Mr. Chairman,
 Let me begin by thanking you for holding this debate. Today we open the fourth round of the intergovernmental negotiations, and the first to take place during the current session of the General Assembly. As we reconvene our goal must be to assure concrete progress in the negotiations building on the positive results achieved in 2009.
 We are well aware of the difficulties especially in structuring this discussion in a format that is universally satisfactory. This is why we believe that the object of today’s meeting – “positions and proposals by Member States” – is the best solution: the task before us is to put the various proposals on the table and discuss them, taking a constructive approach in search of a compromise solution. Any other approach – such as proposals for negotiation documents seeking to exclude other positions (i.e., to exclude other United Nations Member States, as some speakers postulated) – would be unacceptable, it is contrary to Decision 62/557 and would be destined inevitably for failure.
 I will adhere closely to Ambassador Tanin’s proposals in his letter of November 16, and take this opportunity to express my thanks and renewed support for his leadership of our work.
 Together with Colombia, Italy presented a new platform for Security Council reform last April. We have already described the contents of the proposal on various occasions, and it is not my intention here to do so again. The document has long been a matter of public record. Through a comprehensive approach, it makes innovative proposals on each of the five key issues of this negotiation: on the issues of the duration of terms, regional representation, decision-making mechanisms, greater access to the Security Council, and more.
 I do wish, however, to emphasize one characteristic of our reform proposal: as we clarified in April, it is: open to discussion; not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal; and ultimately a negotiating platform. Because we believe that this should be the spirit and the correct approach to the intergovernmental negotiation, if we really wish to make progress and achieve reform.
 The flexibility of our proposal is clear on many points:
- On categories, for example: not only are we proposing innovative seats with longer terms, which would be alongside the normal biennial seats; we are also putting on the table alternative options for the duration of these seats; as well as new ideas for a greater representation of Small and medium sized States;
- On the issue of the veto and the Council’s decision-making mechanisms, we are leaving open a variety of different options;
- On working methods we speak about innovations that could improve: the transparency of the Council; access and participation, especially of non-member States, also through a greater institutionalization of the rules that govern it. And we also think of a greater access for regional organizations;
- The range of options is open also on the issue of relations with the General Assembly and the UN’s other main bodies;
- We are introducing the concept of “review”; but – in keeping with our flexible approach – we are envisioning review deadlines that vary according to the term of the seats. Mr. Chairman,
 We strongly believe in the negotiation’s potential to find a solution on which everyone can agree. And we believe that a crucial pre-requisite exists to get to that result: it is of fundamental importance that all interested parties put forward new compromise proposals. Colombia and Italy presented their platform with this spirit. All Member States know that our original position, presented in 2005, was different. We could have simply restated our commitment to the 2005 platform. But we decided to make an effort towards a middle ground, therefore taking very seriously the negotiation process in which we all embarked. If we want to move forward it is time that also others present new compromise positions.
Finally, Mr. President, we remain convinced that a central element of the negotiation is an interactive discussion. This is why I will stop at this point, reserving the right to take the floor again, at the conclusion of this debate, after hearing the proposals of my other colleagues. I am sure that through an interactive exchange, based on new proposals for compromise we could go very far in this process.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.