16 Mar 2021
1 The thematic clusters “size of an enlarged Security Council and working methods of the Council” and “the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly” deal with important issues that directly relate to the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of the Security Council. We have made some progress in the discussions on these issues in the past few years. My delegation believes that this progress needs to not only be preserved in this year’s outcome document prepared by the Co-Chairs, but further elaborated upon where possible.
2 With regard to the size of an enlarged Council, we note that the most recent paper prepared by the Co-Chairs of the IGN GA73 on ‘Revised Elements of Commonality and Issues for Further Consideration’ reflects a broad consensus that the size of an enlarged Council should consist of “a total of members in the mid-20s, within an overall range of 21-27”, with the exact number to emerge from the discussions on the other clusters of issues. This language is carefully worded and does not prejudge the positions of any country. We therefore support its continued inclusion in the document that the Co-Chairs intend to circulate soon. Beyond preserving this language, we do not see any scope to make progress on this issue until we have addressed the interlinked issue of expansion in the categories of membership.
3 On the working methods of the Security Council, there appears to be strong support in the IGN process to improve the Council’s working methods. Improvements to the working methods will benefit every member of the UN and ensure that the Council is operating as effectively, transparently and is as accountable as possible. It is for this reason that Singapore believes more attention needs to be paid to ensuring that there is a sustained and genuine dialogue between the Council and the wider membership on improving working methods. We continue to be of the view that the Council’s working methods should be codified and formalised so that they are transparent to all Member States. Working methods should not be an informal or ad-hoc exercise decided by the Security Council’s members at their pleasure.
4 My delegation acknowledges and welcomes the fact that positive steps have been taken to improve the working methods of the Security Council in recent years, in particular its transparency, efficiency and engagement with non-Members. We commend the work done by the Informal Working Group on Documentation and other Procedural Questions to address the working methods of the Council. We hope that the IWG will redouble its efforts to build on and further revise Presidential Note 507, with more than just cosmetic adjustments. It is particularly important that we see some progress on this front, since the IWG’s focus in 2020 was understandably on adapting the Council’s working methods and practices to ensure business continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic.
5 We believe that the working methods of the Council’s subsidiary organs need to be improved, for example to ensure equity in the distribution of chairmanships of subsidiary bodies as well as the penholderships system. There also needs to be greater accountability and transparency in the decision-making processes of the Council, particularly with regard to the role played by the Sanctions Committees, and to foster greater understanding and participation in the UN sanctions system by non-Council member states, given the impact and consequences that sanctions can have on all member states. We hope there is scope to reflect these points in some manner in this year’s Co-Chairs paper.
6 In terms of the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, there has been improved communication and flow of information between the Security Council and the General Assembly. This has helped increase the understanding of, participation in and access to the Council’s work by non-Members. This is encouraging, as is the increased transparency of the Council’s work in recent years. But greater transparency is not an end in and of itself, and must be accompanied by strengthened engagement between the Security Council and the General Assembly.
7 Therefore, it is important that members of the Council take seriously the submission of the Council’s annual report to the General Assembly, as well as the monthly assessment reports of Council Presidencies. The earlier submission of the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly last year was a positive step, and it is important that the Council continue to adhere to the new timelines for the submission of its upcoming and future annual reports. It is also important that these annual reports are more analytical and substantive in nature, so that there can be a more robust discussion in the General Assembly on the work of the Security Council.
8 We also believe it would be useful to have an elaboration of the language on the conduct of the selection process of the UN Secretary General in this year’s Co-Chairs paper under the section on “Issues for Further Consideration”. The conduct of the SG’s selection process is a very important aspect of the relationship and cooperation between the Security Council and the General Assembly, and the discussion of this issue must take place in the IGN in parallel with the one ongoing in the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalisation of the Work of the General Assembly.
9 To conclude, we have had substantive and robust discussions during our first three IGN meetings. We think the views expressed have provided the Co-Chairs with a good sense of the areas and direction in which we can make progress. We look forward to receiving the Co-Chairs’ paper that captures the substance and key points expressed, reflects the progress in our discussions, and which will form the basis of our discussions at our next meeting on the status of documentation. Thank you.
. . . . .