General Assembly: Intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council - Informal meeting of the plenary, 80th session General Assembly Date: 20 February 2026 Language: English Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/zh/asset/k11/k113lrdbae?lang=en Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations. --- Co-Chair [0:00]: So, good morning. I call to order the 3rd 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. My fellow co-chair and I would like to extend a very warm welcome to all of you, and we would like to thank all delegations for their active and constructive participation during the first IGN plenary on the 21st of January. The breadth of the interventions reflects continued commitment on advancing our work within the intergovernmental negotiations. And we would also like to express our gratitude to delegations for their participation during the informal discussion, the Textile Talk, on 13th of February. And we look forward to continuing this momentum throughout this session. As we indicated in our letter dated 22 January, this meeting will focus on the discussion of the categories of membership of the Council. Our letter circulated on 12 February provided members with the following guiding questions to facilitate discussion and reflection. Given that 2 principal models have been proposed for Security Council reform— one that includes new new permanent members and one that does not. How can we build consensus around a single approach? Is it possible to reconcile these 2 models? Could a compromise or hybrid model be developed? What criteria or process should be used to select new permanent members or those holding longer-term seats? If additional permanent seats are created, should there be a mechanism periodic review or reassessment of those seats along with any other provisions agreed? How might we respond to proposals for rotating seats allocated to cross-regional groups such as Small Island Developing States? How can aspirations expressed by cross-regional groupings be addressed while taking into account existing modalities for equitable geographic representation. 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 give— be given priority. For efficiency and in line with the recent UN procedures, statements delivered on behalf of a group of states will be limited to 5 minutes and national statements will be limited to 3 minutes. To assist speakers with the time management, we have projected the on-screen timer on the screens. We encourage delegations to listen to each other, engage constructively, and seek areas of convergence in our meeting. In that light, we invite delegations to focus their interventions on any evolution in their position, including new elements they may wish to highlight. Once the list of speakers is exhausted, we will hold an interactive discussion on the 5 clusters and allow for member states and groups of states to respond to views and proposals put forth Before we begin, I would like to remind members that delegations are encouraged to email a copy of their statements to estatement@un.org for the publication on the repository website, as well as to facilitate interpretation. I will now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan on behalf of the Group of Four. Japan · G4 [4:09]: Thank you, co-chairs. I deliver this statement on behalf of the G4— Brazil, Germany, India, and my own country, Japan— where there exist various issues regarding Security Council reform. A central one has been whether to expand both the permanent and non-permanent categories. It is deeply regrettable that the IGN has failed to yield substantial outcomes on this critical aspect in the 16 years since its inception. An underlying factor for this failure is the treatment of all positions on the issue with equal importance. And as if consensus were required even to incrementally advance the process. The latter is inconsistent with Decision 62/557. As repeatedly stated, a majority of Member States support the expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. This majority voice must be duly reflected in guiding our work. In particular, developing a consolidated model. Let me repeat: the majority of member states support the expansion in both categories. Acknowledging this central principle will provide us with a more accurate picture of the current situation. It will also allow for more concrete discussions on the other issues within five clusters and will pave the way. For a meaningful negotiating text rather than more compilation of the existing positions of each group or member states. We must also clearly recognize that in order to truly reflect contemporary geographical realities and make the Council more legitimate, representative, and effective, it is essential to enhance the representation of underrepresented or unrepresented regions and groups such as Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean in permanent category. Appropriate representation to such regions must also be secured in the non-permanent categories. In addition, in line with the majority of states, the G4 stresses that due consideration should be given especially to the small and medium states including the Small Island Developing States. Representation of faith-based groups runs counter to established UN practice. Co-chairs, with regard to the fixed regional seats mentioned by the co-chairs at the previous IGN meeting, the G4 takes note of the intention of the co-chairs to reconcile differing positions within IGN. However, this idea is not a bridge between models, Rather, it is an affirmation of the models that call for expansion only in the non-permanent category. The proposed seats are essentially not any different from the current non-permanent seats, since in the fixed regional seats, continuity of membership is not a given and hence akin to the existing non-permanent seats. Therefore, it cannot be a substitute for the permanent seats. And does not constitute a sufficient solution to the structural imbalances currently existing in the Council. The G4 reiterates that this proposal disregards the majority of voices supporting the expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. It should also be noted that in terms of procedure, this idea has never been reflected in any of the models presented thus far nor proposed officially by any member state or groups. Hence, this cannot serve as a basis for discussions or preparation of a consolidated model. Co-chairs, as the challenges facing the UN grow increasingly complex, we can no longer constitute— continue to overlook the reality that the composition of the Council, which bears primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, remains virtually unchanged from 80 years ago. Achieving tangible results during this 80th session is therefore critical to maintaining the confidence of the Member States in the IGN process and beyond, for the UN in general. The G4 reaffirms its strong commitment to further reaching out and working in good faith with the wider UN membership to advance meaningful reforms on the basis of a text with clearly laid out timelines and milestones. I thank you. Co-Chair [8:54]: I thank the distinguished representative of Japan for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group. Italy · Uniting for Consensus [9:06]: Thank you. Distinguished co-chairs, I make this intervention on behalf of Uniting for Consensus, a pro-reform, cross-regional, and diversified group. I wish to thank you for convening the 2nd meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiation on Security Council Reform for this 80th Session of the General Assembly. We are living in a moment of reckoning where the foundations of the rule of law are being questioned. Challenges of diverse nature are emerging on a daily basis. The United Nations, as the universal multilateral organization, is not immune to these pressures. To improve the efficacy of the Security Council, we need to work together for a reform outcome that takes into account the fundamental principle of sovereign equality and enjoys the widest possible consensus. In line with Decision 62/557, we appreciate the constructive effort of the co-chairs towards that. At the same time, we are firmly convinced that the IGN process can accommodate the diversity of views inherent in the reform. The more inclusive the process, the strongest the outcome will be, with a higher likelihood of achieving a result that is both acceptable and sustainable. UFC's position on the categories of new members aims at enhancing the Council's effectiveness, representation, democratisation and accountability to the general membership. Only through periodic elections could those principles be implemented. Without them, the democratic nature of the Council cannot be ensured. IGN discussions have revealed that the expansion of non-permanent elected members is the only proposal to garner broad consensus. An enlarged non-permanent membership would also generate more opportunities for the 59 countries that have never served in the Council. The UFC compromise proposal of longer-term, non-permanent seats with the possibility of immediate re-election, with terms ranging from 3 to 5 years, without creating a third category, would ensure continuous involvement in the Council's work. Furthermore, seeking re-election would strengthen accountability and incentivize Council Members to act in the collective interest. On the contrary, new permanent seats would reduce the efficacy of the Council, not making it more representative, since any additional permanent members would represent themselves and would not be accountable to any wider constituencies. Introducing new permanent seats would perpetuate lack of representation, and have neither democratic legitimacy nor accountability. Expanding them would deepen the divide between a small group of countries and the vast majority of Member States. While some have proposed expanding the Council by adding more permanent members to supposedly better reflect the realities of the 21st century, The global landscape has already shifted over the last 20 years and would continue to evolve. It is our duty to reflect on how any reform would remain responsive to future shifts over the coming decades. It is also important to note that proposals by different Member States and the Negotiating Group to expand The permanent category vary significantly in nature, with some envisioning a regional dimension and others individual national seats. The existence of such divergent approaches highlights the absence of convergence on this issue. Against this backdrop, the UFC reminds its position as expressed in the model presented in March 2024 that ideally permanent membership should be abolished and further reiterates its principled opposition to the creation of any new permanent seats, regardless of their nature, designation, or modality. And it is against the principle of sovereign equality. We are confident that if all Member States and negotiating groups engage with a constructive approach IGN can advance meaningful convergences and achieve a common ground on the UNSC reform process. The times demand it. The global community requires it. And the responsibility lies with us to achieve it. I thank you. Co-Chair [14:37]: I thank the distinguished representative of Italy for his statement on behalf of The Uniting for Consensus Group, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group. Sierra Leone · African Group [14:51]: Madam Co-Chair, distinguished Co-Chairs, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the African member states. I thank you, distinguished Co-Chairs, for convening this second plenary meeting of the IGN. On the reform of the UN Security Council, and we acknowledge your letter dated 12 February 2026, which sets out the guiding questions for our discussions today. Distinguished co-chairs, at the outset, the African Group reaffirms that any genuine reform of the UN Security Council must be anchored in fairness, equity, and legitimacy, and above all, by addressing as a priority the historical injustice against Africa and by treating Africa as a special case. These principles are firmly reflected in the African Reform Model, which I am pleased to inform was endorsed by the African Union Heads of State and Government at the recently convened 39th Ordinary Session of the African Union Assembly. The endorsement of the African Reform Model builds on the momentum generated and commitments made by our heads of state and government in the Pact for the Future, including the development of a consolidated model. The AU-endorsed African Reform Model is based on the common African position on UN Security Council reform as articulated in the Ezoueni Consensus and SIT Declaration, as well as the African Group submission to the 2015 Framework Document. And is grossly underrepresented in the non-permanent category of the Security Council. It is against this background that the African Group will address the questions guiding our discussions. First, regarding the 2 principal models and how to build consensus around a single approach, the African Group believes consensus will not be achieved by asking Africa to compromise on justice. Rather, consensus will be built by converging around shared principles: equitable geographical representation, regional balance, and effectiveness, while accepting that legitimacy requires addressing the central deficit of representation affecting Africa. In practical terms, this requires moving beyond abstract binaries and focusing on an approach in which reform delivers an enlarged Council in both categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent, in line with the categories found in Article 23 of the UN Charter, and with Africa receiving not less than 2 permanent seats and 5 non-permanent seats. Africa therefore firmly opposes ideas not in conformity with the common African position. Second, on reconciling the 2 principal models and the possibility of a compromise or hybrid, Africa remains constructively engaged in the process to achieve a broad political acceptance. However, any idea, proposal, or hybrid that avoids permanent seats altogether for Africa or substitutes Africa's permanent membership with longer-term or renewable arrangements does not resolve the injustice at the heart of this reform debate. Africa's position is clear. That permanent category should be expanded beyond the current P5, with no less than 2 permanent seats for Africa alongside an expanded non-permanent category. In our view, this approach affirms the necessity of Africa's permanent membership for legitimacy while also enlarging the non-permanent category to strengthen accountability and wider participation. Third, regarding criteria and process for selecting new permanent members, or longer-term seats. The African Group reiterates in its context the primacy of regional representation and regional ownership. For Africa, the selection of Africa's representatives both in the permanent and non-permanent categories shall be undertaken by the African Union for submission to the General Assembly for election. This protects unity, prevents fragmentation, and ensures that representation reflects the collective will of the region. Fourth, regarding periodic review or reassessment of new permanent seats, the African Group stressed that reform must not institutionalize inequality through second-class permanent membership. In this context, Africa strongly believes the veto should be abolished, but so long as it exists, it must be extended to all permanent members as a matter of common justice. Against that background, discussions on review or any review mechanism must not become a vehicle to reopen, dilute, or condition Africa's rightful representation and positions, including on the question of the veto. That said, Africa will listen to views on a periodic review of the overall implementation of the reform, particularly on working methods and transparency, provided such review