UNSC Election Debate with WEOG Candidates

Excellencies, colleagues and friends, I hope you are all doing well. My name is Hazel Goulandris. I'm the Secretary General of the World Federation of UN Associations. Our organization works to strengthen and improve the un together with a hundred national UN associations around the world. The Security Council is a crucial organ, of course, of the UN architecture, the best known one, and it is charged with the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. A responsibility that has become increasingly, unfortunately, difficult amidst the challenges that multilateralism is facing. Today's debate is part of wider efforts to further transparency and accountability and I would say, most importantly, understanding by the general public of how the the Council works. An initiative that we launched in 2016 to answer the calls from member states and civil society to improve the access to the Council. I think that after 10 years we can see that the event is having a lot of success. It's been many years in a row that we have full house in terms of the election debates. This is the case this year as well. We're starting with this debate today. We will have all the other candidates that will participate next week as well. So this is a great pleasure for us. So this is the 9th edition of the election debate featuring ambassadors of the candidates from the WIO Group, Austria, Germany and Portugal for the 2027, 2028 UN Security Council term. We are delighted to be here with you this morning and grateful for their participation. To the Ambassadors Gregor Kossler of Austria, Rickleff Boity from Germany and Rui Vinas from Portugal. If elected, two of the ambassadors will serve a two year term on the Security Council. A few housekeeping reminders before we start. Each Member state has been asked to provide a brief introduction about their priorities, which right after I'm done, I will let them go through. After this we will have our Q and A segment, beginning with member States who have pre submitted a request to ask a question to the panel and moving on to pre submitted questions from NGOs and NGO representatives. The access to this event is open to all ECOSOC accredited NGOs so they're free to ask a question. We will then take questions from the floor if time allows. The event is limited to two hours, so we will see if we can do it. I see that the attendance is very good, so let's see if we can open the floor towards the end for additional questions. If that is the case, we will go through how this is going to happen again, but at some point I will say if we see we have time, I will ask you to Talk to my colleagues and fill in a little piece of paper so that we have a list of speakers and we know who to call. The event is being live streamed on UN Web tv, so we say hello to our friends, especially from Geneva. There are generally many NGOs there that follow the event. And for those watching online, we encourage you to participate using the hashtag UNSC elections. If we run into any technical difficulties, etc, etc, be patient, and so on and so forth. Now it is my pleasure to turn to the panelist, the first panelist for introductory remarks. We will go in alphabetical order and then reverse and so on and so forth until the end for his so yes, to the first panelist for his introductory remarks. So we start with Austria.

Thank you, Azil. And thank you to the organizers. As you know, Austria is a staunch supporter of transparency and therefore we welcome such a discussion with the other two candidates, Rickleff and Rui. I look forward to hearing your questions and I will do my best to answer them. Today is also for us a very important listening exercise. The Austrian campaign for an elected seat on the Council has been exactly that. An exercise in listening, an exercise in understanding and learning about priorities, demands and necessities of the entire membership. This is a competition among three friendly EU member states. While we belong to the same family and stand by our EU solidarity, today, of course, I will focus on what distinguishes Austria from the other two candidates. First, Austria is one of the smaller UN member states, export oriented and militarily neutral. As a proud member of the Forum of Small States, we understand what the United nations means to those who do not have the strength of power politics on their side. For us, the multilateral system is a fundamental part of our security policy. Also, as a host of one of the UN headquarters in Vienna, multilateralism for us is part of our DNA, as we like to say. We believe in a system based on international law and the rule of law, and that the United nations must remain at the heart of our shared ambition. A world that is more peaceful, more just and more prosperous. That also includes our initiatives on disarmament. What do you want to achieve? We want to bring more cooperation to the Council, not more confrontation. We believe we are particularly well suited for that purpose. For that, the UN must leverage the strength of true partnerships. That includes much, much closer cooperation with regional organizations like asean, du, osce, League of Arab States, caricom, but especially of course, with the African Union. We will continue to support implementation of resolution 2719 on financing African led peace support operations. Our second component of our motto is dialogue. It goes without saying, but at the same time, as responsible and deeply committed host of one of the UN HQs and over 50 international organizations in Vienna, Austria has truly a firm track record when it comes to dialogue. The same applies here in the UN and at the Council. We need dialogue, especially if we don't agree, which is very often the case. And our third component of our motto is trust. For us, trust is the currency of diplomacy. We can only earn it through behavior in the Council and outside. We have to make our own assessments, and we do that as Austria. And we listen, and we will continue to listen if elected. We're looking to make a contribution of building trust inside the council with E10 partners, including the A3 or A3, and of course with the P5 as well, on priorities. We will talk more about this in the discussion, I'm sure, but we will strive to serve the entire membership. This will mean pragmatism in our daily work with our fellow Council members, if elected. At the same time, we remain a staunch and principled supporter of of the UN Charter and international law. Peacekeeping. We have contributed 140,000 peacekeepers since we joined UN in total partnerships. Rule of law, climate insecurity, WPS, protection of civilians and KHAK are key areas we want to engage in. But we're also aware how important maritime security and preventive diplomacy are for the Council's work and beyond. Just one more word before closing about our candidature. Austria presented its candidature first, already 15 years ago in 2011. And Austria is also the candidate that has not been a member of the Security Council for the longest time. As a military neutral country that is not part of any military alliance, we make our own assessments based on our own capacities, and we draw our own conclusions on peace and security challenges. And that is our value proposition. And we bring a smaller country perspective onto the table. We need a trust rotation and the possibility for smaller member states to serve as elected members. Because the Council has a responsibility to protect and to serve the entire membership. It therefore needs to include smaller states in the E10. This is why we need your support. If elected on 3rd of June, Austria will continue to be a champion of partnership, dialogue and trust. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador. I now turn to the Ambassador of Germany,

Secretary General Glandaris. Excellencies, colleagues, friends, especially representatives of civil society, but also fellow colleagues and contestants here. Diba Gregoire Caro Rui. I'm very happy to be here this morning and first of all, thank you to Wefuna for providing this opportunity because it is a tradition, as you say, and rightly so, because it is an aspect of transparency and accountability of the Security Council before members get on the Council. And serving on the Council is a great responsibility and it is a privilege and a privilege that needs to be earned. So I'm very happy to explain to you today why we are running, why Germany is running reliably every eight years for the Security Council while we're running. Now, first of all, we're deeply invested in the United nations, in the system overall, in the agencies, in the programs, and that includes all three pillars of the un. We are, if you count our contributions, assessed and voluntary, the second largest contributor. And just to give you a ballpark figure, this often amounts to more than US$4 billion a year. But I don't want to dwell on the money at all, but rather look at examples of how Germany is shaping policy, helping shape discussions. And what we have done recently inside the UN system, we facilitated with Namibia. And I see the ambassador of Namibia here. I'm very happy to see you. The pact for the future that was concluded in 2024, just until recently, in January, we chaired the Peace Building Commission. We called the peace keeping Ministerial exactly a year ago. And ever since we've engaged in discussions. Where are we now? Just yesterday and last Friday, my mission and I held dialogues on this. And we're deeply invested in peace and security and trying to solve issues. We just had a big conference on Sudan. I'm happy to dwell on this a little more and questions. And we're deeply invested in making the new mission in Haiti work. So looking at what we are going to do in the Council and our priorities, we will work diligently on peace and security. And what I mean is we need to find solutions in a world that has more conflicts, solutions that work in peace and security. That means we need to look at missions and their mandate very closely under the conditions that we know. Conflicts, lack of funding, different approaches, political will not always there. We need to look more at prevention. And this is going to be a German priority. And I can bring a lot on prevention out of my time, our time in the Peace Building Commission. And we need to keep in mind the strategic direction. The Secretary General will come out with a report on peacekeeping review shortly, in a few weeks. And we need to be part of this discussion as Security Council members and we will weigh in as Germany. We come to the Council, if we are elected, with a comprehensive approach to security. And that means that we will bring a view of what root causes are for conflicts and of who needs to be involved when you try to solve conflicts. So root causes like climate change effects or lack of development need to be part of the discussion. And civil society, especially women, especially young people, need to be part of the discussion. We have a good record if you look at our previous Council runs on these issues, where we were at the helm of championing resolutions, or just recently on youth peace and security. My trip to the African Union, to Addis Ababa held that topic, especially in our dialogue UN Peace Building Commission with the au. And we had extra meetings that I was very happy to have with young people, young peacemakers in Africa. And we will have this approach on the Council as well. And finally, we want, and we have to increase transparency and inclusiveness of the Council. This goes to who can brief. I just mentioned civil society. That is important, but it also means closer and better cooperation among the E10. And I think Germany is well placed to bring people together to build a bridge, to put in its weight for closer cooperation, because the E10, they have evolved, they're more powerful now. And we have helped this in the past. We were champions of it when we were on the Council in the past. I'm happy to elaborate on this a little bit, but the E10 work needs smaller countries and middle powers, and we're happy, if we're elected, to put in our word. And finally, Gregor said, listening, and I very much agree with him. This is so important. We have a network of missions around the world, more than 200 embassies and consulates. My mission is always open. And I've been trying since I came here to reach out to every single mission and every single colleague to hear what you have to say and hear your priorities for possible future Council members. And if elected, of course, I will continue to be open for that kind of discussion. I'm very happy to elaborate more in the Q and A part, but I will leave you with this. We are in a phase of transition for the un, for the leadership of the UN in the world and geopolitics. It is important that the Council members come with a holistic approach. We do that and that we discuss among all the membership and with the new leadership of the UN how we can actually make the Council work better and make the UN work better as a whole, because we all depend on it. We all depend on rules. Thank you, colleagues.

