Mr. President, Thank you for convening this meeting of the General Assembly, which allows us to discuss the critical matter of how to make the Security Council more effective, representative and democratic.
As an elected member of the Security Council, I would also like to thank Ambassador Urbina and Ambassador Minh and commend them on the annual report presented today. The Council Presidency is working for greater openness and transparency, a goal we fully support. This brings me shortly to the great effort done in improving working methods. The Permanent Representative of Costa Rica in his presentation stated, “We should strive to advance the cause of transparency, access and accountability.”
To this I would add redressing the imbalance between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Areas for improvement include: fuller access to the Security Council; better and more regular communications from the Council to the general membership; more thematic debates in the General Assembly; more detailed annual reports to the GA; more frequent and substantial public meetings; and a system to prevent overlap and assure transparency in the subsidiary bodies.  Mr. President, As we can read in the report presented today, in the Council’s daily efforts to address threats to peace and security, we see growing attention to conflict prevention and mediation; the protection of civilians in peacekeeping operation mandates; and the issue of protection of human rights as a contribution to security. Mr. President,
I shall now focus my comments on the report of the Open-Ended Working Group, looking first at matters of procedure, and then at matters of substance.  
Together with a significant group of Countries, Italy has for three years now been a promoter of Uniting for Consensus. We believe that reforms which amend the Charter, alter binding agreements on peace and security, and modify or create key United Nations bodies can only become a viable reality if every Member State has ownership.
The most important reforms in the history of the United Nations have been approved by consensus or by an overwhelming majority. Let me give you a few examples:
the creation of the Human Rights Council, the Peace Building Commission, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the ad hoc Committee and the Preparatory Committee for the International Criminal Court, the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
In short, every major diplomatic initiative to substantially modify existing institutional frameworks has been preceded by general agreements to convene preparatory works, on the clear understanding that all relevant decisions would be taken by consensus. So how can we possibly imagine a restructuring of the Security Council – the supreme body to safeguard international peace and security – at the service of a mere handful of Member States?
Mr. President,
At the beginning of the current General Assembly, the Security Council reform process entered a new phase with Decision 62/557 of 15 September, establishing aims, a procedure and a sequence. The task of the Open-Ended Working Group at this juncture is clear: to immediately address the framework and the modalities, so as to prepare and facilitate the intergovernmental negotiations in the informal session of the General Assembly.
But these negotiations have to be urgently prepared in the Open-Ended Working Group, which needs to map out clear rules and procedures to guarantee a fair and level playing field. This will in turn guarantee objective and impartial intergovernmental negotiations, characterized by openness, inclusiveness and transparency. What we propose, in short, is a democratic platform to reach a democratic result.
Mr. President,
Turning now to matters of substance, the Report of the Open-Ended Working Group and its Annexes give a wide variety of perspectives on the exercise.
In the Annexes there is a constant refrain on the need to consider the regional dimension in Security Council reform, such as in the letters addressed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, by the Arab Group, and by the Facilitator’s Report.
The Security Council itself has acknowledged the importance of this dimension by holding a meeting on the role of regional and sub-regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security.
The African Union, the European Union, ASEAN are examples of regional organizations all engaged in close cooperation with the United Nations. The General Assembly has just adopted a resolution for cooperation with the League of Arab States and is currently discussing one on cooperation with the OIC.
This is the world of international relations in the 21st century. And this  reality must be adequately reflected in the balance of the Security Council. Regional seats, for example, would assure better representation of the interests and the ownership of the developing countries, the small island developing States, the small States, and of all those who are underrepresented: in other words, the majority of the membership. That very same majority that the distinguished Permanent Representative of Cape Verde referred yesterday in the Open-Ended Working Group, speaking against the arrogance of the few.
We are aware of the complexity of this process. Nevertheless, to enact a Security Council reform that does not address the issue of regional representation would be to miss a great historical opportunity.
But some countries are proposing the mere addition of national permanent seats, with one variable or another. Do we think that such a reform would really make the Council more representative and effective? A reform centered on national permanent seats would be, in my opinion, more divisive for the membership, provoking national rivalries.
Mr. President,
Every country counts. We must not perpetuate a Security Council of the few. We want a new Security Council in which every country can recognize itself and feel a sense of ownership. I thank you, Mr. President.