula discussion on sexual violence in conflict, followed by the open debate under the United States presidency later in June.

There are some welcome trends towards greater transparency in the Security Council. The Council now meets more in formal meetings and has fewer informal consultations in proportion to the year 2000, for instance. The Council's discussions on Timor-Leste last week illustrated our flexibility with regard to the format of meetings. We had both formal debate and private consultations, allowing for participation by interested parties and interactive discussion between Council members and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. There will always be a need to balance transparency with the need for the Council to be able to work effectively. It is right that the Council continue to look for ways to open up its work to non-members.

The Council has also shown a greater willingness to consult and take advice from expert bodies. Expert panels assist with the monitoring of sanctions and assist the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004). In the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate the Council has institutionalized a standing body of expertise designed to monitor global standards mandated by the Council. The Peacebuilding Commission is well-placed to create a new centre of expertise.

The Council is working harder. Twenty-four substantive subjects were discussed in the period 1996-1997. Ten years later, from 2006-2007, the number had doubled to 49. Ad hoc committees that deal with a range of thematic issues, such as children in armed conflict, sanctions and peacekeeping operations, have been created. That thematic approach feeds directly into country-specific issues, broadening the debate and highlighting linkages between different issues on the Council's agenda. All of that helps us in our primary role of maintaining international peace and security.

The Council has also increased its interaction with regional organizations. We have responded to requests from African countries to enhance our relationship with the African Union and its peace and security machinery. That led to meetings of the Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council in 2007 and 2008.

Those are all positive trends, but this is an ongoing process. I would like to identify the following areas where the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which is under Ambassador Arias's able chairmanship, could do further work.

First, we could consider our practice on the use of rule 39 of the provisional rules of procedure for parties to a conflict who are not Member States to take advantage of the scope offered by that rule.

Secondly, we can look at further ways of keeping the Security Council agenda up to date and self-explanatory. The title of today's debate is a classic example of using bureaucratic language rather than something that can be readily understood by all.

Thirdly, we could take up the responsibility of the Council presidency to guide the Council without constraining it and ensure that the standards of effectiveness and transparency set out in the 2006 presidential note are implemented and upheld.

Those areas, as well as others that emerge today, will play a crucial part in informing the discussions of the Working Group. We look forward to taking that forward in the Group in due course. In closing, I would like to reaffirm the United Kingdom's commitment to ensuring that the Council is as transparent and as effective as possible.

Mr. Kafando (Burkina Faso)

I would like to begin by congratulating and thanking your delegation, Mr. President, for the initiative to hold this debate on such an important matter as that of the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation, of course, very much appreciated the presence of the Secretary-General at our meeting.

Exploring ways and means of improving the transparency and effectiveness of the work of the Security Council, thereby strengthening interaction with non-members, is a very commendable initiative that, beyond making it possible to consider calls made by non-members, also serves as a significant contribution to ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Council. The Council's working methods, which are at the centre of its work, also serve to give it legitimacy and to ensure greater acceptance of its decisions. In that connection, my delegation, which associates itself with the statement to be delivered shortly by the representative of Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, would like to make some comments.

We welcome the progress achieved to ensure that the Security Council's work is more transparent, but additional efforts must be deployed in order to take into account, to a greater degree, the views expressed by the member States that are not members of the Council and to ensure that better information is available. That means, in particular, holding more public debates and also that, as far as possible, public briefing sessions be led by the chairmen of subsidiary bodies and special envoys and representatives of the Secretary-General.

We also believe that the report of the Council to the General Assembly should be more analytical, in order to give a better account of its activities to all Member States. In addition, when decisions are drafted, it would be appropriate to take into account certain existing recommendations on transparency, inter alia the note by the President of 17 February 1999 (S/1999/165), recommending that all Council members be able to fully participate in the drawing up of Council resolutions and presidential statements and have sufficient time for doing so. Submitting the texts of draft resolutions just before the deadline for their adoption, even if they are supported by groups of friends or other external partners, is a practice to be avoided. In our view, we should use the groups of friends as little as possible, since, even if they are useful on occasion, they can also sometimes hinder transparency and lead to frustration.

When it comes to the effectiveness of the Council's work, my delegation attaches the greatest importance to the timely distribution of reports in all the official languages, in compliance with the presidential note of 26 March 2002 (S/2002/316). That would enable delegations to make substantial contributions to debates, and allow national authorities to gain useful prior knowledge of those reports.

