By Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for convening this meeting and for your letter dated 17 June.
Before addressing the three issues before us today, I would like to briefly express my delegation's satisfaction with two important features of our last meeting. The first one is that approximately two-thirds of the delegations which intervened expressed their clear support for the expansion of the Security Council in both categories. This is very encouraging. The second aspect of last session that I wish to mention is the wide and sincere support extended to you and the work you have been doing by many delegations. We join our voice to theirs once again.
Today, just as on 11 June, my delegation does not intend to repeat its well-known positions in full, but rather indicate to you our preferences among the options you mentioned in your overview. By so doing, we hope to help you identify where the majority lies in each of the issues under consideration.
On the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, we support all positions and suggestions referred to under paragraph 15, in particular the need for strict adherence to the functions and powers of each of those organs, as set out in the Charter.
With regard to veto, our position is reflected, in general terms, in paragraph 16.a.ii of the overview. Brazil continues to hold the view that new permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations as the current permanent members. However, new permanent members should not exercise the right of veto until the question of its extension to new permanent members has been decided in the framework of a review, which would consider the situation created by the reform.
Such position takes into account the following aspects:
a. As a matter of principle, all permanent members should have the same responsibilities and obligations, thus reflecting a balanced and equitable representation on the Council. That is why Brazil fully understands and respects the position of the African Union regarding the question of the veto.
b. However, given the difficulties in this most sensitive issue, addressing the question of the extension of the right of veto to new permanent members could benefit from the actual experience accumulated with the addition of new permanent members.
c. In light of such experience, in a number of years, conditions may be met for the membership to make a final decision on the issue.
d. Such process would be made easier if the new permanent members accepted not to exercise the right of veto until a final decision is made in a review conference.
Regarding the working methods of the Council, there is ample agreement that we must ensure the maximum transparency and access possible to non-members. That is why we could support all measures mentioned under paragraph 17 of your overview.
Mr. Chairman,
Since this is our last session of the second round, I wish to briefly refer to our next steps. In my delegation's view, a few guidelines should help structure our work in the upcoming round. The first one is that the next phase should not repeat the previous ones. It is time to move to a truly negotiating mode. The second principle would be that we should now focus on those proposals that gather the widest support. A final criterium could be that, in conceiving the third phase, we bear in mind a possible outcome of the negotiating process by the end of current session.
In light of the foregoing, we suggest that you prepare a revised version of your overview which would allow for a more intense and detailed discussion of the fewer options left under each of the key issues. On the basis of such text, delegations would seek to eliminate their differences where possible and, where this is not feasible, give you elements to spell out in more specific terms the opposing views.
I hope these brief comments prove useful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to our collective endeavour to secure a meaningful reform of the Security Council.
Thank you very much.