Thank you, Mr.

Ambassador. And for the last opening remarks, Portugal, thank you.

Good day to everybody.

Thank you for coming and for being here with us. Secretary General Goulandris, thank you for this opportunity. Also thanking Wafona for organizing this debate. I warmly also greet my fellow candidates, Austria and Germany, and welcome all member states, civil society representatives and UN colleagues joining us today. These debates reflect a broader evolution in UN culture that Portugal strongly supports a United nations that is more open, more transparent and more engaged with a wider membership. Portugal announced its candidacy in January 2013 in clean slate, 13 years before this election and throughout this period we have campaigned with humility, responsibility, but determination and without any changes to our positions. No campaign oriented changes which have remained coherent and consistent. We believe that the Security Council works best when elected. Members act as bridge builders, help shape consensus and defend international law consistently and universally. At a moment when the Charter is under pressure, in contexts ranging from Gaza to Ukraine, from Sudan to Haiti, from territorial integrity to freedom of navigation, we believe the principles of the UN Charter must remain the foundation of international peace and security. Portugal has a long standing engagement with the United nations across all the three pillars of its work. Over the last 68 years we have contributed with more than 20,000 military and police personnel to over 25 UN peace operations, currently in three, soon in June, in five. So it is reflects our strong commitment to peacekeeping, peace building and preventive diplomacy. We are an European country, like the two colleagues here representing two European countries, but with both an Atlantic and the Mediterranean maritime identity. And we enjoy strong global connections across regions and cultures. We maintain deep historical partnerships with Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Arab world and the sids. And we have consistently worked across regional groups. Here in New York. We are also proud members of the community of Portuguese language countries, connecting us to partners across four continents. Portugal comes from a strongly multilateral diplomatic tradition centered on dialogue, bridge building and collective solutions. We are convinced that when trust between nation erodes, dialogue becomes even more indispensable. But dialogue is not synonymous with neutrality. Portugal has clear, known and consistent positions firmly grounded in the UN Charter, international law and human dignity. And in the Security Council. Neutrality is not an option. Members are expected to take positions, assume responsibility and cast votes. Portugal believes the Security Council must deepen its focus on prevention, including including through mediation, preventive diplomacy and greater attention to threats multipliers such as climate change and rising sea levels. Our approach to Council can be summarized in the guidelines of our campaign motto, which translates our priorities Prevent, partner and protect. Prevent will be our top priority. By investing in diplomacy through formats that prioritize mediation and preventive action before crises escalate, and by systematically addressing the structural drivers of instability from poverty and exclusion to the growing impact of climate change and rising sea levels. Partner by strengthening cooperation across the UN system with regional organizations, consulting with concerned countries in civil society, promoting a more transparent and representative Security Council, and helping bridge divides across the wider membership. For a country like Portugal, which belongs to different groups, alliances and communities across regions, partnering is part of our diplomatic DNA. Our foreign policy has always been built through partnerships. Protect by defending UN Charter and international law consistently and universally, while reinforcing effective peacekeeping, including through the implementation of Resolution 2719. Also to reinforce appropriate peace building and focusing on core Council responsibility to protect civilians. Throughout this campaign, Portugal has tried to demonstrate not only what we stand for, but also how we work. With consistency, openness, respect for international law, and a genuine commitment to dialogue across regions and positions. We are committed to be a reliable and constructive partner within the UN system, listening carefully, building bridges and contributing to collective solutions. As we now enter the final stretch after a long marathon of 13 years, we believe this is ultimately a moment to evaluate not only platforms, but behaviors, to look to the records, to the consistence, how we vote, how we position ourselves, how we negotiate, and also the ability of candidates to contribute responsibly to the work of the Council. Portugal stands ready to serve as an active member of the 10 with humility, determination and a strong sense of responsibility towards the wider membership. With your support, if we deserve that support. On 3 June, Portugal will work relentlessly for a Security Council that is more trusted, more representative and more fit for today's challenge. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador. Thank you to all our panelists. I think we can go to the question and answer section. We will start with the missions. We have limited the questions to one question per mission, at least at this initial stage.

So.

So because we have one that has two. So I will call the three missions in advance so that the next two can prepare. I have the mission of Poland first, Namibia second, and Malawi third. So we will start with a question from the mission of Poland, and before we go to that. So the way that we do it is that we take three questions and then every panelist has the opportunity to answer every question, and we proceed in reverse alphabetical order, and so on and so forth, as we said before. So the first ambassador to answer the set of questions will be the ambassador of Portugal after the three missions I mentioned have asked their questions. So Poland, where is. Yes, please.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Chair.

And thank you, dear colleagues, for your presentations and for appearing here. And while I appreciate that fact Very much. I had a thought that it would be nice to have a permanent member of the Council in an election debate like this in front of the general population. I know it's not coming anytime soon, but it would be nice to have colleagues. Respect for international law that you all mentioned in your presentations was one of Poland's key priorities during our term on the Security Council. If you years ago, breaches of even the most fundamental provisions of the UN Charter remain among the most significant challenges facing both the international community and the United nations itself. How do you intend to address the growing trend of disregard for international law and the UN Charter, including, unfortunately, by some members of the Council during your term? Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

I now turn to the mission of Namibia.

Thank you, Chair. Let me express my appreciation at you organizing this debate, which I think comes during the time when the world is faced with serious challenges that are challenging our institution that was established to solve issues to prevent wars and so on. When the war broke out in Ukraine, I was the Executive Director of the Ministry of International Relations and Trade in the Republic of Namibia. We issued our statement at the time based on our policy, of course, of non aligned and resolving issues through peaceful means. And one ambassador called me thereafter and this ambassador was condemning our statement. And the words of this ambassador were like, it's not like it's in Africa. And so we were stunned, of course. And looking at the events in the Security Council, there is no denial that the Security Council today is divided along the north and south lines. And these are of course based on the interest of the P5 and the E10 follow also depending on where these clearly defined camps are. And so my question to the three candidates is, how would your position be formulated on issues affecting human rights in the Council in situations where human rights of some seem to be prioritized over others? Thank you.

Thank you very much for your question.

And lastly for this round, I turn to Malawi.

Thank you Chair, for giving me the floor and thank you, the three presenters for your briefings. Africa has suffered continuous conflicts medium to long term, which have had serious impact on socioeconomic and political progression of the continent. The Council has been approving financing of peacekeeping operations and other initiatives, including personnel from troop and police contributing countries like my own Malawi. Due to the financial crisis that the UN is facing, peacekeeping operations have been reduced to in scale. In this situation and moving forward, Africa, where most conflicts considered in the Council are happening, requires a new support mechanism. If elected and based on your EU experience with conflicts in your region, what new Support mechanism. Would you propose to the Council for Africa regional arrangements or even at continental level, so that we are able to address the conflict issues in our continent. I thank you,

thank you very much

for all these three questions. We will start as said, from the ambassador of Portugal for the answers.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, starting with the first question about

Poland, I mean international law. It's a pity that we don't call international law the fourth pillar because of this organization. Because without international law, the multilateral system, the UN doesn't exist.

