安保理改革に関する政府間交渉（IGN）における山﨑大使ステートメント
令和6年5月20日
[ACTION 1]
Co-Chairs, I take the floor on behalf of the G4 – Brazil, Germany, India, and my own country, Japan.
We thank you for all the efforts to draft and revise this input to the Pact for the Future, and we have seen some improvement including shortening the document and refining the language.
However, there remain serious concerns which need to be addressed immediately.
As shown during the last Unformal, not a few delegations have questioned if some elements in the Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper are really “convergences.” Picking and choosing some points from the Elements Paper as “convergences” while ignoring nuances and differences is not acceptable, because doing so would fail to capture the reality of the ongoing debate in the IGN in its entirety.
Therefore, we strongly suggest not using the term “convergences” to avoid giving world leaders and the international public a false impression that all of those elements written under Action 1 have achieved consensus, which have not. This may undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the entire input.
Instead of “convergences,” we propose to just acknowledge “the current state of discussion,” and focus on facts with clear attribution based on meeting records on the repository website, which nobody can dispute.
In this regard, we acknowledge that “a significant, growing number of Member States support limitations to the scope and use of the veto.”
At the same time, however, we do not understand why you cannot simply acknowledge the proven fact regarding the expansion of both categories, which is another main issue of the entire discussion.
All of us participated in the active model discussion at the IGN this year, where we all witnessed the vigorous debate which clarified the positions of many groups and countries on this issue. This input for the Pact must not fail to grasp the core of the discussion on Security Council reform. Thus, instead of only mentioning an expansion of the 2-year term non-permanent category, we propose to acknowledge:
“a significant number of Member States, including the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4, the L69 Group, the Nordic Group, the Benelux Group and at least three permanent members, argue that reform should include an expansion in both the permanent category and the non-permanent category with 2-year term, whereas some Member States including the UfC Group argue for enlargement of non-permanent seats with 2-year term and/or longer term with the possibility of immediate re-election.”
Given the number of countries’ support, the two models I just mentioned are not on an equal footing – there is a wide gap of the amount of support between them. Not acknowledging this fact is favoring only one side.
We would also like to note that the realities of the contemporary world would also require adequate representation in the Security Council of those countries significantly contributing to international peace and security.
We do not agree that giving favorable consideration to any cross-regional group other than SIDS is acceptable to all.
Finally, we suggest that the wording of Action 1 be modified to more accurately reflect the language outlined in your Elements Paper. That document states that, and I quote, "the reform of the Security Council shall ensure an inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable functioning of the Council.”
I thank you.
We thank you for all the efforts to draft and revise this input to the Pact for the Future, and we have seen some improvement including shortening the document and refining the language.
However, there remain serious concerns which need to be addressed immediately.
As shown during the last Unformal, not a few delegations have questioned if some elements in the Co-Chairs’ Elements Paper are really “convergences.” Picking and choosing some points from the Elements Paper as “convergences” while ignoring nuances and differences is not acceptable, because doing so would fail to capture the reality of the ongoing debate in the IGN in its entirety.
Therefore, we strongly suggest not using the term “convergences” to avoid giving world leaders and the international public a false impression that all of those elements written under Action 1 have achieved consensus, which have not. This may undermine the legitimacy and credibility of the entire input.
Instead of “convergences,” we propose to just acknowledge “the current state of discussion,” and focus on facts with clear attribution based on meeting records on the repository website, which nobody can dispute.
In this regard, we acknowledge that “a significant, growing number of Member States support limitations to the scope and use of the veto.”
At the same time, however, we do not understand why you cannot simply acknowledge the proven fact regarding the expansion of both categories, which is another main issue of the entire discussion.
All of us participated in the active model discussion at the IGN this year, where we all witnessed the vigorous debate which clarified the positions of many groups and countries on this issue. This input for the Pact must not fail to grasp the core of the discussion on Security Council reform. Thus, instead of only mentioning an expansion of the 2-year term non-permanent category, we propose to acknowledge:
“a significant number of Member States, including the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4, the L69 Group, the Nordic Group, the Benelux Group and at least three permanent members, argue that reform should include an expansion in both the permanent category and the non-permanent category with 2-year term, whereas some Member States including the UfC Group argue for enlargement of non-permanent seats with 2-year term and/or longer term with the possibility of immediate re-election.”
Given the number of countries’ support, the two models I just mentioned are not on an equal footing – there is a wide gap of the amount of support between them. Not acknowledging this fact is favoring only one side.
We would also like to note that the realities of the contemporary world would also require adequate representation in the Security Council of those countries significantly contributing to international peace and security.
We do not agree that giving favorable consideration to any cross-regional group other than SIDS is acceptable to all.
Finally, we suggest that the wording of Action 1 be modified to more accurately reflect the language outlined in your Elements Paper. That document states that, and I quote, "the reform of the Security Council shall ensure an inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable functioning of the Council.”
I thank you.
[ACTION 2]
Co-Chairs, I take the floor on behalf of the G4 – Brazil, Germany, India, and my own country, Japan.
Given the fruitful discussion during this IGN session on models, we support the IGN Co-Chairs to “work toward elaborating a consolidated model based on the models presented by Member States as a basis for further discussions.”
We also understand the need for strengthening the function of the Office of the President of the General Assembly, as well as for logistical and substantive support from the UN Secretariat to the Co-Chairs, if these measures could help devising an “efficient and effective IGN process.”
At the same time, these measures should not be the goal itself. In this vein, we should mention our goals and timelines with a shared sense of urgency. We propose to include:
“looking ahead to the 80th anniversary of the United Nations in 2025, stress the urgency of the start of text-based negotiations on Security Council reform as soon as possible, with a view to achieving meaningful results.”
I thank you.
Given the fruitful discussion during this IGN session on models, we support the IGN Co-Chairs to “work toward elaborating a consolidated model based on the models presented by Member States as a basis for further discussions.”
We also understand the need for strengthening the function of the Office of the President of the General Assembly, as well as for logistical and substantive support from the UN Secretariat to the Co-Chairs, if these measures could help devising an “efficient and effective IGN process.”
At the same time, these measures should not be the goal itself. In this vein, we should mention our goals and timelines with a shared sense of urgency. We propose to include:
“looking ahead to the 80th anniversary of the United Nations in 2025, stress the urgency of the start of text-based negotiations on Security Council reform as soon as possible, with a view to achieving meaningful results.”
I thank you.
[ACTION 3]
Co-Chairs, I take the floor on behalf of the G4 – Brazil, Germany, India, and my own country, Japan.
Given the shared concern about the present situation, we take note of the consideration of the commitment not to use the veto including in cases of mass atrocity crimes.
The importance of strengthening cooperation and communication among UN organs is without doubt. Within their respective mandates in accordance with the UN Charter, we welcome an enhanced relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council on maintaining international peace and security, especially when the Council cannot fulfill its mandate for political reasons.
It is beneficial to enhance the participation of members of the GA in the work of the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies. As long as they are realistic and practicable, we are open to considering ways to further encourage such participation.
I thank you.
Given the shared concern about the present situation, we take note of the consideration of the commitment not to use the veto including in cases of mass atrocity crimes.
The importance of strengthening cooperation and communication among UN organs is without doubt. Within their respective mandates in accordance with the UN Charter, we welcome an enhanced relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council on maintaining international peace and security, especially when the Council cannot fulfill its mandate for political reasons.
It is beneficial to enhance the participation of members of the GA in the work of the Security Council and its subsidiary bodies. As long as they are realistic and practicable, we are open to considering ways to further encourage such participation.
I thank you.