It is also important for the quality of its decisions that the Council be able to take into account the views expressed by non-member States in the course of its meetings. Decisions must therefore be taken after debates, so that, as far as possible, those decisions may reflect the views expressed. A better presentation of agenda items and a rationalization of the agenda could also enhance the work of the Council.

The issue of enhancing interaction and dialogue between the Council and non-member States is of particular importance to my delegation, as I have already said. Here, we would recommend increased recourse to the Aria formula, which allows direct interaction between all interested stakeholders on a given issue. The Council would also gain from enhancing communications with the troop-contributing countries, whose opinions should be taken into due account, and from discussions with all Member States with information relating to operations in the field. In the same vein, we would suggest that the Council report on the missions it undertakes in public meetings, and that the representatives of the countries visited participate. Such missions put Council members in direct contact with the reality of the questions that they are dealing with, and that experience should therefore be shared with all Member States of the Organization.

Allow me to address the question of Security Council committees and to express our full support of the recommendations in the president's note of 29 March 1995 (S/1995/234), which lists the improvements that could be made to the procedures of those subsidiary bodies. Sanctions committees must enhance their communication with the States concerned and grant requests often made by countries that wish to speak during private committee meetings. We also believe that a detailed review of the listing and de-listing procedures of those committees should be carried out in order to ensure that such procedures are more transparent and in accordance with the relevant instruments on human rights.

I cannot conclude without adding my voice to those of the Member States who would like to see the formal adoption of a final version of the rules of procedure of the Council, instead of the provisional version that the Council has at present.

Mr. Terzi di Sant'Agata (Italy)

Allow me to first of all join my colleagues in welcoming the Secretary-General's statement at this debate. That is yet another confirmation of the personal engagement of the Secretary-General in this very important issue for the Security Council.

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate and for the excellent concept paper that you have circulated. The concept paper is an effective and enlightening instrument for our work, enabling us to better understand what has been achieved thus far, two years after the issuance of presidential note S/2006/507, and what remains to be done. Today's debate is of the utmost importance. Too much time has passed since the last open debate of the Council on the issue of its working methods. Opening the Council to all Member States for this debate is a concrete development that we fully supported during the consultations in recent weeks.

A reform of the Council's working methods represents, for Italy, a priority objective in the United Nations reform process. Maintaining a direct and focused dialogue with Member States, particularly on the issue of working methods, has always been of fundamental importance and a point of reference for Italy. Our goal is to fulfil the expectations of Member States and to counter the risk of inertia within the Council, in order to foster a sense of ownership of the Council among all Member States and, conversely, prevent the Council from being perceived as isolated from the rest of the United Nations system.

Italy's action has long been characterized by a constructive attitude towards Council reform in all its aspects. We have actively participated in the work of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. I would like to congratulate and commend Ambassador Arias for his effective leadership in that Working Group.

We remain committed to a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects. Working methods also have a clear priority, in order to improve the imbalance in the relationship between the General Assembly and the Council. The desire for a constructive dialogue with the rest of Member States, including on working methods, has always been a characteristic of the Uniting for Consensus movement, and it remains a goal to which we are committed.

For Italy, transparency, openness, efficiency and interaction with the rest of Member States are crucial if we are to achieve substantial improvement in the Council's working methods. Many ideas for improvements have been voiced: fuller access to the Security Council, including through better and more regular communications by the Council to all Member States; more thematic debates in the General Assembly; improved and more detailed annual reports to the Assembly; renewed impetus for public meetings; and an effective system to prevent overlap and assure transparency in the subsidiary bodies. We also consider of the most crucial importance the close and effective cooperation between the Secretariat and the Council.

In order to achieve better use of the existing format of private meetings, we believe that, among the many possible improvements, a mechanism should be established to allow interested Member States to be heard confidentially, at their request, in what we could call private consultations in the Chamber. In particular circumstances, all Member States should have the opportunity to explain their position in a formal setting, in the context of a direct dialogue with members of the Council.

Those and other tasks will require adequate redefinition of the rules that govern the working methods. It is a goal that Council members should strive for on a daily basis. In that regard, I wish to praise the decision by the Vietnamese presidency in July to inform non-Council members of the preparation of the annual report on the work of the Security Council.

