STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE AT FIFTH MEETING OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM FOR THE 77TH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 4 MAY 2023

Thank you very much, Co-Chairs,

1 Thank you for circulating your “Revised Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper on Convergences and Divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”.  Co-Chairs, I have listened carefully to the statements made this morning, and I respect very much the different points of views expressed.  But let me also say at the outset that I do not align myself with any previous speaker, nor would I align myself with subsequent speakers, simply because Singapore is not part of any negotiating group in this process, and I therefore speak for Singapore, and Singapore alone, and I speak as a small state that is deeply committed to the effective functioning of the multilateral system.

Co-Chairs,

2 My delegation has followed discussions on this subject closely throughout this and previous sessions, and we have made our own modest contributions by expressing our views on the various clusters.  It is clear  that significant gaps remain between the various proposals, and we realise that pursuing Security Council reform is an uphill task, especially given the current geopolitical environment.  However, it is our view that we have no choice but to make progress by taking incremental steps in order to build convergence and the widest possible consensus.

3 We therefore want to recognise, Co-Chairs, your tireless efforts at trying to maintain momentum on the discussions in the IGN, and we salute your work in compiling the diverse views and proposals expressed by Member States throughout this session.  We have heard many strong views expressed on the revised Paper at today’s debate.  And we know that the Paper we have today is not perfect, but we believe that it is a reasonably good reflection of our discussions so far, and we as Singapore are prepared to take it as a basis for continued discussion in the future along with the 2015 Framework Document.  Overall, we think both of you as Co-Chairs have done a good job and we thank you both for the skillful manner in which you have steered our work.

4 Please allow me to make some specific points, seven specific points in fact:

5 First, my delegation welcomes the new observation in the “Elements of General Convergence and Divergence” section of the revised Paper that “Member states agree that arriving to a successful conclusion of the IGN process will entail compromises…while not reflecting in its entirety each individual proposal”.  Indeed, our debates have seen the various groups defend their positions and rebut each other vigorously on areas of divergence.  Such debate is healthy, but we need to move to actually reaching out across the aisle to find possible areas of compromise.  And it is our hope therefore that we can continue to build confidence and continue to build convergence on the difficult issues by working within the IGN process. And we believe that the IGN process remains the optimal platform at this stage to discuss the issue of Council reform.

 6 Secondly, we welcome the fact that the phrase, and I quote “to increase the transparency of the Security Council’s work in relation to the General Assembly”, unquote, has been removed from “divergences” under the section “Relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly”.  And this is consistent with our calls for the Council’s work be more transparent and accessible to the wider membership; and it is also in line with initiatives to promote transparency and accountability such as GA Resolution 76/262 on the veto initiative.

7 Thirdly, we welcome the initiative to webcast the first day of IGN debates and establish a repository of statements, which is mentioned in the revised Elements Paper. In fact, we think that this is a brilliant and innovative idea that will boost transparency, and we are confident that it will become a useful resource material for the work of the IGN. And we commend you both, Co-chairs, for your leadership and initiative in this regard. And we also welcome your efforts to encourage dialogue and discussion through various formats, such as the “unformals”, and also open-house formats.

8 Fourthly, we note and welcome the fact that the three sets of proposals listed under the section “Regional Representation” all include the option of a seat for small states, including Small Island Developing States.  However, we want to register our deep dissatisfaction with the fact that the needs and interests of small states have not been adequately addressed in the revised Paper. The reality is that more than half the
UN membership is made up of small states and yet there is only one additional seat proposed to be allocated to small states and SIDS. 
In our view, this is political tokenism at best or, at worst, it is a total disregard of the interests of small states in this process.  And I take this opportunity to remind members that the IGN is not an exercise for large countries to stake their claim for a seat while the interests of small states are ignored and marginalised.  If the reform process is to be seen as legitimate and secure broad-based support, any outcome from this process should enhance representativeness, legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Security Council, and most importantly, any outcome from this process must enhance opportunities available for small states to be represented in an expanded and reformed Security Council.

9 Fifth, my delegation has consistently expressed support for expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories.  We wish to place on record our position, however, that we are not persuaded about the need for creating a new category of “long-term non-permanent” seats because that would only create, in our view, a new class of power brokers.  The creation of a new category of long-term non-permanent members will also weaken and marginalise the position of those who are elected for only two years.  And it is therefore not clear to us as to how the proposal for longer-term seats could potentially enhance the credibility or legitimacy of the Council.  On the contrary, the creation of longer-term non-permanent seats could potentially worsen the caste system, the existing caste system, with an additional layer, with additional complications.  And there is also the distinct possibility that this new category of longer-term non-permanent seats will be dominated by larger States, which is not unlikely.  And this in turn will reduce opportunities for small states to be elected to the Council.  In summary, we are not persuaded that the proposal for longer-term non-permanent seats will do justice to the interests and position of small states.

10 My sixth point is that Singapore has consistently advocated the need for a reform of the Security Council to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.  In that context, we have consistently supported the need for additional permanent members, but without the right of the veto.  However, we also wish to place on record our view that new permanent membership is not a divine or pre-ordained right; it is a privilege and responsibility that must be earned.  We expect new permanent members to demonstrate exemplary conduct, in terms of their contribution to international peace and security, in terms of upholding international law and the principles of the UN Charter.  In this regard, we wish to place on record our previously-made proposal for a Declaration of Responsibilities, which all members of the Security Council, including new Permanent Members, would have to make, in order to reaffirm their commitment to the UN Charter, to uphold international law, and their commitment to abstain from voting if they are a party to a dispute, in accordance with
Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter.  Recent experience has shown that our expectations of exemplary conduct from Permanent Members has not always been met, and therefore the question of our expectations of new Permanent Members, and the need for some safeguards in terms of their behaviour is a relevant and important matter that needs discussion within the framework of the IGN.

11 The seventh point I would like to make is with regard to the working methods, and here I underline the importance of this crucial issue and emphasise that this is indeed the key to enhancing the effectiveness, credibility, and legitimacy of the Security Council, and we welcome the fact that the revised Elements Paper has reflected the discussions on this issue. And we believe that this has to be an essential element of any eventual package of reform.

Co-Chairs,

12 In conclusion, let me say that the IGN process has made some progress under immensely difficult times.  We need to take stock and consider how to we can tangibly move this process forward, and we therefore support the rollover of our work to the 78^th Session, with the Elements Paper as well as the Framework Document. 

13 From Singapore’s point of view, the key priority for reform is to enhance the Council’s representativeness and accountability and enable the Council to more effectively discharge its primary role for the maintenance of international peace and security.  Ultimately, a Council that is more representative and accountable will be more effective and more credible.

14 I thank you for your attention.

. . . . .