Interconnection among key issues. The Report of the Open-Ended Working Group of the 61st General Assembly that was adopted by consensus says that we need to bear in mind “the inseparable links between the regional representation cluster and those of size and categories of membership”.
 
Paper by the PGA or the facilitator to encompass the views of Member States. We are in a process of intergovernmental negotiations. Decision 62/557 does give full empowerment to Member States.
 
Regional and national representation and, especially, perspectives of a seat enhancing the representation of the EU.  Our goal is to reform the UN Charter, where the regional dimension is already recognized in chapter VIII. There is wide support on the idea of enhancing the regional representation, beginning with Africa, a continent which must be better represented in the Security Council through new seats with criteria and characteristics identified by Africa itself. And the discussion that we had yesterday and today is yet one more prove of the degree of support for  the regional dimension in the Council, beginning with the request for a regional seat by the Arab States, by the OIC, by many Latin American members who spoke yesterday. So, why not for the European Union? It is surprising to hear remarks not fully aware of the important role of the EU common foreign and security policy. Over the last 15 years the EU has been a main player in almost every crisis prevention and crisis management all over the world. The EU as such has 13 European Security and Defence Policy missions in the most critical areas. Is contributing to the maintenance of peace and security in all negotiations, frameworks, groups, be that for Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Balkans, the Caucasus.  The EU is therefore a political reality with a process of integration which is undeniable.
Someone has focused on the prerogatives of the two European permanent members, which of course would remain untouched. But the perspective of an enhanced representation of the European Union must be made more real by overcoming the present request for further national permanent seats for European countries.
 
Legitimacy. We have to make the Security Council more representative. The question is therefore: is there anyone that feels that some Member States are “more representative” than others? Are there sovereign Member States who believe that they can represent other sovereign States through a permanent assignment?
We cannot decouple the empowerment of new members from an electoral and inclusive process.
 
Criteria. No one has so far given any clear explanation about the criteria for the designation of the new permanent members on national basis. Some have spoken about criteria for the periodic review of the status of permanent members. But what are these criteria? Are they related to lack of conflict situations with the neighbors; to full implementation of UN Conventions on torture, terrorism, non proliferation of nuclear weapons? Some very general remarks were made, for example, on “contribution to the implementation of decisions adopted by the Security Council”. And here, in the very relevant area of peace-keeping, almost all the "self appointed candidates" to a national permanent seat do not rank very high in the official list of the DPKO.
 
Effectiveness. It is undeniable that new permanent national members, by the very nature of this type of seat, could end up having the tendency to address the issues on the agenda more in light of their own national interests than of those of the entire membership. Without proper accountability to the General Assembly, through regular election, how could a new national permanent member of the Security Council concretely act on issues or crisis of its direct national interest, knowing that none of its actions may be scrutinized by the General Assembly?
 
Flexibility during the negotiations. What we have heard in this first day and a half of discussions is a great variety of interesting proposals, of attempts to try to find a way ahead for the sake of compromise; what we have seen is a general effort towards flexibility. We did contribute with our statement, that is available for the consideration of all Missions. Others have put forward further proposals or, for example, constructive clarifications on the different typologies of new seats. The idea of an intermediate approach received a wide support, with many views on its timing and contents, beginning with the different options for the categories of seats within this specific approach.
On the other hand, it was interesting to hear that the G4 model is nothing but the repetition of the framework Resolution presented by the President of the 51st General Assembly, Ismail Razali. After all the changes that the world has experienced politically and economically, we are presented with a model that is more than 10 years old. Such an approach is the unmistakable prove that the main stumbling block towards a reform of the Security Council is this lack of flexibility from few delegations.