strengthens effectiveness and accountability without undermining the categories of membership or the principle of equality among permanent members. Fifth, regarding proposals for rotating seats allocated to cross-regional groupings, including small island developing states, the Africa Group notes the importance of reform delivering a more accessible, democratic, representative, accountable, and effective Council, that enhances inclusivity without fragmenting the principle of regional representation. In conclusion, distinguished co-chairs, allow me to reiterate that the African Group stands ready to engage constructively to build convergence, but convergence must be anchored in legitimacy. As endorsed by the African Union Heads of State and Government, that legitimacy requires that Africa, as a special case, be granted no less than 2 permanent seats with full prerogatives including the veto power and 5 non-permanent seats in an enlarged Council with selection by the African Union and election by the General Assembly. Any reform that does not correct the continuing historical injustice of Africa's non-representation in the permanent category will fall short of the transformative change that this process demands. We therefore express sincere gratitude to member states and interest groups for their ongoing support for the common African position. I thank you. Co-Chair [21:57]: I thank the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group. Bahrain · Arab Group [22:17]: I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Arab Group, and at the outset, I would like to express the appreciation of the group to His Excellency Ambassador Tareq al-Bannay, the Permanent Representative of the State of Kuwait, and Her Excellency Lies Grégoire van Haren, the Permanent Representative of the Netherlands, for their stewardship of the ING during this session and their commitment to maintaining the momentum of this important negotiation track. Co-chairs, the Arab Group reaffirms that discussion on the categories of membership constitutes one of the central pillars of the Security Council reform process. Any approach to reform must achieve fairer and more balanced representation that reflects the developments the international community has experienced since the last expansion of the Council in 1965. The group recalls that the Arab group comprises of 22 member states, approximately 11.4% of the membership of the UN. These states also represent peoples of more than 450 million people. In addition, Arabic is one of the 6 official languages of the UN. Notwithstanding these objective facts— demographic weight and institutional status— the Arab Group remains without permanent representation in the Council. At a time when the issues of the Arab region occupy significant and recurrent place on the agenda, resolutions, and mechanisms of the Council. Co-chairs, with regard to expansion in both the permanent and the non-permanent categories of membership, the Arab Group reiterates its firm position that any future expansion of the permanent category must include permanent Arab representation with all its prerogatives in a manner that reflects the political and demographic weight of the Arab group and the continued prominence of its issues on the Council's agenda. The group further holds that expansion of the non-permanent category should ensure equitable Arab representation in an enlarged Council. So as to enhance fair and balanced participation in decision-making. With regards to proposals to create a 3rd category of membership including long-term seats, the Arab Group stresses that any proposal in this regard should be assessed on the basis of a clear criterion, which is The actual contribution to addressing existing representational imbalances. The group believes that establishing a new category must not serve as a substitute for addressing the issue of permanent representation for regions that remain inadequately represented. It must also ensure a fair and balanced distribution based on a clear and agreed regional basis. Regarding the question of fixed regional seats, the Arab Group affirms that any formula involving regionally designated seats must be grounded in recognition of the political peculiarity of the Arab Group. Ensuring equitable representation requires greater clarity in defining the concept, criteria, and mechanisms of regional representation. Whether relating to fixed regional seats or arrangements involving rotation among the states of the region. Any such criteria must be applied fairly and equally across all regions without selectivity or double standards. The group emphasizes that ensuring equitable global representation necessitates recognition of the Arab Group as a distinct regional group in its own right, not subsumed within any other regional configuration, and in a manner that reflects its political and geographical reality and the unique challenges it faces. Co-chairs, in conclusion, the purpose of discussing the categories of membership is not merely to redistribute seats. It is to rebalance the structure of the Security Council in a way that enhances its effectiveness. From this perspective, the Arab Group reaffirms its commitment to engaging constructively and positively in the work of the ING in an open and responsible spirit, and with the aim of narrowing differences and reaching common ground that can lead to real and comprehensive reform of the Security Council— reform that addresses representational justice and strengthens the Council's ability to fulfil its primary mandate of maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the Charter. Thank you. Co-Chair [27:36]: Thank you, Representative of Bahrain, on behalf of the Arab Group, for his statement. And I now give the floor to Denmark on behalf of the Nordic countries. Denmark · Nordic Group [27:48]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair, and good morning, colleagues. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries: Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and my own country, Denmark. We welcome these discussions and the initiative by the co-chairs to put forward concrete ideas for the membership to react to. It is indeed time to stop repeating the same fixed positions and start building bridges so that a consolidated model can be developed and we can ultimately move to text-based negotiations. The Nordic countries have long been advocating for more representative effective, transparent and accountable Council. We have continuously expressed support for an expansion in both categories of membership to better reflect the global realities of the 21st century. We also continue to advocate for ways to improve small and medium-sized states' meaningful participation in the decision-making process of the Council. At the same time, we support innovative approaches by the co-chairs and others. We are open to exploring all ideas that can break the current impasse and lead to finding a middle ground, including the ideas that you have put on the table. In doing so, we must continue to take into account the negative impacts of the veto on the work and functioning of the current and a future enlarged Council. While we recognize that new permanent or longer-term members of a reformed Council may seek to have the same powers as the current permanent members, we must ensure that our pursuit for equity does not further expand the risk of paralysis in the Council. We need a Council that is able to prevent and respond to atrocities. We need a Council that can fulfil its responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Introducing more members with today's seemingly Unlimited veto powers could jeopardise this. Chairs, the Nordic countries maintain that a mandatory and time-bound review clause is an important element in any reform proposal. Such a clause is also a means to both enable compromise now and to avoid finding ourselves with another protracted, protracted IGN process in the near future. It could cover the full structure and functioning of the Council, at the agreed time of the review, and not only the amendments we hope to agree upon at this point in time. Finally, we wish again to encourage groups and individual States who plan to submit models to do so as soon as possible in order for these to be presented during the current session. This would allow the co-chairs, whose efforts we fully support, to have a comprehensive basis for developing the consolidated model. I thank you. Co-Chair [30:44]: I thank the distinguished representative of Denmark on behalf of the Nordic countries for her statement, and I now give the floor to Saint Lucia on behalf of the L69 Group. Saint Lucia · L69 [30:55]: Thank you. Good morning, distinguished co-chairs. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the L69 Group of developing countries on the cluster pertaining to categories of membership in a reformed and expanded UN Security Council. The L69 group recalls the ministerial meeting on the UN Security Council reforms of 24 September 2025, held on the margins of the UNGA along with C10, at which both groups underlined the urgency for reforming the UN Security Council and making it fit for purpose. Today's meeting and the current discussions around Security Council reform underscore once again that the architecture of the Security Council is outdated, ineffective, and not reflective of the current geopolitical realities. The L69 reiterates that its position is clear and consistent in its essential elements. The Security Council needs to be more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic, and accountable. This can only be achieved through a comprehensive reform that takes into account the expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, with equitable geographical representation for underrepresented and unrepresented regions, including Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. The current permanent membership, frozen in 1945, excludes regions from this core tier of decision-making. The L69 Group reaffirms that Africa needs greater representation in both categories in a manner consistent with the common African position as espoused by the El Zulwini Consensus and the Declaration. It is past time the voice of the developing world is heard and shapes key decisions on international peace and security. Views of the Global South must be taken into account, particularly on issues that pertain to them. Legitimacy of the Security Council cannot be merely asserted. It must be institutionally embedded and grounded on the trust of member states. The L-69 group views with concern any proposal, concept, or idea that does not seek to achieve expansion in both categories. Any intermediate, renewable, or hybrid formula is a variation of models based on the expansion of the non-permanent category only, and therefore does not constitute true reform. The reform would not be comprehensive in nature. The Global South did not wait 80 years only to accept hybrid formulas as a consolation or the appearance of reform. This would further postpone substantive reform by decades. Co-chairs, we note the guiding questions circulated for today's discussion. You will recall the undertakings called for on the Pact of the Future to prepare a consolidated model drawing on the presentations made by delegations. The L69 Group believes that the preparation and circulation of such a consolidated model must take into account well-established positions of various groups and other Member States and their demands for expansion in both categories. In fact, this would be an essential first step in enabling the membership to engage meaningfully with the questions posed. Proposals not arising from Member States or groups may be discussed at a later stage of text-based negotiations. On the question— on the specific questions relating to periodic review, criteria for selection, and proposals for cross-regional representation, including for Small Island Developing States, these are matters that merit careful deliberation. Our group would like to emphasize the following: genuine attempts at reform cannot ignore that an overwhelming number of countries seek to achieve expansion in both categories. We once again endorse the case for SIDS for continued representation in the non-permanent category. On cross-regional groups, membership must be firmly rooted in established principles of the UN. Newer parameters such as faith must not be a basis for membership. Additionally, the question of simultaneous membership in regional and cross-regional groups needs to be addressed so that all member states are on equal footing. At this juncture, the L69 would like to reiterate that we firmly— we remain firmly committed to the UN Security Council reforms. This is manifested in our inclination to explore synergies with other groups and and Member States as we push for concrete progress. In doing so, the L69 Group emphasizes the centrality of a textual foundation. IGN cannot be different from other UN processes. The text-based negotiations must have clear, defined milestones and timelines. This process must commence at the earliest. We cannot continue to engage in the cyclical pattern of delivering statements that reassert the well-known positions. In closing, we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to comprehensive reform that includes meaningful expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. As our ministers declared on September 24th, 2025, we must march together and the Global South must not be left behind at this important juncture. I thank you. Co-Chair [37:08]: I thank the distinguished representative of Saint Lucia for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Guyana on behalf of the Caribbean Community. Guyana · CARICOM [37:20]: Distinguished co-chairs, I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the 14 member states of the Caribbean Community. CARICOM thanks you for the very structured approach to the work of the IGN and for the opportunities you provide to maintain dialogue among the membership, even outside the formal meetings of the IGN. Turning to the subject of today's discussion, I wish to underscore the following 5 points. First, CARICOM acknowledges the various models of reform that have been put forward by member states and groups of member states. As rightly affirmed, One of the principal points of divergence concerns the permanent category of membership and whether or not this category should be expanded. To reiterate its position, CARICOM is among those who advocate for the expansion of the permanent category of membership to address the anomaly where 2 of the 5 regions of the United Nations are not represented. We further advocate that any new permanent member have the same prerogatives as current permanent members. CARICOM acknowledges, however, that there are proposals that conflict with ours, hence the question of how we can build consensus around a single approach. On this latter note, CARICOM continues to underscore the utility of continued dialogue among member states to identify the points of flexibility We hasten to add, too, that real consensus around a single approach would only emerge if that dialogue is structured in a way to produce measurable and binding outcomes. We therefore respectfully urge the Co-Chairs to continue considering how the IGN could move in this direction. Second, on the possibility of developing a compromise or hybrid model, The establishment of the IGN presupposes that member states would reach such an agreement facilitated by a structured process. CARICOM underscores that any such model would have to satisfy the core elements of the positions and proposals that member states advocate in the IGN. In this regard, we underscore the legitimate expectation that Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean would have representation in the permanent category of the Security Council, and that SIDS across all regions would be guaranteed representation. Third, to your question about the