Joint G4 statement by Brazil, Germany, India and Japan delivered by H.E. Ambassador ISHIKANE Kimihiro, Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations, at the Informal Meeting of the General Assembly on the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform

Co-Chairs,
 
Thank you for convening today’s IGN meeting. I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the G4 countries: Brazil, Germany, India and my own country Japan.
Let me begin by reiterating our goals for this session.
 

• By session’s end, we want to see a single text with attribution that can be the basis for text-based negotiations.
• Our discussion in the IGN should be focused on the text, rather than repeating positions again and again.
• In addition, we wish to normalize the IGN process in this session, with a webcast, a written record and the application of General Assembly rules of procedure.
• And we wish to use the whole calendar if needed and not limit ourselves to five meetings over just a few months.

 
Co-Chairs,
 
Turning to the specific topic of today’s meeting, in your letter dated 24 February, you requested our views on the question of regional representation and asked whether our views are adequately reflected in the two documents we have in our hands. Our position here is well known and often-repeated, and it is very hard to understand why we must repeat it again even though we clearly requested avoiding yet another discussion of the five clusters.
 
Nevertheless, since you asked, here is our view – yet again, being fully aware of all the other positions which have been expressed time and again and which will probably be repeated today as well!
 

• The G4 believes that, after 75 years, the Security Council must be expanded to reflect contemporary realities. In line with Article 23 of the Charter of the United Nations, this expansion should allow those who have the willingness and capacity to take on major responsibilities with regard to international peace and security to do so, and it should ensure equitable geographic distribution.
• Together with the overwhelming majority of the membership, the G4 supports expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent categories, which we believe is the only way to provide just and equitable regional representation.
• The G4 calls for new permanent members from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Western European and Others Group. New non-permanent seats would be allocated to Africa, Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean.
• In this connection, we would also encourage Member States and regional groups to give due consideration in the nomination and election process to adequate representation of small- and medium-sized countries from all regions, in particular the Small Island Developing States.

 
We are of the view that our position is well-reflected in the Framework document, such as in b.16, b.20, and b.29. We also find what seems to be some elements of our position reflected in the revised Commonality paper in 6j) of the “Issues for Further Consideration” section under Regional Representation. However, without clear attribution, it is difficult to clearly determine the level of support for the various positions.
 
Furthermore, as we indicated in our last meeting, the G4 supports the Common African Position as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. We hope the African Group’s request will be heeded and their position will be reflected.
 
We reiterate our request to you, Co-Chairs, to come up with a single document with attribution by moving the relevant elements from the Framework document over to the revised Commonality paper. We would be happy to provide you and colleagues with an example of such a text in order to arrive at a single outcome document with attribution, and we stand ready for further discussions based on this idea.
 
Co-Chairs,
 
I must also point out that, although the majority at our last meeting called for a webcast and a record of the meetings, there has not yet been any change for this meeting. At the end of our first meeting, it was indicated to us that the webcast would only be possible if no objection came from the floor. However, given the lack of clear rules of procedures to apply to the IGN -- if not the rules of procedure of the GA --   it is unclear to us on what grounds a proposal supported by a number of Member States can be turned down, due to opposition by only one or very few Member States? If a single Member State can veto any process change to the IGN, it would mean the IGN is a mere forum where we can only continue to talk without changing anything. It would be helpful in providing clarity to us all if you, Co-Chairs, could seek the necessary guidance from the Secretariat on this matter. We have also submitted a formal letter to the President of the General Assembly requesting a webcast and written record for future meetings.
 
Co-Chairs,
 
Let me conclude by once again emphasizing our call, shared by so many delegations here, who are as tired as we are of turning in circles for eternity, for a normalized IGN process and for a single text with attribution. At this time, each Member State must ask itself how it sees the current IGN process: a process to reform the Council or a process to maintain the status quo?
 
I thank you.