HIGHLIGHTS:
- Italy and UFC moved from our original proposal of enlargement only in non-permanent members (in 2005) to the Italy and Colombia platform. In addition to an expansion in regular non-permanent seats, we are calling for a new type of seat with a longer term of up to 6 years. This is not a “take it or leave it” position: it is an invitation to negotiate.
- Some of the Member States calling for new permanent members are finally showing their first signals of flexibility. I encourage Japan and others to bring this same spirit to New York. Let us “open a new chapter.”
-The UfC and African positions are compatible in other ways, most notably on regional representation, rotation and consensus.

-----------------------------

Mr. President, Mr. Chair,

Thank you for convening the first meeting of this Session’s negotiations.
After a long stall in the process, we welcome this resumption of our work. At this juncture, allow me to say a word or two about why this took almost eight months.
In February of this year negotiations were abruptly interrupted because of a divisive, one-sided initiative launched by a few Member States that generated confrontation in New York and the capitals. A forceful rush to mobilize support for an ambiguous and simplistic text put undue pressure on the membership and infiltrated every multilateral or bilateral meeting.
Italy and its partners refused to accept this development so we began a dialogue with every single Member State. We wanted to continue negotiations on all five pillars of the reform.
This dialogue made its way to Rome, where 123 Countries met last May to launch an appeal to resume the intergovernmental negotiations in a spirit of compromise, openness and consensus.
Only then did the handful of States that had promoted the divisive initiative realize their failure and acknowledge the opposition of the majority of the membership.
In July UFC - this time in Mexico City - tried once again to instill new momentum in the negotiations. Both the Rome and the Mexico City meetings were attended by representatives of every negotiating group. All these attempts were based on good faith and the spirit of inclusiveness, and the purpose was to find a compromise.

Today we resume that search. The “lessons learned” from the 65th Session  should lead us toward a genuine intermediate solution, especially on categories. There is something for all of us to learn from fifteen years of failed attempts to enlarge the Council with new permanent members. Namely, that political interests and regional divisions have prevented any of these attempts from reaching the required majority (129 votes, including the five permanent members), and will continue to do so. The need for a compromise is clear. Otherwise the alternative is to prolong the deadlock.
Some Member States continue to ask what the intermediate approach would consist of, saying there is no agreement on the details. They argue that there is no clear formula or that there are too many different options on the floor.
The UFC’s answer to these questions is this: “intermediate” means a solution that falls between those who are calling for new permanent members and those who are calling for an expansion in non-permanent members. In this context, “intermediate” means something less than “permanent” and more than two years. Simply put, it means non-permanent seats that are longer than two years.

Those who claim this formula is unclear are actually concealing their inflexibility in order to advance their own agenda. They are exploiting a lack of detail in the intermediate approach to justify their allegiance to the idea of new permanent seats. Their underlying attitude is basically, “Why should I give up my goal of a permanent seat on the Council if the alternative is unclear?”
But this is not necessarily a rhetorical question. There are two easy answers. First, it will be next to impossible to install new permanent members, as history and the recent past have proven repeatedly. Second, if there is a genuine political will for an intermediate solution (by which I do not mean a stepping stone toward permanent members), it will not be difficult for us all to sit down and negotiate seriously its details, without preconditions and artificial deadlines.
To advance the process, we must embrace this second possibility, and do so with an open-mindedness that would represent a breakthrough in the negotiations.
It was in this spirit that Italy and UFC took a step forward during the negotiations. We moved from our original proposal of enlargement only in non-permanent members (in 2005) to the Italy and Colombia platform.
On the issue of categories, our proposal is crystal clear. In addition to an expansion in regular non-permanent seats, we are calling for a new type of seat with a longer term of up to 6 years. These longer-term seats could be created in two ways: 1) by allowing two consecutive re-elections of non- permanent members (for a total term of up to 6 years); 2) by creating seats with a longer mandate of up to 5 years, without the possibility of immediate re-election. This is not a “take it or leave it” position: it is an invitation to negotiate.

Mr. President,

I will acknowledge that - after the experience of the 65th session - some of the Member States calling for new permanent members are finally showing their first signals of flexibility. I welcome the spirit of the statement made by our Japanese colleague, Ambassador Nishida, in the General Assembly on November 8. He mentioned the need to (quote),“begin substantive negotiations aimed at finding a solution which can accommodate different views and garner the widest possible political acceptance” (unquote). He also anticipated that Japan intended to host a meeting in Tokyo on Security Council reform on November 14 with the aim to (quote) “open a new chapter for an honest, open and substantive dialogue, which is essential in order to explore achievable reform.” The meeting was held and Italy and other UFC partners were invited.
I will not comment on the outcome of this meeting, since it was held under Chatam House rules. But I encourage Japan and others to bring this same spirit to New York. Let us “open a new chapter.” Let us discuss the principles that might inspire an intermediate solution. Let us do so in good faith, without preconditions, foregone conclusions, or artificial deadlines. If we can agree to do all this, the subject of the negotiations will be the five pillars decided on by 62/557.

Before concluding, I wish to address our African colleagues honestly and unambiguously, as Italy and UFC always have.
Aware of the historical injustice to the Continent and of the differences between our positions with regard to categories, we have tried to build bridges and convergences.
UfC recognizes that Africa has a strong and legitimate case for seeking rightful representation on the Security Council. 
Considering the Ezulwini Consensus, our proposal responds to many of the principles stated in the African Union position, for example the proposal to have the AU select the African representatives to the Security Council and determine the criteria for such selection.
The UfC and African positions are compatible in other ways, most notably on regional representation, rotation and consensus.
We believe similar approaches for other regions would create a broader consensus around a reform model.
Despite our principled opposition to permanent membership, the UfC has evolved its position. As a special exception for Africa – we are supportive of  the concept of continent-specific seats.

In particular, UfC’s compromise proposal (Italy-Colombia paper) responds to Africa’s desire for equitable representation in the following ways:
1. It would create three to four additional seats for Africa, providing for representation of all sub-regions;
2. It would open up greater possibilities for representation to all African States, including six small and twenty-one medium-sized states, providing all members of the Group fair opportunities a more fair opportunity to serve more frequently on the Council;
3. Our proposal could accommodate a continuous or longer presence of African states through re-election and longer terms.

Mr. President,

I conclude by appealing to all Member States to “find a solution which can accommodate different views and garner the widest possible political acceptance.” Let us begin a new chapter of genuine and unambiguous compromise. During these negotiations, we therefore hope to receive a signal of flexibility comparable to the one UFC sent out in 2009.

Thank you.