07 Mar 2017
Co-chairs,
1. Thank you for convening the second IGN session. It will not be easy to comprehensively address all three outstanding clusters of issues at one go, but I will try.
Regional Representation
2. First, on the issue of regional representation, I would like to stress that this is a key issue for many states, as it is about enhancing the legitimacy, inclusiveness and accountability of the Council.
3. Many member states want a Council that reflects current geographical realities, and not one that is based on an anachronistic reality of yesteryear.
4. More importantly, a Council that is comprised of only a select group of countries, provides for skewed decision making in the council.
5. A future expanded council must reflect a microcosm of the diverse make- up of the UN membership as it exists today.
6. The current composition of the Council does not reflect this. Let me just make a few observations:
· Out of 15 members of the Council, there are two permanent members and two non-permanent members from the EU. In other words, the EU, which comprised of 28 members, makes up more than a quarter of the membership in the Council. If you include members of the Eastern European group, this ratio increases further in favour of one continent/geographic area only.
· There are currently no small island developing states (SIDS) represented in the Council.
· Despite representing more than one-third of global GDP, Asia only has two members in the Council, comprising less than 15 percent of the current make-up of the Council.
· Africa only has three members in the Council although many issues currently being considered by the Council are from the African Continent, as already highlighted by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone.
· More than 60 members of the UN Member States have never been Members of the Security Council.
7. I flag these observations only to highlight one obvious fact: the current composition of the UNSC is anachronistic and does not reflect the diverse membership of the UN as it exists today.
8. We need to fix this. But we need to do so in such a way that it does not undermine the effectiveness of the Council but help to effectively increase its legitimacy, inclusiveness and accountability.
9. We have gone through the inputs in the Framework Document and it is clear to us that there is an emerging support for the following points:
i. Developing countries are under-represented in the Council.
ii. Any enlargement of the Council should take into account the concerns of small States, including SIDs.
iii. There has to be a fairer and more equitable geographical representation in an expanded Council, particularly from Asia, Africa and GRULAC.
10. We propose that the Co-Chairs capture these and other common themes expressed in the debate today by other delegations in a document.
11. If we can agree on some common points for further discussion, we can then move on to a more substantive discussion on how we can reform the present Council to make it more representative, inclusive and accountable.
12. As alluded to by the distinguished Permanent Representative of India earlier, this may require us to relook some established modalities and practices at the UN, such as the current composition of regional groups, and consider whether we need to change existing and/or introduce new modalities for electing member states to the Council. But we will leave this discussion for another session of the IGN. Best for us to first focus on identifying some common points on what is it we wish to fix before we discuss how we can go about fixing them.
Categories of Membership
13. On the issue of categories of membership, Singapore supports an expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of membership to make the Council more representative and inclusive.
14. Having gone through the inputs in the framework document, we note that there are many other countries that share this view.
15. However, we acknowledge that there are some countries who think otherwise. For example, there are some who have indicated that they see no need for an expansion of the permanent seats beyond its current configuration. We respect their point of view.
16. But the one common theme we think everyone can agree on is that the size of the non-permanent seats should be expanded.
17. We may have different views on the actual number (and term for such seats), but we think it is worthwhile capturing this point of convergence in a document.
18. I note also that some new proposals on a new category of seats, including longer-term non-permanent seats, and transitional permanent seats, have been floated.
19. My delegation would need to study these proposals carefully. However, we would like to underscore that any new or innovative proposals considered should not make it harder for small states, particularly SIDS, to serve in the Council. They should not allow other medium and larger states to have ‘two bites of the cherry’ in seeking UNSC membership. This would be to the detriment of smaller states, many of whom already find it difficult to secure a seat in the Council. If there is consensus to introduce a new category of seats, it would have to be designed such that small states, including SIDs, are not disadvantaged.
Question of the Veto
20. On the question of the veto, our views are well known. We do not support extending the veto to any new Council member.
21. We note also that there is a growing support and movement in favour of limiting the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Speakers before me have similarly flagged this same point. The IGN must recognise this trend and have a serious discussion on how we can limit the use of veto so as to enhance the effectiveness of the Council. Specifically, we need to see how the ACT’s code of conduct and the French/Mexican initiative, in particular, could be included as an element for further consideration and discussion and operationalised in the reformed Council.
Co-chairs,
22. We have raised some key issues for further discussion and consideration. We hope that the co-chairs will find them useful. As we have suggested at the first IGN meeting on 7 February, we propose that the co-chairs identify, compile and consolidate these and other common threads expressed today in a new document, which could be used for our work at future IGN sessions. The document could be entitled “issues for further consideration”. My delegation looks forward to working with you co-chairs to deliver a meaningful outcome at the IGN this year.
. . . . . .