selection process for new permanent members, CARICOM is of the view that the selection process should enjoy the widest possible support of member states to ensure both credibility and legitimacy. Consequently, the General Assembly's role in the process is critical. Fourth, CARICOM continues to advocate that a review mechanism be established along with any reform of the Security Council to assess all aspects of the reform as agreed. This review should take place within 10 to 15 years of the implementation of the reform. The scope and objectives of the review should be clearly established at the time of the reform, premised on the approach that the intention would not be to reverse the reform. Finally, on the question of cross-regional representation, CARICOM acknowledges the aspirations elaborated in the IGN on this point, including our own proposal for a dedicated SIDS seat. Each of these proposals must be examined on its merit, including by considering whether the existing modalities for equitable geographic representation are enough to give the concerned countries the consistency of representation that they seek. I thank you. Co-Chair [41:15]: I thank the distinguished representative of Guyana for her statement, and I now give the floor to Belgium on behalf of the Benelux countries. Belgium · Benelux [41:23]: Thank you, co-chairs. I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Benelux countries, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and my own country, Belgium. At the outset, we thank the co-chairs for their continued leadership and efforts to guide us toward greater convergence. We believe that the co-chairs' proposal to consider fixed regional seats brings new perspectives and energy to the IGN process and may help us to increase convergence and advance discussions in a more practical direction. For this 2nd plenary IGN meeting, the Benelux countries will focus on 3 points. drawing on the guiding questions shared by the co-chairs. First, the Benelux countries continue to support a limited expansion of the Security Council, with the exact size to emerge from discussions between member states on the categories of membership and regional representation. We recognize that 2 principal positions are before us: one that foresees new permanent members and one that does not. In our view, Consensus requires identifying elements that address the concerns underpinning both approaches. The Benelux countries remain supportive of an expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent categories, but would be open to consider a pragmatic compromise should this proposal form a bridge between groups and provides— it enhances representativeness, accountability, and effectiveness. A clear and transparent process will be essential in this context. Election by the General Assembly remains a strong source of legitimacy. Moreover, if additional seats were to be created, we would see merit in considering a review mechanism to assess the functioning of an expanded Council and ensure it remains effective. Second, to the question of the veto. The veto— the question of the veto is central to any discussion on Security Council reforms. The Benelux countries are concerned by its increased use in recent years, which has at times prevented the Council from effectively carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. We are among the large and growing number of member states that support limitations on the use of the veto. We also underscore the importance of complying— compliance with Article 27 of the Charter, which requires that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. We are cautious about any expansion of veto powers and believe that the— believe the potential negative impact of additional vetoes on the Council effectiveness must be carefully considered. Third, with regard to fixed regional seats, we are carefully considering this idea and open to exploring it as a possible avenue for convergence. The combination of considered equitable geographic representation and election by the General Assembly could strengthen legitimacy and democracy, while the longer-term re-electable seats could enhance accountability. At the same time, in order to make any model workable, we believe it is wise to keep the architecture as simple, coherent, and effective as possible. Clarity is needed on key parameters, such as the number of such seats, duration of the term and re-election modalities, the application of veto powers for this group, including modalities for veto use, and the impact on working matters, including the impact on the ability of members elected for a term of 2 years, like the current E10, to continue to play a meaningful role on the Council. In addition, we reaffirm our position that the Security Council must become more representative of today's world. We support the legitimate aspirations of African countries for an enhanced presence in the Council and look forward to the presentation of the African Group's model for reform. We also support the call for greater representation of developing countries and small and medium-sized member states, including the Small Island Developing States. Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, the Benelux countries remain fully committed to a reform that makes the Security Council more inclusive, representative, transparent, accountable, legitimate, and effective. You can count on our constructive engagement as we continue this important work. I thank you. Co-Chair [45:49]: I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China. China [45:59]: Thank you, co-chairs. Thank you again. China welcomes the convening of the 2nd meeting of the IGN on UN Security Council reform during the current session of the General Assembly. The 5 key clusters constitute the fundamental pillars of the Council reform and must be addressed as a package. Of the clusters, the categories of membership is central. Member States have long engaged in intense debate on this issue. Significant differences still remain. Thank you. In today's world, the trend towards multipolarity is irreversible. The collective rise of the Global South is unstoppable. There is widespread consensus that we must align with the historical trend, take concrete actions to uphold the authority of the Council, and advance the necessary reasonable reform to make its decision-making more democratic and efficient. Thus ensuring the Council's decision truly reflects the collective interest of the international community and fully guarantees substantive participation of more countries. A growing number of member states oppose the practice for Council members serving lifelong terms once elected. They are open to the idea of establishing regional and rotating seats. Compared with the proposal to expand the 2 categories of seats, this concept captures the latest thinking among member states and warrants further discussion and refinement. China welcomes the efforts made by the co-chairs based on the above-mentioned concept and keeps an open mind towards the principle of fixed regional seats as proposed. We stand ready to hold in-depth discussions with all parties taking inspiration from this idea to explore new reform approaches and continuously foster consensus. China wishes to make 3 observations. Firstly, the Security Council cannot and must not become a club for the rich and the powerful, making only a few small number of countries the beneficiaries of reform. Any country representing the region on the Council should represent the interests of that region and enjoy broad recognition and acceptance from regional countries. Secondly, more than 80 years after the founding of the UN, There are still 59 member states of the UN that have never served on the Council. We need to identify the right approaches to reform that genuinely enhance the representation and the voice of developing countries, giving more small and medium-sized countries with independent foreign policies access to the Council. In particular, it is imperative to rectify the historic injustice endured by Africa and accord priority and special attention of its aspiration. Thirdly, Amid complex and volatile international circumstances and ever-emerging security challenges, the Council must shoulder its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. This requires us to look beyond the current world order and plan reform from— with a strategic vision and a long-term perspective. And lastly, I must emphasize that Japan, by refusing to reflect on its history of aggression, blatantly tramples on the post-World War international order, interferes in the sovereignty of other countries, and poses new threats of regional peace and stability, such a country is fundamentally disqualified to seek a permanent seat. And thank you. Co-Chair [49:14]: I thank the distinguished representative of China for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt. Egypt [49:26]: Thank you, co-chairs. Egypt aligns itself with the statements delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group and would like to add the following. First, and as there is no specific cluster assigned to this meeting today, I will take the liberty of addressing categories of membership as one of the 5 key questions of GA Decision 62557. Egypt remains of the view that a meaningful reform of the Council will have to include expansion in both categories of membership, permanent and non-permanent. Ideally, all member states should remain equal, with no few member states more equal than the rest of the membership. Unfortunately, this anomaly in the Charter is expected to stay, which then necessitates an expansion in both categories as a matter of common justice and to avail regions that have been historically underrepresented on the Council the opportunity to have their voices heard and to exercise the same prerogatives that have been for long that have for long been exclusively set for the 5 permanent members. Africa is a case in point. For decades since the inception of the Council, the continent has been underrepresented with currently only 3 non-permanent seats. The Ozzalwini Consensus and the very soon to be submitted African model for reform provide a just and sustainable solution to this historical aberration. The answer is simple: 2 permanent African seats, with all the parameters of the current permanent seats, including the veto, and 2 additional non-permanent seats. Only this answer hands Africa and its peoples the long overdue justice. Second, co-chair, allow me to briefly go through some of the questions which you have posed in the co-chairs' letter of 12 February. On the first question, the answer is that What we need is the widest political acceptance on a certain approach, not necessarily consensus, even though consensus of course would be preferred. This is why we've always maintained that more discussions are needed under the IGM process and that we are yet to achieve even the slightest semblance of agreement over one certain approach. Given this reality, we still believe that rushing to text-based negotiations will only further complicate matters Building consensus requires dialogue, not entrenchment behind preconceived walls of text that will bog us down even further. On whether there should be a mechanism for periodic review or assessment of permanent seats, this question should be directed to the current holders of permanent seats as to whether they would accept to be subjected to such a review. In principle, continuous reviews and improvements are always welcomed, But the question remains as to whether such a review will include all permanent seats, not only the new ones. As a matter of equality, if such a review was to be instituted, it should include all permanent seats, old and new alike. It should be noted, though, that we continue to refuse what was included in some previous models discussed here pertaining to postponing a decision on veto reform to a future review process. Reform must and will be comprehensive. Addressing all 5 key questions. Only then can we think of future reviews to enhance the Council and make its work more efficient. Lastly, regarding proposals for rotating seats allocated to cross-regional groups, we recognize the importance of addressing the legitimate concerns of such groupings. At the same time, these arrangements should take into consideration the collective weight of members of these groups and the extent to which they feature on the Council's agenda. The Arab Group, for example, in terms of size, population, contribution to global affairs, and how frequently its issues are discussed on the Council, should be treated as a standalone group with commensurate permanent and non-permanent representation. Finally, co-chairs, I would like to express our support to the format in which you are conducting these negotiations and request that we continue discussing the 5 key issues of 62557 in parallel with new models and other ideas and proposals as they are put forward. I thank you. Co-Chair [53:38]: I thank the distinguished representative of Egypt for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France. France [53:48]: Ladies and gentlemen, co-chairs, thank you for convening this second thematic debate on the IGN on Security Council reform, on categories of members. The Council reform is a question of credibility, credibility of the Council facing the increasing number of crises, credibility of the organization in the face of the expectations of member states, the expectations of civil society organizations advocating for people in crisis and emergency situations, expectations of men and women engaged in political transition processes and who aspire to democracy and the rule of law. A more representative institution would strengthen legitimacy of its action and its mandate, which has been conferred upon it by the Charter to ensure international peace and security. A more legitimate institution would be stronger in the face of predators of all sizes. A stronger institution would be more effective. It's along these lines that we are putting forward our 3 priorities. Firstly, the Council should better reflect today's world. Other states, apart from the P5, have the ability and resolve to shoulder greater responsibility responsibility in the area of international peace and security. The Security Council reform should enable them to meet their legitimate aspirations, in particular when these states come from regions who are currently either not or underrepresented in the permanent members. This is why we support the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India, and Japan, and the establishment of 2 permanent seats for African states. Furthermore, France considers legitimate for candidates for a permanent seat to request the same prerogatives as a P5. These new members appointed by the GA should exercise their responsibilities in the interest of the organization and of all member states. Furthermore, if the distribution of seats is done in the United Nations based on regional groups, France will defend arrangements seeking to ensure appropriate ongoing representation of Arab states, as well as sits within the Security Council. Secondly, the Council's expansion should reconcile strengthening its representation with a need to preserve its effectiveness and its decision-making ability. France thus considers that a Council expanded to about 25 members with new permanent and non-permanent members would be a balanced prospect. Thirdly, we need to establish a clear objective in these intergovernmental negotiations to achieve real progress. We believe that this involves starting without further ado negotiations based on just one text. Such a text should stipulate an expansion to several categories of new members, permanent and non-permanent, according to the modalities established. In absolute terms, it's important to work on a text that would take into consideration the model that was adopted in Addis Ababa, and that will be shortly presented by the