16 Jun 2021
Mr President,
1 I thank the Permanent Mission of Estonia for convening this important discussion on the working methods of the Security Council. My delegation also appreciates the leadership of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, on this issue. We thank Ambassador Rhonda King, Ms Lorraine Sievers, former Chief of the Security Council Secretariat branch and co-author of the 4th edition of ‘The Procedure of the UN Security Council’, and Ms Karin Landgren of the Security Council Report for their insightful briefings today.
Mr President,
2 Singapore has always been a strong supporter of improvements to the working methods of the Security Council. The Council is one of the most important bodies of the UN, with wide-ranging powers such as its ability to impose binding obligations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Given these powers, the Council must therefore be held to the highest levels of transparency and accountability. Yet, the myriad of practices and working methods of the Council remains complex and even arcane. It is therefore important to improve the working methods of the Council, for greater transparency and accountability. This benefits all states, big or small, including the permanent members. It is an area where we can make an immediate and noticeable difference, without getting caught up in the legalities and technicalities pertaining to Charter amendments.
3 The theme of the debate today is “Agility and Innovation”. I would like to highlight several points in this regard. First, we commend the Council for remaining agile and innovative in the face of challenges posed by COVID-19. The Council was the first main body of the UN to adapt its practices to ensure business continuity, including through the extensive use of VTCs and through its modified voting procedure. The Council has also been transparent in explaining its modified practices, through the letters issued at the beginning of the month by each presidency. We welcome the fact that these letters continue to be issued. This shows that the Council is not taking its working methods for granted.
4 My second point is that for the Council to remain agile, it must be responsive to the wider membership and therefore also inclusive. The results on inclusiveness are mixed. We commend the Council for regularising the introductory and wrap-up sessions of each presidency, and for formalising them in the monthly programme of work. We are also pleased that the Council’s programme of work is now also reflected in the UN Journal, and not just in the Council’s separate webpage. This ensures that the Council’s programme of work is widely disseminated to the entire UN membership, and allows Member States to prepare in advance and to participate where applicable. This is especially true for smaller states who may have more difficulty following all of the Council’s activities in detail.
5 However, we are disappointed that the majority of open debates continue to feature only the statements of briefers and Council members, while non-Council members who wish to participate can only submit written statements. This present debate on the important issue of the Council’s working methods, where it would have been useful for Council members to hear the views of the wider membership, is one such example. By the time the compendium of statements is circulated, the Council would have already shifted its focus to other issues. This defeats the purpose of open debates as the Council is essentially listening only to itself. We therefore suggest that non-Council members be allowed to speak at all open debates as was the case before the pandemic. Recorded video statements should also be considered to manage time differences as necessary.
6 My third point is on transparency. Inclusiveness on its own is insufficient without transparency. Unfortunately, we note that the number of closed Council meetings remains high. Out of 269 VTCs held in 2020, 126 were closed. This is not counting the closed discussions that take place under ‘any other business’. These discussions are extremely important, as they often revolve around the most pressing hotspot issues of the day. We therefore suggest that the topics of such discussions should be reflected in the programme of work. We understand the necessity of closed meetings, as some discussions would be better facilitated in a private setting. However, member states have the right to at least know what is being discussed by the Council, and when. Otherwise, these discussions under ‘any other business’ may as well be phantom meetings.
7 Fourth, innovation must be accompanied by perspective. Even as we innovate, we should not lose sight of the original purposes and intentions behind any particular initiative. The relative logistical ease of holding online meetings has resulted in a proliferation of VTCs, high-level events, and Arria-formula meetings. This in itself is not necessarily bad, and we commend all Council members for their tireless work and increased output. Nevertheless, we would stress quality over quantity. In particular, the Arria-formula meetings present an interesting case. The Arria-formula meeting was originally envisaged as a platform for the Council to discuss sensitive topics with the benefit of external briefers. But recent Arria-formula meetings appear to be more divisive than consultative. The opt-out nature of these meetings, together with the recent tendency to widely publicise them in a hyper-connected social media framework, risks creating echo chambers that further divide rather than unite the Council. We believe that the Arria-formula format remains relevant to promote frank discussions and shed light on emerging security challenges. Nevertheless, we hope that Council members will avoid politicising this tool.
Mr President,
8 To conclude, we call on all members to continue constructive engagement in improving the working methods of the Council with practical proposals. We look forward to the analytical summary of all statements and suggestions made at this debate, and we also look forward to further outcomes of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions under the able leadership of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
. . . . .