Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would like to make a few remarks on what we’ve heard in these two days of negotiations. • Various Countries have rightly referred to the search for areas of convergence, an issue to which the next session will be dedicated. Also during this exchange the existence of clear areas of convergence between the different groups has been demonstrated: on the absolute need to reform the working methods and relations with the General Assembly; on the size of the Council; and on the deeply-felt need to continue to discuss decision-making mechanisms and a realistic limitation on the veto. At the same time sharp differences have been confirmed, starting with the issue of categories. Some delegations argue that there is a presumed majority in favor of an enlargement in both categories and add that this represents a convergence. Let us be quite clear in stating that this is the exact opposite of an area of convergence. If anything, it is an attempt to measure presumed levels of support for something that is not a model but a pure abstraction. The concept of an enlargement in both categories actually contains many different models. And this has been confirmed once again during this session.
• Mr. Chair, the attempt to quantify support or to go to straw polls, as some delegations requested, is in reality an attempt to overcome the two third majority rule of the formal plenary of the GA - and we have heard, also during this session, that some Member States consider even the two third not enough for a sound, durable reform of the Council. Trying to quantify presumed support means forcing the issue in a manner that is contrary to the spirit of negotiation. To count the votes for various models, as we have repeated on many occasions, there is the formal plenary of the General Assembly. In this forum, however, our duty is to seek negotiated solutions among Member States.
• Some delegations argued the advisability of adopting a partial reform, i.e., a reform only of some aspects, leaving the rest open. We wish to emphasize, however, that this is the recipe not for a true reform of the Security Council but for the creation of a completely dysfunctional body. All for the sake of satisfying the interests of a small group of Countries. Our goal, as many delegations have repeated here, is to give life to a Security Council that is truly more representative and effective. Not to simply add a few more nameplates around the table.
• There have been many appeals to further explore intermediate approaches as possible compromise solutions. We fully endorse these requests. But one point must be clear: the intermediate approach should be a compromise approach that leads to a compromise solution. Some delegations, for example, envisioned intermediate models that could pave the way to new permanent seats. These are not proposals that we are willing to consider. It is one thing to talk about a genuine intermediate model; it is quite another, instead, to talk about a perhaps gradual reform that will lead to the creation of new national permanent seats, which for us is unacceptable.
• Some colleagues, Mr. Chair, have mentioned the recent entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. We wish to endorse this reference. Within the framework of the European Union but also of international relations as a whole, this is a fundamental political transition that further increases the integration of the European Union, also in terms of its external projection. It is high time to seriously consider such major developments in the reform process of the Security Council.
• Finally, Mr. Chair, with reference to the statement of the distinguished Permanent Representative of Colombia, Ambassador Blum, we wish to endorse her proposal to formalize as an official document of this informal plenary the platform presented last April. This is a further sign of our commitment to tabling new proposals and negotiating. But it is also time for other groups to do the same. And we hope that our move will encourage other delegations to do likewise. The alternative, otherwise, is that we all return to our original proposals, which would represent a big step backward for this negotiation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.