On interaction with the membership, allow me to bring up the issues of involving regional organizations in the Council's activities and the contribution they can make to its actions. A great deal has been achieved in that area in recent years. I am thinking, for example, of the development of regular contact and meetings between the Peace and Security Council of the African Union and the Security Council with regard to conflict prevention, crisis situations and the deployment of peacekeeping missions on the African continent.

To an increasing extent, regional organizations interact with the subsidiary bodies of the Security Council and contribute, for example, to the effectiveness of global action in the fight against terrorism and the application of sanctions regimes. In that regard, the European Union also plays a fundamental role. It has formed a partnership with the United Nations to cooperate in the areas of crisis management and peacekeeping operations. From the Balkans to the Middle East, from Africa to Asia, the European Union and the United Nations are working together on the ground, even under very difficult circumstances.

Regional organizations are the great new reality of today's international relations. Let me restate how crucial it has become to take into consideration that trend of our time, and may it be adequately reflected in the Council.

The President

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Belgium.

Maintaining international peace and security has been one of the key objectives of the United Nations since its establishment. Thus, in 1945, the authors of the Charter decided to confer the main responsibility for that item to the Security Council, as the Charter says in Article 24, "in order to ensure prompt and effective action" on the part of the Organization. As a result, the credibility of the Security Council is based largely on that very ability to act in a prompt and effective manner.

Obviously, that capacity also depends, as others have emphasized before me, on the political will of its members. Article 24 of the Charter contains a second idea that is just as important. In meeting its responsibilities, the Council acts on behalf of all Members of the Organization. That provision is inextricably linked to two other important elements in any discussion on the Council's working methods: on the one hand, transparency, and on the other hand, interaction with Member States that are not members of the Council, in particular with those who are directly affected by specific situations. Some 60 years after the establishment of the United Nations, that transparency and need for access have become even more essential. The right balance between effectiveness, transparency and access remains a major challenge, even if those three principles are not, in my delegation's opinion, contradictory, but rather complementary.

So how do we meet that challenge? -- first of all, through a pragmatic approach. The progress made since 1994, the year that the Council for the first time discussed its methods of work in a public meeting, demonstrates that the Council is adapting its working methods through a pragmatic and gradual approach. The presidential note in document S/2006/507, the so-called Japanese note adopted in July 2006, is the best evidence of that. It called on Council members to take measures that were sometimes not very spectacular in themselves but were important overall. The concept paper distributed by my delegation on 4 August provides a summary of those measures, so I shall not go back over that here.

Secondly, above all, it is up to the members themselves to be responsible for improving their way of working. The presidency plays an important role in that area. As President of the Council in June 2007 and August 2008, Belgium, like other Council members, implemented the recommendations of note S/2006/507 in a consistent way, for example by inviting neighbouring States or countries with a particular contribution to make to participate in public meetings, or by ensuring that non-members that were directly interested would be able to take the floor before Council members. Obviously, not only the President of the Council plays a key role, but also the chairs of the subsidiary bodies, namely, by ensuring fair procedures, also have a particular responsibility, to which a number of speakers before me have already referred. All those measures have a direct impact on non-members of the Council. We hope that from now on they will benefit from the improvements in our working methods.

Thirdly, as well as safeguarding those gains, it is important to consider new measures to be taken. If such measures -- concrete, constructive and achievable in the short term -- emerge from this debate, my delegation would consider today's debate a success.

For my part, I would like to mention three such items. First, the deliberations of Council members would, no doubt, be enriched if there were more interaction with Member States that are associated with a conflict. While it is true that the provisional rules of the Council do not explicitly rule it out, it is still not the practice to invite non-members of the Council to private consultations. So, why not make better use of the existing mechanism of private meetings to hear the viewpoints of Member States, in the question-and-answer format, before Council consultations per se are held?

Secondly, the prospects of the Peacebuilding Commission are such that they add significant value. It has become more and more customary to invite the President of the Commission or chair of the country-specific configuration to participate in Council deliberations, as was the case yesterday when we discussed Burundi. That practice, which was not yet called for in the note of 2006, should, of course, be followed up on.

Finally, thirdly, my delegation attaches great importance to the Council having more in-depth interaction with regional and subregional organizations, which, as we know, play an important role in mediation efforts and in peacekeeping operations.

