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G4ステートメント
令和4年3月16日
(Check against delivery)
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the G4 – Brazil, Germany, India and my own country, Japan. The G4 thanks you for convening this third round of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform.
We appreciate the balanced and inclusive approach you have taken so far in order to systematically gather positions on all relevant aspects of our joint task at hand. We also appreciate your commitment to revising the “Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper” and take note of your oral reflections at the end of our last meeting.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
The G4 has made its position clear, but we are happy to repeat it yet once again: The final outcome of any reform negotiations will, naturally, remain open for the foreseeable future. What should not remain open any longer, however, is the start of actual text-based negotiations. This will remain the G4’s focus in this IGN.
It may appear baffling - also to outsiders - that the overwhelming majority of countries agrees on the need to advance Security Council reform, as stated in the first of your oral reflections, co-chairs. But still this forum has, during its years of existence, only taken baby steps and then routinely returned to “square one”.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
Today’s three sub-items are highly pertinent, because they complete the picture we have jointly begun sketching during the last meeting:
First, on the size of an enlarged Security Council:
As noted in the “Elements Paper”, there appears to be a convergence that the total number of members in a reformed Council should be somewhere in the mid-20s. This is a good point of reference. It reflects the shared conviction that the Council needs to be duly enlarged in order to be more representative of the current UN membership.
This question is, of course strongly linked to the issue of “categories of membership” that we discussed in the last meeting. The G4 is of the firm conviction that the addition of new members, both permanent and non-permanent, is an urgent task from the past that we owe to the present and future.
As it is well known, the G4 proposes to add six new permanent seats and four to five non-permanent seats. This would bring the total number up to 25 or 26 members.
Secondly, on the Working Methods of the Security Council:
I would like to start with a general remark: It is sometimes argued that a larger Council, with more permanent seats, might be more representative, but certainly less effective. We beg to differ. We have seen a number of times over the past years that the current Council is all too often unable to discharge its role as a central pillar of international peace and security – not because it of its size per se.
More specifically, the G4 subscribes to the position shared by many, also mentioned as such in the “Elements Paper”, that the number of affirmative votes necessary for a Council decision should be in line with current practice – in the G4 proposal, that would lead to a requirement of 14 affirmative votes.
The G4 also reiterates its commitment to a reformed Council that is more transparent, inclusive and accountable in its regular work.
The Council should therefore be encouraged to meet, as a general rule, in a public format and, in particular, to hold more open debates.
Such developments would, in our view, improve the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. This brings me to our third issue, on which we would like to highlight the following:
The G4 would welcome a more comprehensive and sustained engagement between the two bodies, in particular through:
-Regular consultations between the President of the General Assembly and the Council;
-More substantive, analytical reporting by the Council in its annual report the General Assembly; and
-More special reports by the Council to the General Assembly.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
In line with our current practice, we will also submit our positions in writing, in order to facilitate the process of attributing positions to states or groups.
Let me reiterate once again that we request to revise and update the “Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper” to reflect the positions of each group and Member State through attribution based on their respective interventions during the IGN session.
I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the G4 – Brazil, Germany, India and my own country, Japan. The G4 thanks you for convening this third round of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform.
We appreciate the balanced and inclusive approach you have taken so far in order to systematically gather positions on all relevant aspects of our joint task at hand. We also appreciate your commitment to revising the “Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper” and take note of your oral reflections at the end of our last meeting.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
The G4 has made its position clear, but we are happy to repeat it yet once again: The final outcome of any reform negotiations will, naturally, remain open for the foreseeable future. What should not remain open any longer, however, is the start of actual text-based negotiations. This will remain the G4’s focus in this IGN.
It may appear baffling - also to outsiders - that the overwhelming majority of countries agrees on the need to advance Security Council reform, as stated in the first of your oral reflections, co-chairs. But still this forum has, during its years of existence, only taken baby steps and then routinely returned to “square one”.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
Today’s three sub-items are highly pertinent, because they complete the picture we have jointly begun sketching during the last meeting:
First, on the size of an enlarged Security Council:
As noted in the “Elements Paper”, there appears to be a convergence that the total number of members in a reformed Council should be somewhere in the mid-20s. This is a good point of reference. It reflects the shared conviction that the Council needs to be duly enlarged in order to be more representative of the current UN membership.
This question is, of course strongly linked to the issue of “categories of membership” that we discussed in the last meeting. The G4 is of the firm conviction that the addition of new members, both permanent and non-permanent, is an urgent task from the past that we owe to the present and future.
As it is well known, the G4 proposes to add six new permanent seats and four to five non-permanent seats. This would bring the total number up to 25 or 26 members.
Secondly, on the Working Methods of the Security Council:
I would like to start with a general remark: It is sometimes argued that a larger Council, with more permanent seats, might be more representative, but certainly less effective. We beg to differ. We have seen a number of times over the past years that the current Council is all too often unable to discharge its role as a central pillar of international peace and security – not because it of its size per se.
More specifically, the G4 subscribes to the position shared by many, also mentioned as such in the “Elements Paper”, that the number of affirmative votes necessary for a Council decision should be in line with current practice – in the G4 proposal, that would lead to a requirement of 14 affirmative votes.
The G4 also reiterates its commitment to a reformed Council that is more transparent, inclusive and accountable in its regular work.
The Council should therefore be encouraged to meet, as a general rule, in a public format and, in particular, to hold more open debates.
Such developments would, in our view, improve the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. This brings me to our third issue, on which we would like to highlight the following:
The G4 would welcome a more comprehensive and sustained engagement between the two bodies, in particular through:
-Regular consultations between the President of the General Assembly and the Council;
-More substantive, analytical reporting by the Council in its annual report the General Assembly; and
-More special reports by the Council to the General Assembly.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
In line with our current practice, we will also submit our positions in writing, in order to facilitate the process of attributing positions to states or groups.
Let me reiterate once again that we request to revise and update the “Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper” to reflect the positions of each group and Member State through attribution based on their respective interventions during the IGN session.