African Group. Co-chairs, 107 states have already lent their support to the principle of having the— not using the veto in the case of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and mass atrocities. This initiative put forward by France and Mexico does not talk about abolishing even partially the veto. Rather, it's defending the moral and political responsibility of the Security Council to strengthen its ability to act at the right time and in a decisive measure, and we therefore propose achieving that with all those member states who want to move things along in order to ensure responsible veto use. Thank you. Co-Chair [57:32]: Representative of France for a statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein. Liechtenstein [57:41]: Co-chairs, thank you for convening today's session at which we are pleased to address the issue of categories of membership. Given that little more than a year ago Liechtenstein shared its model for a reformed Security Council for a second time, not that much of what we say this morning will be new. Nevertheless, we are pleased to provide some rationale for our proposal. Co-chairs, Liechtenstein has been pleased to see over recent years the growing agreement that no state should be able to inscribe its name into the Charter as a newly permanent member without being so elected by the membership. As is rightly noted, any such aspiring membership— member state should be subject to a process of accountability by all members of the organization. Co-chairs, Liechtenstein does not believe that accountability can take place only at the moment of election. This is why we've worked for so many years, including with the ACT Group, to ensure accountability to the membership in the working methods of the Council, and specifically to ensure the accountability of the permanent members of the Council when they exercised the veto by proposing what became Resolution 76262, otherwise known as the veto initiative. But the ultimate form of accountability remains a practice of regular and periodic election, allowing the membership to determine with concrete consequences whether a state's conduct on the Council is worthy of our continued approval. Of course, the language of the Charter as it stands today presents a different issue. Elected members cannot stand for reelection while on the Council and must leave after 2 years of membership. One may ask that with 193 member states and so few elected seats, not to mention the 60 states that have never served on the Council, why should states be entitled to renew their membership? As many outgoing elected members will know, the short-term nature of the elected seats reinforces a dynamic in which permanent members can wait out reform-minded colleagues, establishing control over penholderships and benefiting from the time it takes for elected members to establish their familiarity with Council processes and procedures, while giving them little time to make progress on the priorities on which they were elected. Put simply, the other 188 members need the requisite time to get their feet under the horseshoe table. This is why, co-chairs, we have arrived at a proposal that we call the intermediate model. That is, a number of long-term renewable seats of between 8 and 10 years duration. We believe that, as well as having important procedural and practical reasons to commend it, our proposal is also a compromise between major stakeholders whom I will gather into 3: those seeking permanent seats with a veto, Those supporting longer-term non-permanent seats without a veto, and the incumbent permanent members of the Council, who in any case will have a veto over Charter reform. We see this proposal as being a justifiable and defensible landing ground between the parties with interest and influence over the result of our deliberations. Finally, co-chairs, a word on another cluster, the veto. We do not believe that the veto can or should be extended for any seat created in the process of Council reform. Increasingly in recent years, the Council has been prevented from delivering on the basics of its Charter mandate due to the use of the veto. In a larger and hopefully more representative Council, the idea that one state would be able to prevent this Council from acting is even more concerning. If an expanded veto power renders the Council even less able to fulfill its responsibilities, the only thing it will be representative of is the UN's dysfunction. This is why in the Pact for the Future, the membership has agreed to limit the veto's scope and use. In keeping with this agreement, Liechtenstein would not support models that expand the privilege or the prevalence of the veto amongst new seats. Thank you. Co-Chair [1:01:43]: I thank the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Spain. Spain [1:01:56]: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. On my behalf, first, I would just like to point out that Spain subscribes to the declaration that was read out by Italy on behalf of Uniting for Concession, and I would just like to add some brief additional comments. First, we truly thank you for convening this meeting on the issue of categories of membership, which is one of the 5 key issues which are interrelated and are in Decision 62/557. As we've been hearing today and in other meetings we've held on the topic, this is one of the most divisive issues among member states. But there is one element convergence among us all, which is expanding the category of non-permanent membership. This is why Spain believes this is the issue on which we should focus in order to carry out this reform of the Security Council, which is so urgent and necessary. We should solely focus on expanding elected members. This would give the Council more representation, better accountability, periodic elections, scrutiny in the GA, And it would also ensure greater effectiveness in its work right now in this moment in which we find ourselves in. On the other hand, and as other delegations have pointed out, for us it is important to highlight that the 5 key issues of Security Council reform are intrinsically linked. So I would like to briefly refer to 3 issues that are very important for my delegation First, modifying the working methods of the Security Council so that elected members have greater weight in the work of the Council. Number 2, the complete abolition of veto power in the Security Council. And as long as this doesn't happen, we support any initiative to limit its use and scope. And 3, strengthening the relationship between the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Peacebuilding Commission. Thank you. My delegation will continue to actively participate in this work, and you can count on our full collaboration. Thank you. Co-Chair [1:04:13]: I thank the distinguished representative of Spain, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico. Mexico [1:04:25]: Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, co-facilitators. Mexico would like to add its voice to the statement made by Italy on behalf of the Movement Uniting for Consensus. While we will deepen our intergovernmental dialogue during the interactive session, I would like to add the following comments in our national capacity. First, there is a growing recognition on the need to expand membership in the Security Council in order to strengthen its representativity, improve the effectiveness of its work, and provide greater legitimacy and credibility for this organ. A first step could point toward increasing the number of non-permanent members, as we did in 1965. Second, co-facilitators, we believe that we have the necessary conditions to consider expanding mandates to a period greater than 2 years for elected members, of course, without making their participation permanent de jure or de facto. Mexico considers that moving forward on these 2 points would allow us to unblock the process that is expected to be borne out, out of Security Council reform. Nevertheless, we also deem that it is important that any emerging agreement keeps the political balance in a reformed Security Council, especially the relationship between permanent members with so-called veto rights and elected members who currently hold the majority in that body in charge of upholding international peace and security. Mexico and the Group Uniting for Consensus have proposed a model based on periodic elections and mandates that would be longer than 2 years. We proposed that we should expand only the category of non-permanent membership through seats with longer mandates and the possibility to stand for immediate reelection. In no way do we propose creating a third category. Introducing longer-lasting seats creates new opportunities for the participation of States that have had fewer possibilities historically to have some of the seats traditionally assigned to their regional group, specifically Small Island Developing states and other small states. In short, we would broaden participation without creating new structures of privilege, nor would we create obstacles for the adoption of decisions. Any reform in the composition of the Security Council— and by this I mean Article 23 of the Charter— should be analyzed based on the functions and powers established in Articles 24 and 25. The Mexican delegation recognizes the close link between reforming the Security Council, expanding new membership, and veto power. My government calls upon countries that have not done so to join the Franco-Mexican initiative to limit the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Thank you very much, co-facilitators. Co-Chair [1:07:57]: I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative Brazil [1:08:04]: Thank you, Chair. Dear co-chairs, my delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Japan on behalf of the G4 and Saint Lucia on behalf of the L69. We all agree that at its core, the Council's urgent need for reform stems, to a large extent, from its anachronistic membership. Which affects both its representativeness and effectiveness, which are two sides of the same coin. Hence, any meaningful reform of the Council requires a profound review of its membership. The problem, as we all know, is that Member States have opposite views on which categories of membership to expand. While different positions are a fact of life, including at the UN, it is quite extraordinary and inefficient that we continue discussing the issue in the abstract year after year. One new development is your idea of fixed regional seats. Brazil's substantive view on it has been duly expressed by Japan and Saint Lucia, and I will not repeat it now. In my intervention, I will simply stress an absolutely fundamental procedural aspect. Your effort to sound novel ideas as a means to reconcile different positions has merit. At the same time, at this point in our protracted discussions, the only chance we have to start moving forward, of eventually squaring the circle, is to have a consolidated model which is to be based on proposals made by Member States. And we certainly do look forward to the presentation of the African model, hopefully soon. Preparing such a document in these terms would be a very welcome and rather historic contribution by the co-chairs. Ideas not submitted by delegations might be needed in the future, at a late stage of negotiations, if Member States themselves prove unable to find solutions. Dear Co-Chairs, as always, you can count on Brazil's active and constructive engagement in a member-driven process that allows us to make real progress in Security Council reform. If we are serious and consequential about truly making the UN fit for purpose, this is the only way to go. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:10:35]: I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of The Republic of Korea. Republic of Korea [1:10:45]: Thank you, co-chairs. The Republic of Korea aligns itself with the statement made by the Permanent Representative of Italy on behalf of the UNOPA-IMPO consensus group. In my national capacity, I would like to put forward the following considerations regarding the category of membership. In our collective journey toward the reform of the Council, we must never lose sight of the fundamental principle: representativeness and accountability. Indeed, the Council must not be a sanctuary for exclusive interests of a few. In this connection, periodic elections must serve as the heartbeat of the reformed Council. This institutional circle of renewal ensures that the Council more accurately and timely reflects current and future global reality, while purifying its accountability and representativeness. Furthermore, this approach directly upholds our shared commitment in the Pact for the Future to achieve one of the SDG targets, which calls for broadened and strengthened participation of developing countries and small and medium-sized states. In the institutions of the global governance without hampering any principles. Conversely, any proposal to bestow perpetual tenure combined with veto power upon a selected few countries strikes at the very heart of the sovereign equality. Far from mending the Council's structural vulnerabilities, it will also amplify the existing parallel paralysis we desperately seek to address. In this light, the Republic of Korea welcomes the co-chair's effort to incorporate elements of election-based long-term renewable mandate into our consideration. These features are essential to potifying Council's accountability and representativeness, thereby ensuring that the organ can faithfully and effectively fulfill its sacred mandate amidst the complexity of a lasting changing world. However, the expansion of the veto— again, it is an anachronistic relic that has no place in our fast-forwarded world. The success of our reform will be ultimately measured by whether we can truly transform the Council into a more representative and accountable organ. The Republic of Korea remains steadfast in its conviction that a Council revitalized through periodic mandate is the only viable path toward achieving this goal. