|
|
|
1 As we begin a second round of inter-governmental negotiations on Security Council reform, my delegation would like to express our appreciation to you for having so skilfully steered us through a very comprehensive first round. We covered a significant amount of ground after a thorough exchange of views on this complex subject. It should be evident to all of us that UNSC reform is like trying to pin down a multi-headed hydra. Thus we appreciate your efforts, Mr Chairman, to help our task by proposing a way forward in your overview paper of 18 May 2009. We have read it carefully and we support your suggestion to examine the possible connections between the key issues of UNSC reform. When we are dealing with a many-headed beast, seeking that element of convergence among the key issues is indeed the crux of the matter. 2 It will probably be difficult to find a convergence of views on the first of your four proposed categories, namely, "composition". There were intense discussions in the first round on the question of expansion and categories of membership but divisions remain deep, especially over the issue of new permanent members. While Singapore supports an expansion of the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories to better reflect geopolitical realities, we also recognise the preference of some delegations to submit the performance of any candidate for a new permanent seat to a challenge or review process. This is practical. It allows Member States to scrutinise the performance of these candidates, and it encourages their accountability to the wider membership. To be helpful, my delegation had suggested at our 4 March 2009 meeting that aspiring candidates must pass three reviews spaced, say, ten years apart. If they got through all three reviews, then they have perhaps clearly staked a solid claim for permanent membership. We saw this as a possible way to bridge the gap between divergent positions among the membership. Hence we are happy to support you, Mr Chairman, in your proposal to use the concept of review as a nexus to manage SC reform. 3 But, I must also stress that Singapore does not support the idea of having a review process for its own sake. This alone does not constitute reform. The ultimate goal of a review process must be to add rigour and credibility to the process of creating new permanent seats. We therefore have reservations over the so-called "intermediate approach", which proposes the creation of a new category of longer-term, renewable seats and which subjects aspiring countries to regular challenges without any prospect of them attaining a permanent seat. 4 That said, my delegation has previously said that we are prepared to study the so-called intermediate approach. Nonetheless, it is equally important that any proposal contains safeguards that take into account the interests of the majority of UN membership, namely, the small states. For example, my delegation has suggested a "time-bar" to restrict countries from "flip-flopping" between categories of membership to the detriment of small states. While there have been attempts by some delegations to spell out the nuts-and-bolts of the intermediate approach, the details remain scanty and what is currently on the table does not inspire much confidence. So far, what we have heard sounds less like reform and more like a siren song that panders to the ambitions of large and medium-sized countries. Hence, until we see full details of what exactly constitutes an intermediate approach, Singapore will not be in a position to consider this proposal seriously. 5 Given the lack of clarity on the intermediate approach, my delegation finds it rather disturbing that a few permanent members have been strongly pushing for it as a way forward. It makes us wonder what their game plan is. Are they perhaps aiming for a "quick fix" so that they can wash their hands of the question of UNSC reform? If so, it is unacceptable. Even if we have yet to agree on details, the first round clearly reflected a common desire for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, which cannot be reduced to cosmetic changes that ignore the wishes of the wider UN membership. On that note, we prefer to stay on track and focus on taming the beast. Let us end the mythical quality of SC reform and find concrete and serious options for comprehensive reform. Let us holistically address all related issues, including the S-5 proposals on the veto and Working Methods, based on their merits. We hope that further progress can be achieved on these issues during this second round of negotiations. In this context, we stand ready to participate actively and constructively in this round. . . . . . |