Mr. Chairman,
I would like to thank President D’Escoto and thank you for convening this meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group. We appreciate your tireless efforts, Mr. Chairman, to move the reform process forward.
Italy believes that if we take a pragmatic, realistic approach today and at the next meeting, to be held by the end of this month, we can achieve concrete results on the framework and modalities for negotiations.
President D’Escoto, referring to a symbol of reconciliation, Saint Martin, said that “repairing the Council requires reconciling our differences on how to reform it”; and that “this Open-Ended Working Group could potentially smooth our path”. He has also called upon “proposals that unite rather than divide the membership. Proposals that ultimately promote the reform we need”.
We made, I believe, some noticeable progress on these issues during our consultations in the Open-Ended Working Group. Colleagues have proposed various solutions on how to move forward, offering constructive views of the procedural aspects and clarifying the issues still on the table.
I recall, for example, the interesting contribution to the debate by the Representative of the Philippines, Ambassador Davide, who was in favor of a more specific calendar of activities for the Working Group. He also proposed, “The submission by the Chair of an informal preliminary working paper incorporating a draft of the proposed framework and modalities.” I appreciate his goodwill also as a  demonstration of the Working Group’s usefulness. Where I disagree, however, is in delegating this task to the Chair, which would be non consistent with Decision 62/557. This process should instead stem from a negotiation between Member States. This is a fundamental pillar for our discussions in the Working Group, and it will continue to be so during the negotiations on substance, as has been clearly noted by our Egyptian colleague, Ambassador Abdelaziz, and by many other distinguished representatives. I am convinced that we can find a solution, a negotiated solution on framework and modalities, based on the views expressed so far in this Working Group.
This is one of the foundations established by Decision 62/557, as rightly pointed out during our last discussions by the Representative of Qatar, among others, who called for, “Flexibility in order to forge from the different interests and views of all Member States a consensus arrangement to be reflected in the documents that will be negotiated and the framework of the negotiations, which have to include the proposals made by Member States.”
Again, our Egyptian colleague, Ambassador Abdelaziz, made a crucial point: Decision 62/557 gives a role to the Open-Ended Working Group before the negotiations; during the negotiations; and at the end of the session of the General Assembly.
Some colleagues have argued from a different perspective. They claim that framework and modalities are already established in Decision 62/557. The framework, they say, is the informal session of the General Assembly; the modalities, the Assembly’s rules of procedure. But this, Mr. President, is neither written nor in any way established by Decision 62/557. And for a simple reason: how can we enter such an important negotiation, which entails a constitutional change to this Organization, on the basis of the rules provided for the ordinary activity, the everyday life, of the General Assembly?
The procedural difficulties we experienced last Friday night on the extremely important session that you, Mr. President, called on the situation in Gaza, have proved once again that the mere and simple application of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly would create the risk of making our future negotiations prey to major opposing forces and confusion.
Mr. President,
A large group of colleagues, extending well beyond the UfC, has clearly shown a constructive will to engage in a serious and concrete discussion of procedures. As the Permanent Representative of Morocco, Ambassador Loulichki, said during our meeting of December 5th, “Our upcoming works should be marked by the objectivity and the constructive quest of the optimal conditions for launch of intergovernmental negotiations.”
It is thus with a sense that an agreement can be reached that we support a solution which would ensure unity among Member States in the process ahead.
At the Working Group meeting of December 5th, we supported the proposal put forward by the Permanent Representatives of Argentina and Spain, Ambassador Arguello and Ambassador Yañèz-Barnuevo. Their proposal offered basic guidelines for the intergovernmental negotiations, with objectives, principles, terms and a clear platform that we believe are agreeable to all.
By the same token, I express full support today for having the Working Group recommend a decision on framework and modalities to the General Assembly. This would allow the Working Group to reach an agreement on this issue before the start of intergovernmental negotiations and set down clear procedures, thus removing the deep sense of uncertainty shared by so many colleagues in this room.
Our goal is to come to an agreement on principles and procedures that are basic to any intergovernmental negotiation. Mr. President, we simply cannot afford to go to negotiations with fundamental divisions among Member States as our starting point.
In recent times the United Nations has only been able to reach substantive reforms when Member States agreed on principles and procedures of the negotiations at the very beginning of the exercise. This was the case for the Summit Outcome Document where, although different and divisive topics were at stake, our common aim was to find solutions on which all States converged. In this manner we succeeded in promoting and achieving substantive institutional reforms such as the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Human Rights Council.
One of the pillars that should inspire our intergovernmental negotiations is the well-known principle of “single undertaking,” by which nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, as the Permanent Representative of Colombia, Ambassador Blum, has said this morning. This principle has been at the basis of all the most important negotiations, on many topics, including trade negotiations (WTO, Declaration of the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, 2001, par. 47).
Another recent negotiation based on this principle is the on-going work on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Could we imagine excluding the principle of “single undertaking” from this critical negotiating process? No, Mr. President, and for the very simple reason that this principle guarantees to all the parties that their views will be duly taken into consideration and that the final result will be an agreed solution, a compromise solution. Because only through a compromise, Mr. President, can we achieve the ultimate goal of a reform, shared by all of us.
The opposite of the “single undertaking” is the “variable geometry” negotiation, a negotiation “à la carte” in which we allow the reform to proceed in a “random fashion.” This model would create the enormous risk of divisive and paralyzing debates on single issues and indefinite delays on others. For example, is it conceivable to make progress on the working methods of the Council and the veto without any progress on the institutional framework? Is it possible to imagine an agreement on the size of the new Security Council without an understanding on the criteria for geographic distribution of new seats? Can we think of an intergovernmental negotiation that would single out different categories of membership in the Council without an agreement on the duties and rights of these new categories?  These questions apply to many other aspects of the future reform. Such an approach would not result in a uniform and consistent reform of the Security Council, and we can only conclude that the single undertaking principle should be at the basis of the intergovernmental negotiations.
In closing, Mr. President, let me state very clearly that the idea of straw polls on single aspects of the reform would openly contradict the common and customary practice of international negotiations, that is to say the “single undertaking” principle, and may jeopardize the intergovernmental negotiation. The reform of the Security Council must be an all-encompassing exercise aimed at restructuring the UN body with primary competence in the maintenance of international peace and security.
During the negotiations we need to talk about substance and what the new, reformed Security Council should look like. But our discussions of framework and modalities have shown that there is not yet a common view on the procedures. What we are discussing today is the process to reform a body which is fundamental for the balance of international relations. A body established after two world wars. Can we afford to go to such a fundamental negotiation with no clear consensus on what the rules of the game will be?
We would have a process without foundations, inevitably doomed to failure. What we want to do, instead, is bring the discussions on procedure to a close here and now by defining a common ground that is agreed to by all.
I therefore support the proposal of Canada and Malta, which offers us a solution that will allow you, Mr. President, to present to the informal session of the General Assembly tangible results from our discussions in this Working Group. More importantly, it will create the solid foundation that is needed for the intergovernmental negotiations to succeed. This proposal does not contain detailed rules. Rather, it lists a few basic principles for the negotiations: sovereign equality, democracy, equitable representation, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability. Negotiations must be open and inclusive. They must address every aspect of the reform in a comprehensive manner.
A great political leader once said, “A moment comes - which comes but rarely in history- when we step out from the old to the new”. The time has come for us, Mr. President, to step out to the new. We need to take action but, to use the words of the same wise man, “To be effective, action must be directed to clearly conceived ends.” So said Jawaharial Nehru, first Prime Minister of the independent India and one of the founder of the Non Aligned Movement, talking about his great country. 
Thank you, Mr. President.