STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR BURHAN GAFOOR, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE, AT THE OPEN VIDEO TELECONFERENCE ON “WORKING METHODS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL”, UNDER THE AGENDA ITEM “IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NOTE S/2017/507”, 15 MAY 2020

Mr President,

1 Allow me to express my appreciation to Estonia for convening this timely and important discussion on the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation also appreciates the leadership of Kuwait and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the previous and current Chairs of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, on this issue. We look forward to incorporating the eight Notes by the President that were adopted in December 2019 into the revised Note 507 at the next opportunity. We also thank Ambassador Rhonda King and Ms Karin Landgren of the Security Council Report for their insightful briefings today.

Mr President,

2 At the open debate on this topic last year, I highlighted our expectation that all elected members should take working methods seriously during their term in the Council. Indeed, one of the yardsticks against which we will judge all elected members is their commitment to improving the working methods of the Council. We are therefore heartened that the E10 has, for a second consecutive year, reiterated its commitment in this regard. Singapore fully endorses the joint statement by the E10. This is not to divide the Council between the permanent and elected members, but to increase transparency and accountability to the wider membership. After all, the UN Charter clearly states that the Council acts on behalf of all UN members, which have conferred on the Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. As the large majority of UN members are not in the Council and often face huge difficulties or resource constraints in being elected into the Council, it is of utmost importance that the Council’s work is conducted transparently. 

3 As a small state, Singapore strongly supports improvements to the working methods of the Council. This benefits all states, big or small, including the permanent members. It is an area where we can make an immediate and noticeable difference, without getting caught up in the legalities and technicalities pertaining to Charter amendments.

 
4 I would like to draw attention to several areas. First, we are pleased at the efforts to preserve transparency and accountability despite the challenges posed by COVID-19. The Council was the first main body of the UN to adapt its practices to ensure business continuity without sacrificing transparency and accountability. We are encouraged by the Council’s efforts to continually improve its provisional working methods in light of COVID-19, and commend in particular each presidency’s letter that reaffirms and improves upon these practices.  More public meetings have also been held. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, 16 open video teleconferences were convened. We welcome the continued publication of the outcomes of these meetings, including the written records of all statements. As for closed consultations, we understand that they are often necessary to promote candid and frank discussions among the main stakeholders. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be useful if key decision points from these meetings are shared with the wider membership. 

5 The General Assembly’s consideration of the annual report of the Council is a vital exercise in transparency and accountability. We trust that the new timelines stipulated in Note S/2019/997, namely that the report must be “discussed and thereafter adopted by the Council no later than 30 May, in time for its consideration by the General Assembly immediately thereafter”, will be upheld. It is important for the General Assembly to have robust discussions on the work of the Council, as it enhances the legitimacy and credibility of the Council. Similarly, the monthly assessments of the work of the Council are equally important. We are disappointed that only seven monthly assessments were issued for 2019, and note that only two monthly assessments have been issued thus far for 2020. We hope that more Council members will submit their monthly reports on time.

 
6 My second point is on inclusiveness. We are encouraged that the Council has made greater use of different formats such as Arria-formula meetings and Toledo-style dialogues to engage more interactively with not just the wider membership, but also with members of civil society. We are also encouraged by the regularisation of introductory and wrap-up meetings with the wider membership by the presidency of each month, and are pleased that the date and time of these meetings are now being communicated to all members well in advance. We hope that these sessions will continue as a standard practice, and that they will contain more interactive discussions and greater analysis. 

7 My delegation is also encouraged by some signs of increased intra-Council inclusiveness. The earlier “on-boarding” of newly elected members is a positive step to better equip the E10 for their term on the Council. Nevertheless, we think that there is room for improving the burden sharing system and distribution of work among Council members. In particular, we hope that more Council members will be given the opportunity to assume penholdership or co-penholdership on issues. A monopoly over penholdership has potential drawbacks. It increases the risk of Council products being drafted from a fixed lens, and also disenfranchises the Council members who do not have opportunities to take a lead role on issues. A Council with members who feel side-lined is not only non-inclusive, but will also be ineffective in representing the interests of the wider membership.

8 My third point relates to agility and effectiveness. The Council’s record on this remains mixed, with a strong voice being taken on some specific issues, but a lack of timely and adequate action on other issues. The veto unfortunately has too often been used to block Council action aimed at preventing mass atrocity crimes. Singapore joined more than 100 countries in supporting the French-Mexican initiative and the ACT’s code of conduct on limiting the use of the veto against mass atrocity crimes. While the P5 has special privileges, these come with increased responsibilities. This applies not just to the use of veto on resolutions, but also the “informal vetoes” on other products of the Council. Otherwise, the Council will not be able to discharge its duties in the maintenance of international peace and security.

Mr President,

9 To conclude, we call on all members to continue constructive engagement in improving the working methods of the Council with practical proposals. We thank you for convening this discussion today, and look forward to a good outcome under the able leadership of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. 

.    .    .    .    .