It's the backbone of all this.

I mean, the ideas that led to the creation of the UN back in 46 were basically to create an institutional framework to enhance international cooperation, to prevent war, to promote peace, but anchored in international law, in rules, in the Charter.

So if we don't have the international

law, this will be something else. But not anymore the un, the United nations, that we know. So we, in whatever we do, we have always to have that present and defend permanently, consistently international law.

And we should not give up.

We all know, because we are all seasoned diplomats and we don't have 14 or 15 years, that international law is not so strong as national law. The mechanisms to enforce are not as strong. But the simple fact, even when violated, that we have a norm as a reference. It's important we can say that the international law was violated and we can,

sooner or later we'll have a result.

But that moral judgment that some country or some non state actor violated international law, it's very important in our case. We have always been very much supporters of international law and the entire system, also with international courts. And we'll continue to do so. I had the pleasure to share the six committee two years ago, when after 20 years we had two important decisions as an outcome of the international law on disasters and crimes against humanity. And I'm very proud of having contributed to that. And you can't count Portugal with that. We will repeat our support and our defence of international in every intervention, in every topic of the Council. And we will of course support initiatives and take our own initiatives to debate in the Security Council the strengths of international law and also the protection of the international courts.

Going to Namibia, not to prolong too

much, but international law. I can stay and speak for an

hour, but on Namibia, if I understood

well, your point was basically the double standards to avoid. I mean, there are no perfect countries. If you look back to our history in the last 40 or 50 years, probably we'll find something in any of the member states, but we Portugal, we're very much comfortable with our positions. I mean, our position in Ukraine is the same that it is in Gaza. You know that our position is the same in Africa about DRC or Sudan. The same principle, sovereignty, territorial integrity, human rights, self determination. We have a consistent position on all independents, regardless of the geography or regardless the conflict or the country.

We will not go to the Council

looking into with the logic of political blocks or geographies. We'll try to maintain our consistency. We'll go with our principles, with our voice and with our record in this system.

And I think we have a positive record also on that. Ambassador. Finally, my dear Agnes, on Africa, I

mean also Portugal relating to Africa. I think we have a very consistent and long tradition. We have launched initiatives like the summits between the European Union and Africa back in 2000 and 2007 was under Portuguese presidency of the European Union. We have a very consistent position in working bilaterally and multilaterally with African countries. There is no silver bullet to solve all the conflicts in Africa, but we will work consistently.

And I give my word here that

every time if elected, a topic about Africa will be in the agenda. We will approach not only the A3, but the countries that are affected by that point. We will talk to them previously before to listen their concerns, their priorities, what worries them. We are also a full supporter of the the resolution 2719 and of their implementation. We continue to see that au som it's probably a good could be a good pilot case for implementing that resolution, but we are open to discuss in other contexts. But we should also be aware, and I think that us, Portugal and I think the European Union will also play his role both politically and financially. But we also have to be aware that there is a financial constraint about the implementation of that organization. We all know that there are countries that are not paying and say that very clearly and without that, it's more difficult to implement. But all solutions have to be African led, but have to be find a compromise through partnerships, dialogue and partnerships.

And we'll be ready to embark in

any partnership with the African countries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Germany. Mr. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Thank you. I agree with almost everything or everything that Rui says and that's not a big surprise. Right. But let me expand a little bit on the questions. Thank you for the question. On international law. Yes, it is difficult when members of the Security Council, especially permanent members, are part of conflicts and when there are breaches. It is important that we call this out. I think we can't be silent on international law. And we have not been. That is the bigger, the larger conflict area that you alluded to. But there are so many breaches of international law and international humanitarian law all over the world that there are many more fields that the Council has to look into. And oftentimes, yes, enforcement of international law is very difficult. What do we have at our hands? We have visibility. The Council and meetings around the Council, Council formats, like area formats, give visibility to breaches. And we have instruments, we have a number of very, very important resolutions that go back many years on protection of civilians, on protection of medical personnel. We just had an area format on that, on the resolution where we, you know, said we are not implementing this enough, but we have to. So we need to play the visibility because the instruments are there. They are lacuna, if you will, in international law, of course, that we're working on to close. Germany is very much a part of these discussions. But in the Council, we have to have accountability of what we, as Council, Germany having been part of some of those, what we decided on the political will and the practical implementation is on the ground. But what we can do here at the Council is play our part in accountability. And I think accountability is the key word now on the divisions of the Council, we're all members of the eu. We come as that. We have common positions, and that is not going to go away to a part of NATO that is not going to go away among eu. We support ourselves, including on security. But what is important is that members of the Security Council do not deepen these divisions that you mentioned, but that we are open and that we're listening to all parts of the world. And one part, of course, of improving the situation and doing away with divisions is increasing representation on the Council, the Council reform as such. We've talked about this for decades. We're still talking about it. It's not going to be easy to reform the Security Council, but we're big supporters of the demand of additional seats, permanent seats also, and especially for Africa. But short of a reform of the Security Council, representation can be improved if members of the Council listen and bring the positions of the membership of individual countries or regions, and we will work on that. And thirdly, yes, I agree with what Rui said on 27 19. We are supporters of that resolution, which is much more than a financing mechanism, as you know. It's a political framework that builds upon the political frameworks that we have for cooperation between the United nations and the African Union. And it's lamentable that it hasn't been implemented and that the case of Somalia was not one where the agreement could be found. We need to work on that. And we've raised this issue at the peacekeeping ministerial last year in Berlin, and we've held discussions here at the mission on how to socialize, if you will, the aspects of 2719, what other conflicts or areas are there where it could be implemented, how do we get funding, how do we get agreement among Council members, including the permanent members. And I can assure you that we will weigh in on that one and that actually, before even the Council election takes place, it's end of, I think next week or the week after, we're holding another deep dive on that. So we'll be engaged on 2719 and mechanisms to finance conflict solution missions in Africa.

Thank you very much.

And Austria, you have the floor.

Thank you very much for your questions. I'll start with the first one from Poland. Disregard of international law and UN Charter. And also your P5 remark, actually, because of course, you know, transparency. We elected members or those who strive to be elected, we. We have to go through the motions for just two years, even if we succeed. So transparency matters and we will stand for transparency and dialogue when we're in the Council, if we're in the Council. So that wasn't the question, but I couldn't let it go on the disregard of international law and the UN Charter. First of all, we have to be principled. As you know, Austria chairs the Group of Friends of Rule of Law. It consists of more than 50 countries. And in all the SG hearings, for example, but in many other occasions we spoke up. And I think speaking up for the rule of law and for international law and against violations is the first and foremost duty that we have. And we have to do that in a principled way also in the Council. But then in the Council of course itself, we're also faced with the reality of what it means to be in there. So we have to pair this principled stance with an intelligent pragmatism to actually improve situations where there is opportunity to do so. So sometimes there can be more conflict mitigation than resolving the issue, because obviously if one of the P5 are involved, it's much, much harder to achieve that. We could go into all these debates of the veto initiative 273 and so on. But just as a very clear answer, principled stance will continue to speak out for it and keep that also in a role if we're elected to be part of the E10 and maybe also, there have been quite regular open debates on the rule of law. Somalia did that in January. We, of course, participated. So we will continue to do so inside and outside the Council to speak up, but also to find solutions as a next step. Second question. Penda, thank you. A tough question, Fair question. First of all, I think the art of diplomacy is to say the right things. Right? That colleague clearly didn't say the right things. I feel your pain. And I think we cannot expect to be heard when we need it, if we don't listen when others need it. I think this is what I also tried to say in my opening statement, and also Rui referred to this very explicitly. We have to be aware that when a conflict hits your neighborhood, that you are of course, politically, emotionally, economically more massively impacted. And that's a political reality. And that is what we feel with the Russian aggression on Ukraine, because it's in our immediate neighborhood. This is what we felt during the breakup of Yugoslavia, which was my time as a junior diplomat. This is very, very, very clear that the emotional political part is simply a factor we have to cater for. At the same time, being principled, again, we have to be clear and consistent with applying our principles. And it is absolutely necessary that if you serve on the Council, that you do feel and hear those who are affected and not just have your own vantage point as an input to. To such a discussion. So wherever the conflict, we need to listen to the neighbors and we need to listen to the situation on the ground, which also involves, for example, CSO briefers in the Council, which involves informal talks around formal debates, and then take a stance and not just jump in with your own reflex that you might have, of course, which everybody of us has, because we represent our countries, but work towards that. And that actually brings me very strongly to already, Agnes, question of experiences. I think experiences of partnerships. We have experiences that are very genuine. In Europe, we've had the Osceola, which is now under enormous pressure, but it was a framework that encompassed all the way from Mongolia to Canada. European security and beyond now is of course, mostly dysfunctional as a political organ, but still very functional in field missions, doing very good work in many countries in form of conflict prevention. So we have our experiences, what works and what also fails if the. If the strain is too heavy, then obviously any such inclusive security framework like the UN is also, and like the African Union or asean, the burden can be too big to solve the conflict. But to be very concrete in terms of partnerships, you know, we have hosted a series of networked Partnerships, networked multilateralism, including Greentree and Alpac and so on. So for us to really look into what can be done concretely in the context of peace building architecture reform in the context of now the budget negotiations of peacekeeping operations, which is a very tough one because at the moment there is a 50% cut everywhere. This can be quite devastating for some of the missions or some troop contributing countries. So you know, these are things we have to look very concretely. And obviously, as I've mentioned In my opening statement 2719, I think we are all committed to it, but we are committed to it to see practical implementation and also share experiences in this context, how they can be mobilized. Thank you.

