By Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti
Mr. Chairman,
Thank you for convening this meeting to consider the categories of membership in the Security Council.
This is the last of the five key issues we have addressed during this fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations. We appreciate the commitment demonstrated by Member States that have been actively engaged in this exercise to achieve our common goal of a successful reform.
We believe the section of the text on categories of membership can be reorganized in three broad sets of proposals for an enlarged Council.
First and foremost, it is not difficult to unequivocally identify a large number of proposals in favour of expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. The view that reforming the Security Council requires an increase in the number of permanent seats is common to the African Group, the Caribbean Community, the L.69 group, the G-4, and many others.
Secondly, other proposals suggest the creation of new categories of seats, usually having longer mandates and modalities yet to be determined. These proposals may be combined in a way that would improve our understanding of the significance of such proposed changes in the present configuration of the Security Council.
Thirdly, there are proposals that envisage expansion only in the existing category of non-permanent seats, with two-year mandates. Such proposals could be merged for the sake of conciseness of the text.
Mr. Chairman,
If we consider all the positions submitted by groups or by Member States and, additionally, the number of countries that support each of the proposals, it becomes clear that the vast majority of Member States has a preference for an expansion in the two categories of permanent and non-permanent members, with developing and developed countries adequately represented in both.
In our view, the reasons for this overwhelming preference are also very clear. They derive from a recognition that the key aspect of the reform is to bring the Security Council in line with today's political realities. In so doing, the reform will enhance its representativeness, legitimacy and effectiveness.
The current permanent members are limited to those of 1945. If we are serious about bringing the Security Council into the 21st century, this state of affairs must be changed. Any other option would leave the status quo untouched and have an undesired impact in the long-term legitimacy and viability of the body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.
In the same vein, for the Security Council to reflect the dramatic expansion of the UN membership since 1945, more non-permanent seats are needed, in particular for developing countries.
Expanding both categories is, therefore, what is needed and what the vast majority calls for in order to eliminate the mismatch between the outdated structure of the Council and today's complex, challenging world.
Mr. Chairman,
As we approach the end of this fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations, according to the timetable you have outlined, I wish to reaffirm the support of my delegation to your diligent work.
Allow me also to express our readiness to continue this negotiating process on the basis of a revised, shorter version of the text, following what you had rightfully anticipated as the next logic step forward.
Thank you.
