30 Nov 2011
STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR ALBERT CHUA, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF SINGAPORE TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AT THE SECURITY COUNCIL OPEN DEBATE ON WORKING METHODS, 30 NOVEMBER 2011
Mr President,
I thank Portugal for convening this important debate. I thank you for your leadership. Singapore fully subscribes to the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Switzerland on behalf of the S-5 group.
The call for improved working methods and the reasons for it have worn a deep groove in this Council and the General Assembly. Unless improvements are made, there is a real risk that the Security Council and the UN as a whole will end up sounding like a broken record to the rest of the world. To remain relevant, the Council needs to ensure that it is accountable, transparent, inclusive and effective through reform of its working methods. Yet, this refrain has fallen on deaf ears and progress in working methods reform remains uneven and slow.
Some may argue that the Council should not be marching to the tune of the General Assembly, since the Council is master of its own procedures. However, the effective functioning of the Council directly impacts not just relations between the General Assembly and the Council, but also each and every Member State with a stake in international peace and security. If the Council is to act for the benefit of the wider membership, it should be willing to engage members in open and honest dialogue, creating a virtuous cycle of feedback and effective decision-making.
In this spirit, the S-5 has set out in its draft resolution, specific suggestions on how the authority and effectiveness of the Council could be improved. I will mention one proposal that is tied closely to inclusiveness. The growing complexity of today's global challenges means that the Council must consider many factors and actors if it were to address any problem comprehensively. When considering peacekeeping mandates, for instance, there is a need to systematically factor in peacebuilding considerations. The Council could regularly invite chairs of the country-specific configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission to participate in relevant discussions. It would also be good if the Council could seek Member States' views on their ability to implement Council decisions.
Some will point to the increasing number of open debates in the Council as evidence of the Council's reformed working methods. But open debates in themselves do not necessarily enhance the Council's accountability, transparency, inclusiveness or effectiveness. Given that outcomes are often pre-determined, it is difficult to see how open debates can give Member States insight into the Council's deliberations or enable the Council to benefit from Member States' views on its work. To be honest, so-called open debates seem to substitute for genuine dialogue between the Council and the wider membership. Such sub-optimal communication between the Council and the General Assembly cannot continue. If we are unintelligible even to ourselves, we will not be able to send the strong and coherent messages that the world is in dire need of today.
It is clear that there are still many working method issues to be addressed. We need a sustained and genuine dialogue between the Council and the wider membership on working methods that can help us reflect on where we are, review what has yet to be done, and figure out what more we should do. The S-5 stands ready to engage constructively with the Council on this important endeavour.
Mr President,
The world is undergoing a profound transition and transformation. We are at an inflexion point. The Security Council needs to adapt to the changing geo-strategic circumstances. The ultimate solution that we all look towards is, of course, broad-based Council reform but working methods need to be improved now. Otherwise, the Council and the UN both risk becoming a broken record. In this wired and networked age, the Council and the UN should be working on a digital platform, not an analog turntable.
. . . . .