Mr. President,
I would like first of all to thank you for convening this meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group. We do appreciate your sincere and concrete efforts and those of the Chair, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, to move the process of reform forward.
The balance and the clarity that are inspiring your leadership in this important matter will, I am sure, contribute to the progress we all want. With today’s meeting, and the two meetings that you have planned, as per the agenda that you circulated a few days ago, I believe we have a chance to find a common path, common to all 192 Member States, to then start negotiations on a clear and agreed ground.
Our discussions in the Open-Ended Working Group – which we are confident will be fruitful and, above all, concrete – are a guarantee for all, regardless of differences in our views of the final goal that we should aim for in this process. They are a guarantee for countries whose positions are identified with those of UfC; with those of the African group; with those of the G4 positions; and also for countries whose positions are unaligned with any of these.
Once again, if I may: every country counts. This is the fundamental principle at stake in these discussions, and it was very useful and significant, in this respect, to be reminded of the principle of democracy enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Mr. President,
Because we want our discussions to be productive, we support the proposal put forward by the distinguished Representatives of Argentina and Spain, Ambassador Arguello and Ambassador Yañèz-Barnuevo.
This proposal offers basic and simple guide lines for the upcoming intergovernmental negotiations. It provides a clear platform that we believe is agreeable to all, and establishes objectives, guiding principles, and terms for the negotiations. Mr. President,
Today’s meeting is dedicated to framework, according to the agenda you circulated. At the last meetings of the Open-Ended Working Group, I heard distinguished delegates state that Decision 62/557 is quite clear on this: namely, that the framework is the informal plenary of the General Assembly.
They are right. But only from a very limited point of view. In their definition, framework means venue, pure and simple: the place where we all meet. But we are not talking about a party, Mr. President, where all we need to know is where to meet and when.
To have a common understanding of what is meant by “informal plenary of the General Assembly,” let me cite a very recent example of a very successful negotiation: I am referring to the first review of the implementation of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted by the General Assembly in September 2008.
On that occasion, the President of the General Assembly appointed a facilitator, our esteemed colleague the Permanent Representative of Guatemala, Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, who convened informal plenary meetings of the General Assembly. During these meetings, in a very smooth and constructive manner, Ambassador Rosenthal was able to shepherd Member States toward the conclusion of a complex negotiation, which according to the unwritten rules of the informal plenary of the GA, were conducted in a setting – a framework – in which there was no official record of the meeting, no formal decision, and no votes by Member States.   
This example, we are convinced, provides us with a clear, agreed precedent for the framework of intergovernmental negotiations. Adopting such a framework would allow us to proceed with genuine will and to achieve tangible results.
 
Mr. President, What Argentina and Spain have proposed is a clear framework for negotiations. This proposal indicates how to set the agenda for the negotiations and, in particular, the sequencing. This is exactly to respond to your appeal, Mr. President, to come up with ideas and suggestions that could sway their peers. And I hope that distinguished colleagues be able to comment and react to this input. On my part, I have taken note of the suggestions which have been made by Ambassador Davide of Philippines. A number of them needs a thorough discussion. My delegation will examine such suggestions with attention and with the expectation that the same attention will be given by him to the proposal submitted by Spain and Argentina. Moreover, it seeks clarification of another central framework issue: namely, the relationship and interaction between the processes in the Open-Ended Working Group and the informal plenary of the General Assembly, taking into account the provisions of Decision 62/557. Let’s not forget that this Decision also assign a “facilitation role” to the OEWG which, presumably, will continue after the beginning of intergovernmental negotiations.
I call upon all the distinguished Representatives here today to support these ideas, Mr. President. Only an agreement on these basic rules of the common playing field will ensure that negotiations move forward. Only through an agreement on a democratic approach, such as the one presented by Argentina and Spain, will allow this process to be democratic and to end up in the serious, comprehensive reform of the Security Council that we all look forward. A reform, Mr. President, that to be effective and sustainable will have to end up in a democratic reform. We have no alternatives. Thank you, Mr. President.