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:13:37]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany. Germany [1:13:46]: Distinguished co-chairs, Germany fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by Japan on behalf of the G4, but allow me to add a few additional points in my national capacity. The IGN has repeatedly discussed 2 principal reform models, one that includes new permanent members and one that does not. From our perspective, the G4 model already represents a compromise. That can help build consensus around a single approach. It bridges differences between distinct models through flexibility on the veto. The G4 model does not insist on an immediate extension of the veto to new permanent members. Instead, it foresees a review clause after 15 years. This is a realistic recognition of given political reservations against extending the veto. It allows member states to reassess arrangements of the reform in light of experience with the reformed Council. At the same time, the G4 model addresses the fundamental legitimacy gap created by persistent underrepresentation. In our view, without expansion in both categories, the widespread expectations for meaningful reform will not be met. A Council that is more representative must reflect today's geopolitical realities so new permanent representation must be provided to Africa and Latin America. On selection, we support the regular General Assembly-based process for electing new permanent members. We emphasize that Article 23 of the UN Charter provides a clear criterion for the selection of members of the Security Council, which is the contributions to international peace and security. We are open to discussing innovative modalities, including cross-regional arrangements, in particular to better reflect the perspective of SIDS. However, they cannot substitute for the necessary expansion in both membership categories. The G4 model shows one compromise proposal for the way forward: balanced enlargement, veto pragmatism, and a time-bound review. To our mind, and in closing, it is now time to move from parallel models to a consolidated capable of real negotiations and having a real basis for negotiations. Thank you. Co-Chair [1:16:10]: I thank the distinguished representative of Germany and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya. Kenya [1:16:19]: Co-chairs, Kenya aligns itself with the statement delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and reaffirms our unwavering support for the African Reform Model adopted by the 39th AU Assembly. I will now share a few insights in my national capacity. Action 39D of the Pact for the Future calls on member states to intensify efforts to find an agreement on the question of the categories of membership. In keeping with the Pact and in view of the divergent positions generated in this intergovernmental process so far, we propose the following. On correcting the longstanding structural imbalance of the Council, Kenya affirms the necessity of redressing the historical injustice against Africa as a priority and treating Africa as a special case to correct the structural imbalance of the Council. Africa's continued exclusion from the permanent category of the Council translates to non-representation of 1.4 billion people, effectively denying them a voice in the Council's most authoritative category. Second, on expanding the Council's membership, Kenya supports the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership, recognizing the need to improve representational equity across all regions. We reiterate that any reform that fails to address Africa's absence from the permanent category of membership and guarantee 2 permanent seats and 5 non-permanent seats weakens the Council's credibility and perpetuates historical injustice. Third, on addressing the veto, The political significance of veto power attached to permanent membership makes it one of the most contentious aspects of reform negotiations. We reaffirm the African viewpoint that the veto is an outdated instrument that should ultimately be abolished. However, if retained, all its prerogatives must be granted to all new permanent members to avoid institutionalizing a 2-tier permanent system incompatible with the Charter principle of sovereign equality. Fourth, on bridging the normative divide, global peace and security are a collective public good that requires 2 mutually reinforcing imperatives, that is legitimacy and effectiveness. A Council that lacks legitimacy risks diminished authority just as one that lacks effectiveness risks irrelevance. Diffusing the normative tension requires balancing principle with political feasibility is not only possible but also essential for the Council. We welcome bridging this divide through accommodation rather than exclusion. Co-chairs, regarding the proposals of establishing a 3rd category of membership, longer-term memberships, and fixed regional seats, Kenya finds that although they offer incremental progress, they all fall short of delivering the structural redress that's explicitly called for in Action 39D of the Pact for the Future and perpetuates the structural exclusion of Africa. In conclusion, Kenya thanks you for your commitment to the IGN process. We remain committed to constructive engagement and dialogue with all partners. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:20:10]: I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Türkiye. Türkiye [1:20:19]: Thank you, Co-Chair. Türkiye fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished 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. Esteemed co-chairs, we seek a Security Council reform that takes into account the fundamental principle of sovereign equality and enjoys the widest possible consensus in line with GA Decision 62/557. To this end, we praise the efforts of the co-chairs to keep these discussions vibrant and note that we are in principle open to new ideas as long as we can ponder on them extensively and negotiate constructively within the IGN. Turkey believes that a genuinely reformed Security Council must be more representative, democratic, accountable and effective. This objective can best be achieved through the expansion of the non-permanent membership category, based on a fair and equitable system of rotation through regular elections. Increasing the number of elected seats would enhance broader participation and strengthen the voice of underrepresented regions, particularly Africa and developing countries. This will, in essence, also provide greater opportunities for small and medium-sized states, especially those who never served in the Council, as well as cross-regional groups such as the OIC to contribute meaningfully to the Council's work. While fostering a more balanced and inclusive decision-making process. By contrast, creating additional permanent seats, with or without veto, would risk further entrenching existing inequalities, limiting wider participation, and exacerbating the Council's shortcomings in delivering its mandate timely. On this note, we would like to remind the UFC position, as expressed in its model presented in March 2024. We also note with concern that proposals advocating expansion in the permanent category differ in nature, specifically regarding the regionality or individuality of these seats. This detachment risks creating further divergence among the membership, whereas the UFC model proposes enlargement in the only category where there is total convergence. Esteemed Chair, Türkiye maintains that the enlargement of the Council should be confined exclusively to the non-permanent category, as this represents the most feasible, constructive, and legitimate path for a meaningful Security Council reform that can garner the broadest possible support. We look forward to continuing our discussions in the current IGN session. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:22:57]: I thank the distinguished representative of Türkiye, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal. Portugal [1:23:05]: Thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I would like to start by thanking the 2 Co-Chairs for their continued efforts in steering this process with structure and transparency, in line with the calendar circulated for this session. Portugal approaches today's discussion to contribute to a reform that should be credible, balanced, and capable of commanding the broadest possible support across the membership. I would like to make 3 points. First, on the expansion in the permanent and non-permanent categories. Portugal supports enlargement in both categories. The Council's composition no longer reflects contemporary geopolitical and demographic realities. Correcting long-standing imbalances, in particular the historical underrepresentation of Africa must remain central to any reform package. At the same time, other regions that are clearly underrepresented should also see their presence strengthening. In this regard, we are supportive of the creation of additional permanent seats alongside an expansion of elected seats. Strengthening both categories would allow for improved representativeness while preserving the Council's working capacity. Second, on the proposal to establish a third category of long-term seats, while we acknowledge that such proposals are intended to bridge divergent positions, we are not convinced that they would achieve that objective. On the contrary, introducing a new intermediate category risks adding structural complexity blurring institutional distinctions and creating new forms of inequality within the Council. In our view, Security Council reform should enhance clarity and coherence. Creating an additional layer of membership would complicate the institutional architecture without guaranteeing broader consensus. For these reasons, Portugal believes that efforts should remain focused on adjusting the 2 existing categories. Rather than multiplying them. Third and last point, on fixed regional seats. Portugal believes that regional balance remains a cornerstone of equitable representation. Proposals for fixed regional seats allocated to regions or political groups such as the African Group, the Arab Group, or CEDS deserve careful and open-minded examination. They may offer a way to reconcile calls for greater permanence with concerns about crystallizing representation in favour of specific countries. At the same time, such arrangements must respect the principle that members of the Council serve in their national capacity, and that elections by the General Assembly remain central to the legitimacy of the system. After 17 years of negotiation, credibility requires that we narrow differences We stand ready to engage constructively towards a balanced reform, one that corrects historical injustices, strengthens representativeness, and enhances the Council's capacity to act. The objective should not be a perfect model, but a viable and legitimate one. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:26:26]: I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Pakistan [1:26:36]: Thank you. Co-chairs, Pakistan aligns itself with the statement delivered by Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group. Co-chairs, of the 5 interlinked clusters, the categories of membership is the one that is farthest From convergence. Evidently, this has been the main stumbling block to reform. A fair, equitable, and feasible compromise will need to be found in order to overcome this impasse. And many of the questions that you coaches have posed in your letter of 12th February and this morning also have their answers in a compromise, a middle ground that is fair and equitable for all, and that is practical and realistic and thus feasible. Such a compromise must also correspond to the agreed principles of reform: enhanced representation, It should be democratic, more transparent, accountable, effective. We know all that. But are these mere words? Because if we are serious about these principles, we should put to test each of the various reform models against those principles and see how they perform. And here we see that the demand for individual permanent membership is clearly something that runs counter to these principles of reform. It simply fails to meet the test. In particular, it violates the principle of sovereign equality and therefore cannot be a basis for reform governed by those agreed principles. Then we also need to learn from the actual practice of the Council over the decades. We know what ails the Council, what is the root cause of the challenges facing the Council. The overwhelming majority of the UN membership recognizes that permanent membership and the veto are at the core of the Council's paralysis and inaction that we have witnessed too often over the years. For them, this is not a peripheral concern; it is the central fault line that undermines the Council's credibility and effectiveness. Where so much effort has gone into this reform debate, And at a time when multilateral system is under extreme stress, with calls for reform for a UN that is fit for purpose, the demand for special privileges must have no space in these discussions. Pakistan's position has been consistent and clear: new permanent members will not neutralize. The inordinate influence of the existing permanent members. Rather, they risk entrenching and expanding it. Two wrongs cannot make a right, and a larger oligarchy is no antidote to an elite power club. A circle of permanence, even though expanded, will remain a closed circle. And no wonder some of the P5 are happy to expand this club primarily to protect their own outdated status in today's Council. Chairs, we believe that the best way to balance the unequal power of the 5 is through a more democratic and accountable approach, including a meaningful increase in elected non-permanent members. This would shift the internal balance of an expanded Council in favor of the wider membership and ensure that the required majority for the adoption of resolutions rests predominantly with elected members, thereby enhancing transparency, inclusivity, and accountability in the Council's decision-making process while preserving the principle of sovereign equality. Now, there is the African common position which we fully respect and understand, and my delegation has consistently stated that Africa's demand for permanent seats is on behalf of and for the entire region and is therefore fundamentally different from other proposals that are divisive and as they seek permanent membership for individual states. Co-chairs, coming to the concept of longer-term fixed regional seats, we acknowledge and appreciate your constructive efforts to bridge the differences between various positions. And this proposal, in essence, as we understand, confirms that the demand for new permanent members is not feasible and that a middle ground needs to be explored based on a combination of medium terms, re-election, and rotation for the seats allocated to the regions. This is an interesting proposal, and any fresh ideas aimed at breaking the deadlock merit consideration. It would be useful to have more details on the various aspects of this proposal. A key consideration for us is that no proposal should evolve into de facto permanence, as it will not be in the interest of the wider membership. And we continue to believe that expansion of veto is neither desirable nor feasible. Any concept, in our view, must ensure genuine rotation and fair regional representation. That is possible only with a reasonable expansion in elected non-permanent, longer-term, and regular 2-year seats to cater to underrepresented regions and to accommodate the interests of sub-regional and cross-regional groups including the SIDS and the OIC, has also provided for and agreed in the Pact for the Future. Some colleagues have been harping on the claim of so-called majority for a particular position. So my question is, if that were the case, what are we doing here? So let's be realistic. Flexibility is the key word here, and we have heard a lot that word this morning. Yet there are others who remain fixated. They don't move at all while calling for negotiations. Simply put, convergence is That have to be the basis for a so-called consolidated model cannot be achieved without flexibility. So, Co-Chairs, my delegation stands ready in the spirit of flexibility to work constructively with you and with all members in pursuit of a genuine reform, a reform Co-Chair [1:34:54]: I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Indonesia. Indonesia [1:35:07]: Thank you, co-chairs, for convening this focused discussion on the categories of membership as we strive to translate the IGN process into tangible process. Progress. The demand for a decisive and agile Council has never been more urgent. To move beyond stagnant debates, we must address this question by focusing on today's global political landscape. And in this regard, Indonesia wishes to highlight the following. First, discussion on the categories of membership must be grounded in profound changes of today's world. Our effort needs to reflect contemporary realities rather than definitions of decades past. Any deliberation on membership categories should aim to increase the democratic nature of the Council and its accountability to the wider UN membership. Representation must therefore reflect the current geopolitical and geoeconomic situation. Only then can we enhance the Council's decision-making and operational effectiveness. At the same time, a future review mechanism is necessary to prevent possible return to stagnation. Second, aligning changes in the category of membership with equitable geographic representation. We observe a clear divergence of the proposals on the table: enlargement in both permanent and non-permanent categories versus enlargement in the non-permanent category only. While negotiation is needed to narrow this