Mr. President,

Let me begin by thanking you for your stirring initial remarks articulating your commitment to putting in place a meaningful and credible reform process. These have set the stage for our consideration of Agenda item 122 on the 'Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the membership of the Security Council.' 

My delegation aligns with the Statements delivered earlier by the Permanent Representative of Japan on behalf of the G-4 and by the Permanent Representative of St. Vincent and Grenadines on behalf of L.69. I would like to add some national perspectives.

Mr. President, 

We meet at the annual consideration of this item for the 25th   consecutive time, even as we witness accelerating change all around us.

A futurist, while cataloguing change in the 21st century, concluded that between 2000 and 2014, the total amount of changes impacting on our lives were equivalent to that of the entire 20th century. He also then predicted that according to his Law of Accelerating Returns, another 20th-century's worth of change will happen in half that time, by 2021. Of course, it appears he forgot to study the practice and pursuit of this agenda item which has remained unchanged for years before 2000 and years after 2014. 

Mr. President,

This agenda item is indicative of the lack of even incremental change in our approach to issues of importance, oblivious of the pace of change all around us.

As multilateral diplomats, we are used to punishing processes, but never has a process itself become a punishment, as in this case.  

If this is the 'new normal', it does not bode well for multilateralism. Never have the normative foundations of multilateral cooperation shown up to be weaker than in this instance.

Mr. President, 

If the most representative of the existing multilateral institutions only muddles along holding meetings and issuing reports which are not even minor stabs at improvement at the margins; 

If the gap is growing between the demand for global governance and the shortage of responses provided by existing multilateral institutions; 

Then, we need to ponder if what we are witnessing are symptoms of a recession of multilateralism. 

Mr. President,

There is no more vivid reflection of this deepening crisis of multilateralism than the dysfunctional Security Council, which no longer reflects contemporary realities and hence confronts a crisis of legitimacy and credibility. 

Similarly, there is no greater example of the institutional inertia that resists constructive adaptation than the inability to translate discussions into a text for negotiations, despite 10 years of so-called intergovernmental negotiations authorized by the General Assembly and the continuous annual consideration of the agenda item here since 1993. 

When proliferating transnational threats, deepening economic interdependence, worsening environmental degradation - all call for effective multilateral action - we have fallen short of a  substantive response, on an issue as important as reform of the Security Council. This is a sign that the aging pillars of the  established multilateral order are creaking and crumbling all around us, unable to meet the need for change.

Mr. President,

It is axiomatic that Reforms tend to generate Reforms. This year,  the Secretary General has elaborated a broad set of reform proposals, including in the peace and security sphere. No reform of the UN's peace and security architecture will be complete, without the reform of the Security Council. It would not be incorrect to say that an unreformed Council could, in fact, undermine progress that may be made in other areas of this continuum. The time therefore is ripe for progress on Security Council Reform, as part of a wide-ranging agenda of reform, during this session of the General Assembly. 

So, what should we specifically do to avail of this opportunity?

First, the former French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau is said to have claimed that 'war is too important to be left to the Generals'; Diplomacy, in the modern era, seems to have become too important to be left to the Diplomats. This need not be a bad thing. Modern challenges take the concerted efforts not just of Governments, but also of whole societies, and so wider society could be more involved in the diplomatic process. Perhaps, we need to consider options of opening the process, so that others are aware of what is it that stops the current discussions from even beginning on the path of a negotiating text.  Transparency in the working of diplomats is a useful adaptation that we can consider in this changing world as a pathway to progress.

Second, differences between those who advocate change and defenders of the status quo is a recurring pattern in the history of any reform effort. Document A/72/510 details the critical mass that is available for initiation of a normal reform process. Having a negotiating text is not just a demand of the majority but the responsibility of all the membership. A normalized process does not guarantee desired results by itself. A normalized process expresses good faith and sincerity of the entire membership. It is time to have a normal process with a text and records of who said what, so as to help all of us in understanding each other's positions with greater clarity and respect.

Third, I congratulate you for commencing your stewardship of this process with the welcome appointment of our colleagues, Amb. Kaha Imnadze from Georgia and Amb. Lana Zaki from United Arab Emirates, as Co-Chairs. I wish them success in their efforts. We hope that under your leadership, the Co-Chairs will act courageously to move this process forward.  We have had more than our share of routines, continuity & statements and too little of initiatives, flexibility and results. We call on the Co-Chairs to replace routines with initiatives, continuity with flexibility and statements with results.

It is only then can we diplomats be able to do what the Philosopher Edmund Burke paraphrased as doing 'those things that men of intelligence and good-will would wish, five or ten years hence, had been done.' 

That opportunity, Mr. President, lies within our grasp.   The choice is ours to make. 

I thank you, Mr. President.