Global Policy Forum

I thank you for convening this meeting. I also wish to reiterate Brazil's support for your role as chair of the intergovernmental negotiations. We appreciate the determination and objectivity with which you have been conducting our deliberations. In the past, you have said that your work is "partial only in one way: partial to progress". In pursuing such urgent goal, you can count on my delegation and, I am certain, on the vast majority of Member States.

In our view, the second phase of our negotiations should not aim at the mere restatement of national positions. Rather, we should take the opportunity to indicate to you our respective preferences for one of the main options on the table in each of the five key issues, so that, at the next phase, we can focus on the proposals that enjoy the widest support. By so doing, we will hopefully move the process forward, as is the wish of the majority of delegations. I kindly invite all Member States to take the floor, even if briefly, and engage in such crucial exercise.

Regarding today's topics, Brazil remains convinced that the Council should be expanded in both categories of members. The essential reason for such position is clear. Overcoming the insufficient representativeness of the Council and the risk of diminished legitimacy - which is the very justification for the reform - requires ensuring greater diversity in the core membership of the organ. Anything short of an appropriate enlargement in the permanent membership may be convenient to some, but would not bring true reform to the Council. We believe that this position continues to be supported by a very large majority of Member States.

My delegation is aware that some countries consider that a more suitable option would be the so-called intermediate reform. We fully respect those views but do not share them, especially because such reform would essentially preserve a status quo that we all agree is not politically sustainable in the long-run.

Unlike these two major options, the idea of expanding the Council only in the category of non-permanent members no longer enjoys significant support. The membership came to realize that a mere increase in the number of non-permanent members is entirely insufficient and incapable of bringing about the kind of change that is required.

In light of the foregoing, Mr. Chairman, we suggest that, in the next phase, we focus exclusively on the options mentioned in paragraphs 14.b.i and 14.b.ii in your overview.

Regarding the size of a reformed Council, Brazil's position is also known. The G-4 proposal calls for a Council of 25 members, a number that seems to reconcile the imperative of greater representativeness, especially of the developing world, and the need for enhanced effectiveness and efficiency. There is nothing magical about that number and we should all exercise flexibility. We therefore support an increase in the current number of members to a level that paragraph 14.a.ii of your overview describes as "mid-twenties". Based on the proposals and interventions made in the past, we believe our position is shared by the virtual totality of Member States.

On the issue of regional representation, my delegation has already explained its difficulties with such term: it is alien to the Charter; lacks conceptual clarity; suggests that political entities other than States might be represented in the Council; and raises difficult questions that will only bring unnecessary confusion and controversy to our negotiation. Such concerns have also been voiced by numerous delegations in our previous exchange on the issue. That is why I reiterate my delegation's suggestion that we leave the term "regional representation" aside and work on the basis of the well-established notion of equitable geographical distribution. We therefore support, in general, the option which your overview describes in paragraph 14.c.1.

In such paragraph, you make a reference to a specific possible negotiable: whether or not arrangements for representation on the seats would be decided by the respective regional groups. Here Brazil's position is also very clear. Legally and politically, all members of the Council represent but themselves. In the case of the elected members, although candidatures are submitted through regional groups, they are elected in their national capacity by the whole membership and are accountable to all Member States. Therefore, regional groups must not substitute the Charter or the General Assembly in regulating representation in the Council. However, we would have no objections if members of regional groups sustain in the Council positions or policies agreed upon in such groups. Nor would we oppose efforts by such groups to submit a clean slate in elections held at the General Assembly.

Mr. Chairman,

These are the views of my delegation on the issues before us today. I look forward to hearing the opinions of as many Member States as possible.