General Assembly: Reform of the Security Council | Elements Paper and Way Ahead for the IGN Process - Informal meeting of the plenary, 79th session

Good morning, Excellencies, colleagues. I call to order the 11th informal meeting of the Plenary on the question of equitable representation on an increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council. I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all delegations for their active participation during the meetings of the IGN so far. As indicated in my letter dated 17 June 2025, this meeting will give delegations the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions to ensure that the revised Elements Paper, as the basis of the outcome of this IGN session, is reflective of the elements of convergence and divergence that delegations have identified and articulated during this year's discussions. Delegations were invited to inscribe on the list of speakers via eDelegate, and the live link to the list of speakers was circulated to all delegations. At this stage, if a delegation wishes to be added to the existing list of speakers, a representative should inform the Secretariat table. If a delegation wishes to speak on behalf of a group of states, a representative should inform the Secretariat in order to be given priority. Once the list of speakers is exhausted, we will hold an interactive discussion on the revised Elements Paper and allow for member states and groups of states to respond to views and proposals put forth during the meeting. In a closed meeting without webcast. Before we begin, I would like to remind members that delegations are encouraged to email a copy of their statements to e-statements@un.org for the publication on the repository website, as well as to facilitate interpretation. Now, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany on behalf of the Group of Four.

Thank you, Chair. Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, colleagues, I deliver this statement on behalf of the G4—Brazil, India, Japan, and my own country, Germany. We thank you, Chair, for your continued commitment to advancing the IGN, and we express our appreciation for the preparation of the revised elements paper, which provides your personal understanding of the state of discussions in the IGN. We recognize and appreciate the continued efforts to identify points of convergence and divergence across the five cluster. However, as the objective parameters for drawing them are not— drawing them up are not agreed, much less the convergences and divergences themselves, differences arise as to the accuracy of the characterization of the overall state of play. Further, as we all know, this document in this current format does not offer a path toward real progress, given that the Elements Paper is not an agreed text and it provides only partial attribution of positions. Without text-based negotiations, we risk continuing this discouraging cycle of repetition. Having reserved our general position regarding the role of the revised Elements Paper in our work, the Group offers four specific substantive extensive remarks. Due to the late distribution, we were unable to secure enough time to consider, so we will also be submitting comments in written form for your kind consideration. First, the Pact for the Future does reaffirm the significant role of the IGN for the discussion of the Security Council reform. However, in no way does it qualify the IGN as the exclusive member-state-led platform to carry this agenda forward. As indicated in the beginning of the revised Elements paper, in contradiction with a similar passage later in the document. We formally request that this formulation be revised. Second, we wish to express our concern about the way convergences under the category of membership are currently framed. No model or group has advocated for expansion in the two-year non-permanent category alone. It should therefore not be seen as a viable standalone option. Doing so does misrepresent the actual state of the discussion and undermine the calls by a majority of member states and groups for expansion in the permanent category. We reiterate that the G4 understands the reference to "as part of a comprehensive Security Council reform" as meaning a reform that encompasses the expansion in both categories. Third, we note that the paper includes attribution in various places. In this spirit, we strongly encourage the Chair to clarify the current wording regarding a significant number of delegations supporting expansion in both categories. We believe it would add precision and transparency to spell out that this majority position includes at least the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4, the L69 Group, the Nordic Group, the Benelux countries, and 4 permanent members of the Council. Finally, we would like to recall that in last year's Elements Paper it was rightly acknowledged that several delegations, not just one, had raised questions regarding the inclusion of different cross-regional groups as part of a convergence on regional representation. As we do not believe that these questions have been fully resolved, we respectfully request either retaining last year's formulation or omitting this as a convergence altogether. Now, what is the way forward in the IGN? We have taken note of the discussions of various models that have taken place in the past two sessions. It is now time to consolidate those discussions in the form of a text. G4 has long called for text-based negotiations and we reiterate this call today. It is time for a consolidated model that can serve as a basis for negotiations as also highlighted in your revised elements paper. As the United Nations approaches its 80th anniversary, it is facing one of the most severe crises in its history, and we must restore the effectiveness, credibility, and authority of this institution. Security Council reform is central to that task. Let us waste no more time. Let us move to action.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Germany, And I give the floor to Luxembourg on behalf of the Benelux countries.

Mr. Chair, I have indeed the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Benelux countries, Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and my own country, Luxembourg. We express our deep appreciation for your tireless efforts in leading the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform and for the circulation with your letter dated 17 June of the revised co-chairs' elements paper on convergences and divergences. We welcome that your revised elements paper builds on the momentum created by the Pact for the Future. The Pact has indeed provided a fresh impetus for Security Council reform. It has clearly articulated our collective will to reform the Security Council and to strengthen efforts in the framework of the IGN as a matter of priority and without delay. Your revised Elements Paper reflects this will in its introduction. The formulation of the introduction does, however, not adequately reflect the substance of the Pact, in our view, when it affirms that the Pact has given the IGN, and I quote, "a mandate to advance agreement on reform parameters," unquote. That's a quote from page 2 of the revised Elements paper. In the Pact, As the same introduction affirms correctly a little bit earlier on page 1, and I quote again, "Member States have agreed to clear parameters for reform," unquote. These agreed parameters are well reflected in the revised co-chairs' elements paper on pages 4, 5, and 6 as elements of general convergence. In the Pact, we have indeed agreed to the parameters of reform, and the revised co-chairs' Elements Paper has gone as far as it is possible to go when it comes to reflecting convergences and divergences on the 5 key issues defined in GA Decision 62/557. On those key issues, there have been very minor changes in substance compared to last year's version of the Elements Paper. Mr. Chair, this clearly shows that it is time to move to the next phase. As we underlined at the beginning of this IGN session in November last year, we need to make progress on the implementation of the Pact for the Future and work towards a consolidated reform model. The presentation of the revised intermediate model by Liechtenstein and the presentation of its model by CARICOM during this session have provided further useful material for developing a consolidated model that will lead us to reformed Security Council, a council that is more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic, and accountable to the wider membership. Working on such a consolidated model will allow us to finally start text-based negotiations, which is the only way to achieve our goal. And the Benelux countries stand ready to work constructively with you and with all delegations with that goal in mind. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Luxembourg and I give the floor to Italy on behalf of Uniting for Consensus.

Distinguished Chair, I have the honor to speak on behalf of Uniting for Consensus Group, a cross-regional pro-reform group comprising Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, San Marino, Spain, Türkiye, and my own country, Italy. Let me begin by thanking you for convening this session— of the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform, and for circulating the revised Chair's Elements Paper, which we have taken note of. Despite the global challenges in the current session, the broad and growing support for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council was reaffirmed, and the continued legitimacy and relevance of the IGN as the sole platform for advancing this important process was confirmed. UFC Group remains firmly committed to a reform that makes the Security Council more representative, democratic, accountable, transparent, effective, and responsive to today's global challenges. We wish to begin by noting that the time available to thoroughly review the revised chess element paper was limited. Adequate time for reflection and consultation is needed. Is needed to have enriched discussions. Nonetheless, we appreciate your clarification that the document reflects the Chair's understanding of the current state of the AGN discussions and is under your authority, including on procedural aspects. On that basis, we welcome your invitation to provide comments aimed at ensuring the document faithfully captures both areas of convergence and divergence that emerged during this session of negotiations. Allow me to offer a few general observations reflecting the UFC's understanding of the discussions and of the positions expressed. Following the Summit for the Future in September 2024, we welcome the renewed momentum that has reinvigorated the reform process. In this regard, we are in favor of reaffirming the guidance provided by the Pact in the elements paper. However, we recall that intergovernmental negotiations, the IGFN process, emanated from discussion— from decisions 62/557 and continues to be conducted in accordance with its key provisions, including the 5 interlinked clusters. In this regard, we caution against any formulation suggesting that the Pact for the Future or any of its actions constitutes a formal mandate for the IGN. Action 39 sets out clear parameters to guide the work of the IGN, but working within the mandate already provided by the General Assembly. While we acknowledge the encouragement to submit further reform models and revision of already presented models for the Structured Dialogues, we underscore that the actual objective remains to progressively build such a model over time through the reaching of convergences across the 5 classes and continued dialogue among delegations. Additionally, we would like to recall that certain delegations, including the UFC, have indicated in the IGN sessions that there are yet steps to be taken and other potential models need to be presented and discussed before considering a consolidated model as the next phase forward. Given the nature of the Pact, we therefore recommend avoiding the use of terms such as mandate or that the consolidated model is a clear objective, and rather use alternative language in the introduction section, such as welcoming the Pact or referring to its galvanizing effect on the reform process. To this point, in order to provide an accurate framework, we suggest, in line with paragraph 68 of the Pact for the Future, the inclusion in the section "Work of the IGN during UNGA 79" of the following language: "We support the member states-driven nature of the reform of the Security Council and will intensify efforts for the reform through the IGN in accordance with the General Assembly decision Resolution 62/557 and other relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly, such as Resolution 53/30. End quote. Mr. Chair, regarding the elements of general convergence, the FSC continues to attach great importance to the following 4 principles: the reform process must remain Member States-driven. The IGN is the only legitimate, inclusive and appropriate platform to pursue reform. Outcomes must command the widest possible political acceptance, in line with the General Assembly Decision 62/557 and the clear threshold established by Resolution 53/30. Given the interlinkages between the five clusters, the process must uphold the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Turning to the core principles underpinning Security Council reform, we wish to reiterate that for the UNFC, the principles of democracy and accountability are paramount. Other negotiating groups and individual member states also have underscored these principles, which in our view can only be meaningfully upheld through periodic elections that provide all Member States with the opportunity to participate in the Council's composition. After the presentations of various reform models and the insightful debates that followed, we remain firmly convinced that the introduction of new permanent seats, as proposed by some, runs counter to the democratic values the Council should embody. On paragraph 6, we welcome the acknowledgement that reform should prioritize enhancing the representation of underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups. This includes the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, in addition to the broadly recognized imperative of improving African representation. Under paragraph 7, concerning the inclusion of a review clause in comprehensive reform of the Security Council, we suggest a more balanced reflection of the discussions. Many delegations support a review mechanism to assess whether a reformed Council is functioning more effectively and transparently in the years following reform. However, it must also be noted that several Member States oppose any approach that could serve as a vehicle for incremental or selective gains. Or that could lead to piecemeal reform. This, by the way, also reflects the original rationale of Article 109 of the Charter, which was to allow for periodic assessment of the overall functioning of the organization. On paragraph 12, related to working methods, we agree that improvement to the Council's functioning can and should be pursued even without Charter amendments. That said, it is essential to distinguish between working methods of the current Council and those of a reformed Council. The ongoing efforts, such as those under the informal Working Group on documentation and other procedural questions, should be clearly acknowledged as pertaining to the current situation and not conflated with the broader discussions of comprehensive reform of a future Council. This distinction ensures a targeted approach to incremental improvements while maintaining the integrity of the wider reform of the Security Council agenda. On paragraph 16, we note that the structured dialogues on models of reform have indeed proven useful. However, to reflect the full scope of activity, this section should reference not only to the dialogues held during the 78th session but also to the discussion that took place during the 79th session, most notably on the Liechtenstein-revisited model and the CARICOM proposal. On paragraph 18, we suggest adding after "new" the qualifier "elected" to avoid misunderstandings, as criteria provided for in Article 23.1 Article 2 of the United Nations Charter refers only to non-permanent members. Finally, we believe that this process would be significantly strengthened by broader participation. Many Member States and negotiating groups have yet to voice their views in the IGN. Given the importance and sensitivity of the reform agenda, and the need to ensure that any outcome enjoys the widest possible political acceptance. We encourage all Member States and negotiating groups, particularly those who have not yet done so, to actively engage and, where possible, present their own proposals or models for reform. To this end, we would welcome the inclusion in the document of a clear call for enhanced participation ahead of the next session of the IGN. In this context, we would also propose adjusting the language in paragraph 19 replacing "continue to agree to the submission of further models" with "continue to encourage the submission of further models." Under the divergences of the elements of a general convergence and divergence, we align with the recognition that further steps are required before moving to text-based negotiations. It is important that the transition to This phase is done once genuine convergence on all classes of reform and broad political will is reached. Concerning the classes, while we appreciate the document's focus on areas of convergence, we urge caution in overstating the degree of alignment. Some points currently presented as convergences are in fact divergences. For example, on categories of membership, The formulation "While there are different views on the category of membership in a reformed Council, a significant number of delegations argue that enlargement should include expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories" does not accurately reflect the reality. First, as we have said before, because a significant number of Member States have not stated their views yet in the IGN, it is important to avoid overgeneralization about the state of convergence. In this regard, a distinction must be made between the views expressed by negotiating groups and those of the wider UN membership, especially considering that some groups have overlapping compositions. Second, it is important to clearly distinguish between the nature of the permanent seats advocated by some Member States and negotiating groups. In particular, some proposals envision permanent seats of a regional nature, such as those requested under the Common African Position. In contrast, other proposals, such as those put forward by the G4, the Group of Four, seek individual member permanent seats that would represent only the respective member states. Themselves. Third, others supported the creation of new permanent seats, but without veto. As you can see, divergences could not be broader. To put all these seats into the same nature and claim, as the Elements paper states, that a significant number of delegations argue that the enlargement should include expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, is misleading in our view, and the paper would more accurately reflect the positions of delegations if it made this distinction clear. Mr. Chair, we trust that these comments will be taken into serious consideration. The revised Elements paper demonstrates that tangible progress is possible, and it confirms that IGN remains the only valid and legitimate platform for achieving Security Council reform. We thank you once again for your dedication to this process and reiterate EFC's full commitment to constructive engagement in the pursuit of a Security Council that is more representative, democratic, accountable, transparent, and effective. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy, and I give the floor to Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries.

