Mr. Chair,
from the past two rounds of discussions it is clear that the conditions exist to further promote a true negotiation between the parties. UfC has already demonstrated its seriousness and commitment by tabling a platform for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Now the time has come for all parties to show the same flexibility and comprehensiveness for which you appealed. Decision 62/557 establishes that the negotiations should be based on the proposals of Member States. Let us therefore continue down this road and negotiate on the basis of our proposals.
We have, however, heard some proposals aimed at sabotaging the negotiation and the search for a compromise solution for the sake of a vote count. We emphasized this at the last session and we reiterate it today: anyone who wants to count votes can do so in a formal plenary of the General Assembly by placing their proposal up for a vote. But no one has enough support to do so. This is why we are in discussion here. Any idea aimed at removing from the negotiating table proposals accused of having insufficient support is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of open and inclusive negotiations conducted in good faith. Mr. Chair,
Our aim today is to identify some elements for the way forward. The intergovernmental negotiations have shown dynamism on all the key issues. There are still clear differences that no one can deny. We should now consider some unmistakable points of convergence. The UfC platform, through an approach based on flexibility and compromise, aims to achieve early concrete results on all aspects of the reform. We will try now to sum up some aspects of compromise from the discussions of the first two rounds.
1. Many different options have been put forward on categories and criteria of membership. There are delegations that have supported the creation of a new category of national permanent seats without the veto. The African Group is asking for two permanent seats with the veto and additional non-permanent seats. This approach is also supported by Countries from other regions. Others propose expansion only to non-permanent members. The question of regional representation has also been taken into account. Within each of these options there are various alternatives.
Many questions were raised: are there specific criteria for selecting Council members other than elections? We remain convinced that, also from this perspective, no objective criteria has been put forward to identify new national permanent members, which we oppose. The only possible objective criteria that can ensure accountability and legitimacy is periodic election.
There is no doubt that many differences are still there, Mr. Chair. And we must notice that, at the end of the first round, positions that are widely different have been artificially put together, whereas some other proposals have been simply excluded. 
Growing support has emerged for adding some new longer term seats, making it a possible element toward building a compromise. And this, by the way, is an idea supported by UfC. Let me insist on one point fundamental to us when we talk about longer term seats: as I said before, no objective criteria allows to identify countries for new national permanent seats. The only possible objective criteria that can ensure accountability and legitimacy is periodic election.
2. In our discussions there has been a growing demand for better representation on the Council, especially of Small States, since they represent around one-fourth of the UN membership. Small States are increasingly involved in issues concerning the maintenance of international peace and security as well as old and new threats, starting with global warming. Our negotiations should reflect this fact by identifying ways to ensure Small States direct access to the Council. UfC envisages a seat reserved for Small States and is keen on hearing other groups’ proposals. Are they ready to accommodate their models to meet this need?
3. On the veto there is almost unanimous belief that it is closely tied to the other key aspects of the reform, beginning with categories.
There is a clear way forward here, too: despite wide differences on categories and the veto, an unambiguous demand has emerged to find ways to limit the veto of the current permanent members, in view of improving the decision-making process of the Council. We are convinced that this should be one of the focuses of the next phase of our negotiations.
4. All delegations, Mr. Chair, have mentioned the correlation between the size of the Council and its effectiveness, representation, legitimacy, and accountability. Should the expansion be limited to 20/21? To the mid-twenties? To the low thirties? How will we account for the proportionality between Council members and UN Members? Size vs. effectiveness?
Here, too, we see an area of convergence: there is growing support for expanding the Council to the mid-twenties or more. According to Member States from every group, this would not harm effectiveness while allowing the Council to be more representative, accountable and legitimate.
Negotiations have also shown almost unanimous support for reforming working methods. Delegates have expressed common support for more transparency in decision-making; more access to information through open briefings and interaction between the Council and all interested and concerned parties, including regional organizations; more open meetings and informal consultations; more access to and better participation in the Security Council of Member States who are not Council members; delegates have also asked for mechanisms to ensure that the views and interests of Member States affected or concerned by any matter on the agenda, including troop-contributing countries and host countries, are heard and taken into account in the work of the Council; as well as for the adoption and circulation of formal rules of procedure for the Security Council, with appropriate consultation with the general membership.
 
5. There have been different perspectives on the issue of the regional dimension in the Council. Should we talk about equitable geographical distribution or regional representation? Or even regional seats? Or, better, seats allocated to Member States from a region on a rotational basis? Should seats be allocated to regional institutions? What about interregional and cross-regional seats?
The way forward is to examine this issue through the lens of greater accountability of the Council to the whole membership. We remain convinced that the regional dimension is one of the most innovative elements in international relations and that a reformed Security Council should take this into account. And we have heard, also during the June 12th session, support for this idea well outside the UfC. We believe that to enhance regional representation the way forward could be to have States sitting in the Council on a rotational basis to represent regional interests.
6. Improving the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly and other UN organs has been identified as a precondition for making the Council more transparent and accountable.
Member States from every group have stressed areas that need improvement: questions relating to annual and special reports of the Council to the General Assembly; an enhanced relationship between the Security Council and the other main organs of the UN, also through regular and institutionalized consultations, cooperation and adequate exchange of information; and the expansion of consultation and cooperation of the Council with regional organizations and with countries of a region that is under discussion in the Council.
These, Mr. Chair, are elements where there has been a strong drive in the negotiations so far. We should not underestimate them in all the key issues of the reform. We propose that now these elements should be further explored, together with other aspects of the reform. We should continue on in our negotiations guided by Decision 62/557 and the principle that negotiations are exclusively based on proposals by Member States, which have full ownership of this process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.