STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR KAREN TAN, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL OPEN DEBATE ON WORKING METHODS, 29 OCTOBER 2013

Mr President,

                   I thank Azerbaijan for convening this meeting and for its concept note on today’s open debate.

2                 Improvements in the working methods of the Security Council, especially in its transparency towards the General Assembly are important to small states like Singapore.  The reality is that small states are unlikely to obtain a permanent seat in whatever new configuration that might emerge from an overall reform of the Council in the future.

3                 In the current situation, it is also increasingly challenging for small states to be elected as non-permanent Council members.  Campaigns for contested and uncontested seats on the Council are becoming financially exorbitant and resource intensive.  Out of the 70 UN Member States that have never been elected as members of the Security Council, 50 are members of the Forum of Small States.  Those small states that are elected to the Council also face constraints.  Most small states can only be elected to the Council once every several decades given resource constraints.  By the time they have mastered Security Council processes, their term is over and the next generation has to start from scratch when they are elected. 

4                 Nevertheless, many small states continue to experience first hand the consequences of the failure to maintain international peace and security. The work of the Council remains of profound importance to us.  Accordingly, reforms that increase the transparency of the work and deliberations of the Council are critical to small states.

Mr President,

5                 We welcome the Council’s efforts to improve its practices as outlined in the series of Presidential Notes adopted since 2010.  These include convening more open debates, more Arria-formula meetings, consultations with troop-contributing countries, and monthly briefings on the SC’s programme of work.  These initiatives have helped to improve the transparency of the Council with regard to the General Assembly.

6                 However, the implementation of the recommendations and proposals contained in the five Presidential Notes has been limited, slow and varies from Presidency to Presidency of the Council. For example, notwithstanding their substantive briefings which we support, we also believe that non-members should have more opportunities to provide inputs to the work of the Council’s subsidiary bodies.  Furthermore, some of these initiatives have been implemented with an eye to the “letter” rather than the “spirit” of the proposals.  Many of the briefings and reports are largely descriptive of the Council’s work. While we thank the various Presidencies for convening wrap-up sessions, we also note that these sessions have not been consistently held and they tend to comprise of set statements by Security Council members with general descriptions of meetings held, and resolutions adopted.   In our view, the Council could do more to increase interactivity, deepen the level of analysis and foster greater critical reflection in its engagement with the General Assembly.  A good place to start would be the forthcoming annual report of the Council.  Instead of simply being a descriptive and voluminous compilation of data and information on the work of the Council, we hope that this year’s report will be more concise and analytical.  For example, it could include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the Council’s decisions as well as lessons learnt.

Mr President,

7                 Last month, we welcomed the unanimous adoption of the Security Council resolution 2118 (2013) on the elimination of chemical weapons in Syria.  But let us not forget the deep unhappiness in the UN membership and the wider world at the impotency of the Council prior to that in the face of the violence and atrocities in the crisis in Syria.  The use of the veto is the crux of the problem.  Singapore therefore reiterates its request for the Permanent Members of the Council to consider refraining from using their vetoes to block Council action aimed at preventing or ending genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. In this regard, we would be interested to learn of the reactions of the other Permanent Members to the proposals by the French President on a “code of conduct” on the use of the veto.  Furthermore, we urge the Permanent Members to explain to the General Assembly their reasons for using the veto, or intention to do so, in particular with regard to its consistency with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law.  This is particularly pertinent at times when the veto is used to block action intended to maintain international peace and security.

Mr President,

8                 The Security Council has been given the primary responsibility by the members of the UN to maintain international peace and security, and special privileges have been given to the Permanent Members to carry out this mandate.  However, the Council does not discharge its responsibility in isolation and needs the support of UN member states, notably for funding and the provision of troops for the Council’s mandated operations.  Given this relationship between the Council and the wider UN membership, it is incumbent upon the Council to increase the transparency of its engagement with the General Assembly.

Thank you.

.    .    .    .    .