Plenary

Mr Chairman,

1    My delegation thanks you for convening this session of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform to discuss the improvement to the working methods of the Security Council and the proposals of the Small Five Group. As a member of the S5, Singapore aligns itself with the statement by Switzerland on behalf of the S5 group. We thank the delegations who have already spoken this morning for your support, feedback and questions regarding the S5’s draft resolution. This has enabled us to explain our position in greater detail. What is clear is that there is broad support for the content of the S5’s draft resolution and that reservations have been expressed regarding the process.

2    My S5 colleagues from Switzerland, Costa Rica and Liechtenstein have already addressed a number of concerns that were raised like whether the S5’s draft resolution represents a “piecemeal” approach as opposed to a package approach, the majority required if the draft resolution goes to a vote. I will not repeat these points.

3    The recommendations in the S5 resolution are for improvements to working methods here and now. Even when adopted, they represent one step in the improving the working of the Security Council; the process will go on for a long time. We need not exaggerate their significance or impact in terms of breaking apart the comprehensive reform approach.

4    Questions have also been rasied by members of the P5 on whether the General Assembly can involve itself in the work of the Security Council. Under Article 10 of the UN Charter, the General Assembly clearly has the competence to make recommendations to the Council. Suggestions have also been made by the P5 and others that the S5’s draft resolution puts at risk the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, that our efforts are confrontational, divisive and damaging and might even cause the Security Council to lose its confidence.

5    I am surprised. S5’s recommendations will not alter the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, who continue to remain the Master of its own procedures. Our draft resolution contains recommendations for the Council’s consideration, and there is no intention to dictate to the Council what it can and cannot do. Instead, we believe that our resolution will strengthen the relationship between these two main bodies of the Organisation. It clearly demonstrates that the General Assembly has a deep interest in the work of the Security Council, and cares enough to pronounce itself on it.

6    S5 agrees that the Security Council has made efforts to improve its working methods. But such improvements have been inconsistent and sporadic. Reference has made to the work of the Informal Working Group on Documentation (IWGD) and the Open Debate the Council conducted last November as an example of the openness and the Council’s positive attitude towards improving its working methods. I attended that Open Debate and recall well how we had to wait for one and a half hours to start the Open Debate because of a disagreement over the Speaker’s List. This illustrates why working methods, or the lack therefore, are unsatisfactory. Our S5 draft resolution proposes to institutionalize improvements that have already been made to ensure that there is no back-sliding.

7    The question before us is a simple and fundamental one. Do we, as Member States, want or not want to take decisive action on reforming the Security Council? We have been talking around this issue for almost 20 years. The more we move, the more we seem to come back to the same point.

8    Today’s session concludes the 8th Round of Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform. What have we achieved after eight rounds of negotiations? Comprehensive reform of the Security Council seems even further away than when we first started. Positions have become deeply entrenched and delegations stick to restating their positions, rather than engage in real negotiations. Many clever arguments have also been put forth ostensibly in favour of reform, but whose real intentions and effect are to stall progress. Such a state of stalemate, where the unsatisfactory status quo is preserved indefinitely, will only serve the interests of a small minority. When there are some areas like improvement of working methods which a large majority of the membership agree, let us take decisive action to make headway. We should not allow our separate political aspirations and agendas to divide us and cause us to lose sight of the common goal of an improved Security Council.

9    It is clear that the working methods of the Security Council in its current composition need urgent improvement. Among the general membership, there is a sense that the Security Council does not always function effectively and in the interests of the international community. The credibility of the Security Council has taken hard knocks, particularly over the use or abuse of the veto to protect narrow, parochial interests. There is a strong perception that the Council operates in a realm that is unaccountable to the general membership or anyone, which further deepens mistrust. This calls for urgent reform of the Council’s working methods, including the use of the veto.

10    An enlarged Council with the same working methods will have the same problems. Furthermore, enlargement of the council in itself without improved working methods does little to benefit the small states who make up the majority of the United Nations membership. Many small states have either never served on the Council or can only serve once in many decades. What will benefit small states more is a Council that is more transparent and accountable to the entire membership of the UN.

11    The S5’s draft resolution is not an attempt to hobble the Security Council as some P5 members have argued. The S5 do not presume to rollback or curb the powers of the Council. We are only interested in ensuring that the workings of the Council are made more accountable and transparent, and that decision-making becomes more inclusive and representative. This is as much in the interests of the Security Council as it is the general membership’s. A Council that is regarded as transparent and consultative will naturally have the trust of the General Assembly.

12    The need for Security Council reform is more critical today than ever before. Political upheavals and humanitarian crises demand the urgent attention of the Council and have dramatically increased the workload of the UN. 24-hour news channels and social media open the decisions of the Council to constant scrutiny. We recognise that change requires time. But eight rounds of negotiations on Security Council reform have come and gone. Yet, the end is nowhere in sight.

13    We should not assume the United Nations is the sole recourse for the poor and persecuted. Alternative groupings like the G20 have surfaced because the UN is unable to deal with new realities and complex challenges. The Council risks more than inefficiency if it fails to adapt to the changes in the world. The General Assembly risks more than irrelevance if it fails to initiate reform. We cannot fail this Organisation and more importantly, we cannot fail ourselves. Let us send a clear signal that the general membership wants to see real and substantive change in the way the Security Council works.

.   .   .   .   .