Thank you, Chair. As I said, I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, and my own country, Norway. First of all, thank you, Tariq, for circulating the revised Elements paper, for the opportunity to discuss it here today, and also to look back at the efforts we have together made throughout this session. As you noted in your letter dated 17 June, this session has been characterized both by a renewed sense of urgency and the mandate given to the IJN by the Pact for the Future, which recognized the centrality of a reformed Security Council in strengthening multilateralism and restoring trust in global governance. This Elements paper now helps us to situate the progress made this session within the context of the many convergences built over the years. And more importantly, it puts us in the best possible position to continuing our work where we left off. As such, we support and we stress stressed the importance of the elements paper continuously being updated. Chair, in the paper you have rightly highlighted the achievement of two additional model discussions. The groups and individual member states continue to engage constructively. The models presented by the CARICOM group and the revision and the resubmission of the Liechtenstein model Both show a forward-leaning momentum in our process. It shows that we are working together to consider models, provide feedback, and then models are being refined and improved on this basis. This is actually a significant step forward for the IJN, showing evolution in our discussions. It is a step the Nordic countries hope we will build on in the 8th session. We continue to encourage other groups and individual States who plan to submit models to do so, and for those who have already presented to reflect on the feedback they have received and to also consider further updates. We welcome also references in the Elements Paper to the dedicated discussion on the limitation of the veto which you note, Chair, was held for the first time in IGN history. The Nordic countries remain committed to looking at all initiatives to limit the scope of the veto. A veto must not paralyse Council action on critical matters of international peace and security, nor should it stand in the way of the Council taking action to prevent or end atrocities. Chair, the Nordics also thank you for updating the convergence on the representation of underrepresented and unrepresented groups to match the language agreed in the Pact, recognizing that representation of the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean should be improved. and the need to redress the historical injustice against Africa as a priority, while treating Africa as a special case. Chair, while the Elements Paper represents the culmination of our work this session, it is by no means an endpoint. The Nordic countries look forward to continuing our efforts on this basis in the 80th session. The Elements Paper, together with the cumulative improvements made to the institutional memory of the IJN, place us in a good position to build on the progress we have made. In this light, and as recognized by the new convergence in the Elements Paper, the compilation of a consolidated model is indeed a clear objective for the IJN going forward. We agree that it will provide a concrete basis to guide the next stage of negotiations. And as you have written, shift the IGN from a theoretical discussion to more practical and tangible engagement. The Nordics agree that just as we have all committed to in the Pact for the Future, we must now take this logical next step as soon as possible. It has our full support. In closing, Mr. Chair, we wanted again to thank you, your very able team, and also the Austrian team for all their efforts this session, without which we would not be where we are. You can continue to count on the steadfast support of the Nordic countries to your work and to our joint endeavour towards reform. I thank you so much.

I thank you, and I thank you for the kind words directed to both the Kuwaiti and Austrian team. They are actually two people, and they are here in this room, and I thank them sincerely. I, and my dear friend Rafa, for continuously working very hard to make this a possibility. So thank you for acknowledging Axel as well. Who I miss very dearly and wished could have continued with us until the end of this session. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor of delivering today's statement on behalf of the L69, a diverse pro-reform group of 29 cross-regional developing countries united by the urgent need for comprehensive reform of the Security Council. At the outset, we express our appreciation to you, Chair, for your leadership and efforts to steer the IGN on Security Council reform. We welcome the prepared— the preparation, sorry, of the session's revised elements paper, but wish also to reiterate that this document is the Chair's view of the state of the IGN process. Yet, as the only tangible outcome of this process, the document must aim to reflect accurately the positions of different groups and delegations. There is much room for improvement in this sense. While some changes were made to the paper, it still does not reflect many of the concerns that our group has been raising. In particular, there continues to be an imbalance in the manner in which the positions of groups and delegations have been captured in the Elements Paper. Chair, as regards Section 1, Elements of General Convergences and Divergences, the L69 commends the update to Item 6 which now better reflect the calls for improved representativeness of underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups. However, it is necessary to point out that the African Group's specific call for representation in the permanent member category should be explicitly stated where there is reference to an increased presence in the Security Council. We highlight the addition in this section of Item 19 on the suggestion of the IGN to prepare a consolidated model. The inclusion here highlights— aligns the document with the commitments agreed to by the membership of the Pact— in the Pact for the Future, which established the consolidated model as a key benchmark for progress. However, it is important to emphasize that such a text needs to be a correct reflection of the views and positions of member states and groups, as this will also eventually pave the way for text-based negotiations. The Group expresses its concern about point number 2 of the divergences in the section on the categories of membership. While we take note of the fact that the revised Elements Paper suggests that a significant number of delegations argue for expansion in both categories of membership, Chair, this still falls considerably short of accurately capturing the discussions in the IGN, given that an expansion in both categories is supported by the L69 as well as the African Group, the Arab Group, the G4, Benelux, and the Nordics. Groups, along with an overwhelming number of individual delegations, a more accurate reflection would be to say that a majority of the groups and delegations support this position, changing significant to majority. To further strengthen the accuracy of this point, we request that the L69 support for this position be attributed, along with other groups that have publicly stated their position. Regarding the convergence in the same section, the group stresses that a comprehensive Security Council reform must involve enlargement in both membership categories. Additionally, in item 3 of convergences under regional representation, We wish to flag that while there is a general agreement on a rotating cross-regional seat for seats in the non-permanent category, there has been no understanding in, in the case of other cross-regional groupings. This was raised during the last session of the IGN as well, resulting in the inclusion of a footnote which features in this year's Elements paper with changes despite concerns that were raised. As there was no real discussion within the IGN on any cross-regional groupings with the exception of the SIDS, this cannot be reflected as a convergence. Finally, While the Pact for the Future reaffirms the central role of the IGN in discussions on Security Council reform, it does not designate the IGN as the exclusive member-state-led platform to advance this agenda. As stated in the introductory section of the Elements Paper, Such a characterization of the IGN was not endorsed during the negotiations on the Pact for the Future, and we are not in a position to endorse it now. Furthermore, this claim is inconsistent with Point 10 of the General Convergence section, which characterizes the IGN as the legitimate and most appropriate platform to pursue Security Council reform. End of quote. We respectfully request that the text be revised accordingly. Chair, the L69 group notes with concern that there has not been any progress on the consolidated model in this session, despite the Chair's acknowledgement in the revised Elements paper that a key mandate of the Pact was to commence work on this consolidated model without delay. In fact, movement in this session has been slower than in recent years. It is increasingly clear that we cannot continue at this pace. The time has come to acknowledge that we are stuck in an endless cycle of repetition. The discussions on the five clusters have been extensive and while not all groups have formally presented their models, the positions of Member States and negotiation— sorry, negotiating groups are very well known. They have been reiterated in responses to models during cluster discussions and some are laid out in the framework document of 2010. 2015. The IGN now stands at a crossroad and must decide whether to persist with the status quo or pivot toward concrete and meaningful progress. The Pact for the Future represents a milestone in our collective commitment to reforming global governance structures, including the Security Council. Even as we note that some member states concurred with the text in the constructive spirit of engagement, despite reservations on certain provisions. When we collectively set parameters and a direction for reform, there was a clear call to move the IGN process forward. To honour these commitments, we must adopt a more tangible, result-oriented approach, which can only be pursued with a commencement of text-based negotiations. To make progress toward a consolidated model, a draft or elements of a consolidated model would be the next step. We underline that this be done in an objective and transparent manner. We cannot allow the agreement on "in the future" to become open-ended. If we allow ourselves to be lulled by the same formula that has constrained us to a cycle of repetitions, we are undermining this commitment. To this end, the L69 strongly reiterates that the real work of compromise and bridge-building can only be achieved through negotiations on the basis of a text. We have heard the argument that a text will paralyze us, further deepening divides. Yet a text is the medium through which agreement is reached in all other UN processes, in spite of seemingly insurmountable differences. A text clarifies positions, identifies common ground, and makes clearer the areas where we must focus our energy, thereby transforming our efforts from theoretical discussion to practical and tangible engagement, as stated in the Chair's Elements Paper. This is how we get closer to convergences and the widest possible political acceptance. This is how we could achieve tangible progress. We would like to make it clear: a Structured Text is a necessity. If transformative Comprehensive reform is truly our shared objective, then Member States and Groups should be willing to move beyond entrenched positions against text-based negotiations and show the necessary flexibility to support any initiative that brings us closer to achieving that goal. The L69 will continue to engage constructively, openly, and in good faith toward this end. I thank you and peace profound.

I thank the distinguished representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and I give the floor now to Bahrain.

Sayyiduna.

Mr. Chair. Ambassador Tarek Al-Bayan, it is my honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Arab Group. I would like to thank you for your efforts in leading the IGN during this session. The Arab Group received with great interest your letter dated 17 June, along with the revised Co-chairs' Elements Paper. Mr. Chair, we are holding the IGN during this session following the adoption of the Pact for the Future, which reaffirmed the centrality of these negotiations as the only forum to reach an agreement on reforming the Security Council in a way that is led by member states. Given the obligations in the pact, the current session included continuing discussions on the 5 main clusters in addition to dialogues— structured dialogues on reform models proposed by member states and groups of states. These deliberations reflected the interlinkage between the cluster clusters and their common elements. This reaffirms the importance of reaching a comprehensive and not a partial solution to reforming the Security Council that would include all clusters pursuant to GA Decision 62/557, which calls, among others, for the polit— widest political acceptance solution. It is also clear through the interventions of states and groups of states that there is a divergence in positions on the reform model or the path adopted by the IGN, particularly when it comes to proposals related to text-based negotiations. This reform— in this In this regard, we reaffirm that achieving any progress requires careful deliberation and flexibility. Imposing any steps that are not consensual would harm the cohesion of the wide membership and would undermine the credibility of the IGN. Mr. Chair, as for the co-chair's elements paper, We value the efforts by the Chair to update this paper, which will help the wide membership to provide greater and deeper understanding of the positions of countries, groups, as well as the common elements and the points of divergence. We believe that this updated paper reflects your vision as a Chair and does not necessarily reflect accurately the positions of countries and groups of countries as these countries or groups would like them to be conveyed during these negotiations. We also believe that the pact includes an indication to developing a consolidated model in the future based on the elements of conversions in the negotiations and the models from member states Therefore, we should consider it within the scope of the negotiations that were held on the pact and in a way that would allow us to reach progress during our discussions within the IGN. We also believe that the drafting and the introduction of the elements paper should reflect the spirit of the pact. We also believe that the 6 meetings that were held to date during this session enriched our discussion on reforming the Security Council, and we look forward to continuing these discussions in the upcoming session. We also reaffirm the need to guarantee a smooth transition through a procedural decision that would include the old and new IGN documents based on precedence and the established practice during the past years. This will allow member states to continue to work collectively during the upcoming session. We also reaffirm the importance of maintaining the cohesion of the wider membership and to have the necessary flexibility to achieve consensus among member states and to avoid imposing any contentious steps or artificial timelines that would hinder reaching a comprehensive solution for the reform process. In conclusion, we reaffirm our determination to contribute in a positive and effective manner in the IGN in order to reach a common agreement that would provide the necessary groundwork to reach a genuine and comprehensive reform of the Security Council. I thank you. Ashkur Saadet.

