Statement of G4 delivered by Germany on the UfC model during the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform, 18 March 2024

IGN - Security Council Reform

IGN - Security Council Reform, © Permanent Representation of Germany to the UN

18.03.2024 - Speech

The statement was delivered by Ambassador Thomas Zahneisen, Deputy Permanent Representative.

thank you very much for convening another session of structured dialogues, this time on the model of Uniting for Consensus.
I have the honor to speak on behalf of the “Group of Four” – Brazil, India, Japan and my own country, Germany.
At the outset, we wish to reiterate our unwavering support for the innovative approach, taken by the Co-Chairs, of deliberating individual models during IGN sessions.
The constructive discussions witnessed during the recent Structured Dialogues have been invaluable.
We remain hopeful that this spirit of collaboration will continue to guide our deliberations within the IGN.

Like previous speakers, we wish to commend the colleagues of UfC, particularly Ambassador Massari, for the detailed presentation of their model, and in general, for their active participation in this exercise.
Such constructive engagements are pivotal in fostering a deeper understanding of each other’s perspectives and in identifying areas of common ground.

We, the G4, acknowledge that the UfC model recognizes the imperative for a more representative Security Council.
However, here I join groups that have spoken this morning, we have grave concerns that an expansion only in the non-permanent category will fail to change the dynamics inside the Council and ultimately only perpetuate the current imbalances ot the Council’s composition.
It remains our firm conviction that the UfC model would do injustice to all regions currently not adequately represented in the Security Council, such as Africa and Latin America.

Several models have now been presented and discussed, including those from Mexico, Liechtenstein, the L.69 Group, and our model, the G4.
We believe, it has become evident that there is a strong consensus among the majority of UN Member States, including all 54 African nations, the L69, and at least four (out of five) permanent members, in favour of an expansion in both categories, permanent and non-permanent seats.
In recent weeks, many delegations have passionately argued that denying under- and unrepresented regions the opportunity for permanent membership would simply perpetuate a grave, historical injustice.
In this regard, particularly, the UfC proposal of creating a new category, even though they do not call it a new category, a new category of longer-term, non-permanent membership, and thereby explicitly excluding the possibility of expanding permanent membership, will not sufficiently address the aspirations of Member States.
Instead, the model leaves the concentration of power in the hands of the P5 unaffected.

At the same time, we are grateful for the opportunity of dialogue and would like to seek clarification on the following questions:

First, I want to come back to what the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone raised on behalf of the African Group,
How does the UfC model intend to redress the historical injustices, particularly concerning Africa, given that the UfC model appears not to incorporate the demands of our African colleagues for two new Permanent Seats for Africa?
In this context, what does a “special case” mean when UfC members refer to Africa and Security Council reform?

How does UfC anticipate that the proposed composition, with 22 non-permanent members and the same permanent five members, would significantly change the dynamics within the Council?

Third, we would like to seek clarification regarding the proposed new category of longer-term non-permanent seats.
• How many such seats does UfC propose? In your view, what would be your best option?
• We understand, that there is the possibility of re-elections in this new membership category. What conditions for re-election does UfC suggest?

• Regarding the election process for non-permanent members from cross-regional groups such as the SIDS and Small States:
a. How (and by whom) is membership in these groups determined?

b. How would multiple overlapping cross-regional groups work? Is membership of one Member State in several cross regional groups possible?

c. if yes, are successive candidacies, or parallel candidacies in different groups permissible?

To conclude, we express our sincere gratitude once again to “Uniting for Consensus” for their valuable contribution to the discussion on Security Council reform, for eloquently, presenting their model today, and for their willingness to engage in clarifying the implications of their proposal.

I thank you

Top of page