安保理改革に関する政府間交渉会合における石兼大使によるステートメント
令和3年1月26日
(Check against delivery)
Thank you for giving me the floor. Japan aligns itself with the G4 statement delivered by my colleague Ambassador Christoph Heusgen of Germany. Please allow me to add some remarks in my national capacity.
Madam Co-Chairs,
Japan welcomes the resumption of the IGN despite the ongoing challenges of COVID-19. It is no doubt that there is an urgent need to improve the legitimacy, effectiveness, and representativeness of the Security Council. Last September, our Leaders committed in the declaration commemorating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations to “instill new life” in the discussions on the Security Council reform. Now is the time to fulfill this commitment and reinvigorate our work here.
Madam Co-Chairs,
In response to the request in your letter dated 8 December 2020, let me quickly reiterate Japan’s position on the cluster of “regional representation”.
First, Japan believes that 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 capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to international peace and security to do so, and it should ensure equitable geographic distribution.
Second, Japan supports expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent categories, which we believe is the only way to provide just and equitable regional representation.
Third, Japan calls for new permanent members from Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Western European and Others Group. New non-permanent seats should be allocated to Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Due consideration should be given in the nomination and election process to adequate representation of small- and medium-sized countries from all regions, in particular, Small Island Developing States.
Fourth, Japan supports the Common African Position as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration.
Madam Co-Chairs,
Now, I would like to ask you and all the representatives the critical question: how can we “instill new life” in our discussions? How can we overcome the current deadlock in the IGN, where the same discussions are repeated every year without being documented and rolled over to the next session with no progress? If we are to continue in the same way even in this anniversary session, we cannot expect any “new life” in the discussion, but rather a continued torpor.
Madam Co-Chairs,
You also invited us to share our views on possible ways to improve the IGN process. I have a clear answer: during this session, we need to change the way we operate in two keyways.
First, the modalities of the IGN should be improved so that the process will become more open, transparent, and inclusive. Specifically, we should apply the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure to the IGN process. Official records should be kept, and a live webcast should be introduced. The IGN must transform itself from a discussion forum into a legitimate negotiation process, worthy of its name.
Second, IGN discussions should be outcome-oriented, and, to that end, text-based negotiations should begin without delay. I would like to reiterate our request to the Co-Chairs to create a single document by the end of this session, which will serve as the basis of our future negotiations.
As requested by the L69 group to the PGA in their letter dated 29 October 2020, this effort should be done by updating the “revised elements paper on commonality and issues for further consideration” which was circulated on 7 June 2019, after each round of upcoming IGN meetings. The attribution of positions to each Member State must be introduced into the IGN single document.
This proposal is not devised to give advantage to the position of any specific group or country, nor to prejudge the outcome of the IGN.
I heard yesterday from some friends of UFC say that there are texts in front of us submitted by UFC or by other groups, that could be discussed one by one if we so wish. Or it is not the lack of a document that makes opinion convergence difficult but it is the existence of wide divergence itself to which G4 group is clinging to. But is it really so? Are there any documents officially recorded and acknowledged with attribution as such? I think answer is no. That is why we are repeating the same discussion every year. Our proposal is to make single document, or whatever you may call it, a material that combines those different ideas of different groups or member states, which is updated after each discussion and with attribution and with which we no longer need to repeat the same arguments as we are doing fo many years and with which we can really contemplate how we can converge our differences in transparent manner. Let us be clear. G4, contrary to the blame put on us, is not imposing our views to others in coming up with such a document. Our point is that, without having a document as I depicted now, no serious efforts to converge the differences or forge larger consensus can even get started, which, I have to say, is against the spirit of instilling new life.
Madam Co-chairs,
We hope that you will be able to take these positive steps to ensure that this 75th anniversary session will be a fruitful one. Rest assured, Co-Chairs, that you will have our full support throughout this session.
I thank you.
Madam Co-Chairs,
Japan welcomes the resumption of the IGN despite the ongoing challenges of COVID-19. It is no doubt that there is an urgent need to improve the legitimacy, effectiveness, and representativeness of the Security Council. Last September, our Leaders committed in the declaration commemorating the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations to “instill new life” in the discussions on the Security Council reform. Now is the time to fulfill this commitment and reinvigorate our work here.
Madam Co-Chairs,
In response to the request in your letter dated 8 December 2020, let me quickly reiterate Japan’s position on the cluster of “regional representation”.
First, Japan believes that 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 capacity and willingness to take on major responsibilities with regard to international peace and security to do so, and it should ensure equitable geographic distribution.
Second, Japan supports expansion in both permanent and nonpermanent categories, which we believe is the only way to provide just and equitable regional representation.
Third, Japan calls for new permanent members from Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Western European and Others Group. New non-permanent seats should be allocated to Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Eastern Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Due consideration should be given in the nomination and election process to adequate representation of small- and medium-sized countries from all regions, in particular, Small Island Developing States.
Fourth, Japan supports the Common African Position as stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration.
Madam Co-Chairs,
Now, I would like to ask you and all the representatives the critical question: how can we “instill new life” in our discussions? How can we overcome the current deadlock in the IGN, where the same discussions are repeated every year without being documented and rolled over to the next session with no progress? If we are to continue in the same way even in this anniversary session, we cannot expect any “new life” in the discussion, but rather a continued torpor.
Madam Co-Chairs,
You also invited us to share our views on possible ways to improve the IGN process. I have a clear answer: during this session, we need to change the way we operate in two keyways.
First, the modalities of the IGN should be improved so that the process will become more open, transparent, and inclusive. Specifically, we should apply the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure to the IGN process. Official records should be kept, and a live webcast should be introduced. The IGN must transform itself from a discussion forum into a legitimate negotiation process, worthy of its name.
Second, IGN discussions should be outcome-oriented, and, to that end, text-based negotiations should begin without delay. I would like to reiterate our request to the Co-Chairs to create a single document by the end of this session, which will serve as the basis of our future negotiations.
As requested by the L69 group to the PGA in their letter dated 29 October 2020, this effort should be done by updating the “revised elements paper on commonality and issues for further consideration” which was circulated on 7 June 2019, after each round of upcoming IGN meetings. The attribution of positions to each Member State must be introduced into the IGN single document.
This proposal is not devised to give advantage to the position of any specific group or country, nor to prejudge the outcome of the IGN.
I heard yesterday from some friends of UFC say that there are texts in front of us submitted by UFC or by other groups, that could be discussed one by one if we so wish. Or it is not the lack of a document that makes opinion convergence difficult but it is the existence of wide divergence itself to which G4 group is clinging to. But is it really so? Are there any documents officially recorded and acknowledged with attribution as such? I think answer is no. That is why we are repeating the same discussion every year. Our proposal is to make single document, or whatever you may call it, a material that combines those different ideas of different groups or member states, which is updated after each discussion and with attribution and with which we no longer need to repeat the same arguments as we are doing fo many years and with which we can really contemplate how we can converge our differences in transparent manner. Let us be clear. G4, contrary to the blame put on us, is not imposing our views to others in coming up with such a document. Our point is that, without having a document as I depicted now, no serious efforts to converge the differences or forge larger consensus can even get started, which, I have to say, is against the spirit of instilling new life.
Madam Co-chairs,
We hope that you will be able to take these positive steps to ensure that this 75th anniversary session will be a fruitful one. Rest assured, Co-Chairs, that you will have our full support throughout this session.
I thank you.