This year, we have already seen several examples of close interaction between the Council and the African Union. As a member of the European Union, my delegation would, of course, like to advocate better interaction with the European Union.

My delegation believes that the participation of the current presidency of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe last week was, itself, also very useful. In that context, it might be useful to do more in-depth thinking on a better implementation of paragraph 30 of the note of 2006.

I have given you just a few preliminary ideas. Those ideas, as well as others that are emerging or will emerge from this debate, could be closely considered in the days and weeks ahead, for example within the Council's Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which is the right place for such discussions. In the next few weeks, my delegation is ready to work with other delegations, so that together we shall be able to make tangible progress towards our common objective, which is to have a Security Council that is more transparent, interactive and effective, and, as a result, more capable of acting in conformity with Article 24 of the Charter.

I shall now resume my functions as President of the Council.

I should like to remind all speakers that we have asked them to limit the length of their statements to a maximum of five minutes, so that the Council will be able to conduct its deliberations with all the desired effectiveness. Those delegations who have a long statement to make are asked to present a condensed version in the Chamber, it being understood that the full version can be issued in print.

I now give the floor to the next speaker on my list, the representative of Japan.

Mr. Shinyo (Japan)

First of all, I strongly welcome your initiative to convene this discussion today. I also wish to express our appreciation to Costa Rica for its proposal to convene this meeting.

The continuous efforts of the members of the Security Council aimed at improving the Council's working methods in order to enhance its efficiency and transparency are commendable, and notable achievements and improvements have been made, as described in the concept paper for this open debate (S/2008/528, annex). We are very pleased to see such developments building upon the efforts of Japan and other countries towards the adoption of the note by the President of the Council dated 19 July 2006 (S/2006/507). In this context, I would also like to express our great appreciation to the successive Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, who have made indispensable contributions in implementing the note. Ambassador Burian of Slovakia not only finalized a new note by the President of the Council (S/2007/749), but also set the course for its implementation, particularly in involving the Secretariat. We also know that, whenever the Council is facing procedural difficulties, Ambassador Arias of Panama acts as a guardian of the note in the Council. We hope that the active efforts through the Working Group will continue and that the positive momentum from 2006 will be maintained.

Improving the working methods benefits both the members and the non-members of the Council. As the concept of peace and security evolves and as States become increasingly interdependent economically and politically, the Council must actively engage the wider membership of the United Nations and develop more efficient working methods to ensure its responsiveness to emerging challenges. It is the Council that plays the leading role in this endeavour. We hope that those States which are granted a special responsibility in the Charter or through elections will spare no effort to respond to the needs and concerns of the Member States at large.

Allow me to make a few proposals on possible ways forward.

First, it is essential to engage States which have special interests or responsibilities regarding particular matters, in order to ensure the implementation and effectiveness of the Council's actions. The participation of non-members in the Council's meetings has been significantly improved. We are also aware that the relevant parties are consulted informally on a case-by-case basis. However, more needs to be done, particularly in ensuring the engagement of the troop-contributing countries and the financial contributing countries. Making better use of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations is desirable. It is important to have an informal exchange of views prior to a major adjustment to or the creation of a peacekeeping operation mandate in the Working Group. That should help in addressing the legitimate concerns of the major stakeholders, including troop contributors and financial contributors.

Secondly, the Security Council would certainly benefit from seeking more interactive relationships with the General Assembly and other organs. That is important to facilitate the complementarity of the organs. As the Security Council and the General Assembly have their own responsibilities and memberships, cross-cutting issues such as conflict prevention, peacebuilding, climate change and other relevant matters deserve substantive discussion in both organs, and one organ can make useful inputs to others based on those discussions. In addition, as Japan currently serves as the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, I would like to express our gratitude to the Council for inviting the Chairs of the country-specific configurations to almost all of the Council's relevant meetings. We hope the Council will seek to make more active use of the Peacebuilding Commission as its advisory body. In this context, I believe that the regular meetings of the President of the Council and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission will continue to facilitate communication between the two organs.

Thirdly, the increasing number of public meetings, especially open debates, is welcome. However, I would like to point out that both members and non-members of the Council should make maximum efforts to ensure the effectiveness of such meetings by making focused and concise statements with specific and practical proposals and by pursuing action-oriented follow-up.

