Mr. Chairman,  Allow me to begin by expressing my appreciation for the efforts that you, together with President D’Escoto, have made to assure concrete progress in the negotiation. In addition, we should all express our sincere recognition for the manner in which Ambassador Tanin has conducted this important exercise.   We are pleased with the first round and the constructive approach taken by many of the States that intervened. In our debates, we were able to more clearly identify the five key issues of the negotiation. Some delegations, most prominently the UfC Countries, demonstrated the flexibility for which President D’Escoto and Ambassador Tanin have so often appealed.
 
The overview circulated to Member States last Monday only in part reflects this achievement. It consists of two sections that are very different in qualitative and substantial terms. The first is a summary presentation of the results of the previous round of negotiations, while the second regards the organization of the second round of negotiations.
 
• The first part of the text contains many elements that emerged during our discussions, but various other important aspects are missing. It exhibits a tendency to overstate “steps forward” and unspecified “signs of flexibility,” as well as a generic will to search for “points of convergence” that all Member States supposedly share. Unless Ambassador Tanin is referring to the new proposals advanced by Uniting for Consensus on April 20 (as well as, for example, the proposals of the Small Five on working methods and of the Philippines), we did not see great movement in the positions of other important groups, particularly the aspirants to national permanent seats, to seek a negotiated solution. The overview is therefore misleading regarding the exact origin and dynamic of this “flexibility”.
 
• The reference to the “substantial increase” in the level of participation of Member States in the negotiations by comparison to the Working Group appears also misleading. It creates the impression that only by changing the forum of discussion we were led to major improvements in the reform process. The increased interest in our discussion, in fact, stems primarily from the growing urgency of a reorganization of the global governance; not from a simple change of the forum where we speak. We fully agree with Ambassador Tanin that the discussions have been positive and constructive. The overview, however, refers to “three quarters” of Member States that have engaged in the first round. In truth, fewer than 120 Member States, less than two- thirds of the whole membership, have taken the floor so far.  Coming now to the section on substance, Ambassador Tanin’s presentation incorporates some aspects of the new UfC platform, particularly the proposal to establish a category of seats with longer duration. However, it mixes it together with radically different proposals, such as those inspired by seekers of national permanent seats, to attribute seats to predetermined Countries for as long as fifteen years. UfC’s position may appear also reflected in the overview’s general reference to regional representation. I must note, however, that here it also mentions the representation of small and mid-sized States, whose presence in the Council, according to the UfC proposal, is not simply a question of regional representation. I would like to clarify that the platform we presented on 20 April together with the distinguished Permanent Representative of Colombia, Ambassador Blum, as far as expansion of the Council, envisages a clear distinction: a) to enhance the regional representation, our proposal suggests the creation of longer term seats allocated to the existing regional groups; b) the creation of new two-year term seats for small States and medium-sized States: one for small States and one for medium-sized States.  This proposal is not reflected in the overview, although the same principle was put forward insistently in particular by a good number of colleagues representing small States.
Finally, we take note that the text refers to the need to give a voice to the diverse cultures, religions, and civilizations of the contemporary world in the future composition of an enlarged Security Council.  Mr. Chairman, other crucial points are unfortunately missing or misplaced in the overview: -  The essential principle of a “comprehensive approach” to the negotiation, a principle that was clearly and repeatedly invoked by many Member States; - The proposal to regroup in a completely new fashion the key issues is inconsistent with Decision 62/557; it is in sharp contrast with what emerged during the first round of our negotiations; - The listing of options for each key issue simplifies the outcomes of the first round in a very unbalanced way. On the subject of the “size of the enlarged Security Council” the same prominence is given to proposals for an enlargement limited to the “low twenties” (supported by some permanent members) and to proposals for a larger Council, although the latter received almost unanimous support in our discussions; - Only three options of “categories of membership” are indicated, articulating in a fairly arbitrary way the other possibilities that have emerged; - Only two options for regional representation are given (through a partial reading of the UfC proposal for seats to small and medium-sized States), an son on; - The document does not reflect as I said the flexibility that the UfC has shown; - The annex to the overview does not include any of the important new proposals made during our negotiations; instead, it includes the letters circulated by the Chair, thereby giving them a status on which we do not agree.
Mr. Chairman,  I come now to the second part of the overview: “the way forward.” The text seems to take for granted an orientation in favor of the concepts of “review” and “challenge” as “the logical entry point into the second round” (para. 18 e 19). With regard to the first concept, UfC, like other groups, has expressed its openness, given the need for detailed discussions with all Member States to define the exact contents. The idea of “challenge” is a point formulated exclusively by the G4. No mention has been made of the intermediary or intermediate approach: ideas which a number of colleagues have raised. Let me recall that more clarity was reserved to these options in the Report of the Facilitators to the President of the 61st General Assembly of April 2007.  On this basis, we have strong concerns regarding the Chair’s right or responsibility to introduce what constitutes a major reorganization of our negotiation’s modalities in two ways. First, the de-linkage of the issue of categories from the question of the veto. This is unacceptable and shows an all too apparent will to exert pressure on the African Countries, whose position is also not reflected in the document.  Second, the starting point of this round of negotiations should certainly not be what has been called the “review” or “challenge”. This clause does not appear in any way among the five key issues identified at the outset of the exercise. In the first round of negotiations widespread mention was made of a democratic checks and balance system, in particular the principle of assigning all new seats through periodic elections by the General Assembly. By contrast, the approach now suggested by the Chair fully incorporates the G4’s definition of the review and the clear evidence of this is written in the statements made by the distinguished Ambassadors of Brazil and Germany. It would impose a sort of reversal of the burden of proof: Countries that wish to “challenge” positions acquired by others in the Council would be given the responsibility for gathering the necessary majority in the General Assembly. Mr. Chair, even more important, a very essential element missing from the overview and the way forward is the principle of accountability. This is a fundamental principle invoked by many Member States during the first round. Its implementation constitutes one of the crucial goals of this reform.  
  Mr. Chair, for the reasons mentioned above, we cannot consider in any possible way the said “overview” as a basis or a point of departure and reference for the second round of negotiations.  We count on you, Mr. Chairman, for an in depth reassessment of our way ahead and on the basis of the positions that Member States have expressed today. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.