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
2023/5/4
(As delivered)
Japan fully aligns with Brazil’s statement on behalf of the G4. Please allow me to make additional remarks in my national capacity.
First of all, let me echo others in expressing our deep respect and appreciation to you, Co-chairs, for your sincere and tireless efforts to revise the Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper. We also welcome the positive, tangible initiatives you have made in this session, including introducing a webcast, establishing a repository website, and potentially starting your annual dialogue with the IWG Chair on improving the working methods of the Security Council.
At the same time, however, we must go still further. Plucking low-hanging fruit is a good step, but we have to redouble our efforts to negotiate on such important issues as categories of membership, regional representation, and the question of the veto. To be frank, despite a series of interactive discussions and informal-informals, each Member State has not moved even an inch from its rigid position. Even if there is goodwill, we cannot negotiate because there is no text on which to negotiate. Without delay, we must start text-based discussions, word by word, sentence by sentence, building on the convergences that the Revised Co-Chairs’ Paper identifies. As the next step, we would strongly urge you, Co-Chairs, to guide us towards real negotiations based on a text.
Distinguished colleagues,
We have been updating the Co-Chairs' Elements Paper for almost seven years. When I compared the first version from 2016 with the current draft, I found that it looks remarkably similar, with little change in substance. Shall we continue this forever?
But on the other hand, if we look at the positive side, we have already identified enough convergences over the past seven years. This is not a goal, but rather a starting point for text-based negotiations toward a draft resolution as a final outcome. Time has come.
I would kindly ask the Co-Chairs to lead us out of the endless search for “perfect” convergences or “consensus” in order to move forward.
Co-Chairs,
As my Brazilian colleague reminded us, an expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories is supported by a wide majority of Member States and groups, including the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4, the L69, four of the five permanent members, and more.
As for the question of the veto, new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations that the current permanent members do. At the same time, we welcome the commitment of France and the U.K. to voluntarily refrain from the use of the veto in the Council in cases of mass atrocity crimes, and that of the United States except in rare and extraordinary circumstances. Japan stresses the importance of implementing A/RES/76/262 in good faith. We believe these points should be included in the Revised Co-Chairs’ Paper as well.
We look forward to concrete negotiations in a constructive manner.
I thank you.
First of all, let me echo others in expressing our deep respect and appreciation to you, Co-chairs, for your sincere and tireless efforts to revise the Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper. We also welcome the positive, tangible initiatives you have made in this session, including introducing a webcast, establishing a repository website, and potentially starting your annual dialogue with the IWG Chair on improving the working methods of the Security Council.
At the same time, however, we must go still further. Plucking low-hanging fruit is a good step, but we have to redouble our efforts to negotiate on such important issues as categories of membership, regional representation, and the question of the veto. To be frank, despite a series of interactive discussions and informal-informals, each Member State has not moved even an inch from its rigid position. Even if there is goodwill, we cannot negotiate because there is no text on which to negotiate. Without delay, we must start text-based discussions, word by word, sentence by sentence, building on the convergences that the Revised Co-Chairs’ Paper identifies. As the next step, we would strongly urge you, Co-Chairs, to guide us towards real negotiations based on a text.
Distinguished colleagues,
We have been updating the Co-Chairs' Elements Paper for almost seven years. When I compared the first version from 2016 with the current draft, I found that it looks remarkably similar, with little change in substance. Shall we continue this forever?
But on the other hand, if we look at the positive side, we have already identified enough convergences over the past seven years. This is not a goal, but rather a starting point for text-based negotiations toward a draft resolution as a final outcome. Time has come.
I would kindly ask the Co-Chairs to lead us out of the endless search for “perfect” convergences or “consensus” in order to move forward.
Co-Chairs,
As my Brazilian colleague reminded us, an expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories is supported by a wide majority of Member States and groups, including the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4, the L69, four of the five permanent members, and more.
As for the question of the veto, new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations that the current permanent members do. At the same time, we welcome the commitment of France and the U.K. to voluntarily refrain from the use of the veto in the Council in cases of mass atrocity crimes, and that of the United States except in rare and extraordinary circumstances. Japan stresses the importance of implementing A/RES/76/262 in good faith. We believe these points should be included in the Revised Co-Chairs’ Paper as well.
We look forward to concrete negotiations in a constructive manner.
I thank you.