I thank His Excellency the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Bahrain to Sierra Leone.

I thank you, I thank you, Chair, for the floor and certainly for leading our work in a very fashionable way, I should say. Distinguished Chair, Excellencies, distinguished delegates. I have the honor to present the preliminary views of the African Union member states on this session's draft revised core Chair Zeliman paper on convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on an increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters circulated to member states through the Chair's letter dated 17 June 2025. We thank you, Chair, for convening today's informal plenary session to discuss the revised element paper and for your important work. We recognize that the revised element paper reflects your understanding of the current state of the IGN discussions on the 5 clusters and their linkages, as well as the progress made during the current IGN session, including on procedural matters. As the updates made to this year's revised element paper are focused on further expanding areas of convergence and narrowing areas of divergence, which we welcome, it is important that member states and interest groups be given sufficient time to examine the revised text thoroughly to enable substantive edits and comprehensive feedback that can advance the reform process during the 88th session. Considering the great significance of the Common African position within the IGN process and the clear need to highlight key issues requiring attention, the African Group hereby presents its preliminary observations on the revised element paper. Distinguished Chair, as a key preliminary issue of consideration is the methodology. In this regard, we note the importance of the faithful use of language drawn from the Pact 'For the Future,' a negotiated compromise of member states. We can either retain that language or format or use your reflections in the Chair or Co-Chair's element paper in the previous session. Outside the issue of the choice of language, that is, being faithful to the Pact for the Future or the revised element paper in previous Sessions, we appreciate the updates demonstrating your grasp of the conversations during the IGN session and value your efforts in presenting both the background of the IGN process and a summary of this year's activities. Accordingly, we consider the retention of bullet point 6 under General Convergences to be significant as it reflects the discussions and support expressed by the general membership. Accordingly, we invite the Chair to either retain the original wording of Plate VI as reflected during the IGN78 session, or alternatively to faithfully employ the language of the Pact for the Future, particularly in relation to paragraph 39, a negotiated compromise by member states, particularly to enhance coherence. Furthermore, we affirm the urgent need for the General Assembly to take concrete action on the broader convergence regarding the rectification of historical injustice done to Africa and to treat Africa as a special case and priority within the IGN process. Africa remains grateful to member states and interest groups for their continued support for the common African position as espoused in the Ezulwini Consensus and said declaration. Distinguished Chair, we also wish to point out that certain reflections in the revised element paper do not expect fully accurately reflect the current state of the IGN discussions. These sections should be revised and amended accordingly. For instance, we appreciate your modification to the convergence section on categories of membership, as previously noted by the African Group and other member states. Nevertheless, we emphasize that point 2 under divergences in the categories of membership section should be moved to convergences to reflect that, and I quote, "A significant number of delegations argue that the enlargement should include expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories," end of quote, as this reflects the position of the majority of member states and interest groups. Regarding the cluster addressing the question of the veto, Africa stresses the importance of continuing in-depth discussion to identify possible areas of agreement. While the first paragraph under convergences may suggest a general consensus, the subsequent paragraphs contain significant issues that have not yet reached specific conclusions. These should be considered ongoing dialogues deserving further examination. Africa holds the firm view that more clarity and debate are needed. We therefore propose classifying these conversations under divergences for the time being. Moreover, on the question of the veto within the IGN, we believe this fundamentally hinges on whether the veto should be abolished altogether or extended to new permanent members if it is retained. Initiatives outside the IGN must not influence our discussions within it. As this would undermine both the intent and integrity of General Assembly Decision 62/557. We therefore urge a clear explanation for the inclusion of initiatives related to the veto originating outside the IGN process. This request does not seek to diminish the significance of these initiatives, but it is essential for preserving the integrity of the IGN process. Distinguished Chair, in reference to point 5 of the Convergence section on regional representation, Africa reaffirms its position as highlighted in bullet 4 of this section. There is a consensus that Africa deserves equitable representation in a reformed Security Council. We therefore call on the new Chair to respectfully revise this paragraph to emphasize and accord Africa should be equitably represented in both the permanent and non-permanent categories of a reformed Security Council, end of quote. This amendment is essential to ensuring fairness and inclusivity in global governance. Not including this amendment risks undermining the commitment adopted in the Pact for the Future to redress the historical injustice, which calls for equitable representation in both categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent. We appreciate the retention of bullet 5, and I quote, Africa reserves its right to select Africa's representative in the Security Council based on its criteria for selection as reflected in the Ezowini Consensus and the Said Declaration. Candidates will then be considered for election by the General Assembly As we advance, Africa is committed to promoting dialogue on this crucial cluster of regional representation and to establishing fair criteria for geographical distribution. Africa has the track record and framework to select its representatives for both categories of the Security Council, guided by these essential criteria. In closing, we acknowledge the varying perspective on categories of membership regional representation, and the veto. However, Africa values the emerging areas of agreement on other important clusters, particularly concerning the relationship between the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, and the Security Council working methods. The African Group acknowledges the progress made during this session and commends your efforts in organizing innovative brainstorming activities cities. We consider these engagements valuable and suggest that they be continued in the next IGN session. Additionally, we recommend that discussions with think tanks continue, noting the importance of diversity in the panels. Finally, distinguished chair, allow me to restate Africa's profound thanks and appreciation to member states and interest groups for their continued and unwavering support for the Common African position. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone for his statement, and I give the floor now to Egypt.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson, my dear brother Ambassador Tarek El-Bainay. I add my voice to all previous speakers in commending your great leadership of that process, the effort you are putting with your able teams Fahd, I am Rafa of the Austrian Mission, and of course Axel, our dear colleague who has abandoned earlier the ship. We don't imagine seeing someone else facilitating that great work, my dear brother Chepes. At the outset, my delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group, Brother Michael, a minute ago, and Ambassador Jamal Brother Jamal of Bahrain, on behalf of the Arab Group. Chairperson, as we come closer to the conclusion of this session of the IGN negotiations, we took full note of your letter dated 17th June 2025 and the attached revised Elements Paper on Convergences and Divergences in the IGN process for this session. We acknowledge your great efforts in this regard and we welcome the submission of this important document In this context, I would like to first get a couple of points out of the way, couple of important disclaimers. First, Egypt considers this document to be exclusively reflective of the views of the IJN Chair and that it remains a document that is neither exhaustive nor conclusive, nor is it a final representation of all the views of member states and political groups of the IJN process. Substantively or procedurally. Second, Egypt reiterates that nothing in this revised Elements Paper shall be construed as binding to Member States and political groups, nor shall it be considered as a basis for any text-based negotiations on the question of the reform of the Security Council. Mr. Chairperson, allow me to make the following remarks on the substance of the Elements Elements paper. First, Egypt welcomes the references in the Elements paper to the overall convergence on the necessity of addressing the historical injustice against Africa as a priority, and that Africa should be treated as a special case. Nothing is more reflective of this imperative than the common African position position as outlined in the Isolwini Consensus and the Sirt Declaration. Two permanent African members with the veto, with the veto, and two additional non-permanent members. Anything short of this is an affront to justice and common sense, simple common sense. Second, we reiterate that the IJM process is rooted in the GA Decision 62/557 with its 5 key pillars, and that any agreement in this process should be one that addresses all these pillars. While the Pact of the Future is an important and significant step towards a reformed Security Council, GA Decision 62/557 shall remain the fundamental basis of our discussions. Nothing else. Third, we very much support and have constructively engaged in the discussions on the various reform models presented by groups and Member States. And we will continue to do so as we move forward. We believe this is an important element of the discussion. Nevertheless, we do not believe that the Pact of the Future has mandated the IJN to develop a consolidated model as a way forward. We rather believe that reference to the consolidated model in the Pact was generic, aspirational, and based on the understanding that this is a necessary step in the future of the negotiations, to be developed as the negotiations develops— develop. Hence, we believe that there is no specific mandate as to the development of such model, no set timeframe, and no particular conceptual framework for it to evolve. We are not opposed to efforts in good faith on this— on the matter, of course. Yet any such effort should be in the context, again, of the G8 decision 62/557 and should aim at garnering the widest possible political acceptance. Egypt is of the view that these paragraphs in the introduction section of the Elements Paper should be mandated to reflect this reality. You see, and we beg to differ with the voices trying to suggests that the IGN is not the sole forum or so. No, it is, for God's sake. I mean, any attempt to create wrong impressions here would be counterproductive and misleading and inaccurate. Mr. Chepelson, turning to the way forward, and we end this session's deliberations, we look forward to a smooth rollover process of the IGN to the coming session of the General Assembly. We believe the rollover decision should be adopted as soon as possible, before the end of this month or mostly early next month. Unnecessary delays such as last year's should be avoided at all costs. We remain committed fully and seriously to the negotiation and we look forward to working with you, Chairperson, time and again and with every one of our colleagues else during the coming important 80th session. I do thank you, distinguished chairperson.

Brother Park. I thank my brother for the kind words addressed to Axel and myself and to our teams, and thank you for your support throughout this process. United Kingdom, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for convening us today and for sharing the draft of the Elements Paper in advance. The UK supports reform of the Security Council, and we really do value these sessions and discussion that we have held during this year's IGN, which have allowed us to consider both different elements of reform and different models. We welcome the element papers' close alignment with the Pact for the Future and reiterate our support for the IGN as the primary forum through which we should all seek to make progress. Thank you in particular to you and your colleagues for the hard work on this paper, attempting to reflect the areas of genuine, genuine differences whilst also giving us hope and charting a way forward on these critical issues. We agree that much of what is included in the Elements paper reflects our discussions, but we would like to suggest further consideration of a few points. Firstly, we believe it is important that we are clear on the IGN's mandate. During negotiations on the Pact, we collectively agreed the IGN should seek to advance agreement on reform parameters moving towards a consolidated model. However, the suggestion that the IGN is also mandated to implement interim measures to improve the Security Council's effectiveness and accountability goes beyond what was agreed. We therefore request the removal of this reference from the preambular section of the Elements Paper. Secondly, turning to the cluster on the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, we encourage a focus through the lens of Security Council reform. In that vein, whilst we recognize that various aspects of the relationship came up during discussions, We do not agree that all of the subpoints to point 2 reflect convergences. In particular, we are not clear what is intended through the use of the word institutionalize in 2.2 and would suggest that this is deleted. We also note that many members welcome the efforts of the Security Council had already undertaken to improve the process around annual reports and think this should be reflected 2.3. We request the removal of point 2.4.2, and we would also like to request the inclusion of the word informal ahead of consultations in point 2.4.5. I trust you're all still with us, uh, to ensure this aligns with the process outlined in Note 507. More broadly, on the working methods of the Council, we agree with the assertion made in the Elements Paper that the Council will need to consider these in light of enlargement once it happens. We note that the working methods of the Council of course remain its own prerogative and would encourage the co-chairs to consider how to better reflect this point in the text. We also note the point made in 6.3 on the participation of non-permanent Council members. The UK values the crucial role non-permanent members play in delivering Council action. We therefore judge it would be more appropriate for this paragraph to support the full participation of non-permanent members. Thank you once again, Chair, for convening us for today's discussion and for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Elements paper. The UK remains a steadfast supporter of UN Security Council reform and of this IGN process. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom for her statement. South Africa, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to express our appreciation to you and Austria for leading the IGN process in bringing us to where we are today. We thank you for having presented this revised Elements Paper highlighting the convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on an increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. South Africa aligns itself with the statement delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of Africa Jamaica Group and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of L69, and we make these brief additional comments in our national capacity. Chair, we welcome reference by the co-chair's revised paper— elements paper— to the commitment made by the heads of state and government in the Pact of the Future to strengthen efforts in the framework of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform as a matter of priority and without delay. South Africa fully supports this commitment because our view is that the current structure of the Security Council is unable to effectively and efficiently fulfill its mandate. It cannot be acceptable that after 8 decades the Security Council remains disproportionately reliant on serving and securing the interests of only a few permanent members. It is thus urgent that progress be made in the reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic, and accountable. South Africa is therefore pleased delicate to note that the co-chairs' revised Elements Paper reflects the progress that has been made through the IGN on Security Council reform. However, while we view the Elements Paper as a good basis— in fact, we do— as a good basis for negotiation, it can further benefit from the attribution of positions from each of the groups or individual delegations in order to urgently advance further progress on text-based negotiations on the Security Council reform. Text-based negotiations will provide an opportunity for negotiations of different viewpoints and proposed models, thereby enabling progress towards achieving consensus and convergence on reform of the Security Council. Chair South Africa reiterates its alignment to the guiding principles identified in the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation, on increase in the membership of Security Council and other related matters. These guiding principles also prioritize redress of the historical injustice against Africa and emphasize the urgent need for Africa to be treated as a special case while improving the representation of underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups. We therefore welcome and appreciate the inclusion of the common African position in the Elements Paper and the position on the rotational seat for the seats and request that the framing of this be reflected as indicated earlier by Elsie Chair, once again, we thank you for all the hard work. We have seen progress from the time that you started co-chairing. We believe that you have— there's been some significant introductions of processes, of mechanisms that South Africa welcomes. And once again, thank you for all the hard work. South Africa. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of South Africa and I give the floor to Mexico.