divergence, Indonesia believes that any expansion of membership must address the underrepresentation of the Global South. This requires a significant improvement in the representation of the African and Asia-Pacific regions, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean. A reform that further underrepresents these regions lacks the democratic legitimacy required to enforce its mandates. Finally, the importance of flexibility and building on convergences. We must remain constructive to innovative ideas and demonstrate political wisdom and look beyond rigid positions. In this regard, while we take note of the co-chair's recent proposal on the concept of fixed regional seats, we must also recognize and build upon the points of convergence already reached including on the expansion of the category of 2-year-term non-permanent members as part of a comprehensive reform. Co-chairs, the urgency for a Security Council that truly reflects the 21st century is undeniable. We must remain resolute in our collective pursuit of a Council that is fully equipped to deliver on its responsibilities, both with timeliness and decisiveness. Rest assured of Indonesia's commitment to this end. Thank you. Co-Chair [1:37:54]: I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of India. India [1:38:02]: Thank you, co-chairs. I place on record India's sincere appreciation to the co-chairs for convening this important meeting on categories of membership. India fully aligns with the statements delivered by the PR of Saint Lucia on behalf of the L69 and PR of Japan on behalf of G4. In addition, I would like to make the following points in my national capacity. Groups and member states in this room broadly agree that the current framework of the Security Council does not effectively serve its purpose. Its failure has been glaring in delivering on its core responsibility of maintenance of international peace and security. Barring a few member states with vested interests, the wider membership agrees that the time for reforming the Security Council was yesterday. The world cannot wait any longer for this essential change. The topic of today's discussion gains particular relevance in this backdrop. India would like to make the following specific points in this regard. First, India has been consistent in its call for expansion in both categories, permanent and non-permanent. This is central to achieving meaningful reforms. It may be recalled that 113 member states out of 122 that had given submissions for the 2015 framework document supported an expansion of the permanent category. This is the prevailing sentiment even today. Therefore, any reform that does not result in the expansion of the permanent category would be incomplete, unjust, and ignorant of the aspirations of an overwhelming number of member states, particularly those who are reform-centric. Second, the need for expansion of both categories is self-evident. The number of permanent to non-permanent members changed from 5 versus 6 to 5 versus 10 during the only marginal reform of the Council more than 6 decades ago. Even then, there was no expansion in the permanent category. This resulted in accentuating the imbalance between the 2 categories, disproportionately enhancing the salience of the permanent category. Expansion of the permanent category concomitant to the expansion in the non-permanent category would improve this ratio by striking a better balance between the 2 categories of membership. Further, entrenching the authority of the existing permanent members should not be the final outcome of this decades-long IGN process. We deserve a Security Council that reflects contemporary geopolitics and not outdated power equations stemming from the conclusion of the Second World War. Third, working methods have been cited as one of the main reasons by those who do not favor an expansion in the permanent category. The Council still operates by the provisional rules of procedure. However, the working methods and practices of the Security Council could be reviewed and reformulated in order to meet the requirements of a reformed Council, with increased presence of more member states in both categories. Fourth, let us be explicit: historical injustices towards Africa are only limited to their lack of representation in the permanent category, because as on date there are 3 African members among the 10 elected members, constituting nearly 30%. Fifth, the lack of progress in the IGN for the last 18 years stands out. In fact, active discussions regarding UNSC reforms predates the IGN and have been taking place over the past several decades in different formats. It is disappointing that even incremental progress could not be achieved with regard to the existing 2 categories over these decades. Therefore, consideration of a third category is a red herring that is intended to delay the process further and derail the path towards reform entirely, or deliberately seek a suboptimal outcome that would push real reform many decades into the future, to the detriment of the legitimacy, credibility, and relevance of the UN. Sixth, regarding fixed regional seats, the current geographic basis for election to the non-permanent category represents fixed regional seats without veto for 2-year terms. Let us be clear, a veto cannot be granted to a group with no clarity on which country will exercise it, exercise it, and in what manner. This new idea seems to be deliberately intended to complicate an already difficult discussion and indirectly entrench opposition to expansion in the permanent category. Finally, as India once again reiterates its view that expansion in both categories is central to reforms, it is for the wider UN membership to decide on the modalities, including the questions related to size and composition. I would like to underscore that Resolution 62/557 stipulates that what we need is widest political acceptance by member states and not consensus. In closing, we reaffirm India's willingness to engage with the co-chairs, groups, and other member states towards identifying the best way forward on achieving progress in the path towards realizing reforms. India has always approached IGN in a forward-leaning and flexible manner in order to realize the vision of real reforms. While exploring options, it is important to ensure that the issue of underrepresentation and non-representation of regions such as Asia-Pacific, Africa, and GRULAC in the permanent category remains central. Further, like all UN processes, a real solution could be achieved only through text-based negotiations. Efforts that are not aligned with these cardinal principles do not reflect an approach that is rooted in a genuine desire to achieve reforms. Co-chairs, Excellencies, generations of diplomats have discussed the issue of reforming the Council. We have a choice to make. Are we willing to be the generation that delivered on reforms, or are we happy being consigned to the footnotes of history as those who came, spoke, and disappeared without as much as making a dent in the entrenched power structures? Posterity will judge us by our action or inaction today. Thank you. Co-Chair [1:45:15]: I thank the distinguished representative of India and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia. Colombia [1:45:26]: Respected co-facilitators, Colombia subscribes to the statement made by the permanent representative of Italy on behalf of the Group Uniting for Consensus, and we would like to highlight the following aspects in my national capacity. For Colombia, Security Council reform should be based on principles that directly respond to the factors which hinder its capacity to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to it to safeguard international peace and security. These are equitable geographic representation, transparency, accountability to members, periodic elections, and the principle of sovereign equality among states. Likewise, we must also not forget that we are not working in a vacuum, and these negotiations are happening in a complex geopolitical scenario. Any agreement that we reach is influenced by this and is also transformed by it. This is why the category of non-permanent— of permanent membership and veto should be abolished with We've been against it for 80 years, and we do not see how expanding the permanent category would in any way solve the problems that beset the Council today. Quite the contrary— expanding it in any kind of format would make our dynamics more complex in an international system that is increasingly fragmented, and it would split even more certain groups of countries and the broader membership. That is why the proposal for longer terms that Have the possibility of reelection. The United Front consensus has presented is a pragmatic and realistic approach that could have convergence, and this reconciles the fact that we must provide accountability for the members. This responds to current geopolitical realities without ossifying the current international system. Respected co-facilitators, I would like to reiterate our constructive and principled approach when it comes to Security Council reform. Colombia calls upon all of us to focus our energies on bridge-building between our positions and to recognize that all of our efforts must be geared towards supporting you co-facilitators in this sense. The international community demands results in a context where the credibility of multilateralism is at play. We must respond responsibly. Thank you very much. Co-Chair [1:48:01]: I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland. Poland [1:48:14]: Co-chairs, the fundamental issue on an ongoing discussion on the Security Council reform remains an inadequate representation of the regions, including the Eastern European Group. We all agree that the current structure does not meet expectations. It entrenches inequalities, fails to respond effectively to today's complex global realities, and therefore contributes to the emergence of alternative entities operating outside its framework. There is a broad consensus on the need to expand the number of non-permanent Council Members. We believe that this aspect of the reform constitutes a constructive and practical starting point. For advancing negotiations. We also recognize that the introduction of longer terms, with the possibility of re-election, may address the aspirations of States seeking greater involvement in the Council's work. Such measures could contribute to the democratisation of the Council and enhance the effectiveness of its decision-making process. Co-chairs, let us not forget that the Permanent Members continue to have the greatest power within the Council. Being a permanent member should not be perceived only as a distinction. It should be rather focused on the consequences for the Council's effectiveness. Accordingly, the question of expanding the number of permanent members requires careful discussion, as consensus has not been reached. It should not be assumed that the addition of new permanent members would automatically improve the regional representation. Experience demonstrates that permanent membership does not necessarily translate directly into effective representation of the regional interest. Russia, as a permanent member, not only does not represent the interests of the EEG group, but also has acted contrary to the interests of the other countries in this group, at times resorting to open aggression in complete disregard of the UN Charter. In this regard, we welcome initiatives that strengthen the role of the non-permanent members and support efforts to limit the veto power, including through the involvement of the General Assembly. Co-chairs, we remain committed to the reform process and appeal to the Member States to seek the consensus that enables much-needed progress. And I thank you. Co-Chair [1:50:21]: I thank the distinguished representative of Poland and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria. Algeria [1:50:29]: Thank you, co-chairs. My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Sierra Leone and Bahrain and wishes to make the following remarks. Algeria remains firmly committed to the call made in the Pact for the Future to advance a reform of the Security Council that is genuinely driven by member states. In this regard, we underscore the imperative of correcting the historic injustice against Africa as a matter of priority and reaffirm that Africa must be treated as a special case in any comprehensive reform of the Council. And non-permanent categories. This position is firmly anchored in the African Reform Model that was recently endorsed by the African Union Member States at the 39th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly, and which draws its legitimacy from the common African position as clearly articulated in the Iserwini Consensus and the CED Declaration. Second, Africa's call for expansion in both categories allocating to the continent no fewer than 2 permanent seats with all prerogatives of permanent membership, including veto power, as well as 5 non-permanent seats, constitutes a legitimate and longstanding demand that must be fully addressed and satisfied. Third, Africa's legitimate right to equitable and adequate representation responds to the pressing need to enhance the effectiveness legitimacy, and representativeness of the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Distinguished co-chairs, in conclusion, Algeria remains fully committed to the discussions on the Security Council reform within the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations. We also wish to reiterate that meaningful progress toward text-based negotiations can only be achieved once Africa's legitimate demands are fully addressed and consensus is reached across all 5 clusters. