Statement by the delegation of Ukraine at the fourth informal meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform

Distinguished Co-Chairs,

First of all, Ukraine would like to join other delegations in expressing its appreciation over your handling of the IGN process.

We commend your efforts to ensure comprehensive discussion of the wider scope of issues, related to the Security Council reform. Today’s topic- the status of IGN documents – is an example of this comprehensive approach.

Ukraine remains consistent in supporting the view that the negotiation process will benefit if text-based approach is applied and single document is put on the negotiation table. It might be helpful for avoiding countless repetition of the well-known positions and going around in circles from year to year.

While absence of progress might be a desirable situation for some, it is clearly unacceptable for the overwhelming majority of the Member States. Over the years of our deliberations many delegations have shared their recipes of how to overcome the current stage of mere repetition. On a number of occasions this brought them to the issue of formal record or summary that could adequately reflect positions of all concerned.

In our opinion it is absolutely essential to have if not a verbatim record (which might be problematic due to an informal nature of our discussions) than at least a proper summary, with Member States being able to submit their specific comments so that no position is ignored or misunderstood.

We would also favor to have some official standing for such a document so as to ensure unity of perception and to avoid polarization among Member States with regards to this written product.

At the same time, we should start with elaborating a set of concrete principles and criteria that our work on a written document should meet to be considered credible. It is after having such a set that we will be able to practically address the issue of the status and modalities of the document, as well as its substance. We therefore deem it reasonable to hold additional rounds in May-June to discuss the issues related to preparation of the document.

Comprehensive nature of the document, proper reflection of the entire scope of positions and proposals, acknowledgement of unchallenged proposals as commonalities, could be among such criteria.

For instance, Ukraine along with other members of the Eastern European group of states – with an exception of Russia – consistently advocates granting this group an additional non-permanent seat in an enlarged Security Council. We are glad to see that throughout the whole IGN process not a single objection has been raised on this matter. At the same time, the discourse on the regional representation in the Council often misses out Eastern Europe in the list of regions and groups whose underrepresentation is considered as a commonality.

Another important principle: any idea supported by almost all delegations should not be abandoned without at least an attempt to work on it. The best example here is the question of veto. Almost at every IGN meeting we hear that in its current form of unlimited privilege the veto right remains a major obstacle to the Council’s ability to address efficiently challenges to the international peace and security. At the same time discussions on the matter are often of a fatalistic nature, ruling out any slightest progress whatsoever.

In this regard I would like to reiterate that it is a matter of principle for my country to ensure that in the reformed Security Council a practice of exercising a veto right during consideration of situation, in which that member is directly involved as a party to conflict, is ruled out.

Working on the IGN documents we should properly address all these issues. Only by doing this we stand a chance to finally make a long-overdue difference.

Thank you.