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, facilitator, sir. Mexico endorses the statement made by Uniting for Consensus. I will make a number of additional comments in my national capacity. These in no way should be interpreted as anything more than an expression of the constructive spirit with which we are responding to your appeal to to exchange ideas on the revised Elements Paper. We are grateful for the circulation of the revised co-chair's Elements Paper and its submission to the member states. We recognize the facilitator's efforts to, in general form, reflect the discussions held during this cycle of negotiations as well as the efforts made to identify elements of convergence and divergence. However, we do wish to make a fundamental point of clarification. The document in question is a facilitator's assessment of the current status of intergovernmental negotiations and that process. As such, its content represents a compilation of remarks and perspectives of the facilitator himself. These can prove useful, but they cannot be interpreted as constituting consensus or official positions of member states or negotiating groups. To put it plainly, the document is the facilitator's —facilitator's assessment of the status of the IGN process. As such, it reflects the facilitator's point of view and is the responsibility of its author. Preserving the intergovernmental, open, and transparent nature of the IGN is key to preserve their legitimacy. We believe it positive that the document refers to the Pact for the Future as a whole. It is particularly relevant that in that Pact for the Future, inter alia, it was reaffirmed that Security Council reform must continue to remain a member state-driven process and that it must be conducted within the IGM framework. This in accordance with Decision 62/557 and other relevant resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly, including Resolution 53/30. However, we do not believe that the current wording of General Element of Convergence number 19 is appropriate. It erroneously could be interpreted by some delegations to mean that the pact had conferred a new mandate upon the IGN. In the Pact for the Future, we reaffirmed the central role of the IGN to settle the question of Security Council reform. It did not substitute or redefine the IGN mandate. Rather, clearer parameters were agreed upon to facilitate the current and future cycles of IGN negotiations. As has become patently clear across this current— substantive points of divergence continue to remain across the 5 clusters established by Decision 62/557, and we have yet to see the presentation of new models or the revision of those already presented. It is for that reason that Mexico believes it premature to make any reference to a hasty transition towards a consolidated model without having previously agreed on parameters for that model. We cannot move forward in that way without reaching a common understanding on the way ahead. Mr. Facilitator, we welcome the fact that the democratic principle is being maintained as one of the fundamental elements of convergence for Security Council reform. This together with effectiveness, transparency, representativeness, and accountability. For Mexico, periodic elections are essential to defend this principle of democracy because such elections guarantee that members of the council are held responsible accountable before the international community, and that the ever-changing dynamics of the global stage are duly reflected. This adaptability is crucial given that the international context is in no way static, and given that the Council structures must evolve in order to ensure that the Council remains legitimate and effective. Regarding the section on membership categories, we underscore that there is no convergence around expanding both categories. The only point of convergence to date has been that regarding the expansion of the non-permanent members category. Consequently, any reference that makes that expansion conditional upon changes being made in other categories, or that presents the link between them as a supposed point of consensus, must instead be located in the divergences section. That would contribute to more faithfully reflect the current status of negotiations. I conclude by reiterating my country's appeal to other— for other negotiating groups and member states to present their proposals for reform models. Once again, we're grateful to you for your efforts to help us find common ground and move towards a comprehensive Security Council reform.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico for her statement, and I give the floor to Liechtenstein.

Thank you, Chair, and also thanks both to you and, and your co-chair for the work that you have done during this year's session at the IGN and, and that of your, of your wonderful teams. You have managed to harness the momentum from the Pact for the Future, and the significant changes from last year's elements paper demonstrate how seriously you've taken that mandate. However, we, we do believe that the consolidated model is not just a clear objective for the IJN for the future, as you've mentioned, but, but for the present. We had hoped that, having seen a range of models over recent years, including a revised model from Liechtenstein this year, that we would be in a position to be able to discuss such a consolidated model today. Without that it's difficult to maintain that momentum to deliver on the Pact and on Resolution 62557. In the meantime, we see the addition this year in the convergences of an agreement to the submission of further models and revision of already presented models by states and groups of states. Liechtenstein would continue to support the prompt presentation of new models to inform that consolidated model. In particular, we're looking forward to seeing the model put forward by the African Group, which we believe will be a key step to take the process forward. We are grateful that the co-chairs held a dedicated meeting on limitations on the use of the veto for the first time in the IJM process, as you have pointed out in the document. Given the extremely concerning trend in the Security Council We think it's particularly important that the membership continues to make their expectations clear on the use of the veto, and that this can help enable the Council to take up its primary responsibility for peace and security put forward in the Charter. In closing, thank you again to the co-chairs for your hard work and the progress made in recent years that really is, we hope, moving towards genuine reform of the Council. We hope to be able to take that spirit forward at a time when Council reform is increasingly urgent and necessary. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein for her statement, and I give the floor to Indonesia.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for convening today's meeting. We commend your leadership and hard work in producing the draft of revised Koçes Element's paper. We see the updates presented in the revised paper as a reflection of our collective endeavor towards our vision to make the Security Council more effective, efficient, democratic, inclusive, accountable, and truly representative of the realities of the 21st century. And in this regard, allow me to offer several observations. First, the implementation of Security Council-related actions. In the Pact for the Future must be fully supported. Our endeavor on reform must not regress from previous commitments, including the goal to achieve an early reform of the Security Council, as it is an essential element for the overall effort to reform the UN. And this is where the Pact for the Future plays an important role to guide our effort, as the actions have set parameters for our discussion on the Security Council reform. And while we must see the actions in the Pact comprehensively, we also support the low-hanging fruits that we could work on in the IGN, among others, to develop a consolidated model as a clear objective for the IGN moving forward, based on the convergences on the five clusters and the models presented by member states. Second, to achieve progress through innovation. We take note that changes are rather minimal on the elements of convergences and divergences in the co-chair's element paper this session, and this shows unfortunately that the IGN has been experiencing what we can call a Groundhog Day syndrome. If we want to truly materialize the reform of the Security Council, we must be able to explore innovative approaches on how we must address the question of veto— where the veto has not yet been released— on how we bridge differences on the expansion of the membership of the Council and on how we could move towards a text-based negotiation. Third, a more representative Council is a step towards improving the effectiveness, legitimacy and inclusiveness of the Council in exercising its mandate, and in this regard we welcome the acknowledgement in the paper that the representation of Asia Pacific as well as Latin America and the Caribbean should be improved, while also supporting the importance of addressing historical injustice to Africa. However, we would like to underscore that the issue of representation must be treated as one part to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Council. Mr. Che, in the wake of the escalating conflicts in the Middle East, and ongoing war in Gaza, the credibility of the Council is at stake. We need a Security Council that can respond effectively in addressing global security crisis. Therefore, all of us here in the IGN should start to set realistic timeline and concrete target for substantive progress that would assist us to make a Council that is better fit for purpose. Let us work together and rest assured of Indonesia's strong support. For this common endeavor.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for his statement and the floor is for India. Shukran Jazil and Sehatarais.

I thank you for convening today's meeting that focuses on the revised co-chairs elements paper and the way forward. I also want to congratulate the very good work done by the co-chairs in this regard. India aligns itself with the statements delivered by Saint Vincent and Grenadines on behalf of the L69, and Germany on behalf of G4. In addition, I would like to make the following specific points in my national capacity. One, in the Pact for the Future, we agreed to strengthen multilateralism and revitalize the UN system. Despite India's constructive engagement on the pact, our reservations on certain provisions under transforming global governance were clearly articulated during the negotiations, and our position on these clauses remains the same. Our positive spirit is not to be construed as an unconditional endorsement of all provisions of the Pact on this matter. Two, the legitimacy of the intergovernmental negotiations is based on the premise that the Elements Paper accurately reflects the views and positions of member states. Therefore, it's important to clearly demarcate and attribute the convergences and divergences on the various clusters. A qualified convergence with opposition by one or more member states is not a convergence. Chair, 113 out of the 122 member states which submitted their positions to the 2015 Framework Document supported expansion in both categories. The views of a group of 12 members, that is in a clear minority, is being given considerable weightage and specific attribution. The large majority of member states and groups, especially the Africa Group, and including the L69, the G4, the Nordic and Benelux groups, as well as 4 of the 5 permanent members who have underlined support for expansion in both categories of membership should be reflected. 3, the call for addressing the historical injustices to Africa, including through their representation in the permanent category of the Security Council— I repeat, in the permanent category of the Security Council— is in line with the common African position, and this has overwhelming support. Similarly, the small island developing states have special requirements and these need to be adequately reflected in the elements paper. Here India would also like to underline its support for greater representation of SIDS in the non-permanent category. Four, geographic distribution is an established practice at the UN. This is also reflected in the non-permanent category of the Security Council. There is no convergence or for that matter, there is no overall agreement on the need for equitable representation of cross-regional groups, particularly faith-based organizations such as the OIC, which is not in accordance with the established UN practices. This cannot be categorized as a convergence. The elements paper of last year in August 2024 contained a footnote on this issue clearly stating that several delegations raised questions about the inclusion of OIC in this regards, and it seems advisable to continue discussions on this issue in the upcoming IGN session. We are surprised to find that this is no longer reflected in the latest Elements paper and it should be reinstated. Chair, India's position and the majority view has been clear and consistent. Text-based negotiations is the way ahead. This cannot be avoided any longer. Any effort aimed at achieving real reforms needs to have text-based negotiations with clearly prescribed timelines and milestones. Delays will further undermine the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Security Council. It's time that member states move away from the endless cycles of debates and statements and move towards action-oriented measures that lead to tangible progress. Indeed, my Indonesian brother just referred to Groundhog Day, and increasingly that seems to be the case. India stands ready to engage in a forward-looking manner on all earnest efforts aimed at realizing the vision of Security Council reforms in accordance with the aspirations of a majority of member states. Thank you, Chair. Shukran. Shukran, Jazzy.

My dear brother, President of India, to Japan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Japan aligns with Germany's statement on behalf of the G4.

I will make additional remarks in my national capacity. At the outset, I thank you for circulating the draft revised co-chairs elements paper for this year's IGN session and giving us an opportunity to provide our comments. The following comments are still preliminary as we need to further analyze the substantive paper. Mr. Chair, following last year's discussions on 5 models submitted, Japan welcomes this year's discussion on the revised Liechtenstein model and CARICOM model, as well as discussions on 5 clusters. It is disappointing however, that there has been no significant change in the convergences compared to last year's version. Discussions of models help clarify each group's views on the 5 clusters and facilitate bridging the gaps among groups. Japan looks forward to submissions from the remaining groups at the earliest timing toward developing a consolidated model. Mr. Chair, while General Assembly Resolution 62/557, the foundation of the current IGN, calls for, quote, seeking a solution that can garner the widest possible political acceptance by member states, end of quote, it must be highlighted the text does not stipulate that the solution must be decided by consensus. As stated in G4 statement presented by Germany, the majority of members— member states and groups, including the African Group, the Arab Group, CARICOM, the G4, the L69 Group, the Nordic Group, the Benelux countries, and four permanent members of the Council, have expressed support for expanding both permanent and non-permanent categories. Japan would like to emphasize that this must be accurately reflected when a consolidated model is developed. Mr. Chair, in light of the reality that trust in the United Nations, the center of multilateralism, has been undermined and the international order formed under the UN has been shaken. Reform of the Security Council, which bears primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, is a matter of fundamental necessity for the entire international order, not just for the Security Council. The upcoming session marks an important milestone—the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN. We must not miss this opportunity to transform the Security Council, which is a snapshot of the international environment in 1945— indeed, 8 decades ago— into an organization that reflects the contemporary international environment and can act more effectively.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Japan, and I give the floor to Brazil.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brazil aligns itself with the statements delivered by Germany on behalf of the G4 and by Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the L69, and I will add some very brief comments in my national capacity. As in previous occasions, I express my delegation's true appreciation for your sustained and successful efforts during this session. In pursuing meaningful discussions in the IGN. We thank all delegations or groups who presented models in this cycle and for their willingness to hear comments and answer questions. Mr. Chair, I will not repeat the comments presented by L69 and G4, with one key exception that you should, I suppose, guess what it might be. The characterization of the IGN in the section of the revised Elements paper dedicated to the Pact for the Future. The IGN never was and is certainly not the, and I quote, "exclusive," quote unquote, member-state-led platform to carry out the Security Council reform. My delegation kindly requests that you revise the text even as we all agree that the document before us reflects your views and not that of delegations. Mr. Chair, there is no overstating the urgency of reforming the Security Council. Continued action is not an option. We have before us a substantial body of proposals by member states that provide a solid foundation for progress. We do hope that in the remaining of this session,, and in the 8th session, the IGN will prioritize text-based negotiations as a means to reconcile current divergent positions and thus allow us to move ahead.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil, and I give the floor to Cuba.

