REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS AT THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS ON UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM, 4 APRIL 2017

1.                 Thank you for convening the third round of IGN meetings.  I want to start by making some general comments before I comment on the paper you have prepared.

2.                 I have two general comments; first on context and second on process, and then I’ll move on to substance.

3.                 Now, let me address the issue of context first.  As we begin the third session of IGN meetings, I think it is really important to keep in mind collectively the context of the work that we are doing.  I know I have said it before and I like to say this again, that the IGN was formally established in 2008 and started its work in 2009.  The IGN therefore has been meeting for nearly ten years.  And you all know that before the IGN process began, the Open-Ended Working Group worked on the question of UNSC reform from 1993 to 2008.  In other words, both the IGN and its predecessor process, the Open-Ended Working Group, have been working on UNSC reform for nearly a quarter of a century. 

4.                 And what exactly has been the outcome so far, after a quarter of a century of discussion and deliberation?  Frankly, we have made too little progress.  If we continue with this pace of work, the UN will turn a hundred years old in 2045 while the UN Security Council will continue to reflect the reality of 1945.  The point I am making is that we need here to move with some sense of urgency.  We need to see steady momentum towards reform of the UN Security Council.  Ultimately, reform of the Security Council is about maintaining the relevance and credibility of the UN system as a whole.  For many small countries, like Singapore, reform of the Security Council is a matter of necessity.  It is about making the Council more effective, more representative and more accountable.  And for many of us, maintaining the status-quo does not serve the interest of the United Nations or the multilateral system.  Maintaining the status quo does not serve the interest of small countries and many, many developing countries. 

5.                 Fortunately, co-chairs, we have made some important steps in the last few years.  The Framework Document of 2015, in our view, provides a comprehensive compilation of all our positions.  And in our view, it remains a landmark document for our work here.  And I welcome the fact, co-chairs, that your food for thought paper refers explicitly to the text and annex circulated by the PGA with his letter of 31 July 2015.  This document, the framework document and its annex, captures the views of many many delegations, including that of Singapore, and we think it is important to keep a link between your food for thought paper and the framework document of 2015.  In 2016, the “elements of convergence” paper took another step forward, by working on two key issues, which is the “relationship between the Council and the General Assembly” and the “size of an enlarged Security Council and working methods of the Council”.

6.                 Seen against the context of our work over the last two years, I think the food for thought paper is an important and useful contribution. We look at it as a succinct paper that builds on the work of the IGN over the last two years.  And it is helpful because it compiles some of the key points of commonalities and the various positions we have heard over the last few meetings of the IGN.  Of course, the food for thought paper can be improved.  Indeed, it must be improved and that should be our collective goal: to improve the paper so that it captures the key elements of convergence, commonalities and elements for further work.

7.                 My second general comment relates to process.  It is a truism that everything at the United Nations is member-states driven.  However, a member-states driven process is not incompatible with co-chairs leading the process or playing a facilitation role.  I think the two co-chairs have done what co-chairs are expected to do at the UN; which is to help us, member states, find a way forward, including by collating and compiling different views.  In that sense, the food for thought paper is a good start for this round of IGN negotiations.

8.                 In terms of process, it is our expectation that the two co-chairs will continue to further improve their paper.  We look at the paper as a work-in-progress.  We should therefore not preclude future changes in the structure and content of the paper but aim to improve the paper in order to broaden the circle of convergence and commonalities over a period of time. 

9.                 And we think it is also important for all of us to have an opportunity to provide further inputs to the paper.  In this regard, we welcome the co-chairs’ call to all delegations in their letter inviting contributions to the paper.  We also support the listing of options in your food for thought paper.  We think the listing of such options would facilitate further discussions in the IGN process.

10.            With regard to the process again, the key point I wish to underline is this: at the end of the 71st UNGA, the IGN process must lead to some progress on all the five clusters of issues mandated by GA decision 62/557.  If there is no movement at the 71st UNGA, I am sure that the credibility of the IGN process will be undermined.  We should keep in mind that the IGN was established as a vehicle to reform the UN Security Council.  But if there is no sense of progress or momentum in the IGN, we will create the impression that the IGN has become a vehicle to maintain the status quo.  If there is such a perception that the IGN has become a vehicle to maintain the status-quo, we will all collectively undermine the IGN process.  And that I think is not in anyone’s interests.

11.            Let me now turn to the substance of the food for thought paper.

12.            On substance, we have a few comments.  First, let me make some comments on the issue of regional representation, which we discussed yesterday.  This is a key issue for many developing countries and small states as well, as it is related to enhancing the legitimacy, inclusiveness and accountability of the Council. 

13.            At our last IGN meeting in March, there was unanimous acknowledgement that the current composition of the Council does not reflect the diverse membership of the UN as it exists today.  Specifically, there was broad agreement that an expansion in membership was necessary to strengthen the voice of unrepresented and under-represented regions and groups.  There was also a common understanding that developing countries, and especially Africa, are under-represented and should be better represented in the Security Council in all categories.

14.            We are happy to note that these points are included as points of commonalities on regional representation in your food for thought paper. 

Co-Chairs,

15.            We recognise that the issue of regional representation is linked to the issue of the size of the Council.  As Singapore, we have not yet taken a position on the exact size of an expanded council.  We have an open mind on this question for the time being.

16.            At this stage of our process, we think it is not necessary to get bogged down with trying to reach agreement on a specific number for expansion.  We don’t think it is necessary to decide now on a magic number.  We think it would suffice for us to agree for the moment that the size of an enlarged council should be in the mid-20s, as reflected in the elements of convergence paper.

17.            The second point on substance relates to the commonalities on regional representation, which is on page 4 of your food for thought paper.  Here, we would suggest adding an additional point to the list, to include a reference to there being broad support for better representation by small states, including SIDs, in the Council.  Small states represent more than half of the UN membership.  And I think we would all agree that small states play an active role at the UN, by being advocates and defenders of multilateralism.  In this regard, we think it is important to ensure that small states are better represented in an expanded Council.  We believe that there was sufficient support for this particular point at previous IGN meetings.  Instead of listing this as an issue for further consideration, we think it should be added as a point of commonality in future revisions of your food for thought paper.

18.                          My third and last point of substance relates to the question of veto. We believe there was a strong desire and support to limit and restrict the use of the veto in a reformed UN Security Council, particularly for any proposed Council action aimed at preventing potential situations of mass atrocity.  Many delegations have spoken about the strong support for the ACT’s Code of Conduct and the French/Mexican initiative as basis.  We believe therefore that there is sufficient ground to reflect this point as a point of commonality in your food for thought paper.

Co-Chairs,

19      These are some preliminary views we have at this stage on your paper and we look forward to working with you co-chairs and with other delegations to further improve the food for thought paper and to widen the support of commonalities and convergence so that we are in a position to make some progress.  Thank you very much.

. . . . . .