STATEMENT BY MR MARK SEAH, CHARGE D’AFFAIRES A.I. OF SINGAPORE, AT THE MEETING TO DISCUSS THE FIVE CLUSTERS OF UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM, 16 JAN 2024, CONFERENCE ROOM 4, UNHQ, NEW YORK

Thank you, Co-Chairs,

1        In your letter of 9 February, you had asked us to consider two questions (a) mandating a review clause for any future reform of the Council (b) mechanisms for nomination and rotation for cross-regional representation.  Allow me to address the second issue first.

Co-Chairs,

2        Singapore is a small state and small island developing state. While my delegation speaks for ourselves and not for any of the groups in the IGN process, our position that any reform process should not disadvantage small states and SIDS is one rooted in the principle of sovereign equality spelt out clearly in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter[1].  

3        Any reform process, therefore, should not marginalise or further disadvantage small states and SIDS. The reality is that the status quo is structurally disadvantageous to many small states, which already find it challenging to campaign and run against much larger states to secure a non-permanent seat.   The fact that over 50 small states have not served on the Council is a stark reminder that the playing field is not level.  While we appreciate the fact that there are proposals for a dedicated seat for small states and SIDs, we also note that at our informal discussions at our meeting in January, it was mentioned that the long-term elected seats are not meant for small states.  

4        My delegation therefore cautions that any reform should not further tilt the playing field while attempting to compensate with a token gesture such as a single non-permanent seat for small states.  And while we appreciate the intent to design mechanisms for nomination and rotation, we urge all present to consider whether this is a mere attempt to ameliorate what will effectively be a three-tier UNSC should a long-term non-permanent seat model be adopted.  We are concerned that the idea of long-term elected seats will further exacerbate the inequality for small states.  We have spoken before about the dangers of creating a new hierarchy of power brokers, which will inevitably be dominated by large and middle powers, and which will relegate the role of small states and SIDS.  It is not clear to my delegation how attempting to remedy inequality [the P5] by creating another layer of inequality will enhance representativeness and legitimacy or be in line with the concept of sovereign equality enshrined in Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter.  Nor is it clear to my delegation how detailed and technical discussions on rotation and nomination will advance the IGN process towards achieving the Council reform that we sorely need.

Co-Chairs,

5        As for the other question, my delegation supports the principle of periodic review.  However, this review should not be tied to which model of UNSC reform we eventually agree upon.  This review should be broad-based, and have as its basic premise whether the reformed UNSC has been able to deliver its mandate of maintaining international peace and security more effectively than the current one.  Fundamentally, the review process is about accountability, transparency, and the credibility of the work of the UNSC.

6        Thank you for your attention.

                                                                                                                                    .     .     .     .

[1]              “The Organisation is based on the principle of sovereign equality of its Members”.