Thank you very much for all these answers. We will go to the second round of questions. I have the missions of Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Libya. So I will first call the Permanent Mission of Sierra Leone to ask their question. Sorry, yes, I think you heard me wrong. I said Sierra Leone, but I'm very happy to go to anthologies. But maybe the sound is not good. But is the mission of Sierra Leone available to ask the question? No, we will go back to them after Zimbabwe. Yes.

Yes. Thank you Chair for this opportunity to engage our colleagues with from Western Europe and others group. We look forward if we are all elected to work with some of the members from this group. My delegation would be grateful for their reflections on the following issue that is of importance to not only to our African region but also to the wider UN membership. African issues constitute a large share of the United Nations Security council, with the A3 or A3 playing an increasingly influential role in shaping Council outcomes and advancing African perspectives on peace and security matters. African member states have consistently called for greater sensitivity, sensitivity to regional perspectives and views of countries directly concerned when addressing conflicts on the continent. So my question is how will your delegation seek to ensure that Council decision making on African situations remains responsive to the perspectives of the African Union sub regional organizations and their affected countries while also navigating the broader geopolitical dynamics within Council. I thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now turn to Libya, which I don't see in the room. So I will now turn to the Ambassador of Andorra who I'm very sorry that I probably mispronounced earlier on. That hurt Lake Andorra. Mr. Ambassador, you have the floor.

Well actually speak so slow that sometimes we can't hear you even with the thing. So thank you very much. And I was sitting next to my colleagues Penda and Agnes and I felt compelled also you know the situation right now of the un, for those of you being here many years ago, came back and we found out something that it's not going to in the right way. We have more conflicts than ever. So we have not been able to avoid conflicts. This could be growing up the Security Council, inefficient. We are hostage of one country, we have a liquidity problem. So the other day a friend of mine put a question that I thought it was very smart and probably we should start thinking about that. I'm going to put that question to you and I would like to know where you stand in this regard. Is it about time to revise the Charter of the UN and try to see what can we do differently? Because at certain point when we are touching down is the only way up. Probably we need to think about that and need to revise. We need to start talking what's the best for the world, because we are affecting the world. And when I see that the UN was helping 400 million people a year and now it's not because we don't have money to do so. So we are going back and back until when? Until when are we going to put that question? Countries like not Andorra, because it's very tiny, but others, we will contribute actually, but others should take the lead. And probably it's about time the big countries should take the lead. Thank you. And better report distribution of the quotas because we cannot the current system that the country pays so much, that put us in a difficult situation. So we have to revise that also. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador. We will now start with Austria for the answers.

It's a tough one. Thank you very much for the question. On the charter revision. I think it goes beyond what can be discussed in a hearing when one strives for a Council membership. I will still say a few things, apart from the fact that I always carry the Charter with me. So first, first of all principles done to the Charter. And there are many aspects in the Council's work that can be improved. As we have learned, especially in IGN debates and informal IJN debates about the Council reform, there are possibilities to use the Charter's provisions much, much better. And there are also discussions on how to improve the the working methods of the Council in order to make it. To render it more effective. So there are ways to improve the work of the Council that don't require charter reform or charter amendments. Politically, I wouldn't see the political energy in a time of stronger disruptions to actually get together and formulate something better. Although we would wish for it. I don't see it politically at this stage, but for the Council's work, very concretely, we do support, as you know, the veto initiative. So whenever a veto is cast that it has to be discussed in the General Assembly. There are also efforts ongoing to come to a strong interpretation of Article 27 3, which would also create some difficulties of issuing the veto without considering, let's say, the cost of it. So the cost of the veto debate is an important issue in this. On the liquidity crisis, which is a broader UN question, but is of course fundamental for the overall functioning. I think so far everybody has made the best effort to mitigate the effects. But if we don't have a solution soon, we of course will have a much, much bigger problem. It's aggravating as we speak rather than solving itself. So clearly, we need actions of the whole membership. Again, running for the Council and focusing on this, we try to serve the membership if we elect to the Council. So that's the connects I would make there and I would leave it at that. Of course, more can be discussed in this context. As far as Taonga's question is concerned, African issues cooperating with A3, A3 and African dossiers. I think I've alluded to it in my intro statement and also in the last answering round. But let me say the following. Of course, the coherence of the E10 changes every every year because there are five new members coming in and five members going out. So our effort has to be to work with the concrete constellation of A3 members. So far we've built very strong links with those serving in the Council and those who would be serving with us in the Council. So I think building this trust and also helping each other to be consistent in how we approach dossiers, it's not always easy. The Diversity of the E10 can be great or it can be smaller. And so our job has to be to help bridging issues in this context on the Joint Council action. I think the E10 can bring quite a lot to the Council when it's blocked. So we have seen this in the context of Gaza, but also in other contexts. We have now seen, for example, those two co sponsorship waves for resolutions in the context of of the Strait of Hormbuz. So there is a role for the broader membership and there is a role for the E10, especially when there is a blockage to overcome this in A three. And the European members together already are a very, very, very strong, let's say, axis of improvement that can be forged at the right moments. And we will certainly strive to contribute to such a. To such a cooperation. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now turn to the ambassador of Germany.

Thank you and thank you for the question. Ambassador, it's very important that African perspectives are heard on the Council, especially because of the fact that you mentioned that a majority of cases and files, conflict files in particular, deal with conflicts on the continent of Africa. I would agree with Gregor. The E10 and E10 cooperation is highly important, especially when it's difficult to find a position also with permanent members. And we, when we were on the Council, we were among the E10 a bit of a trailblazer because we were the first elected member to hold a co pen holdership with a permanent member on a file on an issue. As far as I'm aware, African countries have not done that, but there's a possibility. And what I'm saying is, why don't we work closer together as E10 members to champion issues? African countries do this too. I'm very happy about the resolution, for example, that Guyana and Sierra Leone championed on youth and security just last year. So cooperation of the E10 is going to be a priority. I said this in the beginning, but it has to be made concrete, obviously, and we will help. And my mission, you know, we are in contact, we're in contact with the permanent members that are on it now. But it can't only be the A3. You know, all African nations should come to the Council members and say what their priorities, their worries are. We're open for that. Thank you for the question. It shows how important this is. Secondly, on the question by the Ambassador of Andorra, yes, the situation of the organization is difficult financially and it's difficult because there are so many issues to deal with, conflicts first and foremost, but not only development issues, climate issues. The UN only works well when the countries, the member states wanted to. And yes, there need to be some who take the lead. And many of you are taking the lead in so many different files on the big issues. How is the organization functioning? We need to group more and we need to take the lead more together. This is not only a Security Council issue, right? This is for all. This is for the General Assembly. We're doing it more now than we used to. The General assembly is asserting itself in terms of the hearings that we've had now here, the veto initiatives. We're very supportive of that. But there can be more. We can make the point louder and clearer that we want the organization to work and want it to be financed. There's an initiative, as you know, on Article 109, that is the article in the charter for changing it. I would agree with Gregor. It is very hard to change it. You have to know very specifically what you want to change. Are we talking about the reform of the Security Council or are we talking about more things? Until you have more clarity, you have to find that out because you need a 2/3 majority in the General assembly and then you need ratification by member states. So it's not an easy stretch, but it's not an excluded possibility or option. And there's an initiative on it that is interesting. We should think about that. On the finances, we don't need to change the Charter. You said distribution of quotas. Were you referring to the assessed contribution percentages will run up in the next few years to the discussion of are we staying with this system or not? This is inevitable and this is foreseen. This may be difficult, but it's necessary because as you see the dependency on a few, on very large ones, but not only it is a relatively small group of countries that are supporting the system with assessed contributions and voluntary contributions very much in comparison to the larger majority that pays little. This may not be sustainable and to put this on better footing is worth a lot of discussion and thought. This is all I think I can say right now, because we're not in that discussion discussion now, but I totally see the issue. And as much as Germany can help, we'll help. And if we can do that as a Council member and have that additional weight, yes, we will do that and use it. Although this is not. This is a GA debate and not a Council debate.

