16 Feb 2021
1 My delegation thanks the Co-Chairs for their letter of 8 February in which they explained their approach for the proposed agenda and timeline for the year. We think this is a fair compromise given the range of views that were expressed at the first meeting, and we support the Co-Chairs’ approach, including dedicating one session to a discussion on the status of IGN documents.
2 The Co-Chairs have asked us to address the clusters of “categories of membership” and “the question of the veto”. Singapore has reiterated our consistent and longstanding position on Security Council reform many times, including on the two clusters we are discussing today. Our position is also contained in our input to the 2015 Framework Document. So I will keep my remarks fairly brief.
3 Singapore believes that reform of the Security Council is necessary to ensure that it remains credible and accountable, and that its decisions enjoy legitimacy. We believe that the Security Council needs to be more representative and inclusive in order to better reflect contemporary realities and the diverse membership of the UN as it exists today. A key aspect of the reform must be to address the interests and concerns of those regions that are underrepresented in the Security Council, in particular the African Group. Singapore therefore supports an expansion of seats in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. Another important aspect of any reform or expansion of the Council must be that it will enhance opportunities for and accommodate the interests of all member states, not just for the aspirants to permanent membership or the large and medium sized countries. Critically, it should not disadvantage or further marginalise small states and SIDS. We therefore welcome the support expressed by different groups and delegations for the representation of SIDS and small states in an expanded Council. We note also and welcome the proposal made by the UfC for a dedicated elected seat for SIDS and small states; we believe that this is a step in the right direction.
4 The UfC proposal for the creation of nine new longer-term non-permanent seats with the possibility of immediate re-election is an interesting one. But as my delegation said at the last IGN meeting, it needs to be carefully studied as its impact on small states is unclear, especially insofar as it may disadvantage small states. In our view, which we have stated before, the creation of longer-term non-permanent seats will create a new category of membership that is currently not envisaged in the Charter. Beyond this, it raises a number of questions. Would the creation of longer-term non-permanent seats effectively create a three-tier Council? Would the longer-term non-permanent seats inevitably or invariably be dominated by larger and medium-sized countries who have the human and financial resources to serve longer periods and multiple terms in the Council by running for consecutive re-election? Would this relegate the small states and SIDS to competing for the “less desired” two-year non-permanent seats? Would this create inequalities among the non-permanent members in terms of institutional knowledge relating to working methods, chairing of the Council’s subsidiary bodies? These are just some of the questions we are grappling with as we reflect on the UfC’s proposal.
5 The question of the veto is a particularly urgent and important issue for many delegations, including my own. Our sense from hearing the statements by delegations today and in the many previous discussions on this issue is that there is a strong desire and widespread support among the membership, including from two of the permanent members, to restrict the use of the veto in a reformed Security Council, particularly in preventing potential situations of mass atrocities. Singapore supports limiting the use of the veto by permanent members in such situations. We support the French-Mexican initiative and the ACT Group Code of Conduct. We believe that if permanent members cast a veto that blocks action in cases of mass atrocities, they should explain to the wider UN membership why they have cast that veto and produce an alternative proposal that will end such atrocities. It is for this reason that Singapore does not support extending the veto to any potential new members. We cannot see how increasing the number of Security Council members holding veto powers would enhance the effectiveness of the Council to respond to threats to international peace and security.
6 To conclude, my delegation hopes that by the time of our fourth meeting to discuss the status of IGN documents, the Co-Chairs will have captured the substance and key points expressed at the first three IGN sessions either in an updated paper on Revised Elements of Commonality and Issues for Further Consideration, or in some other document that can reflect the progress in our discussions and facilitate future discussions. Thank you.
. . . . .