STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE, AT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM, 4 MAY 2021

1 First of all, I would like to thank the Co-Chairs for your hard work in producing this new “Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper on Convergences and Divergences”.

2 My delegation welcomes this updated paper because it builds on the June 2019 Revised Elements of Commonality and Issues for Further Consideration, as well as on the discussions we have had during the four IGN meetings this year.  Equally important, this updated elements paper provides continuity in the process by preserving the link with the 2015 Framework Document, which is an important document for our work in the IGN. 

3 We note that this new elements paper has been prepared by the Co-Chairs on their own responsibility and that it reflects their understanding of the current state of IGN discussions.  From Singapore’s perspective, this paper is a reasonable and objective reflection of the discussions we have had so far in the IGN.

4 In terms of the format and structure of the elements paper, we note that the Co-Chairs have combined what was previously separate sections on “Commonalities” and “Issues for Further Consideration”.  These separate sections are now reflected as “Convergences” and “Divergences” under each of the five clusters. While my delegation had expressed a preference in the past to keep the “Commonalities” and “Issues for Further Consideration” as separate and distinct sections, we are flexible about the structure of the paper.  What is important is not the structure per se but the substance of the paper and my delegation can accept the paper as it has been re-drafted by the Co-Chairs.    

5 In terms of substance, we note that there have been some updates to the Introductory paragraphs.  The language in the “Convergences” sections under each of the five clusters is largely the same as that in the “Commonalities” section of the 2019 Revised Elements and Issues for Further Consideration paper.  However, we note that there have been, in our view, two notable and important updates. 

6 First, in paragraph 4 of the Elements of General Convergence, the Co-Chairs have updated the language to reflect the “wide recognition and broad support” by Member States for the legitimate aspiration of the African countries … as reflected in the Ezulwini Consensus.  In that regard, we note that the Co-Chairs have heeded the calls of the African Group as well as many other countries to elaborate on the support articulated in the IGN for the Common African Position.   This is an update that we can support.

7 Second, the Co-Chairs have included as an element of convergence, a new paragraph 4.2 under the cluster “Question of veto” to reflect the significant and growing support on limitations to the veto.  This too is an update that we support.

8 My delegation also notes that the Co-Chairs have expanded in some detail on the divergences across the five clusters. We think this elaboration reflects the different views repeatedly and consistently expressed by delegations, and which are among the core issues that need to be addressed if we are to reach a common understanding of how we can best make progress in our discussions.

9 The delegations and groups that have spoken before me have expressed their views on the new elements paper.  There is no doubt that delegations, including mine, would have wanted to see many different things in this paper, whether it be a different format or different drafting formulations, depending on our particular positions on the issue of Security Council reform.  That said, this is an extremely difficult and complex issue and we all appreciate the challenges facing the Co-Chairs in trying to reconcile the often diametrically-opposed positions of delegations. 

10 Overall, my delegation can support this elements paper as capturing our work at this session, on the understanding that this paper does not in any way prejudice the position of any delegation as regards the issue of Security Council reform.  Regardless of the content of the paper, it is not cast in stone but a work in progress.  Therefore, all views must continue to be listened to, and all options on how to proceed should remain on the table. My delegation therefore supports the Co-Chairs’ paper as a good basis and a viable framework for us to take our discussions forward at the 76^th session. 

11 As we approach the end of this year’s series of IGN meetings, I want to state that Singapore does not speak for any other country or group of countries on the issue of Security Council reform.  In the IGN process, we do not belong to any group and we have always put forward our views in an independent, objective and frank manner and we will continue to take this approach.  Allow me therefore to make a few candid remarks by way of conclusion.  Let me add that friends from both sides of the aisle may not like what I say.  But I say it without fear or favour and I say it in the interest of strengthening the multilateral system.

12 First, there is no short cut to success or progress on the difficult issue of Security Council reform. This is an issue that requires political will and convergence at the highest political levels, especially in some of the major capitals of the world.  From where we are seated as Singapore, we have yet to see any signs of political will and political convergence for Council reform at this moment in time. The prevailing geopolitical environment has made Security Council reform even more challenging.   On top of that, the demands of managing the COVID pandemic and the challenge of finding vaccines for our people have become the most pressing priority for many countries at this moment, especially for small and vulnerable countries like Singapore.  This does not mean we should give up on Security Council reform, but it means that we have to work much harder to mobilise political support and build political convergence in order to instil new life for a reform of the Security Council.

13 Second, the work of the IGN remains critical and necessary in order to identify the areas of convergence and areas of divergence.  If the IGN does not deliver some signs of concrete movement, then the IGN process will lose credibility.  I have always asked this question at previous sessions of the IGN: is the IGN a vehicle for reform or a vehicle to maintain the status quo?  My view is that the IGN can be and must be a vehicle for reform.  That is why we must make progress here and that is why I welcome the Co-Chairs’ latest elements paper as a small step forward.  If the IGN is not able to deliver any progress, then it would outlive its usefulness.  I think it is up to each one of us to make the IGN process useful or otherwise. 

14 Third and finally, I believe that we have a window of opportunity to make progress and instil new life into the process of Security Council reform.  Over the last few years, we have built a good basis of understanding and common elements.  My delegation believes that we must seize the opportunity presented by this new elements paper to redouble our efforts to make concrete progress on the issue of Security Council reform.  We must push to have a genuine dialogue and engage each other to narrow our areas of divergences, so that we can broaden our convergences and reach common landing zones on the key sticking points.  Ultimately, the reform of the Security Council is not about who gains and who loses.  Ultimately, reform of the Security Council is about strengthening the multilateral system, and any successful reform of the Security Council must create a shared sentiment that all of us have much to gain collectively. And we have much work to do to get there in terms of creating that shared sentiment.  Thank you.

.    .    .    .    .