Thank you very much.

And I turn to Portugal.

Thank you. Thank you very much again to ambassadors of Zimbabwe and Andorra. Maybe I'm also listening to my German colleague. I will start by the question of Andorra.

I mean, first I'd like to introduce a note of a certain not optimism, but at least not pessimism. I mean, we embarked in recent months and years in a very negative mood here in the UN. And sometimes it seems that the life of the UN since the 40s has been rosy and brilliant was not. I mean, during 45 years the council was paralyzed over the Cold War with crossed vetoes. I mean, so. I mean, it's now in a crisis, but it has always been difficult in the Council. If you look to sgs, the first SG has to step down, the second was assassinated. Butrous Ghali has also to step down and we know why. So I mean, we have to be a bit careful and have also a historic perspective. This does not mean that we don't acknowledge and we don't recognize that we are facing a crisis. And the serious one, of course, politics, the financial dimension is probably the most visible for us. But behind the financial dimension there's a political dimension or even ideological. And it is serious. And this element is probably new if we compare with other crises. But we should not lose, not the story perspective and also some optimism.

We should not give up.

We most of our countries, we don't have an alternative. Multilateralism is the tool that we need. We don't have huge armies, nuclear arms. So multilateral cooperation, international law is our safe harbor. We need it and we have to fight for it. So this is a first note, the second note, I mean, I agree with my colleagues to revision of the Charter is probably too difficult. But we needed more than 80 million of deaths to have the charter that we have in 45 after two world wars. So we hope that we don't have to go through that, but the alternative

we have, it's reform.

And that we can do. We are discussing a reform. The UN 80 far from perfect, of course, but there are some important elements. The reform of the Security Council is key. I mean, the issue of the reform of the Security Council is a critical one, very difficult also. We have to be realistic, but key because we are very far from the point of representation. I mean, the Council doesn't represent the world to the period. No question on that. But we are reaching the point of legitimacy. And when we reach that point, we'll have yes then a huge crisis in this system. So we should make also our efforts to reform the Security Council. And on that, you know our position, we are in favor of expanding the two categories. We are completely supportive of the African common and model position, so and more representation to other regional groups as well. But while we don't have that, we have to work better with what we have. And that's where we have the working methods improve. It's step by step. It's very small. But if you look back to the Council, for instance, in the last 20 years we made some progress on that. The GA has to step up when the Council doesn't agree on anything and doesn't act. And we have been doing so in many important topics. We have also on the veto, which is also an issue that is very important. I mean, it's not realistic to think that the P5 will give away of the veto or in the framework of a reform of the Security Council, the veto will disappear.

Probably not.

So what do we have to do? We have to work like in the Franco Mexican Initiative act group initiative. We have to work in ways and modalities to try to restrain a bit the veto. It's not just a right, it's a responsibility. So that's where we have to put our efforts while we don't reach the major goals of major reform. So, I mean, this is where I stand on that revision. It's difficult. Let's try to reform. And while we don't, while we're not able to make big reforms, let's work on what we have in the Charter, new mechanisms, new initiatives and try to improve. And we have done so with some success.

Going back and turning now to the Zimbabwe question, my good friend, I mean,

Africa is a priority for Portugal. It has always been a central point in our foreign policy. Just an example. We have the largest network of embassies and consulates in Africa after Europe. So it's a good note of that. We are participating in three peacekeeping operations

in Africa right now.

I mentioned already the reform of the Council and what is our position about the African common position that we fully support. I also mentioned in the first round of questions the 2719, which. Which is also key. These two points are very important in order to allow Africa to have more voice in the Council. And then we have also to work much better in prevention. I think prevention is also key on this mediation, good offices. We have to.

The Council has to be able, and

we should, all those who will be elected make all the efforts and also the 10 to mandate the Secretary General to effectively go to the field and mediate and exercise good offices and try to achieve results. Because when the conflicts are already in a great escalation, it's much more difficult and the best we can try is a ceasefire. So we have to work, put all our political investment, diplomatic investment, in mediation, prevention, and in good alignment between the Security Council and the Secretary General. I think that's also a key point, and particularly in Africa. I think we can do much better than we have been doing in recent years on Africa and through prevention, for instance, and through the other mechanisms. I mentioned reform 2719 and a more diplomatic effort.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I think that concludes the first round of questions from member states, which allows us now to go for a first round of questions from the NGOs present. And it seems that time allows and therefore we're going to be able to go to maybe one maybe two rounds of questions. Questions from both member states and NGOs that are present that have not been, that have not pre submitted. Now, the way to do that, just in case there are too many, we need to pre submit them in a way. So you have my colleagues who are standing there and there, the two ladies and the man there. If you can raise your hand during the next time, until that round of question ends, you just write your name or member State on the paper and they will bring them to me and we will go like this. So for the round of questions of NGOs, I have human Rights Watch, I have Carmen Capriles from International Convocation of Unitarian Universalist Women, and I have Graciano Gallard, the La Fontacion Global Global foundation for Democracy and Development. So I will start with Human Rights Watch.

Thank you. Thanks to Wafuna for creating the space inclusive of civil society at a time when civic space is being reduced globally. Ambassadors, you mentioned prevention. Human rights abuses are often a precursor to conflict. If elected as members of the Security Council, would you be willing to work with other Council members to establish a practice of horizon scanning, the use of Article 99 and ensure the Council's timely engagement and actions in situations where populations are threatened by or already facing atrocity crimes? And thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much for your question. I now turn to Graciano Gallard from the Global foundation for Democracy and Development. If he's in the room. I do not see Graciano in the room. And Carmen Capriles from icw. No, I think we can therefore quickly answer this question so that we don't mix. And if you have questions, please give to my colleague already came, so let's take one more for the sake of time. I have. We're going to mix member states and NGOs in this round. So I have the and mission of Singapore, please, you have the floor.

Thank you very much to Germany, Portugal and Austria for your very insightful presentations. Small states like Singapore constitute the majority of countries in the un. And we are amongst the staunchest advocates of the multilateral system and of international law. We do not have an alternative, like the Portuguese PR said, but we do not always have the opportunity to make our voices heard. So my question is, when elected to the Council, how would each of you represent the interests and perspectives of small states, especially small developing states? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I will now turn to the Ambassador of Portugal to start this round of.

Well, very, very, very briefly, because I

think I have already. Starting with Singapore question I have already answered in a larger part to what was asked. I mean, of course that international law is even more important for smaller and medium sized countries and even more to smaller countries. And that's something that we will be very attentive in the Council, trying to listen to to all the smaller states and also to engage in dialogue with them and trying to protect. And trying to protect, which is one of the elements of our campaign, as you heard in my first intervention. So on that you can count on us. And again, international law is the backbone of all this system and we have to relentlessly defend and uphold international law. And that's clearly a starting point for Portugal, if elected in the Council as it is in the GA right now.

On the NGO question, I would say that.

We welcome your interest on that. And of course human rights is one of the three pillars, very important one for us. We defend a balance and human rights is as important as the other two. And we are ready to work on the basis of horizon, as you mentioned. And it's something that we have in our. We will have in our program that we are now preparing, although only after 3rd of June, if elected,

we can develop it.

So under Article 99, as you know, it's very rarely used, but it's something that it's worthwhile to look into on human rights, of course. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The permanent representative of Portugal, Germany, you have the frame.

