STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR ALBERT CHUA, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL OPEN DEBATE ON WORKING METHODS, 26 NOVEMBER 2012

Mr President,

                    I thank India for convening this debate.

2                  Singapore strongly supports Security Council reform, particularly in the area of working methods. Singapore is deeply interested in the enlargement of the Council but we recognise that enlargement is an intractable issue.  This is because enlargement is a zero-sum game, with winners and losers. On the other hand, improvement of working methods is a positive-sum game, which will benefit all Member States. Our delegation has therefore consistently advocated a pragmatic approach of improving the working methods of the Council without prejudice to the separate issue of enlargement.

3                 Singapore is convinced that any reform of the Security Council must go beyond increasing the number of seats.  Instead, reform should make the Council more accountable, transparent and inclusive for everyone, not just aspirants to permanent membership. An enlarged Council with the same flawed working methods will increase, not solve, problems. As a small state, Singapore accepts the political reality that we have no realistic shot at membership in an enlarged Council.  Similarly, others must accept the reality that small states make up the majority of the UN’s membership and that any reform of the Council must address our concerns about the Council’s working methods.

4                 Indeed, the working methods of the Security Council are of fundamental interest to all member states. The Council has the power to authorise military action and international sanctions - decisions which are binding on all member states. Through the veto, the five Permanent Members (P5) can also prevent the Council from taking such measures. The veto has also been used to block action intended to maintain international peace and security. Yet most of us have no way of influencing the decisions of the Council. We are called and dismissed entirely at the Council’s discretion, even on issues which affect our countries directly. We are expected to dutifully contribute to the Council’s mandated operations and comply with its decisions or lack thereof, even if they are not in the interests of the international community.

5                 Public statements made by the P5 would suggest that they share our position on the need for improvements to the Council’s working methods. At last year’s Open Debate on the Security Council’s Working Methods, almost all P5 members spoke in support of improving the Council’s working methods.  Even as recently as the General Assembly debate on Security Council Reform this month, P5 members continued to express support to make the Council as transparent, open and effective as possible.

6                 My delegation welcomes these commitments to working methods reform. We are therefore puzzled that whenever serious opportunities for improvements in working methods are presented, they are often blocked by none other than the P5.  Naturally, the P5 will claim that the increased number of open meetings and outreach to the general membership is evidence of their commitment to improve working methods. But meetings are merely meetings and no substitute for genuine improvements.

7                 The reality is that few issues galvanise the P5 into a unity of purpose and action as quickly as opposition to working methods reform.  Member States are no doubt familiar with what happened when the group of Small Five countries presented a draft resolution A/66/L.42 to improve the working methods of the Council in May. The resolution’s aims were frankly rather modest and the impact of the recommendations would have been limited even if they were adopted, but the P5 resorted to strong-arm tactics to ensure that L.42 never saw the light of day.   

8                 One particular incident highlights the P5’s determined resistance to reform of working methods, despite whatever they may proclaim to the contrary. In response to a query from the 66^th President of the General Assembly, the Office of Legal Affairs gave an interpretation that “it would be appropriate if the General Assembly were to adopt the draft resolution with the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the General Assembly membership”. Member States learnt of this legal opinion, not from the OLA or even the PGA who had first raised the query. Instead, it was a P5 Member who faxed and emailed the OLA’s legal opinion to all Member States in the morning of the formal consideration of the draft resolution, with the admonition to all Member States to support a no-action motion on L.42. How did this P5 Mission procure the OLA’s legal opinion, even before the PGA himself had circulated it to the UN membership?  What does it say about the P5’s real position on working methods of the Security Council?  Do deeds really match words?

9                 Let me cite another example. L.42 had asked the P5 to consider refraining from vetoing action aimed at preventing genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This aspect was considered particularly controversial by the P5 which were affronted by the suggestion that limits be placed on the use of their veto power. This position was shared by all the P5 members, even those who fervently support the principle of Responsibility to Protect. Those P5 members who repeatedly express outrage at what is happening within the Council on issues like Syria are the same ones who blocked L.42. Trumpeting moral outrage over the Council’s non-action is particularly hypocritical because whatever divisions there may be among the P5, they are united in having no limits placed on their use or abuse of the veto.

10               My statement today is not intended to be a diatribe on the Security Council or the P5. Indeed, my delegation believes that the Security Council and Permanent Members, in particular, shoulder a longstanding responsibility on behalf of the international community. By and large, the Security Council does good work on behalf of Member States in preserving international peace and security.  However, the P5’s continued resistance to constructive proposals on working methods does not serve the interests of the UN Membership or the legitimacy and transparency of the Security Council, or even ultimately the interests of the P5 themselves. I hope that it will not take a crisis of seismic proportions to precipitate a fundamental change.

11               Thank you Mr President.