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日本ステートメント 2022/5/12
令和4年5月12日
(Check against delivery)
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,Thank you for convening this meeting. Japan aligns itself with the statement delivered by India on behalf of the G4. Please allow me to make additional remarks in my national capacity.
Madame and Mr. Co-Chairs,
I would like to share Japan's views in response to the four guiding questions you shared with us. Let me start by answering to your last question, question No. 4. on the need for attribution.
Many groups and Member States have clearly stated their positions during the cluster-by-cluster discussions in the IGN meetings and asked that they be so attributed. However, it is disconcerting that no attribution is appended to the proposals in each cluster. Instead, the only new attribution given is on the question of whether to proceed with text-based negotiations, which in our view, is not accurate since, the majority is calling for text-based negotiations.
Attribution should also be made on the points of disagreement in each cluster. Since the positions of each Member State and group are clearly stated in the Framework Document of 2015, one idea is to refer to this document to have more attributions reflected in the Revised Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper.
You asked us what the merit of attribution is. Attribution will improve the transparency of our work, enhance the institutional memory of the IGN, and help the Member States better understand each other's views, and it will be useful in clarifying what the points of disagreement are with a view to closing the gaps between them.
Especially, regarding the Divergences 1) of the cluster of “Category of membership”, many groups and Member States have clearly expressed their positions on options A through C. At the very least, Japan and the G4 support option A and we request the Co-Chairs to clearly attribute our position in the paper. I do not see any reason why such request cannot or should not be accommodated.
As clearly stated in Divergences 2), "a significant number of delegations argue that the enlargement should include both the permanent and non-permanent category." We believe that attribution should be added to this part to reflect the actual discussion in the IGN. We therefore encourage those groups and Member States, who support the expansion of both categories, to submit their requests to the Co-Chairs accordingly. Again, I do not see any reasons why such requests of the delegations regarding their own attribution cannot or should not be accommodated, given that the IGN is supposed to be a Member States-driven process, as all Member States agree. I do not see the point made by some Member States that attribution could be a hinderer to the process.
Second, responding to your questions No. 1 and No. 2.
I would like to commend the Co-Chairs for their continuous efforts to expand the areas of convergence in this working document. The document now clearly refers to the Common African Position accurately. In the convergences section of the cluster of “the question of the Veto”, you added the broad support for two initiatives on voluntary restraint of the use of the veto in certain cases: the ACT code of conduct and the French-Mexico political declaration. Japan supports this.
Regarding the Convergence 6) of the cluster of "regional representation" on page 10, further discussion and clarification is needed since the number of seats was never discussed, while we appreciate your efforts to seek greater convergence on this matter.
I would also like to react to your question No.3. We have been on a journey of expanding the Convergence for six years since the first Elements Paper was created in 2016. Some Member States have argued that text-based negotiations cannot take place unless there is general agreement on principles, but there can be no agreement on principles without a text to begin with. Here, we welcome the point made by Co-Chairs, “We would like to move closer to a more specific description of what these principles are”. Though some languages in the General Convergences of the Elements Paper still needs to be further discussed, with so many elements of general convergence already in place, we have enough common grounds to proceed to the next step, namely, text-based negotiation.
Third, let me emphasize again what I stated in the fifth meeting in the 75th session.
Regarding Convergence 9) , “that the IGN process is the legitimate and most appropriate platform”, I wish that the IGN process will operate in accordance with the usual practices and procedures of the GA so that it will become even more legitimate.
Most of the Member States fear that the IGN is losing its relevance due to the repetition of the same discussion year after year without any concrete progress. The IGN must regain its significance and become the most appropriate and result-oriented platform through our tireless efforts. I believe that this is possible. To that end, we emphasize the importance of having a single consolidated text with attribution as the basis of the IGN’s work.
And I hope you, Co-Chairs, will take well into account those comments that are being made and react in a constructive manner so that we can break the standstill and “instil new life” in the discussion on the reform of the Council.
I thank you.