Thank you for the question from Human Rights Watch. I think that's very important, what you say. A lot of times people who are on the ground have the best insight into what's going on and where conflict may be looming. Human Rights Watch and other organizations who specifically look at that, have a very good take on that. I know because we work with you, we hear what you say, we have briefings, and that's not only here in New York, but in Berlin as well. We know what you bring and this is important to us during non council times and on the Council, and of course on the Council specifically. It's true with other civil society engagement as well. Let me just say this right here. We try to work as much as we can with civil society and NGOs here in New York. We're open for anybody who comes, especially, especially during those weeks where we have lots of civil society in town. CSW now, two weeks ago, the Indigenous Forum, all of that brings knowledge to us. And my mission has been open and I met with people during those times and since I came here. But we do this around the world. We do this in the many places where we are with our missions. And we do it in capital and it helps us scan the horizon better generally what's going on, but also on conflicts brewing. And this goes right to what Rui was saying about prevention. As we have smaller funding in the UN and that is the reality for big time conflict solution or at least keeping a conflict at bay through peacekeeping operations, operations. We have to do more on prevention because it is more cost effective. And I saw this in the Peace Building Commission, how members of civil society bring their perspective. And it's usually been the most substantial and the most interesting part, what they had to say, the most interesting part of meetings. So, yes, we want to work with civil society and we want to work with you on that. On the question from the ambassador for Singapore, medium sized countries are staunch supporters of the United nations as well and of international law. I just want to say, you know, for Germany, we need the rules just as much. We work in these systems, we work in multilateralism. And so I think we're in this together. And the possibility that I am privileged to have with my mission is that I can work here in New York with many groups from, you know, formalized groups or less formalized groups, groups with caricom, with sids, to hear their positions and work together in group of friends formats. Climate insecurity. For example, one thing that we launched when we were last on the council in 2020. This is of course a question not only for island states, but for many, but especially for them. But this is just one example. We're working with small and small developing states, as you say, very intimately, if that's the right word. By being on the ground and being here open and able with the capacities that we have to take in the views. I'm very privileged to be able to say that. I know, but we're doing it and we'll continue to do that when on the Council.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador. Before I turn to Austria, you can still go to my colleagues or call them by raising your hand for additional questions. As I see, we don't have any right now. So this is your opportunity, Mr. Ambassador.

Thank you very much. I'll also start with Human Rights Watch and your question. First and foremost, I completely agree that it does take especially this input from CSOs to the Council to make really informed decisions. That especially is also true for organizations that work on the ground locally. Also, I think Olaf Skok has said it in the past, you know, when you see human rights violations, it's the strongest indicator that a conflict is coming. And I think this leads us directly to prevention. Prevention isn't so easy. It's politically less attractive, but it is as important or more important. And of course it's also, as Racliffe has said, is more cost effective if you need to argue it in this liquidity crisis context. But it's politically harder to achieve. So this input actually helps council members especially to have the right indicators. The same goes for example, for the CAC mandate also here, if we see new patterns and trends, how children are affected in armed conflicts, this is also a very, very strong indicator where the Council should be preemptively active. So this is very fundamental. Of course, it's also the horizon scanning. I'm aware that there are some council members who don't like it, so there will have to be intelligent ways to ensure. So one of them is to work with CSOs, but another one can be SOFA talks or other, let's say less formal settings where this type of input is curated or cultivated and then brought into the Council in the right way. So this over the horizon scanning is a very. Is also a component when we look at less money for peacekeeping operations. It will make us better in using the available funds to have adequate mission mandates or adjusting mission mandates when it's about renewals or when it's about first deployments. So this all goes together in this whole prevention context we have as Austria, in my time before I came here, we established a mediation facility. It doesn't have a lot of money, but we were able to do a lot of good preventive projects which had a concrete impact on concrete communities on the ground. So I know from experience what it means to actually invest in prevention. Of course, it's much better if the UN does it because it carries with it the broadest responsibility or legitimacy. Investing in resilience, inclusion, institution building. And then it becomes a little more expensive. So once we go into the broader development security nexus, so to speak, prevention from the ground up, then of course we have to talk about the broader aspect of how we target partnerships in the development context in order to build resilience vis a vis conflicts. This is of course particularly important in vulnerable regions that are affected by climate change. Peacebuilding Fund plays a very important role and we have stepped up our support for the Peace Building Fund Article 99. Of course we would. Either of us would would have the privilege to work right away with a new Secretary General. So while we appreciate the current one and support him, a new one also can bring new Energy. And we would aim to see a proactive Secretary General. Exactly. When we start our work in the Council or if we would start our countenance work in the Council, then briefly, because Joan has left. But I just want to say. Oh, here, okay. Has only changed position, but it's still here. I didn't answer on the budget key. I just want to say, of course, an intelligent reform of adjusting imbalances in the UN don't only apply for council membership or how we deal with issues or the balance between different organs of the un. But of course, the budgetary key would also be a step into rebalancing a type of financial justice in the system. So that also means that some countries could easily pay more and I think this would increase ownership. But of course, that's not for the Council to decide. Very briefly. Not briefly at all, actually, on the question by Singapore. And since we have enough time, you're not gonna stop me. So, of course, we are the only forum of small states member. Sorry guys. In this competition, we're just under the threshold of being a member of that club in terms of size. But I think we take this very seriously. The small states have an extremely diverse set of issues they are faced with. So there are landlocked developing countries, there are small island development states. There are, there are not so developing small states. So everybody has a very different problem set. But what it does, if you're in that forum, you do have a special way to listen because we all know we are vulnerable on some fronts and we need to understand where the needs of others are. And this, this is a different kind of discourse than we have in the broader formal debates. So this exchange with the various regions, with the smaller countries has really boosted our understanding of where needs are. And then we want to translate this into our work in the Council so that the reflexes that the big issues of the big powers the dominate the headlines. But it doesn't mean that the pain in, let's say, if you're in the Pacific, the pain of climate change impact is extremely high. And it has to be heard. And we would certainly guarantee to make sure that it's being heard. And yeah, we are a landlocked country and these are island states, but it doesn't matter. We are all members of the UN and we have to, to work according to the principles and needs of those who need it. So I think this small member state issue is an important factor in how we approach it. And of course it comes back to a very principled stance. We need to Apply equally our approach to rule of law and to, and to applying the charter and accountability of especially the large powers. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And I have two more missions that have asked for the floor. And I think we might close with this round of question. I might add one question to those, to have three. Let's start with the mission of Djibouti.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mfuna for organizing this important opportunity to engage with the candidate for the Security Council. My question is the following. Giving the increasingly difficult condition faced by peacekeeping mission currently deployed around the world, including financial constraints, complex mandate and challenging operational environment, how do you see the future of UN peacekeeping? And if elected to the Security Council, what role would your country play in ensuring that peacekeeping operation remain adequately supported, politically backed and able to effectively deliver on the mandate? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And then the mission of Comoros.

Thank you. Thank you. To give us once again the opportunity to exchange with the candidate about the election of the Security Councillor, His Excellency Ambassador Mercik. Respond a little bit on my, my question a little bit earlier, but I will still ask. The question for the other candidate is about given the increasing impact of climate change on peace, stability and humanitarian situation, particularly of Vilna vulnerable developing country and small island developing states, how do you see the vision of the Security Council of addressing climate related security challenges? Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And I think that we can conclude with this round of questions. So I would just add one, that as Mufuna, we are also a civil society organization. So I would ask the panelists also how they would assess the importance and the inputs that civil society actors could have to enhance the Council's effectiveness.

Thank you very much.

And we will start with Austria.

