Highlights: The Permanent Representative of Italy, Ambassador C.M. Ragaglini, has expressed his concerns regarding the rigidity and the difficulties that an entrenchment of different positions may entail on the negotiations. To achieve concrete results, good will of all members is required: negotiations should not serve as a way to impose a solution. So far, Italy has always attested to a good faith, respect and trasparency through flexibility, the same flexibility that - if adopted by all the members - could bring to a turning point in the reform of the Security Council. Ambassador Ragaglini, recalling the firm commitment of Italy to a succesfull negotiating process, affirms the will to agree on principles to advance on such negotiations, but also the will to stand firmly against any action that aims at dividing the membership on the basis of non consensual approaches.
--------------------
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for convening this meeting focused on the third revision of the document.
Time has come to underline the principles agreed by the General Assembly in 2008 when the decision was taken to launch intergovernmental negotiations.
By resolution 62/557, this body established that negotiations would be based on “proposals by Member States, in good faith, mutual respect and in an open, inclusive and transparent manner”.
It also decided that the five key issues as a whole would be considered as a further basis for negotiations, thereby indicating the will to achieve a “package deal” on Security Council reform.
Ownership of the Members States remains therefore the paramount guideline for any advancement in the reform process. This means that any modification, regrouping or merging of positions must be membership driven.
Moreover, interlinkages among the five key issues must be always taken into account and this is not necessarily reflected in rev 3 of the document.
Finally, all positions are equal and have to be treated accordingly until everything is agreed.
These are the principles that have inspired the action of Italy, its UFC partners and like minded Countries over the past two years.
We have attested to our good faith, respect and transparency through our flexibility. By tabling a new proposal, aiming at reaching a genuine compromise, we sent a clear signal to the membership.
Every Member State is acquainted with our philosophy, which is reflected in the name of our Group “Uniting for Consensus”, where consensus stands for uniting, not dividing the UN. By advancing a new proposal, we combined such philosophy with a concrete offer to compromise.
Our flexibility is also reflected in the document. We expressed in writing our opinion of the third revision. We outlined our concerns in a constructive manner. Some have been addressed, others still need to be answered. Among these, let me recall the ones referring to the criteria applied to regrouping the document.
As you often stated, the idea of restructuring the document is to pool positions with potential commonalities in order to facilitate future negotiations. Following this logic, we do not understand why one part of the document – dedicated to the intermediate approach - starts out by reporting positions that are against it.
One other concern is the sequencing. Your first draft implied a logic whereby each cluster would commence with ''general statements'' followed by more specific positions. Yet, this logic was nowhere present in the first cluster, regarding categories. On the contrary, in the last draft we note that the logic has been reversed. All clusters now end with the ''general statements''.
We would appreciate if you could clarify the rationale behind these choices. We are convinced in fact that - while the second revision of the text fully reflected Members States’ positions and confirmed its nature as a reference text - this latter needs further clarification. And before thinking about a new document let’s legitimize this one first.
Mr. Chairman,
dialogue and flexibility, which are at the core of UFC’s action, have not been reciprocated in good faith so far and the idea of a “package deal” as envisaged by resolution 62/557 is being undermined.
To achieve concrete results, the negotiations require by all of us the will to discuss, compromise and negotiate.
If a deadlock should arise, Member States will have to address it, rather than exploit it to advance parallel agendas, as divisive ideas like a ''petition letter'' whose signature is proposed only to a part of the membership (as it was the case just mentioned by our German colleague). The essence of negotiating is creativity and readiness to compromise.
The document itself shows clearly that the membership is still divided.
Italy, its UFC partners and likeminded countries have realized this a long time ago. We moved forward with a fresh proposal that represents not a “take it or leave it” position, but rather a true starting point for negotiating.
The only answers we have received so far, however, are rigidity and an entrenchment of positions.
Negotiations should not serve as a tool to impose a solution. Negotiations should not be exploited when they serve such an objective only to be dropped once they become an obstacle.
The United Nations was conceived to unite, not to divide. We call on the membership, once again, to reciprocate our flexibility.
Mr. Chairman,
Once again, we have heard some Member States suggesting that an overwhelming majority would support enlargement in two categories.
Let me be clear on this point. The only way to measure a majority is to use numbers and I will use numbers emerging from the document:
First:
29 out of 45 (64% of the total) positions and paragraphs refer to expansion in non permanent, intermediate/interim or general statements. Only 16 are for enlargement in two categories (36% of the total).
Second:
6 of the 16 positions for expansion in two categories take note of the dead-lock and are open to intermediate/interim solutions. This brings to 10 (out of 45) the number of positions for two categories (22% of the total ) and to 35 the ones for intermediate/interim solutions (78% of the total).
Third:
the 22% of positions supporting enlargement in two categories include at least two groups (L69 and Africa) whose membership coincides significantly; to be more precise, among the 24 Member States that co-sponsored L69 in 2007, 9 (almost 40%) are African States....Double counting does not make ''overwhelming majorities''.....!
Finally,
China, France, Russia, UK and US have different positions. Considering the need for any amendment to the Charter to be ratified by the five Permanent Members, I hardly see an overwhelming majority in this camp as well.
Let me conclude by underlying two basic principles of the position of many States: the need for a reform that ensures more democracy and more equitable representation, including in terms of regional representation.
In this respect, we reiterate our comprehension of Africa’s legitimate need to be better represented in a reformed Security Council.
Africa’s strength lays in its common position as the most valuable leverage to influence future negotiations.
Ambiguous and misleading offers to the Continent are potentially divisive and instrumental to serve national ambitions, rather than the legitimate aspirations of the Group and the membership as a whole.
Any attempt to use shortcuts is bound to fail. Any artificial acceleration will bury the reform process in the years ahead and sow further divisions.
We will not be accomplices to such a maneuver.
We are ready to sit down and agree on principles to advance future negotiations.
We are looking for a compromise solution which will make the Council adaptable to the future and not only a reflection of the present or the past of the international relations.
While remaining strongly committed to the negotiating process, we will stand firmly against any action that aims at dividing the membership on the basis of non consensual approaches.
Thank you.
