Distinguished Co-Chairs,

Germany fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by Japan on behalf of the G4. Allow me to add a few additional points in my national capacity.

The IGN has repeatedly discussed two principal reform models: one that includes new permanent members, and one that does not. From our perspective, the G4 model already represents a compromise that can help build consensus around a single approach.

It bridges differences between distinct models through flexibility on the veto. The G4 model does not insist on an immediate extension of the veto to new permanent members. Instead, the G4 model foresees a review clause after 15 years. This is a realistic recognition of given political reservations against extending the veto. It allows Member States to reassess arrangements of the reform in light of experience with a reformed Council.

At the same time, the G4 model addresses the fundamental legitimacy gap created by persistent underrepresentation. In our view, without expansion in both categories, the widespread expectations for meaningful reform will not be met. A Council that is more representative must reflect today’s geopolitical realities. New permanent representation must be provided to Africa and Latin America.

On selection, we support the regular General Assembly-based process for electing new permanent members. We emphasize that Article 23 of the UN Charter provides a clear criterion for the selection of members of the Security Council, which is the contributions to international peace and security.

We are open to discussing innovative modalities, including cross-regional arrangements—in particular to better reflect the perspectives of SIDS. However, they cannot substitute for the necessary expansion in both membership categories.

The G4 model shows one compromise proposal for the way forward: balanced enlargement, veto pragmatism, and a time-bound review. It is now time to move from parallel models to a consolidated text capable of real negotiations.

Thank you!