Muchas gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We recognize your efforts to update the document Elements of Convergence and Divergence at the same time. We thank you for convening us to this meeting. This is an appropriate space in which delegations can exchange points of view on elements reflected in that document prepared by the chair. With that in mind, my delegation wishes to convey to you the following comments. We agree that Security Council reform must make the Council a truly transparent organ which is democratic and representative. Also in point 7, we reiterate our considerations regarding the inclusion of a review clause. We believe that we are at an early stage, an overly early stage to discuss procedural issues which would arise subsequent to the reform. In our view, We must focus now on tackling substantive issues on which we have yet to reach an agreement. We should not prejudge a discussion before reaching a substantive agreement regarding the organ-specific reform. Regarding point 2, it is necessary to underscore that the relation between the Security Council and the General Assembly must be one established with full adherence to the respective mandates of each body, as well as their authorities and functions as enshrined in the Charter. Inter— the Security Council's interference in areas beyond its remit needs to cease, particularly their interference in those areas that are within the General Assembly's mandate. Elsewhere, an overly, overly broad wording regarding the interaction between the Council and the subsidiary bodies of the General Assembly runs the risk of spilling over into other organs whose mandates do not establish any link to the Security Council or any reporting responsibilities thereto. Regarding the section on the issue of the veto, we understand that a growing number of member states support limiting the scope and use thereof. However, specific options that we have to do that, as have been suggested by a group of states should not come to be elements of convergence. This seems to be the— what's reflected in the current document. The IGN provides us with a forum whose potential we must harness to continue to promote broad exchanges of views between member states. The forum should allow us to tackle the necessary form of the Security Council. Through detailed discussions of the 5 clusters as established in Decision 62/557 of the General Assembly. Moreover, we are grateful for the models presented during this session, and we are ready and willing to continue contributing to these debates. You can count on my delegation's goodwill to continue to continue contributing to our discussions and to continue building common ground in this process aimed to bring about a comprehensive reform of the Security Council which will make it into a more democratic and representative body, a body that will serve to strengthen the credibility of our organization. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Cuba. And I give the floor to Kenya.

Thank you, Chair. Kenya aligns itself to the statement read by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group. I will now make additional comments in our national capacity. We are proud of the co-facilitators for preparing and disseminating the element paper on convergence and divergence circulated on 29th April 2024. 2005. Discussions here today present us with an opportunity to interrogate the views of member states from two vantage points. Having reviewed the element paper, Kenya welcomes growing convergence around the need to make the Council more inclusive, representative, and effective. We have, however, flagged out a few issues that require urgent action. First, we are concerned that the element paper does not adequately reflect the clarity and legitimacy of the African common position as outlined in the Esmeralda Consensus and Sylt Declaration. We therefore urge that the future texts ensure more balanced and accurate portrayal that acknowledges Africa's rightful demands and the strong convergence around the need to correct its historical underrepresentation in the Security Council's permanent membership. Second, the use of the veto remains vague. Kenya acknowledges the sensitivities and divergent views surrounding the question of the veto. We therefore encourage continuous dialogue that acknowledges the concerns of all regions while preserving the integrity of reform objectives with a view to bridging positions in an open and mutually respective manner. Third, Kenya urges that any subsequent document related to the intergovernmental negotiation process be fully aligned with the provisions and intent of the Pact of the Future., which expressly acknowledges the historical injustice of Africa's exclusion from permanent membership and calls for concrete steps to redress this imbalance. Failing to incorporate these legitimate demands not only undermines the credibility of the reform process but also contravenes the global consensus reaffirmed in the Pact. Lastly, the open-ended nature of the text particularly the omission of timelines and procedural clarity on procedural matters like text-based negotiations, consulted drafts, or deadlines, perpetuating a circle of repetitions without results. We therefore join others in calling for a transition from broad-based discussions to inclusive, transparent, and text-based negotiations guided by clear timelines and a concrete milestone. Mr. Chair, in conclusion, Kenya reiterates its unwavering support for the allocation of at least 2 permanent seats with full rights and privileges and 2 additional non-permanent seats for Africa, ensuring equitable regional representation as enshrined in the— in the port— the— in ensuring consensus and sealed declaration. We stand ready to work constructively with all member states and stakeholders in pursuit of a just, inclusive Security Council reflective of today's geopolitical realities. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya and give the floor to Pakistan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pakistan would like to align itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group. Let me start by thanking you, Ambassador and Chair, for convening this 6th meeting of the IGN and for circulating the revised coaches. Elements Paper. We would like to greatly acknowledge your splendid stewardship of the work of the IGN during the 79th session of the General Assembly. During the course of the year, we have engaged in constructive and frank discussions on both the areas of convergence and divergence. I would like to underscore that the Elements Paper reflects the Chair's understanding of the convergences and divergences among member states on the issue of Security Council reform and may serve as a working reference to identify further convergences and common ground while maintaining the official positions of various groups and states. We believe that if adequate time had been provided to reflect on this paper, a more informed discussion could have taken place. I would like to make the following observations in my national capacity. One, on the introductory part of the Elements Paper which refers to the Pact for the Future, we are of the view that a correct interpretation of the pact should have been reflected. The suggested tone from the referred document should not be interpreted or converted to some language or a proposed line of action as some definitive course of future approach that does not correspond to the Pact for the Future. And this brings me to the next point. We strongly feel that the formulation related to the consolidated model in the introductory part has not been reflected in the true spirit of the Pact for the future. The language that consolidated model is now a clear objective for the IGN is somewhat prescriptive, which is contrary to the spirit of the Pact. Clearly, the Pact clearly states that a consolidated model must be developed based on convergences among the 5 clusters and models presented by the member states. Let me recall that IGN is the only platform for discussions and negotiations on Security Council reform. The mandate for the IGN has been given by the General Assembly itself, and in this regard, two documents form the bedrock of our process, that is Resolution 5330 and Decision 62/557. Our process should be tightly anchored on these documents. We therefore propose that necessary changes be made in the paper. Thirdly, we believe that paragraph 7 of the Elements Paper on the review clause needs rewording to reflect a balanced manifestation of the discussions. In its current shape, it incorrectly states that the member states support the inclusion of a review clause in the reform of the Security Council. We would like to point out that some delegations expressed that they do not favor any approach that would entail a review clause as a vehicle to the benefit of some individual member states or that would lead to a piecemeal reform. Fourthly, a correction is required in paragraph 18 related to the presence of new members in the Council. It is important to recall that the criteria provided for in Article 23.1 of the United Nations Charter refer only to non-permanent members. We would therefore propose adding the qualifier "elected" after the words "new" to avoid any misunderstanding. Fifth, under the divergences in Section 1 of the paper, we would like to highlight that besides the UFC, the African, and the Arab groups which you have mentioned in your paper, there are several other individual member states including some permanent members who have advocated that a prior agreement should be reached on the principles of the reform before proceeding to text-based negotiations. Any precipitate move to the so-called text-based negotiations will be detrimental to the process we have made, to the progress we have made in expanding the areas of convergence. Sixth, on the categories of membership, we strongly suggest modification of the language that says a significant number of delegations argue that the enlargement should include expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent seats. This is based on faulty arithmetic and logic, as many states have yet to express their positions, and some countries that have expressed their views belong to more than one group, thus making it inappropriate to use the word significant. 6. Besides, different variations or characteristics of permanent seats are being advanced that do not reflect common position or same understanding. They cannot obviously be lumped together. 7. We acknowledge that there has been overall agreement on the need for equitable representation of certain cross-regional groups. However, while listing them in the Elements Paper, a footnote has been added stating that OIC is a faith-based organization. Let me clarify that OIC is the second largest organization after the United Nations, which has called for its due intergovernmental representation in a reformed Security Council. We note that the Pact for the Future, while mentioning the issue of representation of cross-regional groups, does not label any organization as faith-based. Last, we need to accurately reflect the differences in approach about the permanent seats between countries which seek the seats for themselves and the African desire for adequate representation, which is a demand on behalf of the entire continent endorsed by the African Union. We view the African desire for two permanent seats on the Council as being distinct from the claims of four members to individual permanent seats for themselves in their national capacity without reference to or agreement within their respective regions. We see the proposal of the African Group as the claim of a region to have the final word on its own destiny. There are nuances and distinctions between positions that must be taken into account. Mr. Chair, whereas for decades the vast majority of UN member states have held the considered view that the paralysis and inaction in the Council and the issues surrounding transparency and democratic decision-making in the Council are due to the permanent members who, being unaccountable to the general membership, always keep their individual interests in the forefront. Now that we can address these problems by adding more such individual permanent members defies logic. No doubt such demand has proved to be the major stumbling block for an early reform of the Security Council. In conclusion, Mr. Chair, we once again commend your work. We hope that due consideration will be given to our suggestions to have the Elements Paper accurately reflect the state of play. IGN is the sole format in which we should promote the discussions on Security Council reform. We should do our best to promote early agreement But there is no artificial deadline or time limit to reach a consensus on reform. A conclusion depends on when we can get an agreement on a proposal which enjoys the widest possible political agreement of member states. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Pakistan for his statement. And I give the floor to China.

Chair, thank you for convening this meeting. Under your leadership, at the current session of the IGN, comprehensive discussions have been held on the 5 clusters of Security Council reform and on the 2 specific reform proposals submitted or updated by member states. With in-depth exchange of views on key issues, such as categories of seats, cross-regional representation, and the question of veto, to name a few. These discussions have deepened understanding of various positions, helped building consensus and narrowing gaps, which is good proof of the value of IGN and the progress achieved so far. China appreciates your work and contribution. Based on their personal observations and understanding, the IGN co-chairs summarized the discussions of member states and put forward an updated co-chairs' elements paper. This practice is customary to IGN and has been widely supported by member states. China would like to stress the following 3 points. First, in accordance with GA Decision 62/557, only the position of member states could constitute the basis for negotiations. China supports the efforts of the co-chairs in their Elements Paper to reflect with impartiality and objectivity the views and propositions of all parties on the current status of IGN, summarize the progress made in this round, and fully present the proposals and ideas from member states. However, it must be emphasized that the co-chairs' Elements Paper is by nature a summary by the co-chairs themselves, which may serve as a reference for the next IGN but shall not constitute the basis of any text for negotiation. Second, the co-chair's element paper should reflect the new reform philosophy on regional seats and rotating seats. Categories of membership is among the clusters where member states are most divided during the current session of IGN. More and more states have adopted a long-term approach on reform, voiced their support for regional seats and rotating seats, and their opposition to the practice of one election for good. They support giving priority to Africa's special arrangement and addressing the overrepresentation of Western developed countries with a view to creating more opportunities for developing countries, small and medium-sized ones in particular, to participate in the work of the Council. Compared with the expansion of both categories, this concept is more democratic and more aligned with the aspiration of member states. It represents the most up-to-date thinking of member states and may deserve adequate description in the Elements Paper. Third, the principle of consensus among member states must be upheld. In the Pact for the Future, Member States are encouraged to work towards a consolidated model based on the reform proposals submitted by all parties and the consensus on the 5 clusters. Rushing to a consolidated model or even calling for an arbitrary timetable will do no good, but only exacerbate the division and confrontation among Member States, undermine the healthy momentum of reform, and bring the negotiations to an impasse. Looking ahead to the next session of IGN, China believes that discussions on the 5 clusters should continue and welcomes member states and groups of states in contributing their wisdom from different perspectives. IGN is the only legitimate platform for Security Council reform, and China firmly opposes the practice of reinventing the wheel outside the IGN. Chair, as the current session of the IGN is about to complete its mandate, China supports the co-chairs in starting the transition as scheduled and improving the draft co-chairs' elements paper in a fair and transparent manner by giving priority to the overarching goal of reform and the unity among member states. We are ready to work with all parties towards an early and successful conclusion of this session, conclude technical transition as soon as possible,— thus laying a solid foundation for the next session of the IGN. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement, and I give the floor to the Russian Federation.