Okay, no stress there. I think I've said what I wanted to say, say on the CSO contribution in quite an elaborate format. So just to reiterate, we value it and we see the importance of informed decision making in the context especially of the Council members work. Just to reiterate that, but I'm not going to elaborate further, however, on the question of, of the Comoros. Thank you very much. Climate insecurity, I think. Let me start with the difficulty. The difficulty is that some Council members don't want to see climate change as such or the impact of climate change on security on, let's say, ideological level. At the same time, it is undeniable that there is a massive impact of climate change on the very livelihood of states. It's most traumatic, of course, in small island development states, but it is measurable and felt everywhere, including in. And people are always surprised. But it's as much of a massive impact in Austria or other European countries, it's just not as visible or dramatic. But out of our several hundred glaciers, most of them will be completely collapsed. And that also doesn't sound as dramatic, but it is because it has massive impacts on microclimates, has massive impacts on how our forests and how our water resources are. So we know although our problem set of climate change is different, different in Europe or than it is in the Sahel and then it is different in the Pacific. So I think this awareness has to be brought in. But my answer is we can't solve this on an ideological level. We have to go case by case. I co chaired with Mohamed Al Shabaab the CSM for a year and what we've learned is really once you do translate climate impact into very mission and scenario specific sets and try to include this in, for example, a mission mandate, then you can also find consensus with those who oppose it out of principle. And I think this is the way, the way is not to have an ideological debate about it, but to have a very concrete look at what does it mean, what does climate impact mean for let's say, Afghanistan in this current context, how does it affect rural communities and how does this have to be translated into mandates or mandate adjustments so have very pragmatic, very concrete outcomes. So I think that that's the way I would answer that. And to Djibouti peacekeeping. I've talked a lot about peacekeeping already and I reiterate that we, you know, we have really been, for a very small country, a large troop contributor over time with 140,000 Austrians having served in the last 65 years. That's really significant numbers. A lot more than our current army, by the way, a lot more. But we still have more than 200 peacekeepers for the UN out there. We also have other missions where we like in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where we have a larger contingent in you for. So we have this commitment, this is derived from our non alliance status that we really mean to contribute concrete. But your question was of course relating to finance. We have a whole vision about peacekeeping. And by the way, before I came here, I just opened the peacekeepers coffee chats, which is one of these informal rounds where almost 50 states meet regularly with Champier Lacroix's team and others to actually look into very practical improvements in how missions are managed and designed. So one is partnerships. I talked a lot about partnerships in 2017. Second is planning. We have together with Denmark done, written a letter to the secretariat to focus on more integrated mission planning. Because if the money gets less, you need to do better planning to compensate for that and to cut out any duplications or any, let's say, silo aspects as there may be third, flexibility. So mandates should be flexible enough to adapt because obviously usually bad actors or spoilers also adapt. So missions need to be able to adapt or conditions can change. Let's say you have a certain mandate and suddenly have a huge influx of refugees. You have to deal with this. It's not avoidable. So you need to have some flexibility in how mandates are drafted. Protection of civilians is a part of mandates, but also as a part of training for troops. And we have actually provided such a training for many years. By the way, the last time we were in the Council, which is long ago, but we championed this 1894 resolution. 1894 to include protection of civilians in all the peace operations, planning. And last time we need much stronger synergies, not only as far as integrated mission planning is concerned, but also to have a more system wide coherence between special political missions, peacekeeping, long term development efforts. So to look at the whole scenario when we commit to again be efficient in what we try to do.

So.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I now turn to Germany.

Yeah, let me start with the peacekeeping question. I did already talk about it in the beginning that we're very engaged in these questions of future of peacekeeping. That's what you asked. The ministerial in Berlin was not only a meeting, but it actually gave good guidelines for us. It held a lot of pledges that the member states made in terms of troops, in terms of money, but also on the substance of where can this go now since that happened, it's only a year ago, but we've already come a long way again with developments that have been detrimental to reliable planning and financing for peacekeeping. We need to keep that in mind while we talk about the that fact future. I'm looking forward to the Secretary General's report that we asked for as member states and then to that discussion because as I said in the previous answer, you know, we will have less funding. That means, as Gregor says, more flexible mandates and maybe different forms of and different forms of financing for future missions. One is regional organizations. What can they do? There's the question of 2719, but in other regions there may be the question as well. There's alternative forms of missions like in Haiti now the gang Suppression force traditionally Speaking. It's a bit of an unorthodox form. Is it working? It may work, but we need to make it work. So there are lots of discussions like that out there, and we've been engaged them and, you know, putting on formats that drive this forward. And I intend to continue that. And it would help my views and my interventions in the Council on that. Because with every mandate renewal, we will have the question again, how to do this right and how to be comprehensive, but not Christmas tree like on the mandates. How do we have enough money? Now Germany has been in the position to finance peacekeeping also with voluntary contributions. And I think we may be the largest EXP donor for UN projects or among the top four or five, always, at least. And of course, we've had troops. We still have troops, over 200 in four different missions, I think. But we're at a point where we have to ask ourselves, are we hollowing out what we have as instruments, as peacekeeping and that we should not let happen? And even if we look at less money and different structures, we should all work that the secretariat and the UN system does not have to give up its knowledge, its tools and its mechanisms to provide peacekeeping, because it's an asset and it's part of, part of the legitimacy of the un. The blue helmet and the logo is often the most accepted, or maybe only the only accepted kind of official thing in conflict scenarios. On climate, yes, the climate impact is huge for many. And it's not only in very dry states, in landlocked or ocean states, where actually sea level rise is existential. It's also in Europe. Europe is the continent that is warming the fastest. It's not easy to see because we start from a lower level, but we're all touched by it. And when we were on the council in 2011, we put this on the Council agenda. And the only product that ever came out of the Council is this Presidential statement on climate and security. From that time when we were then on the Council last, we tried to push a resolution and it was then vetoed when we were no longer on the Council, which is a pity because the circumstances are not getting better. We need to work on that. Whether you call it environmental change or climate change or whatever, all of you know that your communities are touched by it and it has to be part of the discussion. So again, we will bring that on and the format that we have here or the formats that we're involved in. Group of Friends on Climate Insecurity. CSET coalition that I chair with a colleague from Tuvalu all of those, you know, are part of the discussion and will enrich my view on this. And finally, importance of inputs of civil society. Thank you for what you do, first of all and for being in contact with the national associations. I know my German association is very active and with you, so thank you for that. But civil society has so many aspects and so many views in so many different realms. I just want to say or repeat what I said when I talked about the trip that the Peace Building Commission took to Addis Ababa to the au. The meeting with the young people who traveled to Ethiopia, to Addis from surrounding states often took even dangers upon themselves to come, were the most enlightening among those meetings that I had. And we have to take that into account when we have to bring this to New York either in person or via video. And because that's the case, we are championing different formats. You know, we champion the African Women's Leaders network. We've done that for a long time. We that brings us information and we hope to have that information at hand for the work here in New York on the council or not. And the same with network that we've championed since 2019 in Latin America. Women in Latin America, Unitas, that's something that comes together I think more than once a year, but here too in CSW week. So you know, we see the value in this, this and we'll continue to see the value, you can be sure of that.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador.

Portugal, thank you.

Well, thank you to Djibouti to the question on peacekeeping. Well, first I would like to mention that regular collaboration with the A3 and

African Union and the African countries that

are affected by or a topic of the Council will be absolutely mandatory for us. And since was Djibouti that asked this question, I wanted to make this point first. Second, indeed, I mean the UN is delivering quite well.

Sometimes we forget it on humanitarian or in development, but on peace and security where we have some problems. The peacekeeping and the blue helmet is the most powerful symbol of the UN around the globe. And this is something that we should preserve and protect even as we're going through a financial crisis. We in our case, we try to give the example not Only participating over 68 years of participation, but also we are for instance one of the two countries in the system that wave peacekeeping discount ensuring payment of 100% of its assessed contribution since 19, since 2019. Then also doing our part. We have been in MINUSCA with a quick reaction force since 2017 and this year Last year we went through a contingency planning of the different peacekeeping operations. We had to cut our quick reaction force, and that's not possible because in operational terms, a quick reaction force is not a common or regular battalion or company without 50 elements. It does not perform the same function. So we contributed with the additional 40 elements at our expenses, and they support that quick reaction force. So this is to say that Portugal tries to, at its own scale and level, to contribute to keep the peacekeeping alive and effective in the field. On the more general question, of course,

that we support many of what my colleagues have said.

I mean, planning is very important. Better mandates, be it more flexible or avoiding the Christmas tree that some mandates

of peacekeeping have become.

Having exit strategies is also important.

And we will continue to defend better links or stronger links between peacekeeping, peace building and prevention, and working with regional organizations. It's also a matter of. It's also very important. We will oppose, of course, one size fits all. And this is something that sometimes either

the Council or the Secretariat have that

tendency and it doesn't work. And we'll continue to work because peacekeeping

is the idea of peace and security without peacekeeping is an idea that we don't, we don't support even. That's something we are listening around the system sometimes.

So count with Portugal on that and we'll continue to support. On the Commoros question, climate change, we,

I mean, we have for many years supported the nexus between climate change and security.

