Thank you Mr. Chairman, I would like express our full support to the remarks made by our Canadian colleague, and address two issues:
• First, the concept of virtual majorities and minorities read in the crystal ball by some of our G4 colleagues. To paraphrase the great American writer Mark Twain, reports of the demise of the UfC proposal have been greatly exaggerated. I am happy to reassure you on the contrary that our proposal is alive and well. It would seem that not every single delegation is in favor of the supremely democratic option of creating only new non-permanent seats. Perhaps they fear that it would jeopardize their own dreams of winning “the big kahuna,” a permanent seat on the Council.  But to go from this minority position to the suggestion that the proposal be excluded is simply in bad faith and anti-democratic at its core, profoundly undemocratic and disrespectful of the sovereign equality of member states  and their dignity. This is regrettable for reasons of both substance and procedure. In terms of substance, how can we be so sure that some views – which are supported, by the way, in the NAM fall-back position – should be taken off the table, and despite the fact that many delegations have not yet even taken the floor in these negotiations? In terms of procedure, what we are supposed to be engaged in now is negotiating, not vote counting. There is always the possibility to go to the formal plenary of the General Assembly, to vote at any time on any proposal that a Member State tables for voting. But here we are engaged in something different. We are negotiating, based on a decision adopted by consensus, to garner the widest possible political acceptance by Member States. But let us buy for just one second the remarks made by my distinguished German colleague, Ambassador Matussek, that followed this morning the very appropriate considerations of the distinguished Permanent Representative of Namibia, Ambassador Mbuende, on regional representation. Ambassador Matussek said that regional representation is a category “not found in the UN Charter”. Along this same line of thought, also the category of permanent members without veto, I must note, is not found in the Charter. Should therefore this option be deleted from the elements of our negotiations? Is this a new position of the G4? We should know better. • The second point concerns the great confusion that was made, willingly or unwillingly, between interim, intermediate approach and review. The interim or intermediate approaches, which may have already some defined elements, but of course need to be further explored and clarified, are those presented by our French colleague, when he spoke – as we understand it – about seats for longer terms with possible re-election.  We are instead in a thick cloud when we hear concepts like review after 15 or 20 years, as referred to by our Dutch and Belgian colleagues. The cloud is even thicker when we consider articles 107 or 106 of the Charter, as examples of so-called transitional arrangements, or article 109 as an example of still pending review clause. For 65 years we have been waiting for a review of the Charter. These are extraordinary precedents that should shake our minds. I would like, moreover, to make some clarifications on a point made by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Portugal, Ambassador Cabral, on the connection between longer term seats and increased access to the Council. The UfC proposal envisages a reserved seat for small States, and a reserved seat for medium-sized States. These two groups of States will therefore see a clear increase in their chances to serve in the Council, and this is mathematically proven. Longer term seats, additional to the existing non permanent seats, will expand the chances for the whole membership to be represented. The distinguished Permanent Representative of Jamaica, finally, spoke about a need to identify criteria for the category of elected seats. It would be interesting to understand whether criteria for identification of new permanent seats would not be required. Which could create the paradoxical situation of asking more to those who will respond, through elections, to the General Assembly, and requesting nothing to the new permanent members, no criteria, and no accountability. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.