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:52:58]: I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Austria. Austria [1:53:07]: Thank you, distinguished co-chairs, Excellencies, colleagues. Thank you very much for the convening of this IGN session focused on the question of categories of membership And the guiding questions provided in your letter dated 12 February 2026. A lot of discussions have been held in the past on the question of categories of membership, which is often seen as a major stumbling block in the negotiations on Security Council reform. But it is too easy to get hung up on divisions and paint the pictures black and white between those that want an expansion in both categories permanent and elected, and those that prefer an expansion only in the category of elected members with the possibility of introducing longer-term seats. However, recent debates held in the format of the model discussions have demonstrated that positions are not as far apart as one might think. Let me therefore focus on what unites us rather than what divides us. First, All models presented so far foresee an expansion in the category of elected members. True, several models also foresee an expansion in the permanent category, but every single model also envisions additional non-permanent seats. It is therefore clear to everybody in this room that the reform will include, but not be limited to, an expansion of 2-year-term non-permanent seats, as part of a comprehensive Security Council reform. We should not be shy and reflect this fact clearly in this year's Elements Paper. Second, all models presented so far acknowledge the fact that some countries aspire to a longer-term, if not permanent, presence on the Council in order to more accurately reflect the geopolitical realities of today, enhance the representative of the Council and acknowledge the capacities of some countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. Increasing the permanent category or creating a new category of longer-term seats will also make it easier for smaller countries to be adequately and regularly represented on the Council, thereby further enhancing the inclusivity of global governance. Third, all models presented so far provide for some form of periodic reassessment, either through the holding of periodic elections or through the inclusion of a review clause as part of a comprehensive reform. Excellencies, colleagues, these convergences mentioned above provide the basis for our work and the hooks to find a solution to our impasse. It is not impossible to overcome the differences on the categories of membership and find a solution that will satisfy the aspiration for a Council that more clearly reflects the geopolitical realities of today. Austria, in its national capacity, remains committed to a Security Council that is more representative by increasing the representation of developing countries and small and medium-sized States, including small island developing states. A council that is more legitimate by redressing the historical injustice against Africa, treating Africa as a special case, as we have all agreed to in the Pact for the Future, and improving representation from GRULAC and the APG. And a council that delivers on its mandate by becoming more effective with more democratic working methods, and enhanced accountability. Distinguished co-chairs, you can count on Austria to support your efforts in guiding us towards a consolidated model for reform, and we thank you for your recent efforts to spark discussions and creative thinking in order to arrive to that goal. I thank you. Co-Chair [1:57:04]: I thank the distinguished representative of Austria for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of San Marino. San Marino [1:57:13]: Distinguished co-chairs, I would like to thank you for convening this meeting of the IGN on Security Council reform and for the cluster chosen for this session, which is fundamental for our reform. San Marino joins the statement previously made by Italy on behalf of the Uniting for Consensus Group. Now I would like to make some remarks in my national capacity. The cluster's categories of membership appears to be the most problematic one since the beginning of this negotiation. During the last 16 years, San Marino, as member of the UFC Group, moved forward from its initial position by proposing a compromise solution based on the creation of 9 new longer-term seats with the possibility of immediate re-elections and 2 additional 2-year seats. We expressed several times the reason why we can't accept an expansion of the Security Council in the permanent members. If I may summarize, the reasons are the following: we are against an expansion of new permanent seats because we want a more democratic Security Council and because we want a more accountable Security Council. For San Marino, periodic elections are indeed the best way to guarantee the democratic nature of this organ, as well as to assure the responsibility and transparency of its members toward the entire international community. We can't say we want a more accountable Security Council and at the same time ask for new permanent seats, because this is simply contradictory. We are against an expansion of new permanent seats because we want a more representative Security Council. Permanent members represent themselves, not a region. Democracy, accountability, representativity are not empty concepts. And they cannot be manipulated in order to justify a reform of the Security Council which undermines its legitimacy. Nevertheless, nevertheless, San Marino understands the longstanding request of African groups to address an historical injustice, and maybe here there is a margin of maneuver, there is a space to look at compromise solutions by safeguarding the idea of African African regional seats, and the principle of accountability through periodic elections. Distinguished co-chair, so far non-permanent elected members are the only category on which there is a broad consensus. Only through periodic elections, the principle of democracy and accountability will be implemented. Elections strengthen accountability and incentivize Council members to act in their collective interest. I'm sure that this process and your approach will enable us to find a compromise solution in these important clusters. San Marino continues to provide its contribution, working together with all of you in order to find commonalities among Member States and thus forge a stronger political consensus on this vital reform. Thank you. Co-Chair [2:00:18]: I thank the distinguished representative of San Marino for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malta. Malta [2:00:27]: Distinguished co-chairs, Malta fully supports the United Nations for Consensus Statement delivered at this session and is making the following remarks in its national capacity. Excellencies, I want to begin by commending you for your unwavering efforts to seek agreement on the principles that should form the basis for reform, as well as for the recent Taxil Talks. Both Malta and the UFC as a group believe that reform is necessary to ensure a more effective, accountable, accountable, transparent, and representative Security Council. Malta strongly supports efforts to build consensus around a unified reform approach. Nevertheless, the process of unifying around a model should not be dictated by urgency alone. Our end goal must remain a Security Council that embodies the principles of accountability and inclusivity. To be clear, any proposal which expands non-permanent elected membership would be a step forward to ensuring accountability, provided these seats are reconfirmed through an election in the General Assembly. Of course, there would need to be limits on how many successive terms a country could hold and on the interval between terms on the Security Council to ensure that we do not inadvertently create permanent seats. We believe that the UFC's model of non-permanent seats with the possibility of immediate reelection can serve as a basis for for future discussions. The need to regularly seek reelection would require Council members to act in the interest of the wider UN membership. Furthermore, inclusivity can best be ensured by allowing as many countries as possible to become members. In this regard, permanent seats would be a step in the wrong direction. Permanence would imply a lack of accountability and reduce the likelihood that non-traditional countries could contribute their unique perspectives to the Security Council. Co-chairs, Malta has long been a supporter of the inclusion of Small Island Developing States in international fora, and in this process it is no different. We have consistently called for addressing the need for cross-regional seats. We want to reiterate this point here. A reform of the UN Security Council that caters to large countries and the legitimate aspirations of Africa must also include the contributions and experience that small states can bring to together through a small seat— sorry, through a specific seat for SIDS and small states. Ultimately, we believe that for reform to proceed, we must address the reality of divergent approaches. This means focusing on areas of wider agreement, such as non-permanent seats and restrictions on the use of the veto, and Malta will firmly support you in this effort. I thank you. Co-Chair [2:03:02]: I thank the distinguished representative of Malta for his statement, and I now give the I now pass the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Russian Federation [2:03:12]: Distinguished co-chairs, we welcome the convening of another informal General Assembly meeting as part of the IGN on Security Council reform. Today's topic for our meeting, the category of membership, is one of the most thorny on the reform track to a large extent. It is this very issue which is the key to resolving pending problem areas that are holding back further progress to achieve compromises. The Russian Federation's fundamental position on this issue has not changed. We are prepared to support a decision under this cluster that would enjoy broad support from member states. I underscore that such support should bring together many more than two-thirds of the General Assembly members, and ideally really should serve as a basis for decisions to be adopted by consensus. If this does not occur, if a decision is rammed through using the lowest mathematical majority, about 130 members, we would face such a significant schism that this would undermine potentially the very existence of the U.N. And this risk should not be— should rather be taken very seriously. We respect the positions of all states and understand the reasons under pinning their principled positions regarding prospects for expanding the permanent category of members. Nonetheless, we should recognize that reaching a compromise will only be possible when the parties demonstrate political resolve and make some concessions. We welcome the adoption on the 15th of February during the 39th African Union Summit— the adoption of a decision of its Committee of 10 on bringing to the consideration of the IGN the African-wide model for Security Council reform. We trust that discussion of this idea will take place soon and will allow us to make progress in fostering the interests of Africa and other underrepresented regions. We value the efforts of the co-chairs of the IGN to find compromise-based parameters that would involve inter alia allocating a new category of permanent seats, regional fixed seats. At the moment, this seems to us to be a promising prospect that should be considered in depth from different angles. At the same time, we note that we should solely talk about those regions that really are underrepresented. If the expansion were to cover regions that already have a membership advantage in the Council, then this would not only strip our efforts of any meaning, but would also enshrine in the body the remnants of the colonial era. We would urge colleagues not to waste time and to concentrate on attaining achievable and very important goals, primarily increasing the representation in the Security Council of countries from Africa Asia, and Latin America. I thank you. Co-Chair [2:06:26]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Slovenia. Slovenia [2:06:35]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. Reform of the UN Security Council is essential if the Council, and indeed the organization as a whole, are to remain relevant and fit for purpose in today's global geopolitical reality. The Security Council must be agile, capable of responding swiftly to crises, identifying emerging threats, engaging in conflict prevention, and adopting measures to maintain international peace and security. It must urgently become more democratic and representative, achieving an appropriate balance between adequate representation and efficiency. All clusters of reform are interconnected, so when discussing categories of membership, we cannot overlook the issues of geographical representation and the right to veto. Among other reasons, due to unbalanced geographical representation, Slovenia supports the expansion of membership in both categories— elected and permanent members— as we believe that enlargement should involve both categories equally. We also support expansion through the addition of a member from the Eastern European Group. In our view, such reform would more accurately reflect the evolving realities of the world. We believe that underrepresented groups should also have the opportunity to attain permanent membership in the Council. As a member of the ACT Group, Slovenia advocates that the right to veto should be exercised responsibly and restrictively, and supports proposals to limit its use, including through the Code of Conduct and the French-Mexican initiative. As long as the veto exists, We believe that any new permanent members should have the same rights. Differentiation within a single category could constitute inequality and discrimination and would create a new quasi-category. The right of veto is directly linked to permanent membership. It is therefore difficult to envisage a member being considered permanent without this right. Such a member would more closely resemble an elected member with a longer mandate. potentially without elections. Co-chairs, Slovenia remains cautious about creating new categories or subcategories of membership, even if these are confined to the elected category. In our assessment, determining criteria and reaching agreement on such arrangements would further prolong a reform process that is already long overdue. Establishing objective criteria to ensure democratic and equal functioning would be very challenging. Moreover, whether based on global or regional considerations, implementation would remain difficult. At the same time, there is a broad and clear support in the room for expanding the category of members elected for 2-year terms, and this provides a practical starting point. This organization is founded on the sovereign equality of states, and therefore we should avoid solutions that could lead to further erosion of the principle. I thank you. Co-Chair [2:09:35]: I thank the distinguished representative of Slovenia for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Democratic People's Republic of Korea [2:09:46]: Co-chairs, at the outset, my delegation thanks co-chairs for convening this meeting and for your continued efforts to advance a transparent and inclusive intergovernmental negotiation process, we align ourselves with the core principles of the majority of member states who seek a more democratic, accountable, and representative Security Council, and we would like to clarify our position on the categories of membership of the Security Council. First, we hold that a realistic approach is required when it comes to the expansion of the Security Council. We believe that consensus is more achievable around the expansion of non-permanent seats. The creation of additional permanent members risks deepening divisions among member states and entrenching inequalities. We therefore support a meaningful expansion of non-permanent seats, particularly for non-aligned movement and other developing countries including Africa, Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean, expanding elected seats would enhance representativeness while preserving accountability through periodic elections. Second, given the historical facts that the United Nations was established after the Second World War to protect future generations from recurrence of scourge of such wars, any attempt to take a permanent seat in the Security Council by those nations that deny their past crimes committed during the Second World War must never be allowed. Japan is an A1 war criminal state that invaded many Asian countries, including my own, and committed indelible crimes against humanity last century. It committed extra-large-scale crimes against humanity unprecedented in human history, such as forcible abduction of and massacre of millions of the Korean people and sexual slavery of 200,000 Korean women for the Japanese Imperial Army. Nevertheless, Japan, instead of sincerely apologizing and compensating for its past crimes, is now beautifying its history of aggression During the Second World War and accelerating its scheme for militarization and external expansion. It is a mockery and insult to the UN that a country like Japan is seeking a permanent seat at the Security Council, whose aim is— whose main responsibility is to maintain international peace and security. In conclusion, My delegation would like to express its readiness and commitment to actively participate in the IGN process for fair, democratic, and meaningful reform of the Security Council. Thank you. Co-Chair [2:12:48]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines [2:12:59]: Thank you, co-chairs. On behalf of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, I align with the L69 statement delivered by Saint Lucia and the CARICOM statement delivered by Guyana. Excellencies, the maintenance of international law is a crucial shield for developing countries given today's global realities. Security Council reform