Spasibo. Thank you, distinguished coordinator of the intergovernmental negotiations. We'd like to thank you for convening today's meeting and preparing the draft of this recent document on convergences and divergences of positions of states on Security Council reform. We highly commend your work throughout the 79th session in the difficult circumstances of ongoing disagreements between members of the IG, and we believe that this text basically objectively reflects the course of the discussion with the understanding, of course, that there are individual positions of different states in the negotiations that we categorically do not agree. We do, however, respect the right for each delegation to insist on their views or their parameters for the Reform Council. The IGN should not become a forum for the imposition of contradictory approaches and artificial presentation of them as something that enjoys this school of thought. So we believe that the call in the draft to work on the consolidated model as an— is an aim that requires a delicate and gradual approach to it. As we have repeatedly noted during the session, no concept presented to date unfortunately enjoyed sufficient potential to become the main package of decisions. Of course, each one of them has their own shortcomings. In particular, they— all of them propose increasing the composition to about 25 or 29 members. We are convinced that doubling or almost doubling the number of seats will cause irrevocable harm to the effectiveness of the body and will decrease the role of each member in decision-making, especially non-permanent members. And however, the reform initially was thought up with one aim in mind: to strengthen the position in the Security Council of states from the global of the South who currently do— are not appropriately represented in global affairs given their growing impact rather in global affairs. Some models retain the possibility also of expanding the number of Western countries who in their overwhelming majority have identical approaches to the whole UN agenda and they want to shore up in their global policies and in international policies their own privileged neo-colonial positions. Russia does not support such scenarios and can never do so. In the introductions, uh, that you, uh, propose, we have two main comments. Firstly, we do not agree with your assessment that the Pact for the Future has apparently become an important document, landmark indeed, aimed at strengthening multilateralism and revitalization of the UN system, and its adoption was a historic breakthrough in the reform of the Security Council. We believe that the agreement on the pact last year was accompanied by non-consensus language being put through, and so it was a project— product ultimately that not every— that did not enjoy consensus from everybody and did not fulfill the hopes of the majority— all states, including Russia. We believe that the pact, um, should outline the convergences. Secondly, we categorically disagree that the pact conferred any kind of mandate on the IGN to adopt some sort of interim measures to improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Security Council. In Action 41, it clearly states that such measures do not replace the reform of the body, and so their eventual development is not part of the mandate or task of the IGN. I would urge you, distinguished coordinator, to make the correct factual changes. In conclusion, once again, I'd like to thank you for your careful leadership of the intergovernmental negotiations at this session and express hope that we will find, uh, be able to continue our gradual work to find new compromises on Security Council reform.

Thank Thank you. you. I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for his statement, and I give the floor to Spain.

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also wish to thank you for all your efforts. We appreciate them a great deal. Spain, as a member of the Group Uniting for Consensus, endorses and aligns itself with the statement that was made by Italy, I'm now going to make a number of comments in my national capacity. First and foremost, we are deeply grateful for the circulation of the co-chair's document on revised elements of convergence and divergence. We note many positive components thereof. These include the reference to the increasingly widespread support for limiting the use and scope of the veto and the reference to Resolution 76/262 on the veto We also value the changes that have been seen in the last IGN process, specifically the idea of creating— the creation of a repository, the video broadcasting of debates, and the organization of informal meetings by the co-chairs. However, I wish to make a series of points of clarification regarding language contained in the document. For example, in the view of my delegation, it is not appropriate to indicate that the Pact for the Future includes a dedicated chapter on security Security Council reform because that matter was only discussed in 3 actions under Chapter 5, which is much more broadly devoted to transforming global governance, and this includes the General Assembly, ECOSOC, or international financial architecture. Elsewhere, as other delegations have already stated, the Pact for the Future did not give the IGN any mandate to move ahead with the reform. That is actually stated 3 times in the Elements Paper. It is appropriate to recall, as other delegations have done previously, that the mandate of this intergovernmental process emanates, emanates rather, in Decision 62/557. Elsewhere, we are struck by the fact that under membership categories there is a reference to a significant number of delegations when it comes to expanding Council membership in both categories. That's particularly striking when we have not yet heard the point of view of myriad delegations. Moreover, in order to be able to speak about a consolidated model, we'll have to hear more proposals first. Consequently, we encourage more negotiating groups and member states to present their proposals for reform within the IGN process during the next session. You have the commitment and the readiness of the Spanish delegation Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Spain for her statement, and I give the floor to France.

Monsieur le Président.

Mr. President, Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank you for convening this sixth debate, and I commend your commitment throughout the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiation Group. The Elements Paper that you disseminated following these 5 thematic debates take the form of an update on the Elements Paper on Convergences and Divergences, and this new version is an excellent basis for discussion for member states. The disorder, really, of today's world, sir, shows us that we need a Security Council that is able to meet the mission conferred upon it by the Charter We as UN member states, together we have reaffirmed in the Pact for the Future the need to reform the Council in order to make it more representative, better adapted to contemporary realities, and in a better position to respond to current challenges. For the first time since 1963, member states have agreed to define clear parameters for reform And now it is up to us to implement actions 39 and 41 of the pact, and that is indeed the task conferred upon us. The discussions on the models of Security Council reform during these— this IGN is a first stage, but we mustn't lose sight of what is essential, starting Starting negotiations based on a text with a view to a vote in the General Assembly for France, this procedure alone stipulated by the UN Charter is the only one that can lead to Security Council reform supported by the vast majority of the members of the General Assembly. France supports an expanded Security Council in its two categories of members, permanent and non-permanent. to the tune of about 25 members. This expansion should enable those states that are able and willing to contribute to international peace and security maintenance. And to this end, we should respond to the legitimate expectations of Africa. France has long defended the establishment of 2 permanent seats for African states. France also supports the candidacy of Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan as permanent members as part of a comprehensive reform. Sir, France would like to welcome the positive trend regarding the French-Mexican initiative on the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocity, recently illustrated by the accession of Armenia. We are delighted that this initiative is meeting the real expectations of measure— of member states, and is one of the areas of convergence since 2022. France would call for the convergences expressed by most groups and member states during this process— it calls for that to be identified and mentioned in the document in order to have the best vision possible of the negotiations. And this should be done during the 80th GA on— based on the model that we had in 2015. The 80th anniversary of the UN Charter provides us with an excellent opportunity to make progress with this reform. France will continue its unfailing efforts to achieve this shared ambition, and we'd like to congratulate you.

Thank you, Representative of France, for a statement, and I give the floor to Malaysia.

Thank you, Chair, for convening this meeting. We welcome the revised co-chair's elements paper, which was transmitted to member states on 17 June. In general, Malaysia is of the view that the revised elements paper captured much of the positions, views, and comments expressed during the IGN meetings held since last year and in the second half of this year. We commend the co-chairs for being attentive and transparent in reflecting the discussions and inputs of member states. Nevertheless, we welcome this opportunity to provide initial observations on the revised Elements Paper and to reiterate our views as articulated in past IGN meetings. Chair, allow me to make a few observations. First, the question of the veto— on the key question of the veto, Malaysia remains firm in its belief that it should be abolished in the long run. Until then, the veto should be regulated to prevent abuse. We have also proposed that for a veto to be valid, it must be supported by other permanent and non-permanent members of the Council and endorsed by a simple majority in the General Assembly. The veto should not apply to situations involving mass atrocity crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Second, relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. We welcome the Chair's view on the convergences regarding the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. ASEAN supports efforts to strengthen cooperation and complementarity between the two organs, bearing in mind their respective mandates under the Charter. We underscore the importance of enhancing transparency, accountability, and coordination, including through more substantive annual reports, regular meetings between the presidents of both organs, and increased access and participation for non-Council members in the work of the Security Council. We also support existing accountability mechanisms on the use of the veto, as exemplified by the Veto Initiative. Initiative, which enhances the accountability of the permanent members to the wider membership. Third, expansion of the membership of the Security Council. Malaysia supports the expansion of the membership of the Security Council that would make it more democratic and inclusive, one that would better reflect the current membership of the UN and the realities of the contemporary world. We note that there is a general reflection of this in the Elements Paper. A more representative Council would improve its legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness in discharging its responsibilities under the Charter. However, we emphasize that the expansion must enhance rather than hinder the Council's ability to function efficiently and effectively. Fourth, the working methods of the Security Council. Malaysia supports efforts to continuously review the Council's working methods in order to make it more transparent, effective, efficient, and accountable. In this regard, it is essential that the setting of the Council's agenda be guided by the importance of issues to international peace and security rather than the political interests of a few members. Greater transparency can also be achieved through more use of open meetings, and inclusive formats, such as ARIA formula meetings, which allow broader participation and strengthen trust among the wider UN membership. Chair, since gaining our independence 67 years ago, Malaysia has been given the honor of serving as member of Security Council on 4 occasions. This is a trust bestowed upon us by member states that we do not take lightly. Rest assured, Malaysia will maintain its strong commitment Malaysia towards efforts to improve the effectiveness of the Security Council, including through constructive engagement in the IGN process. Thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished Permanent Representative of Malaysia for his statement. Cambodia, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair, for the floor. Mr. Chair, distinguished delegates, at the outset, I would like to join previous speakers to sincerely thank and commend you and the team for the continued effort in advancing this complex but vital process and for revising the co-chair element paper on convergence and the version on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Council and related matters. This document is useful thoughtful reflection of the U.S. position and provide basis for further dialogue. While aligning ourselves with the principal call for more inclusive and representative council, Cambodia appreciates the effort to identify both convergence and divergence in the White Element Paper. However, key aspects including the category of membership, The use of the veto, regional representation, and the process going forward remain highly visible on the divergent category. In this regard, Cambodia wishes to re-emphasize three following points. First, we stress the importance of maintaining the unity of member states throughout this process. Reform must be pursued in a manner that brings us together not divide us further. Second, while understanding the desire of some member states to move toward a text-based negotiation, we view that such negotiation should only proceed when there is a clear and broad-based consensus among member states. Premature attempt to impose a negotiating text without consensus risks deepening division, and undermining the credibility and inclusiveness of this IGM process. Third, any outcome of this process must be the result of open, transparent, and inclusive negotiations, with the full participation of all member states. The principle of equality of states, large and small, must remain at the core of our deliberations. I reaffirm Cambodia's full commitment to and support for the IGM process and constructive engagement in the spirit of compromise and mutual respect. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cambodia and I give the floor to the Maldives.

Thank you, Chair. I wish to first extend my gratitude to you for your extraordinary stewardship of the IGM this session. The number of convergences in the elements paper represents the rewards of your dedicated work. As the dynamics of security threats have evolved, so too must the composition of the Security Council. To that end, a SIDS seat at the Security Council is long overdue and necessary to combat these evolving threats. The Maldives thanks all member states that have expressed support for rotating cross-regional seats for SIDS. SIDS have the potential to champion peace proposals that go beyond traditional arms justice proposals. They offer valuable insights into proposals on sustainable development and environmental resilience can help prevent conflict and support international peace and security. In that regard, we take note of the Elements Paper's finding that further discussion is needed on the mechanics of the nomination and rotation for cross-regional groups. We are ready to discuss with partners proposals that can lead to convergences on the mechanism and note that currently mechanisms for sub-regional group representation within a group on the Security Council are accepted and working, such as the ongoing presence of members of the Arab Group. There is no reason such formulas could not apply to SIDS. We also advocate for equitable solutions for sub-regional groups within SIDS to be represented within the main group. A dedicated seat for SIDS could be achieved in two ways. Ideally, by amending the Charter to increase the number of elected members of the Council. Alternatively, through a more geographically balanced allocation of existing non-permanent seats. The second option would not require Charter amendment since the number of elected members would remain unchanged. It could be addressed through a resolution of the General Assembly. At the same time, the Maldives supports serious discussions on the use of veto. The veto remains a major impediment to the Council's credibility and effectiveness. At a time when the Council must act with unity and purpose in the face of conflict, the selective application of the power undermines trust in multilateralism. All member states must be held to equal standards under the Charter. Moving forward, we must remain open-minded to diverging perspectives. The Maldives remains actively engaged in all reform proposals that aspire for transparency, accountability, and equitable representation.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives.

