JOINT G4 STATEMENT
BY BRAZIL, GERMANY, INDIA AND JAPAN

>Delivered by H.E. Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin
Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations
At the Informal Meeting of the General Assembly
 Second IGN meeting March 7-8, 2017

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the G4 countries, Brazil, Germany, Japan and my own country India. At the outset, I thank you for convening today's IGN meeting and for the interactive spirit in which you have conducted the discussions in the last IGN meeting. We are ready to engage in the same manner in this and upcoming meetings of the IGN and will extend our full support to the Co-Chairs in this regard.

Co-Chair

In the course of our discussions, we have heard and will hear diverse opinions and views of various countries and groups on the reform they desire. We will also hear ideas of how the reform process should move forward. The diversity of views on this crucial issue reinforces the democratic nature of this process and importance placed on it by the Member States. We, as democracies, respect all views and are ready to engage with all of them under your able leadership.  This we believe is a crucial element of any result oriented and democratic process. 

  Co-Chair

Let me address the three key issues under discussion today. 

On Categories of membership, the G4, like the overwhelming majority of Member States, supports expansion of both the permanent and non-permanent membership.

We believe that there is an imbalance of influence within the Security Council between the permanent and non-permanent members. Expanding only in the non-permanent category is not going to solve the problem. It will, actually widen the difference between permanent and non-permanent members even more, tilting further the scales in favour of a dispensation that was valid in the special situation in 1945 but is no longer now.   A balanced enlargement in both categories is necessarily the only way to ensure an equilibrium that reflects the current situation.

The geography and demography of the world has undergone a sea change.  The new realities and developing countries need to be reflected in the permanent membership. This should include appropriate representation of Africa in the Council in both categories. Any proposal that does not address the issue of Africa's non-representation in the permanent category does grave injustice to Africa's aspirations for equality. In our view, any reform that does not address expansion of both categories will be incomplete and futile.

Co-Chair

There have been various suggestions of expansion that propose the 'so called' intermediate models whose main feature is immediate re-election of non-permanent members with a longer term as a solution. 

It is worth recalling that these proposed features are not new. They were sought to be introduced in the UN Charter and were discarded then.

For example, an effort was specifically mounted to amend the Dumbarton Oaks draft with a proposal for non-permanent membership for 8 years.   It was termed as 'semi-permanent membership'. It was discussed in detail in Committee 1 of  Commission III dealing with parts of the Charter related to the Security Council's  Structure and Procedure. On May 14, 1945 it was rejected by an overwhelmingly majority. 

Subsequently, just two days later, an effort was made to provide for opportunities for re-election of non-permanent members on completion of their 2 year terms. These efforts too were rejected outright by all except two members.   

In short, the idea that underpins these models is to use a well- known colloquialism - old hat.  It is not only old hat but a hat that has been declined by a huge majority to be worn and has been long discarded.  

In our view, the proposal for expansion of only in non-permanent category, old or new, is afflicted with the following problems:

•    It does not provide any checks or balances to the current issues related to the imbalances  between            the permanent members and the non-permanent members. •    It would not empower Africa or other developing countries. •    It would mean introduction of a new category and addition of numbers without making the Council          either accountable or effective.That accountability can come about only by having new permanent members elected and      subject to stringent review.
•    As many small states have repeatedly pointed out that these intermediate models merely enhance the chances of more     resourceful middle states to contest in both the 'so  called semi-permanent' and the non-permanent category thereby       further reducing the chances of small states to serve on the Council. 

In short, expansion of non-permanent membership is a solution which adds to the size without addressing the malaise that afflicts the Council.

Co-Chair

There are some who have conflated and confused regular elections to the Council with accountability. Ensuring a perpetual campaign mode is not the best form of accountability. Is the current Council more accountable than it was in pre-1965 period because it has twice the number of elected non-permanent members? It is incorrect to think that the accountability of the Council will increase merely with more non-permanent members. In fact, it will leave the real problems of co-relation of power and accountability to fester. Alternately can we not consider addressing this issue of accountability through a different approach? New permanent members can be democratically elected through an appropriate initial election process and subjected to mandatory and detailed review process after a specific time-period so ensure accountability. This will ensure our proposals are within the Charter formats familiar to all rather than along discarded paths. 

On the issue of Regional representation, the G 4 position is that the basis of the UN Charter is that States represent themselves in the UN's organs including the Security Council. However, in any increase in the membership due regard is to be paid to equitable geographical distribution. This would mean that there needs to be balance in the number of non-permanent members from various regional groups taking into account the membership of each of the regional groups that we have organised ourselves into. The distribution of non-permanent membership from various regions over the passage of time is no longer reflective of equitable geographical distribution. For example, in the Asia-Pacific group there are 53 states vying for 2 non-permanent seats, while in the WEOG group there are 26 members in the pool vying for 2 seats. The Permanent Representative of Panama has on many occasions painstakingly outlined how the current regional distribution of non-permanent seats is no longer equitable.  For example, while for the Asia-Pacific group, the ratio is 1:26.5, for WEOG it is 1:13. Any expansion needs to address this as also representation of small and medium size Member States, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Member States should also make full use of the possibility of cross-regional arrangements to ensure that the diversity of the General Assembly membership is adequately reflected in the Council.

Co-Chair

The question of the veto has been addressed by many from differing perspectives. The G-4 approach is that the problem of the veto is not one of quantity (of extending it immediately to new permanent members) but of quality - of introducing restrictions. Our position is imbued with this spirit. While the new permanent members would as a principle have the same responsibilities and obligations as current permanent members they shall not exercise the veto until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review. The issue of veto is important but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself. 

Co-Chair

Before I end I would also like to address the matter of the possible outcome of this set of meetings. In our view, the end of this discussion will draw to a close the in-depth consideration of all the 5 clusters of issues. 

In this context, we support the call by the L.69 to have the positions of the 180 Member States, who have participated in the discussions on Security Council reform in various ways, collated in a document so that all views are acknowledged and any change or evolution in positions swiftly captured.

As has been eloquently articulated by the Spokesperson of the L.69, we don't think anyone should be under the illusion that the request for a text is the demand of a 'so called camp'. A text is a basic requirement for work here at the UN and a norm followed in all processes for making progress. While we are aware of no other way to proceed but this, we are open to innovative ideas to rework the UN system. Unfortunately, we haven't heard any innovative ideas but a few countries bringing old rejected models for consideration of the Member States yet again. We are, as a matter of respect, willing to consider them and have them tabled along with our proposals in a composite text.  We therefore, urge you to collate all options presented on these issues and place them on the table for us the Member States to seriously begin negotiations. It is time to get started. For our credibility to be sustained, it is time for honest engagement and exchange on the basis of a text.

Thank you Co-Chair