• Regional Representation in the UN Charter
Some distinguished colleagues have argued that the UN Charter makes no reference to regional representation. They propose that this concept should therefore not be mentioned in our discussions which, in their reading, should be limited to what is already written in the Charter.  Allow me to recall once again that we are engaged in an intergovernmental negotiation to reform the parts of the Charter dedicated to the Security Council and related matters. This is not a conference to simply ratify the 1945 Charter by simply adding the names of a handful of Countries to article 23, paragraph 1. The title of our exercise is not, “Question of the reform of art. 23, para. 1 of the UN Charter.” Regional representation is the most important development in international relations of the past 60 years, after the decolonization process. And it was strongly encouraged by it. This negotiation is therefore an extraordinary opportunity to acknowledge this new reality, and reform the Charter if needed, as eloquently said by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Gambia, H.E. Ambassador Susan Waffa-Ogoo.  On the contrary, if the goal is to maintain the old status quo, by simply granting national permanent seats without veto, and without any regional dimension or accountability to a few Countries and leaving the rest unchanged, then let us say so clearly. Some of the proposals I have heard in recent weeks would seem to suggest that it would be nice to limit the veto, but it is not realistic, so let’s leave it alone; that it would be nice to open up to the regional dimension, but it’s not realistic, so let’s leave it alone; that it would be nice to have new permanent members with veto, but it is better to forget about. The only feasible, urgent, compelling thing, according to this theory, is to give to some new “big boys” a new status.  We seek, instead, to truly reform the Security Council: enlargement is a fundamental issue. Equally fundamental are the matters related to the veto, regional representation, the size of the Security Council, working methods, relations with the General Assembly.
• Evolving aspects of the UfC proposal
For UfC the principle of standing for election, periodically, in front of the General Assembly must be included in any proposal to enlarge the Security Council. As a full recognition of the new reality, we believe that the Council must be open up to the regional dimension, foreseeing new seats which represent clearly an evolution of our 2005 proposals, should they be given a longer mandate than the actual non-permanent. These longer term would assure a genuine development of regional representation, which by its nature is wider than a purely national perspective. The fact that there are term limits and that these seats must meet the criteria of standing for election would assure the accountability toward the regions they are related to. Electivity, accountability and democracy are the borders between the UfC and the G4 visions.  Each region should be able to decide exact criteria and mechanisms for designating their seats.
• On EU representation
We propose the creation of a seat to be rotated between WEOG and the Eastern European Group to facilitate the institutional access of the European Union to the Security Council. Here, too, the idea is to seat on a rotational basis a Country that, rather than simply representing its own national interests, would represent the whole of the EU. And I would like to make some observations on what I heard at our last meeting in this regard. The European Union is a political, institutional, economic and monetary reality. Everyone knows the role that the EU plays in the General Assembly and its influence on the positions taken by the Security Council. We believe, however, that there is a big gap between what the EU is already doing in various UN fora and what it could be doing in the Security Council. Once again, I was amused by comments that Europe is a merely peninsular expression of the Asian continent. Someone may be convinced that the universe is masterminded by the principle of continental drift. But if we start to mistake one continent for another, how can we expect to be trusted when we assume that the reform will be based on the current regional groups?
 
 I would also like to point out to my distinguished colleagues supporting the G4 that it would be worth the trouble of taking advantage of this negotiation on regional representation, to put into practice the efforts that some of them have officially declared they are doing, and I quote, to “continue to strive for a permanent seat for the EU”.
• On the observations of the Permanent Representative of Kazakhstan
In conclusion, I wish to briefly agree with the eloquent and passionate appeal by the distinguished Representative of Kazakhstan. Ambassador Aitimova recalled that almost 80 UN Member States have never been elected to the Security Council. It is precisely to redress this historic imbalance that we propose: seats with a regional dimension, an increase in biennial non-permanent seats, seats reserved for small to mid-sized States.