Statement 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

 
Madam Co-Chairs,
 
Japan aligns itself with the G4 statement delivered by my German colleague, Ambassador Christoph Heusgen Allow me to add some points in my national capacity.
 
We appreciate your dedicated work in creating the draft of 29 April 2021. I understand that you have created this document to replace the revised elements paper of 2019. However, I am obliged to register Japan’s concern and some reservations.
 
Madam Co-Chairs,
 
In our last meeting, a number of Member States requested that the Co-Chairs create a single consolidated document with attribution. However, your draft maintains its approach of not specifying the attribution. You have added attribution on the last page regarding regional representation, but in our view, this is not sufficient.
 
Attribution is essential to raising the credibility and accountability of the outcome document. I don’t see any reasons why we cannot do that especially when the delegates wishes it be done so. It will stop the repetition of the same statements, will improve the transparency of our work, and will greatly help the Member States better understand each other's views. By contrast, due to the lack of adequate attribution, this draft leaves much doubt about whether its contents accurately reflect the views of the membership.
 
Madam Co-Chairs,
 
I also have some comments about the accuracy of the updates made in the new text. We will submit our concrete comments in writing, but I would like to take this opportunity to raise some of them.
 

1. On page 3, in number 4) of the “Convergences”, you have added a reference to Africa. Since the last session, we have witnessed the broad support by an overwhelming majority of the Member States for the “Common African Position” as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. This fact should be reflected in the text with more accurate language.

 

2. On page 3, number 8), goes “that the IGN process is the legitimate and most appropriate platform”. This part should be deleted. Rather, a majority of the Member States fear that the IGN is losing its legitimacy due to the repetition of the same discussion year after year without any concrete progress. The IGN has to regain its legitimacy and become the most appropriate platform through our tireless efforts. It is possible. For that purpose, we  emphasize the importance of  having a single consolidated text with attribution as the basis of its work and the application of  the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly. Yes, procedural matters for the IGN to reinvigorate its legitimacy.

 

3. As you have correctly added in the last page, the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4 and the L69 propose the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats. This is not “some Member States” as you have put it in this last page but a significant majority of Member States. The Security Council must be expanded in both categories of membership to allow those who have the capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to international peace and security . At the same time, the manner of attribution in the text should be modified to reflect more accurately each group’s position.

 
Madam Co-Chairs,
 
Japan stands ready to continue our work to move forward on the paper you prepared. But today’s meeting cannot be the end of our consideration of Security Council reform in this session. I humbly request you to consider today's discussion and the comments submitted by the Member States, and to continue helping us create the outcome document that reflects accurately our discussions during this session and to be rolled over to the next session so that the next session can start its deliberation where we exactly stand now.
 
With all concerns I have expressed, the document can be significantly improved by taking that into account the various constructive comments put forward today. To refrain from contributing to the improvement of this paper, I am afraid, will be tantamount to lose opportunity to instil new life and to regain the legitimacy of the IGN.
 
I thank you.