Fourthly and finally, in the context of reform of the Security Council, the issue of working methods is also an important component. There is no doubt about that. Japan believes, however, that not only the improvement of working methods but also the expansion of the Security Council is a crucial aspect of the reform of the Council. I would like to emphasize that the reform of the Security Council through the expansion of the Council should have a significant positive impact on the improvement of the Council's working methods.

Nowadays, everyone is aware of the importance of improving working methods, and we are always heartened to note that many representatives regularly carry the blue booklet which Japan voluntarily issued, in order to refer to the note and other useful information in it. We reiterate our hope that the Council will give positive consideration to the publication of the booklet as an official document of the United Nations.

The improvement of the working methods of the Council is something that can never fully achieve its goals. The Security Council always needs to evolve in order to respond swiftly and effectively to ever-changing world challenges. A follow-up to the discussion in this open debate is essential in terms of further advancing this task and preserving what we have achieved since the adoption of the note by the President in 2006. Japan will continue to follow the development of this matter with great interest and will make utmost efforts to contribute to this endeavour.

Mr. Mlynár (Slovakia)

At the outset, Sir, I would like to commend you and the delegation of Belgium for the initiative to convene this open debate on the implementation of the note by the President of the Security Council of 19 July 2006 (S/2006/507) and for creating this timely and welcome opportunity, when the members of the Security Council and other United Nations Member States are engaging in a direct exchange of views on how to ensure that the Security Council is more open, more transparent, more efficient and more effective and that, as a matter of principle, there is more dialogue and better interaction between members of the Council and other United Nations Member States, especially those directly affected, concerned and interested. I would also like to thank you for preparing a very valuable concept paper (S/2008/528, annex) containing many relevant points as well as some very useful data.

We welcome the presence of the Secretary-General at this open debate and thank him for his very informative briefing. It goes without saying that the Council and the Secretariat need to continue working very closely together on a whole range of issues pertaining to the Council's working methods.

I cannot start otherwise than by mentioning the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (General Assembly resolution 60/1), especially its paragraphs 153 and 154, whereby our heads of State or Government agreed on the need to adapt the Security Council's working methods so as to increase the involvement of States not members of the Council in its work. Increased transparency, efficiency and effectiveness are part and parcel of these efforts.

In 2006, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, Slovakia was actively involved in the negotiation process stemming from the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, led by the Japanese chairmanship of the Security Council Informal Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, which culminated in the adoption of the note contained in document S/2006/507. On this occasion, I would like once again to express our appreciation to the Japanese delegation for their tireless efforts and exemplary leadership in the process of agreeing and adopting the note. In 2007, as Chairman of the Working Group, Slovakia focused its efforts and endeavours mainly on thorough implementation of the note and on dealing with a range of practical issues pertaining to documentation and other procedural questions. We appreciate the efforts of the delegation of Panama as the 2008 Chair of the Working Group.

We believe that many good results have been achieved over the past two years through adopting the note and striving to fully implement it. All Council members have been actively engaged in this endeavour. We are convinced that everybody who has been following the work of the Security Council for some time has to agree now that there have been considerable improvements, for example when it comes to the number of public meetings and open briefings and as regards the availability and accessibility of timely information about the work of the Council. We are very pleased to see, inter alia, that it has recently become much more common for countries directly concerned to take the floor before Council members and that representatives of regional and subregional organizations are more often invited to take part in various forms of the Council's work.

I will refrain from giving details about what specific issues we focused on as 2007 Chair of the Working Group; those details are part of the written statement that will be distributed. I would just like to highlight the fact that, in an effort to further facilitate an exchange of views related to the efforts to enhance the efficiency, openness and transparency of the Council's work, as well as of the Council's regular dialogue and interaction with other Member States, my delegation convened an Arria Formula meeting, which was held on 13 December 2007. This was generally seen as an innovative opportunity to discuss that relevant topic. A brief summary of the meeting and the related recommendations were set out in a document issued under the symbol S/2007/784.

In spite of everything that I have said so far, we do not believe that there is still time for complacency or for a feeling that the job has already been done. We have always seen the 2006 note by the President of the Security Council and its implementation as works in progress. The note and the agreed measures contained therein are only first and fairly modest -- although very important -- steps in the long term-effort to increase the openness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of the Council's work. We would like to take this opportunity to encourage the members of the Council to fully and consistently implement all agreed measures, as well as to continue discussing and assessing further practical ways and means to move things further along. The views expressed by other Member States, including at today's open debate, should be taken duly into account.

