Mr. Chairman,
 In the past few weeks there has been a flurry of letters at the United Nations on the subject of Security Council reform. One in particular caught my eye: the letter addressed to you on December 23. For one reason in particular: various signatories of the letter explained to me that it was a text that they had been told it was open to signature by all Member States.
 But as far as I can tell, it was not open to the signature of Italy and other Member States. No one, as a matter of fact, contacted us or asked us to add our names to the letter. No one.
 In principle I would not have had any problem signing: it’s a very simple text, after all, that remarks the need for a document in order to start a concrete negotiation. I would have adhered to the letter, although I might have wanted it to be more specific. This is because at the last session, for example, some Member States described a negotiating document from which positions would be eliminated one-by-one through straw polls. From the letter of December 23, it is hard to tell whether this is the procedure being proposed. I think that some clarification is therefore essential, also for all those who have signed the letter.
 To avoid any misunderstanding about the position of Italy and UfC, we had therefore to write our own letter. A letter that says the same things as the December 23rd missive, but with some extra detail, for the sake of clarity and transparency.
 Then we read some other important letters from recent weeks: from the African Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Arab Group and the Small Five.
 I noticed however that in attachment to the letter that you have sent to the membership on January 14th there is only the letter of December 23rd. None of the other letters is attached. I have to confess to being baffled as to why none of the other letters I have mentioned were attached to the facilitator’s latest communication: not the letter of the UfC, not the four other letters I have named. And I am bothered by the idea that a selection was made based exclusively, I presume, on the number of signatures. I wish to remind, Mr. Chairman, that each contribution of Member States to the intergovernmental negotiation must be brought to the attention of all Member States by the facilitator. But I am confident that during today’s debate I will be enlightened as to the reasons behind this.
 But even more, we believe it important to understand the nature of the document: we all agree that a document is useful, but we also have to be clear on its contents.
 As far as UfC, we consider that a document, at this stage, also according to Decision 62/557, which is the only basis of the intergovernmental negotiation, has to include in their entirety all positions and proposals that Member States presented to the facilitator, following the request that the facilitator himself made to Member States during the last session of December 8 and 9. And on this we would appreciate to receive assurances from the Chair.
* * *
But let me move on to the substance of this intergovernmental negotiation: areas of convergence.
 To speak of areas of convergence means identifying areas in which there is already the potential for compromise. This would be how a normal negotiating process would be conducted. The start of our negotiations confirmed the persistence of strong disagreements on some points, one of which is the issue of categories.
 Alongside our differences, however, are several points on which we are quite close. If we try to clearly identify these points and overcome our differences on them, we will have made a major step forward. And from there we could find easier to go on to address the other aspects of the negotiation that are still more divisive.
 In these months of negotiation we have identified at least four aspects on which there are more convergences among the various groups:
1. setting the size of an enlarged Council around the mid-twenties. While there is no lack of disagreement on this point, there is also a convergence among the groups that could afford us some common ground. There are also some Member States that envision a smaller size; and others, instead, a Security Council that goes beyond the mid-twenties. This is why we believe that through these discussions, we can try to set the goal of the mid-twenties as a realistic area of compromise;
2. the need for a reform of working methods. Even more than the size of an enlarged Council, there is general agreement on the need for measures aimed at improving working methods. The premises already exist to identify concrete points to include in a comprehensive agreement;
3. the need to improve the interaction between the Council and the GA. Here, too, despite some minor differences, there is a general consensus on identifying concrete points of interest that could be part of the final agreement on Security Council reform;
4. finally, a review of decision-making mechanisms, including the veto and its possible limitations, is another aspect on which there is broad convergence. As in the case of the size of the Council, there is a wide array of proposals. We think that it is possible to find a compromise by working on identifying some common points.
* * *
Mr. Chairman,
I wish to conclude with a question to all Member States to which I hope to receive clear answers. A negotiation begins when parties that have different visions decide to seek an agreement, common ground. The technical term is “compromise.” My question is very simple: do we all agree that the goal of our negotiation is to seek a compromise?
 On the surface this is a banal question, but I have that sense that, in reality, there are some that do not agree that this is the goal of our negotiation, as it should be of every negotiation. No one, I imagine, would raise their hand to respond that they are opposed to our reaching a reasonable compromise.
 Which brings me to my second question: as I said at the outset, I have heard talk of holding straw polls through which to eliminate positions presented by Member States one-by-one. Could the supporters of such a proposal explain how such a procedure is compatible with a negotiation and the goal of reaching a compromise? Could they explain what the concept of compromise means to them?
 For our part, let me confirm once again our complete openness to seeking a compromise solution through real negotiation with the goal of a comprehensive reform that garners the widest possible political acceptance by Member States. This is why we responded to your appeal for flexibility and presented a new proposal a few months ago. But on this point, too, we are awaiting a response.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.