Mr. President,
1. Let me begin by thanking you for holding today’s debate, which gives us an opportunity to review the Security Council’s work in the past year. It also invites us to examine the current state of the process aimed at making the Security Council more transparent, efficient, effective, and representative of all Member States. This is all the more appropriate in that 2009 has been the year in which intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform kicked off. These negotiations will thus be the chief focus of my statement.
 But first let me thank the Permanent Representatives of Uganda, Ambassador Rugunda, and of Austria, Ambassador Mayr-Harting, for the annual report being presented today. Concrete efforts have been made by the presidencies involved to foster greater transparency on the Security Council, particularly by holding meetings with all Member States over the last weeks to discuss the draft report. This is a process of consultations inaugurated last year by our distinguished colleague, the Permanent Representative of Vietnam, Ambassador Minh, that we fully endorse.
 Another concrete contribution towards more transparency and openness is the renewed momentum on reforming working methods generated also thanks to the Security Council’s Open Debate on August 27, 2008; such a debate had not been held since the 1990s. We believe it is crucial to continue addressing this fundamental aspect of the reform: recently there have been improvements, and the more transparent approach in the drafting process of the annual report over the last years is a significant step. But much remains to be done.
 There have also been tangible signs of renewed efforts toward a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in the past year, punctuated by the start of the intergovernmental negotiation last February.
2. The General Assembly decided unanimously to launch the intergovernmental negotiations by Decision 62/557 of September 2008. The mechanism that this created proved to be effective in the end since it was implemented in its entirety. I must recall, for example, the reservations that some delegations had on the role of the Open-Ended Working Group at the very beginning of the last session of the General Assembly.
The Working Group met between October 2008 and January 2009 to help clarify procedural aspects, a process that was essential to the start of negotiations.  One particularly controversial point in the discussions was the informal nature of the negotiations. Without the Working Group, the negotiations would have started in a framework that is completely unknown, and the failure of the negotiations would have been a foregone conclusion.
3. The negotiations on substance began in February under the appreciated guidance of Ambassador Tanin (and I take this occasion to warmly congratulate Ambassador Tanin for his confirmation as Chair of our negotiations, and reiterate our readiness to fully cooperate with him in this complex exercise). From February on we have examined all the issues of the reform and their inter-linkage over the course of three rounds. This is not the place for a detailed reexamination of the outcome. I would, however, like to offer some thumbnail reflections on what has taken place so that we might chart out the direction in which we can realistically expect to move in the next few months.
 There is no doubt that sharp differences still exist between the parties. It is no secret that Member States continue to be deeply divided over the question of “categories of membership,” and none of the various proposals has the required support. Any attempt to create the impression of a majority in favor of this or that model has inevitably ended in failure. No one has the necessary support: not the G4 model, not the African model, not the UfC model, and not the models presented by other groups and delegations. This is another clear outcome of the negotiation.
 We have heard in this debate some delegations requesting from the Chair a negotiating paper to be “narrowed down” through the exclusion of options that have less support. I would like to recall that this proposal has already been rejected during the 63rd General Assembly. First, our negotiations are intergovernmental: i.e. based on positions and proposals by Member States. Secondly, such proposal  tries to endorse a process based on a logic of majority-minority hard to identify, that goes literally against the nature of a negotiation. Counting votes in the Assembly is one thing. Negotiating and looking for compromise is something completely different.
 On the contrary, Mr. President, we all decided to start real negotiations. Our goal has therefore become to identify a road towards compromise solutions that have the necessary support of the General Assembly.
We believe that there are at least three roads that could be helpful in the way ahead:
First. As we have said in recent months, despite the confirmation of differences, the intergovernmental negotiations have so far outlined some areas of convergence between the various groups: - The issue of size, gravitating toward 20 plus;
- The reform of the working methods, where there is consensus on the need to push for improvements;
- Updating the decision-making mechanisms. While this broaches the sensitive issue of the veto, it is nevertheless an issue on which almost the entire membership continues to express the will for debate;
- The same holds true for the question of relations between the Security Council and the General Assembly as well as the other main bodies of the UN. For the purposes of moving the negotiation forward, it would be helpful to build on these areas of convergence. Second. Another prerequisite for progress in the discussions is the abdication of extreme positions. Last April Colombia and Italy presented a new platform that contains innovations of the positions that UfC proposed in 2005. We could have refused to budge from our original position, but we sincerely believe that this negotiation can reach a positive conclusion through an agreement based on compromise. This is why we presented our proposal, clarifying that it remains an open basis for discussion. We strongly believe that the time has come for others to take a similar step toward common ground.
Third. As in any other complex negotiating process, it is essential to make efforts at innovative solutions that would bring the parties closer together. We see at least two areas on which it would be worthwhile focusing:
- The first would be the so-called intermediate solutions. I wish to underline from the outset that Italy does not have a definitive position in favor of or opposed to intermediate approaches. At the same time, we remain open to any prospect aimed at facilitating a compromise solution. This is why we support proposals for further exploring intermediate options: our aim is to have a clearer understanding of the substance of these ideas.
- The second innovative solution that deserves an in-depth exploration is regional representation. I am well aware that there are Countries still wary of this notion. Nevertheless, it represents a new approach that is meeting growing interest from various groups, also outside of UfC. I am thinking of the European Union, of course; just a few days ago the process for ratifying the Lisbon Treaty was completed with a further leap in the common external projection of the EU.
But I am also thinking of Africa, whose under representation in the Council is one of the most urgent reasons for reform. The twenty-first century is a world in which the regional organizations have an absolute role in the maintenance of peace and security, on an equal footing with States. An increased regional dimension in the Council (to be pursued also through a reform of the Council’s provisional rules), by contrast to an increase in seats for a tiny group of Countries, would automatically assure greater representation of all United Nations Member States.
All one has to do is leaf through the table of contents of issues addressed by the Security Council in the annual report to gauge the weight regional organizations have acquired. A reform that does not pay due account to this element and that pivots instead on the archaic logic of the concert of superpowers would already be outdated on arrival.
It is our duty, instead, to create a Security Council that is more effective and more truly representative of the world in which we live today.
Thank you, Mr. President.