|
|
|
1 Among the various issues under Security Council reform, the question of "composition" is perhaps the most complex and challenging. Many proposals have been put forward, and the difficulty of reconciling divergent positions cannot be overstated. 2 At this stage of our negotiations, it might be useful for us to take stock and consider how best to move forward. At our last meeting, there was a suggestion that we consider using an "empirical approach" as a basis to direct our discussions. This seems to suggest that the membership, and you by extension, will be asked to use the number of interventions in favour of or against specific proposals as a proxy to gauge support for the various options under discussion. While such an approach might be useful for informing our discussions, my delegation questions if it can go so far as to guide our negotiations. Indeed, by its very nature, any number would merely be an approximate snapshot of reality at this point in time, and subject to change according to shifts in position. Ultimately, the core principle for our negotiations must be that all proposals on the table are granted serious consideration and objectively examined on the basis of their merits. 3 Singapore's position on the composition of a reformed Security Council is well-known and I will not dwell too much on the details. We have consistently supported an expansion of the Council in both its permanent and non-permanent categories in order to better reflect geopolitical realities. Above all, we feel strongly that any reform should take into account the interests and concerns of small states, which form the majority of UN member states. Hence, there should be more two-year non-permanent seats so that small states have more opportunities to serve on the Council. All too often, discussions on Security Council reform tend to revolve around the interests of the larger and medium powers. Let us not forget the valuable and constructive contributions by small states during their stints as non-permanent members. 4 At our last meeting, my delegation had articulated our position on the so-called intermediate approach. To recapitulate, if the membership is prepared to go down the road of creating a new category of "intermediate" seats, Singapore is prepared to study it. However, we have not seen sufficient details of the "intermediate" approach for us to give it serious consideration. Different delegations seem to have different interpretations of what this so-called "intermediate" approach means. We cannot be expected to agree in-principle to an "intermediate" approach and to work out the details later. We must have sufficient clarity in terms of details before going down this route. 5 Moving on to the issue of regional representation, my delegation recalls the information charts circulated at our meeting on 24 March, to illustrate the current state of regional representation in the Security Council. For ease of reference, these Chart have once again been appended to our statement. The current distribution of seats is heavily skewed towards a particular regional group, while some regions remain under-represented. My delegation stands in solidarity with others who call for such under-representation of regions to be rectified. Ultimately, a more equitable distribution of seats can only strengthen the Council by enhancing its legitimacy and by extension its effectiveness with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. 6 A reform of regional representation should also address whether the composition of existing regional groups is congruent with geopolitical realities. For example, as we have stated before, the Asian Group includes a member that is also part of the EU. For another, the distinction between the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) and the Eastern European Group (EEG) may not be as meaningful in today's post-Cold War world. There has even been a suggestion from at least one delegation that there should be a seat in the UNSC for the Arab Group. Hence, it might be worthwhile to relook the composition of regional groups before we tackle the question of regional representation. 7 Lastly, on the question of size, while there is a need to strike an optimal balance between size and effectiveness when expanding the Council, we should also bear in mind that size alone does not determine effectiveness. The improvement of the Council's Working Methods is equally important. The S-5 has made concrete proposals in this regard and we hope that they can be examined in our future sessions. It is neither credible nor meaningful to undertake Council reform without striving to improve the working methods of the Security Council. Unless we are prepared to do that, SC reform in other areas, including composition, will not make much difference vis-à-vis the effectiveness of the Council. . . . . . |