Republic of Korea, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin by expressing my sincere appreciation for your steady leadership throughout the process. We also thank you for preparing the element paper which captures key aspects of our discussion and reflects a broader sense of the urgency for reform as expressed in the Fact for the Future. Korea aligns itself with the statement delivered by Italy on behalf of the UFC group. As we close this year's IGN session, I'd like to share 3 reflections in our national capacity. First, on the categories of the membership. The debate on the Security Council reform has long been framed as a binary between those supporting expansion in both categories those who don't. We believe this technical dichotomy do not reflect the reality of our discussions and can be misleading. In practice, all reform models proposed today suggest the new types of membership that move away from the current structure of 5 permanent members with a veto and the 10 elected members without it. The models that we have discussed include permanent seats exist without veto, regional permanent seats, and long-term re-electable seats. None of them replicate the existing arrangement. Rather than frame our discussion as, as a binary debate between those in favor of expanding permanent seats and those opposed, it should be seen as a collective effort to negotiate new modalities of membership. Viewing it this way can help create a pathway to bridge the gap between different positions. Second, on the question of the veto, there is broad agreement that use of veto undermines the Council's ability to deliver on its mandate effectively, thereby reducing its credibility. If you can agree that the use of veto should be limited, expanding number of veto power sends the exact opposite message. I'd like to reiterate that extending perpetual privileges to more states does not counterbalance existing veto powers. Rather, it expands the circle of privilege and may even replicate or legitimize the very structural inequality we are seeking to correct. In this regard, future IGN discussions may benefit from greater attention to concrete proposals aimed at limiting the use of a veto. Third, on equitable geographical distributions. The five regional groups currently function as electoral groups to ensure the fair distribution of the non-permanent seats as outlined in Article 27, Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter. To serve this purpose, each regional group is allocated a number of the non-permanent seats proportional to its membership size., a principle that was upheld in the first and only reform of the Security Council in 1963. As we discuss the direction of the future reform, it is worth asking: Is equitable distribution truly being realized under the current arrangement? When you look at the numbers, the answer appears to be no. In the Asia-Pacific Group, 1 seat is allocated for every 27 countries, countries, compared to 13, 17, 18, or 22 countries per seat in other regions. This makes Asia-Pacific the most underrepresented region in the Council. Such disparity should also be given careful consideration in future reform efforts. Mr. Chair, the core question in the reform discussion must be how to best reflect, accommodate, and adapt to the changing global realities. This is imperative that has driven our collective engagement on Security Council reform. In this context, a system of regular rotating elections remains the only sustainable means to ensure the Council stays representative, responsive, and accountable. Unlike permanent membership, which once granted cannot easily be reversed, Elections provide the most viable mechanism through which the Council can stay adaptive. As we consider ways forward, the real challenge lies not in selecting a one-size-fits-all procedural approach such as text-based negotiations. They are not, of themselves, a solution. Security Council reform must not be driven by aspirations for status, but by a spirit of compromise and shared commitment find the solution that genuinely enhances the Council's effectiveness and legitimacy. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, and I give the floor to Australia.

Thank you, Chair. Australia supports the continuation of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, and we thank the Chair for capturing the current state of negotiations in the elements paper distributed. We also extend our gratitude to the member states who put forward proposals for our consideration. Chair, Australia's position has been clear and consistent throughout this IGN process. Australia supports greater permanent and non-permanent representation for Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean.

Our opposition to the veto is longstanding.

We strongly support ways to limit use of the veto, including through voluntary restraint. Our opposition— we remain open to considering proposals for cross-regional representation on the Council, such as for small island developing states. At a time when we must renew confidence in the multilateral system, Australia commends the member states in this room today and throughout this IGM process for demonstrating a commitment to work together to improve our UN system for today and tomorrow.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia. Morocco, you have the floor.

Thank you, sir. My delegation endorses the statement made by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group, Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group as well and would like to make the following comments in its national capacity. I would first of all like to commend the unfailing efforts that you've made and your ongoing work to push forward the Security Council reform work. I'd also like to thank you for the exemplary way that you've headed up this session despite the lack of a co-chair and the transparency and inclusivity that have really characterized our work. Sir Morocco takes note of the updated document on revised Kočes elements paper on convergences and divergences. This document, it gives us deeper understanding of the developments made and the positions expressed by member states. It is a useful basis to go into further discussions and to identify points of convergences whilst understanding persistent divergences in order— which is crucial in terms of making progress in a respectful way in this process. During this session, many delegations underscored the fact that the IGN really needs to reflect the positions of the different parties in order to build trust between the different groups and bring points of view together to make real progress as part of our work. We, to this end in particular, welcome the reference to the Pact for the Future. This helped to breathe a new dynamic into the IGN. We also appreciate the inclusion of the mention of treating Africa as a special case. This meets one of the central demands of the African Group. Morocco here would like to reiterate its commitment to the African Commission position, in the SIT position and the Eswatini position, asking for 2 permanent seats on the Security Council, including all the prerogatives, including the veto right, and, um, 5 non-permanent seats as well for the continent. The Kingdom of Morocco shares the Arab Group's legitimate desire to have a permanent seat. So the Arab Group is a specific group with its own security and other issues. Morocco, sir, remains firmly convinced for— to a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to strengthen its legitimacy, effectiveness, and representativeness. To this end, we reaffirm our commitment to the intergovernmental negotiation framework. This is the only legitimate inclusive one. This is based on 62/557. It really highlights the intergovernmental nature of the process. We would stress the need for maintaining discussions in the 5 clusters. They remain interconnected and integral and essential in terms of finding a balanced solution, far from any chopped-up dispersed approaches. There are various methods that have been presented by member states during recent sessions. These are noteworthy contributions, but we believe that it is premature to state that a consolidated model is the, the right time now. This is indeed mentioned in the Pact for the Future, but It should only be mentioned as part of natural developments in the discussions and progress made within the IGN. This must only take into consideration broad consensus between member states. So here we need to ensure that everything is harmonious as we move towards the next session, and we need a procedural path forward that would bring together all the different positions in the IGN in line with established practice over recent years to ensure the continuity of our collective work. The Kingdom of Morocco would like to reiterate its constrict— constructive commitment to the IGN. We would like to assure you of our full support as we push forward a credible, balanced reform of the Security Council under your wise leadership. Thank you very much indeed.

Thank the distinguished permanent representative of Morocco for her statement, and I give the floor to El Salvador.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. El Salvador is grateful to you for convening this meeting of the IGN process on Security Council reform. We are grateful for and take note of your proposed update of the elements paper on convergences and divergences. This document reflects the Chair's understanding on the current status of intergovernmental discussions. We particularly value efforts made to incorporate the most recent developments of the process into the document, and we also are grateful for the constructive work done to produce this new version of the document. In light of the above, allow me to share my delegation's views on the document and its key updates. Mr. Chair, El Salvador welcomes the incorporation of elements Regarding the Pact for the Future, the adoption of the Pact for the Future has lent new momentum to our process. We support the way in which we read of the pact's impact on strengthening multilateralism, and we're also grateful for the explicit recognition of the IGN process as the only legitimate member states-led forum within which we can make progress on this important agenda. Moreover, we support the updates made related to informal, informal discussions. We view positively the fact that for the first time during this process we've held a meeting devoted exclusively to the position of the veto, including the possibility of limiting its use. This discussion is a direct response to the appeal made in the Pact for the Future to lend greater attention to this critical issue. It also reflects growing openness on the part of delegations to constructively tackle this issue. Turning now to elements of general convergence, we welcome the inclusion of broader language regarding underrepresented or unrepresented regions, particularly references made to Latin America and the Caribbean. The— that recognition is an important step forward for my delegation. Turning now to the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, we believe that we might contemplate updating 2.242 on the process of selection and appointment of the next Secretary-General. This process offers a new opportunity to continue strengthening cooperation between both bodies and an opportunity to move towards greater transparency and membership participation. Elsewhere, we take note of the reference made to the development of a consolidated model as a goal of the future IGN rounds. We believe that this might be a step forward to guide the next stage of negotiations. However, we must move forward without losing sight of the fundamental principles which govern this process. In line with the decisions that founded this very process, the— one of these fundamental principles is achieving a solution with the widest possible political acceptance. We continue ready and willing to actively, constructively, and flexibly participate in this process. We are guided by our common goal of achieving a more representative, effective, transparent, and democratic Security Council. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of El Salvador. And I give the floor to Timor-Leste.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the outset, allow me to express our appreciation to you, co-chairs, for your leadership and dedication in steering the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the L69 group. I would like to highlight a few key points in my national capacity. First, the revised element paper reflects the co-chairs' interpretation of the discussions and seeks to outline areas of convergence and divergence. However, several delegations have voiced concern that the paper does not fully capture the diversity and nuance of views expressed during the IGN sessions. This raises a critical question: which points are truly converging? It is worth noting that even those outside the consensus, including the United for Consensus group, have reiterated their commitment to a Security Council reform that is representative and consistent with the UN Charter. To make meaningful progress, it is imperative that all perspectives across the negotiating groups are fully accommodated and accurately reflected. Moreover, selective referencing of certain elements without due contextualization risks mis— misrepresenting the actual state of negotiations. To address recurring concerns about mischaracterization, the IGN must move beyond summary style elements paper and transition toward a formal single consolidated text. Such a text, with clear attributions and involving inputs, would offer a more transparent, structured, and inclusive basis for engagement. This call for a text-based negotiation process has been consistently championed by many member states, including the L69, the G4, and the African Group. They rightly argue that without such a framework, the IGN process risks stagnation, misinterpretation, and loss of momentum. Second, reforming the United Nations Security Council is an inherently complex and politically sensitive undertaking, marked by longstanding divisions among member states, particularly on core issues such as the use of veto and the size and composition of the Council. In this context, the active and constructive participation of the permanent members is essential. Without their engagement, the prospects of genuine reform will remain limited. We urge all five members to demonstrate political will and contribute meaningfully to breaking the current impasse. Third, the General Assembly must decide to carry forward the Aegean process into its 80th session without delay, Building on past discussions and the Code Shares Revised Element Paper, which outlines key areas of convergence and divergence, notably the IGN has been encouraging developments including model presentations from the G4, L69, CARICOM, and other groups. These contributions have clarified positions and helped identify potential areas of overlap, providing a more concrete basis for moving forward. Distinguished Co-Chairs, despite the persistent deadlock, the IGN remains the legitimate and inclusive platform for advancing Security Council reform. Its continued relevance lies in its capacity to facilitate dialogue, build mutual understanding, and explore common ground among member states. Recent steps toward greater transparency, such as the availability of online recording and the creation of a dedicated website are commendable and should be further strengthened to ensure broader engagement and accountability. To conclude, while consensus has yet to be achieved, the IGN is not static. It is a dynamic, evolving process driven by dialogue, diplomacy, and persistent advocacy. The road ahead may be challenging, but it is not without promise. The active participation of all stakeholders, a commitment of transparency, and willingness to engage in text-based negotiation offer a path toward meaningful progress. Reforming the Security Council is indeed a long-term endeavor, but it is not a lost cause. It requires courageous diplomacy, creative compromise, and above all, a collective vision for a more representative, accountable, and effective United Nations.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste for her statement. Türkiye, you have the floor.