And the last time we were in

the Council we also pushed for that. And we were able to organize an ariform meeting on that. And that was something that we were proud of. Climate change is a clear and present threat and we will continue to push for that.

We are probably the only one of

the three that have also challenges similar to those of the seeds. I mean, we have 11 as part of our territory. We have 11 islands in the middle

of the Atlantic, small islands.

And they faced exactly the same challenge that the seeds face. Sea level rise, very serious problem, climate change, connectivity. So we know what we're talking about when we talk about the threats that climate change poses to small countries or small islands. And we are now co chairing the Committee on Seeds with Belize. And we are also addressing these issues. Oceans is a critical part of these challenges and of these threats. And we are also a leading member state on that.

On maritime security, on blue economy and

on the conservation side, BB and J the maritime protected areas, we have already achieved 27% out of the 30% that we should fulfill by 2030. And finally, I would like to stress, stress and underline that the Council, we know that the P5 don't like very much to address these kind of subjects. But climate change is not a new threat. It's there for already some years, probably approximately 20, at least with our awareness. But there will be, and the Council has to be open to tackle these new threats. There are other threats that the Council also have to become more open to address. The gangs, some mentioned already in this debate, the narco, traffic, AI security challenges. So the Council have to, if I may say so, modernize itself also in this sense, because the threats are not always the same and we have to. To evolve from the classic to the new and very real and very serious threats. And the nexus, climate security is of course, one of them, and we have to tackle it. And you can count with Portugal commitment and effort, if elected to the Council, to push for that agenda.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador. And I think, as we conclude the question and answers section, we will go into the concluding remarks, starting with Portugal and ending with Austria, in reverse order from where we started. So I will let the Ambassadors have the final word, but I will take the opportunity to thank them very much. This is not a compulsory exercise, so they come with their own free will to subject themselves to, to this question and answers section, in particular, organized by civil society. And we are very grateful. And these are friends of civil society, as we saw from their remarks, all of them. So thank you very much, Excellencies, for being here with us today. We will start with Portugal and end with Austria for concluding remarks. I think we are on time now, so anything above that is not on time. So let's try to keep them as brief as possible.

Thank you. Thank you once again to Wofune and to my fellow candidates and to all member states and civil society representatives for this important and timely discussion. Today's debate, I think, showed exactly why initiatives like this matter. They bring the Security Council closer to the wider membership and they strengthen transparency, they reinforce accountability, and they remind all candidates that a seat on the Council

is not a privilege, it's a responsibility.

Your questions and reflections are extremely valuable to us. We have listened very carefully and we'll take them with us the concerns, expectations and ideas shared by you during this session. They tell us what to expect from elected members, and I am glad to realize that they broadly coincide with our

own perspectives and concerns.

Allow me to reiterate one central message. The credibility of the Security Council depends not only on the decisions it adopts. But on the trust it inspires and. And trust cannot be declared. It must be earned through openness, consistency and accountability. That is where elected members have a special role to play.

They tend represent two thirds of the Council. Their legitimacy comes from the wider membership. And with that legitimacy comes a responsibility

to bring fresh perspectives, to build bridges, to listen beyond the Council, and to help make the Council more representative, more transparent and more effective. For Portugal, this means working for better consultations with troop and police contributing countries. It means strengthening the links between the Security Council, peace building and development. And it means bringing prevention earlier and more seriously into our discussion. And it also means ensuring that those most affected by the Council decisions are heard with greater regularity and respect. Portugal knows quite well that influence is built on trust. We believe in listening before speaking. We believe in seeking compromise without compromising principles. And we believe in acting consistently in defense of the UN Charter, international law and human dignity at the time of war, polarization and mistrust. Multilateralism cannot be just a slogan. It must remain a practical instrument for peace. Small and medium sized countries have a particular responsibility to defend it, because we are also among its greatest beneficiaries. If elected, Portugal will work constructively with permanent and elected members alike, with regional organizations, with the civil society, and with all member states, notably those on Council's agenda. Our candidacy comes at a time, at a decisive moment for the United Nations. A moment when we must renew confidence in multilaterals, in the Charter and in the ability of of this organization to deliver. Portugal will be, as it has always sought to be, a principled, constructive and accessible partner. A Council member that listens carefully, acts consistently, builds consensus tirelessly, and remains accountable to the membership that elected it. Because in a time of growing divisions, bridge builders matter. And Portugal is ready to be won. I thank you very much.

Once again, thank you very much for your concluding remarks. And I turn to Germany.

Well, thank you very much, Secretary General, first of all, for putting this on. This is a very important exercise, as I said in the beginning. And thank you to all of you for being here and being interested in asking questions. I hope that I answered all of them to some satisfaction. I started by saying that we run in regular intervals for the Council, and we all, you know, announce our Council run years ahead. That's important and that's how it works. But we don't take this lightly. Just before the election, we thought about, and I thought about a lot again, of what does it take? What is going to be the expectation by the membership and are we ready and able to shoulder that responsibility and provide the kind of leadership that you all expect. Because it's important at this, it is always important. And I said in the beginning it's a responsibility and a privilege that needs to be earned. But it's especially important now with the transition that we're going to through in the organization, with the leadership, with the finances and the state of the world that we're in now. When and we asked ourselves, can we make a contribution? Can we make the contribution that the charter Article 23 says should be provided when members are elected? The contributions that they make to peace and security and other purposes of the organization. And as I said, we thought about this deeply and we believe that we are well placed to make that kind of contribution because we make it continuously, not only when we're in the Council, to all three pillars. And we will do that in the Council of course, but we will shoulder the responsibility of building the trust that is needed, of being open and transparent and bringing on the Council the views of the members. I spared you more paper today because I thought I've been bringing this to you too much. You will get it again for sure. But just to say our logo and motto in this is Respect, justice and Peace. And I want to close by saying that the respect for the charter and international law is key and we will work for it, but the respect for all of your views as well. And that's why we put it up as the first word in our slogan. Justice has so many components in the world, but we talked about some of the issues of prevention of drivers of conflict. All of those need to be addressed to make the world more just and then come to solutions for peace and security. And that's what the Council work is about. That's its main task and that's what we need to work on when we're members. And I think with the Council composition that was mentioned here as well, that is very important that the Council has a very good mix of countries in the elected members at all times. And I would humbly submit to you the German view that a mid sized country like us should be on the Council as well. And that would be the case if we're elected. So I hope for your support on June 3rd and thank you for listening today and thank you to my competitors for a very good debate.

Thanks.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Ambassador. And out into Austria for the last of the concluding remarks.

Mr.

Ambassador, at 13:08 I now face the dilemma that it's a privilege to have the last word. But at the same time, I stand between you and your lunch, so I'll try my best. First message. I want to thank my team for the preparation, because, you know, it's a team effort, and if we're in the Council, it's also a team effort. So thank you. Thanks to you. Thanks for the questions. I think it helps us learn and helps us to listen, but it also gives you the opportunity to form a better picture if you needed that. And then, of course, thanks to Aziel and the organizers and thanks to Ricklef and Rui for the fair and open debate we've had today. Now, on the substance, what's our offer? Our offer is we are a country that promotes dialogue, partnership and trust. If you haven't read it yet, we are a country that seeks pragmatic solutions in the practical work of the Council. Our military neutrality gives us independent assessment capabilities and also an extra responsibility to listen. At the same time, you can count on us to remain a staunch and principled supporter of the UN Charter and international law. Austria will also bring a smaller state perspective to the Council, which is important because the inclusion into the E10 will then reflect on or help reflect the broader needs of the membership. And this is our commitment. We will work with the entire membership within the capacities that are available. Continue to listen, continue to brief. And that goes for all the regions that were mentioned. I do want to mention specifically Africa, because we didn't get so many questions on Africa, but as you know, in the ijn, we made sure that the language is in there to redress the historical injustice and that there needs to be a clear solution. Referring to the so called special case of Africa in the context of Security Council reform, but much more importantly, because we think that those who are affected by decisions of the Security Council have to be heard before those decisions are taken. And finally, we can also promise that we engage with everyone, including especially also with those we don't agree with, and there are those we don't agree with. So in this spirit, I want to humbly ask also this audience for your support on election day on the 3rd of June. And thanks again to everybody, and we count on you. Thank you.

Thank you very much to everyone, very participating.