In addition, on the basis of its own recent experience as an elected member of the Security Council, Slovakia believes that further efforts in the near future should be focused on the following four areas.

First, continuing efforts should be made to enhance the transparency and openness of the Council's work, including, and in particular, with regard to the work of its subsidiary bodies.

Secondly, there must be continuing efforts to enhance and widen the interaction and the dialogue between the Council and other United Nations Member States, in particular those directly affected, concerned and interested. That issue is directly or indirectly referred to in at least 22 paragraphs of the 2006 note and is the sole topic of at least eight paragraphs. This could also be achieved through better use of private Council meetings, more regular use of Arria Formula meetings and the holding of regular consultations between members and non-members of the Council on relevant issues.

Thirdly, there must be a revitalization of private Security Council meetings with the troop-contributing countries. Such meetings have recently become too formalistic and have lost much of their original value, as envisaged in particular in resolutions 1353 (2001) and 1327 (2000) and in numerous presidential statements, most of which were adopted between 1994 and 2004.

Fourthly, continuing efforts must be made to maximize the relevance of the Security Council's annual report to the General Assembly, including by making the annual report more substantive and more analytical and by holding an interactive discussion on it with the General Assembly.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that Slovakia remains fully committed to the cause of the Council's openness, transparency, efficiency and effectiveness. We stand ready to continue contributing to the ongoing discussions and to concrete action aimed at achieving that long-term goal.

The President

I wish to thank the representative of Slovakia for having abridged the written version of his statement.

I now call on the representative of Switzerland.

Mr. Baum (Switzerland)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland.

The group of five small countries ("S-5 group") thanks you, Mr. President, for having organized this open debate. We are pleased to note that the Council responded favourably to our letter of 20 June 2008 (S/2008/418), in which our group requested that a meeting be held on the implementation of the measures set out in the note by the President of the Security Council (S/2006/507) and that all interested Member States be invited to participate in the discussion. I shall confine myself to a few general comments, as my colleagues in the S-5 group will make separate statements on specific aspects of the Council's working methods.

Mr. President, you have provided us with an excellent concept paper (S/2008/528, annex). It clearly shows that an increased number of Council decisions require active implementation by all United Nations Member States. For example, sanctions regimes have multiplied, and their implementation has become a costly and complex task for Member States. In addition, the increase in the number of United Nations peacekeeping operations is causing an unprecedented burden in terms of personnel, logistics and financing. It is thus important that non-members of the Council be informed in a timely manner about its deliberations and that they enjoy sufficient access to the Council's decision-making process. That is why I should like to briefly explain why the S-5 group requested this debate and why we consider it important.

The S-5 group welcomed the submission of the 2006 note by the President of the Security Council and considers it a significant step forward. We acknowledge the progress made thus far. However, we think it is also important to proceed more systematically with the implementation of the note if we wish to further enhance the Council's effectiveness. We believe that, two years after the note's submission, the time has come to take a closer look at what has and has not been accomplished to date. We also believe that a further step should be taken, and we encourage the Council to consider measures beyond those envisaged in the note.

More specifically, we agree with the analyses presented in the concept paper, to which we would like to add the following comments.

The S-5 group welcomes the substantial increase in the number of public meetings. However, they should not serve as a pro forma exercise, while the essential information continues to be shared behind closed doors. We share the view that the Council should better explain why it has chosen a particular format and that it should strive to make the best possible use of various forms of meetings, particularly when acting on issues directly concerning non-members of the Council, which would thus like to be involved at an early stage.

We hope that briefings to non-members on the monthly programme of work will continue to be systematically given by future presidencies. However, we regret that briefings after important consultations are given only on an ad hoc basis and that they continue to depend on the goodwill and the available time of members of a given Mission.

The access of non-Council members to subsidiary bodies has been improved but remains at a very formal level. That is why we invite the Council to explore ways in which directly affected third parties can establish contact and engage in dialogue on specific points with the relevant organs.

Finally, before establishing or renewing a mission's mandate, the Security Council should seek to enhance consultations with Member States deploying civilian and military personnel as well as with significant financial contributors.

In the past, the S-5 group has submitted various a