Distinguished Chair, we thank you for convening the 6th IGN meeting of the 79th session of the General Assembly and your valuable leadership throughout the whole process. We also thank you for preparing and circulating the revised Chair's Elements Paper which we have taken note of. Türkiye fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group. I would also like to make the following remarks in my national capacity. Mr. Chair, Türkiye remains fully committed to the Security Council reform discussions and reaffirms once again that the IGN is the sole legitimate platform to this end. The fact that we have identified further convergences in these discussions throughout the years prove that the IJM process is on the right track. Together, we will enable a more representative, democratic, accountable, transparent, and effective Security Council that is fit for today's global challenges. We welcome the renewed momentum that reinvigorated the reform process after the Summit of the Future in September 2024. Nevertheless, as has been pointed out earlier, neither the Pact of the Future nor any of its actions can be construed as a formal mandate for the IGN. The mandate is already provided by General Assembly Decision 62/557. The Pact is merely our guideline. On this note, we would like to recall that our actual objective is to progressively build the model over time based on convergence across all 5 clusters. Given that there are potential reform models remaining to be presented and discussed, we believe that the consolidated model is not yet the next phase forward. Mr. Chair, we are encouraged to see that the Elements Paper includes some of the most vital principles of reform, such as the emphasis of the member-state-driven nature of the process, the IGN being the only legitimate, inclusive, and appropriate platform to pursue reform, the necessity of widest possible political acceptance in line with relevant decisions, the prominence of the interlinkages between the 5 clusters, and most importantly, highlighting the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We also welcome the acknowledgement of prioritizing the enhanced representation of underrepresented and unrepresented regions and groups, including the Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean, in addition to African representation. We would like to remind once again that the representation of OIC would also be valuable to the work of the Security Council. As reflected in the Elements Paper, we reiterate that further steps are required before moving to text-based negotiations. A transition to this phase requires genuine convergence on all clusters of reform. Many delegations have repeatedly stressed the need to avoid a piecemeal reform. We therefore would like to note that the inclusion of a review clause in a comprehensive Security Council reform might lead to such an outcome, especially considering that there have not yet been in-depth discussions on this issue. We therefore would like to reiterate our call for caution when referencing the review clause. Finally, as pointed out in the AFC statement, the formulation on the categories of membership in the Elements Paper needs a revision to reflect more accurately the positions of the delegations. Mr. Chair, thank you for giving the opportunity to reflect and comment on the revised Elements Paper. Through your dedication and hard work, you have once again successfully demonstrated that the IGN has made tangible progress for achieving a Security Council reform that will be able to overcome current and future global crises. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye and I give the floor to Argentina.

Thank you.

Co-facilitator, sir, at the outset, allow me to recognize your leadership during this intergovernmental negotiation process. I'd like to take this opportunity as we draw to the end of our sessions to discuss the convergences and divergences between member states when it comes to the reform process. We're grateful for the summary of our debates and the comments made by each state, both in their national capacity and through groups— interest groups. The Argentine Republic endorses the statements made by the Permanent Representative of Italy. On behalf of UFC, we wish to make the following comments in our national capacity. We underscore the convergences at— on each and every point under the 5 clusters, and we call upon states to continue making progress with reaching greater agreements. Argentina is guided by the understanding that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. However, we note that in point— under point 1 of general convergences, there has been the elimination of the sub-item which underscored the agreement that on the democratic principle which could— should guide the reform process. We suggest reincorporating that statement as a sub-item as it appeared in this document of from the 78th session. It stated, the principle of democracy remains an important principle in member states' efforts to reform the council and needs to be further discussed. That should be reincorporated elsewhere. We believe that in order to make progress with a broader consensus agenda, it's important for every state or group of states to have the possibility to present their own reform models for the Security Council, as UFC did, or more recently, CARICOM. It is necessary that all proposals be on the table. It is on the basis of these models and the attendant debates thereon that we'll be able to reach more common ground. Turning now to references made to the Pact for the Future, we wish to recall that in exercise of our sovereignty, we disassociated from the Pact for the Future in 2024. With that in mind, my delegation believes that the legitimacy and continuation of the IGN process is entirely independent from the provisions of the Pact for the Future. The Pact did not give a new mandate to the IGN. It bears repeating that the IGN was established through Decision 62/557, far before the Pact for the Future. Turning now to representativeness, Argentina believes that particular attention must be paid to correcting the historical lack of regional representation on the Security Council. As such, the regions of Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia-Pacific, and Africa— to an equal degree have been underrepresented for decades, and that should be corrected without delay. To conclude, I wish to point to the IGN as a process that should continue at a pace which makes it possible to make resolute progress rather on the basis of responsible member state-led discussions. No deadlines should be imposed, deadlines which would make us make inefficient decisions. Participation is crucial. It's not appropriate to actively hasten negotiations on the basis of a text which do not fully incorporate all views of states and groups of countries. Once again, there are many countries and groups that have not yet established proposed models.

Thank you. Distinguished representative of Argentina for a statement. Nigeria, you have the floor.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this important meeting to consider the draft draft elements paper. We consider the draft text as another bold step in our efforts to achieve a reform of the Security Council that reflects equity and inclusivity. First, my delegation endorses in its entirety the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the Africa Group and the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for the Group L69. It is our view, Mr. Chair, that while the Chair's draft elements paper should reflect a recollection of views expressed by member states and groups, the language used for each point should reflect the preponderance of views. This approach should inform which views are considered convergence or divergence. We agree with the representative of India and Pakistan that views shared by overwhelming majority of member states represented in groups should be reflected appropriately in the Elements Paper. In this context, the support in the common African position for reform in both the permanent membership and non-permanent membership categories endorsed by L69 —CARICOM and others should not be subject of any debate in terms of its appropriate placement in the elements paper. Mr. Chair, we further echo the points made by Sarah Loon and supported by Kenya and others that Africa should be accorded special consideration in the reform process with a view to addressing historical injustice. More importantly, we reiterate reiterate the urgency in advancing the process towards a text-based negotiation. We continue to believe that this is the only realistic path towards the actualization of the mandate of this august body. Finally, we urge the Chair to consider a review of the draft Elements Paper to ensure a fair recollection and reflection of the preponderance of the views of member states States and groups. Nigeria will continue to engage productively with Member States and groups to drive this important process, and Mr. Chair can count on our support. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Ecuador, you have the last word.

Gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you, Chair. I wish to thank the co-facilitators for their leadership in guiding the work of this IGN. Ecuador believes that the revised co-chairs' elements paper on convergences and divergences is a useful document for our discussions. In general terms, we believe that it does reflect the positions that have been expressed by various member states and groups. Ecuador's position on the various clusters, which include the issue of the veto, is well known to all. As such, I won't I don't want to repeat it now. However, bearing in mind that we are about to close yet another cycle of discussions, my delegation does wish to insist on the need of making our positions more flexible on the basis of a realistic approach. If all we're going to do is, on the contrary, reiterate our positions, the goal of moving towards text-based negotiations and any negotiations will not bear desired fruit.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador for her statement. Colleagues, we have reached and exhausted the list of speakers for this session. I would like to address some of the concerns that were highlighted today. First of all, Thank you, everybody, for the trust and your considerable time and efforts that you have dedicated to this process this year. It has been extremely effective and heartwarming for me personally to see that everybody still is dedicated to moving this process forward. So thank you, and thank you to all the teams involved. Involved in all of this. Two, this document is necessarily a reflection of what I see as chair of this process as the overall areas of convergences and divergences that we have witnessed this year. So I take sole responsibility for what comes into this document, and I do appreciate everybody's comments, and from a quick readout, every side had an issue with the document, which means it's hopefully reflective of a reality that is happening within the IGN context. It's not going to be a perfect document, and it's not going to be reflective of every single position that has been expressed during this year's discussions, because it just simply cannot do— we cannot do that and it defeats the purpose of the document at the end. I do want to address a couple of issues. 62.557 remains our mandate. It is mentioned 6 times in the document under consideration today. We have not in any way agreed as member states to get out of this framework, 62.557 is our guiding principle. The reference to mandate in the document, I am afraid, is lost in translation. The Arabic language, which is the language where I think and explore what I'm going to put in this paper, is very rich, and the word used translated into mandate in English does not really reflect what I had in mind. It is most— more an impetus to the process rather than a new mandate for the process. So I want to be— make that clear from the get-go so that there is no confusion. I will also take into consideration many, many of your comments made today regarding the overall document and will hopefully come back and reflect it in the final iteration of this document. On one other point that was raised several times about exclusivity of the IGN process, I don't see anybody against the IGN being the exclusive process for reform of the Security Council. Is it technically the only exclusive— the exclusive pro— no, it's not. Any member state or group of member states which have done in the past can take a resolution to the council outside of the IGN, to the General Assembly outside of the IGN, and we can have a different direction. But I think the overall agreement is yes, the IGN is the exclusive place for Security Council reform and debate, and the way we should move forward, and I heard that across the board throughout this process this year. On significant— on the word, the use of the word 'significant' to indicate the categories of membership, I believe that that is the case. It is a significant number of member states that support this approach. Is it the majority? Not by my calculations. I'm very sorry to say, and to those that purport on that point, my calculations does not make it a majority. By my calculations, it's approximately 92 countries that have explicitly said that in this body and in the context of the IGN. So it's not a majority, but it is a significant number of member states that have said that, and that is why it's reflected like this in the paper ahead of— in front of you. Many other issues, and I promise you I will discuss them and take them into consideration with my team and come back with a revised document. Now, on the way forward, There is— we have come— it's a bittersweet moment for me personally because we have come to the end of this process as far as scheduled meetings is concerned. My mandate remains open until the end of this session, which means that if anybody still wants to submit letters or revised models or new models, they can still do so until the end of this session. However, with the conclusion of the revision of, of the elements paper, the intention is I will raise this to the President of the General Assembly as soon as possible, uh, within the next few days, and as well hope that they will be able to schedule a meeting to adopt an oral decision of the General Assembly, um, on the way forward for the IGN for the next session. And that's where we stand today. The model discussions have been, I think, a very welcome step forward, have made our discussions a lot more dynamic, still within the context of the 5 clusters, but a lot more dynamic.

Are we at the point now where we can have a consolidated model?

No, we're not, and it has to be clear that we're not there yet because Fundamental groups of states have not presented their models yet for consideration by member states. Positions have been made clear, correct, throughout the many years of discussions in the context of the IGN, but not in the context of a model discussion. So I don't think that the model discussion— we are at a stage right now to have a consolidated model. Do we have anybody that wants to speak? Oh, Brazil, you want to speak? Yes, sorry.

Thank you very much, Chair. You mentioned that this moment is bittersweet for you. For my delegation, it's only bitter, not bittersweet. Sorry for taking the floor once again. Just to— if you allow me to make a comment on what you— on the clarification that you made regarding the use of the adjective exclusive. As we all agree, and you yourself confirmed that, and it has always been the case, the document, the Elements Paper, is under the sole responsibility of the Chair. In this particular case, however, there are two comments I would like to make. In this particular version of the Elements Paper, this characterization appears as you recall, in the section regarding the Pact for the Future. And there you indicate that the Pact for the Future characterizes the IGN as, quote, exclusive, unquote, platform. Uh, in, in my delegation's view, this is not accurate, objectively speaking. Objectively speaking. Um, so even if the, the document is under your sole responsibility, I think that from an objective point of view is not accurate because the Pact for the Future does not use that terminology or that characterization. Secondly, I mean, we all know— you correctly said that nothing in this document does not bind us, obviously, and no member state is in any way, let's say, prevented from exercising its rights under the Charter to bring this issue to this body or to any other body, and you clearly acknowledge that. Um, at the same time, we know that given the context and given the history of this issue, um, the use of this terminology, um, uh, might be construed or as there being, um, an agreement that, uh, recurring resorting— I'm sorry— to whatever other fora, including the General Assembly, would be in contradiction to any political agreement that we might have reached here. And this is not the case. I'm not saying that Brazil will resort to the General Assembly, but we have done so in the past, as you know, and any member can do so in the future. So, as— I mean, for the record, again, my delegation does not agree with the view that the IJN is the exclusive, exclusive— you mentioned central role, for example, I believe, in your text. I think nobody has disagreed with that. But again, this particular characterization, as far as I know, has never been used. And I would, again, humbly ask you to consider further reflection on this issue. Thank you very much.

Thank you, and as always, Brazil's recommendations are always on point and will be worthy of consideration. Anybody else? Alright, so I hope the path forward is clear. We will present a letter to the President of the General Assembly and hope for a scheduling of an oral decision as soon as possible so that we can ensure the transition into the 80th session of this IGN process. Once again, on behalf of my former co-chair Axel and his team and my team and myself, I really thank you for all you have done this year and for a successful conclusion of this process. Let's hope to see for the next co-chair's convenience more model discussions on the table and this renewed will, if you will, that was facilitated by the Pact of the Future and by the discussions this year, that we come back with a reinvigorated sense of urgency and of dedication to move this this process forward to the next year. And with this, I conclude this year's session of the IGN. Thank you very much for your cooperation.