cannot be an abstract institutional concept; it must be a pivotal exercise to address equity, legitimacy, and trust in multilateralism. The deficit in the Council's current configuration is most acutely felt by developing countries and regions, particularly Africa, which is glaringly excluded from the circle of permanent representation despite bearing a disproportionate share of the Council's Council's agenda. It is difficult to achieve consensus by asking developing countries to abandon the longstanding demands for historical redress which underpin the models proposed by L69 and the African Group. If we agree that Council reform must remedy specific gaps— representation, legitimacy, effectiveness, and accountability— This presents a way forward. Comprehensive reform must include addressing both categories of membership and correcting the marginalization of the Global South. While additional longer-term or renewable seats may be explored, it is no substitute for permanent representation for underrepresented and unrepresented regions. Co-chairs, we believe that a draft consolidated model, based on Member States' well-articulated models, will provide the requisite framing for us to engage substantively with the questions posed. Proposed measures, like a review mechanism, would require careful deliberation and arrangements that can balance enhanced accountability and adaptability alongside stability in a changing world. Cross-regional rotation should be considered in a manner that complements, not undermines, the principle of equitable geographic representation. Essentially, reform cannot deliver meaningful change if we focus solely on cosmetic adjustments. Indeed, it should be transformative. In closing, the UN at 80 is at a critical stage. A credible reform process requires tangible milestones. As we yearn to break free from this cycle of repetition, a product with actionable language forming the basis for substantive text-based negotiations is long overdue. Co-chairs, Excellencies, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, pledges continued constructive engagement. Again, any reform which fails to deliver meaningful representation for the Global South falls short of its stated purpose. We are relying on your leadership for tangible progress in this IGN session. I thank you. Co-Chair [2:16:21]: I thank the distinguished representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative representative of Latvia. Latvia [2:16:35]: Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me thank both co-chairs for convening this meeting and for your efforts to advance this reform. The authority of the Security Council rests not only on the UN Charter, but also on the confidence of the membership it serves. Reforming the Council is therefore not a matter of convenience, but of credibility. Equitable representation must remain the guiding principle of Security Council reform. We have said it time and again, and most if not all delegations have said it at some point during the IGN discussions, that the Council's composition should reflect the diversity and evolving realities of the United Nations membership. It is that simple. No institution can effectively serve a world it no longer reflects. Ensuring fair and balanced representation is indispensable to the Council's effectiveness. Fair and balanced geographical representation must give a stronger voice to regions that remain underrepresented and whose perspectives are essential to the legitimacy of the Council's decisions. Therefore, Latvia supports enlargement in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. A more representative Council will be better equipped to respond to contemporary threats and to act with the authority of the wider membership. In this context, strengthening Africa's representation is essential. Africa remains gravely underrepresented in the Security Council, despite the significant share of issues on the Council's agenda, and this issue must be addressed. Likewise, Small Island Developing States deserve enhanced representation. A Council that asks these regions to shoulder responsibility must also grant them a seat at the table where decisions are made. The Council must equally become more inclusive and transparent in its daily work. All members, permanent and elected, must be held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability. Elected Members bring diversity, innovation and regional experience that strengthen the Council's ability to act. And their role must be supported through fair, consistent and transparent application of working methods. Madam Chair, the Pact of the Future, alongside the Secretary-General's UN80 Initiative, offer a pathway to modernize global governance. The preparation stage before the adoption of the Pact for the Future generated the momentum and a shared sense of urgency for the reform. And today, as we all repeat similar statements that we all have heard before, that urgency seems diminished, and it can and it must be restored in order to align the multilateral system, including the Security Council, with the geopolitical realities of today and the challenges of tomorrow. So the question before us is no longer whether the reform is necessary, but whether we have the collective will to deliver it. And in conclusion, Latvia will continue to engage constructively to advance a more representative, inclusive, and effective Security Council. The credibility of the multilateral system depends on our ability to ensure that the Council reflects the world it is mandated to serve. And for this, dear Co-Chairs, you can count on my delegation's support. I thank you. Co-Chair [2:19:53]: I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia for her statement. I now give the I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines. Philippines [2:20:02]: Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. The Philippines thanks you for convening this meeting on categories of membership and for facilitating last week's constructive informal discussions. These focused exchanges are essential to clarifying positions, identifying areas of convergence, and advancing intergovernmental negotiations in a meaningful manner. Thank you, co-chairs, for your leadership and tireless efforts. The question of categories of membership lies at the core of Security Council reform. 2 principal models continue to frame our discussions: one that provides for new permanent members and one that does not. The Philippines believes that consensus will be achieved not by rigidly adhering to either model, but by engaging constructively and with flexibility to build trust and move in a pragmatic manner. In this regard, we remain open to enlargement in both the permanent and non-permanent categories based on agreed criteria. Reform must correct the persistent underrepresentation of Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Addressing these imbalances is essential not only for equity but also for strengthening the Security Council's effectiveness in carrying out its primary responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security under the UN Charter. The voices and roles of developing countries need to be strengthened to reflect current realities and challenges. However, bridging existing differences will require a degree of flexibility from all parties. Hybrid or transitional arrangements, including longer-term or renewable-term seats, may offer some practical pathways to broaden participation while promoting accountability. Such options merit serious consideration if they can help build convergence. Any agreed criteria for new permanent members or longer-term seats should be transparent, regionally grounded, and based on consensus. If additional permanent seats are established, the inclusion of a review mechanism could be considered to ensure that reforms remain responsive to evolving realities. With respect to proposals for rotating seats allocated to cross-regional groups, including Small Island Developing States, Philippines believes these aspirations warrant our attention and engagement, provided they adhere and promote the principle of equitable geographic representation. Madam Co-Chair, in conclusion, the Philippines remains deeply committed to a comprehensive reform package that enhances representation from underrepresented regions and strengthens accountability and transparency of the Security Council. We stand ready to work with all delegations in a constructive and balanced manner to move this important process forward, especially at this time of discussions on the UNAID Initiative and the need to urgently strengthen effective and inclusive multilateralism. Thank you. Co-Chair [2:23:20]: I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative Cuba [2:23:26]: of Thank you very much, co-chairs. We would like to thank you for convening this meeting. We think that the debates in the framework of the international— intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform are especially relevant. The IGN gives us a space that we must continue fostering to promote comprehensive exchanges between member states and continue addressing the necessary reform of this body through the discussion of 5 key issues according to GA Decision 62/557. In terms of the specific issue that we are addressing today, we advocate for expanding the Security Council in both categories of membership— permanent and non-permanent. We seek a composition that is more balanced in order to rectify the geographic imbalance and the insufficient representation of developing countries. constitute a large part of the U.N.'s membership. This is a historic call. As we've said previously, this expansion should not be partial or selective, nor should it imply an increase in the number of members of the Security Council to the detriment of developing countries. Membership in the Council should be no fewer than 26 members. This expansion should include an increase in new permanent members, as a minimum 2 African countries, 2 developing countries from Asia, and 2 from Latin America and the Caribbean so that they may take part in relevant decisions adopted by the Security Council. It is not fair that entire regions such as Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean are not represented in the aforementioned category. Likewise, the category of non-permanent membership should be expanded to at least 15 members. On the other hand, we do not favor the creation of new categories or subcategories of membership because it would deepen existing differences and foster division within the Security Council. Co-chairs, to conclude, we would like to reiterate our willingness to continue moving toward a solution that can garner the broadest possible political support from member states in order to continue fostering multilateralism and to make sure that the Security Council is a truly transparent, democratic, and representative body. Thank you. Thank you. Co-Chair [2:25:43]: I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina. Argentina [2:25:51]: Buenos días. Good morning, distinguished co-chairs, Ambassador Lies van Haren and Ambassador Tarek Albani. Allow me to first thank you for convening this new session of the IGN. Co-facilitators, the Republic of Argentina reaffirms its strong commitment to integral reform of the Security Council to make it more democratic, representative, transparent, and efficient. The current world, marked by the persistence of international conflicts, forces us to work for a system that is there where it is most needed. Where the lives of people are threatened when peace breaks down. For our country, the debate on categories of membership cannot be addressed in an isolated fashion. Security Council reform demands a truly holistic focus that takes into account all clusters, respecting the fundamental principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Otherwise, a selective or fragmented approach would just deepen existing divisions and weaken the legitimacy of the process. In line with its historic position, Argentina considers that the most adequate way to improve representation in the Council is by expanding only the category of non-permanent membership. This focus allows for a council that is more democratic. It also ensures greater geographic rotation and therefore more representation, and it avoids creating new categories based on privileges. Argentina strongly believes that any reform should have the broadest possible support among member states, and in that spirit, Argentina actively participates in the group Uniting for Consensus, a diverse and cross-cutting space that is committed to balanced and inclusive reform based on the sovereign equality among states. We would like to echo the words of the distinguished Permanent Representative of Italy. Co-facilitators, as Argentina and as Uniting for Consensus, we are willing to continue exploring middle-of-the-road formulas and compromise solutions that address the legitimate aspirations of greater participation without eroding the fundamental principles of the United Nations. In this exercise where we are exploring and proposing alternatives, we support the proposal to create longer-lasting non-permanent seats with the possibility of standing for immediate reelection This formula offers a pragmatic response. It improves continuity and the effectiveness of the Council's work. It strengthens accountability toward member states, and it broadens opportunities to participate without introducing additional new permanent members. Last, Argentina would like to reiterate its willingness to work with all member states in order to reach a solution that is widely accepted that strengthens multilateralism and reaffirms the central role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. Thank you. Co-Chair [2:29:24]: I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe [2:29:34]: Thank you, co-chairs, for convening this important meeting. My delegation aligns itself with the statement that was delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group. I will add the following perspective in a national capacity. Co-chairs, Security Council reform is a question of justice. The Ezulwini Consensus and the SIRT Declaration remain Africa's unified and legitimate position. Reform without permanent representation for Africa will fail to address this historical injustice. It would merely preserve the inequities of 1945 under a different procedural design. Any approach we take should therefore not dilute Africa's right to permanent representation, including the question of the veto, as long as it subsists in the newly constituted Council. The 3 additional non-permanencies for Africa would also increase its visibility and reflect the continent's size and growing global influence. How then do we build consensus around a single approach? Consensus must rest first on shared foundations. These include equitable geographical representation, sovereign equality of states, accountability to the wider membership, and an effective Council capable of acting decisively. On the criteria for new permanent seats or longer-term seats and proposals for a review mechanism, my delegation wishes to stress that any reform efforts should not create new hierarchies or categories of quasi-permanent permanence that entrench privilege under another name. Furthermore, the reform process must be transparent, with regions playing a key role in selecting their representatives to preserve legitimacy. Regarding proposals on the creation of rotating cross-regional seats, including for Small Island Developing States, my delegation recognizes the genuine concerns of underrepresented groups. Inclusivity must remain a guiding objective. At the same time, reform must respect established principles of equitable geographical representation, enhanced legitimacy, and improved accountability without creating procedural paralysis. Co-chairs, the credibility of the Security Council depends on whether it reflects contemporary geographic— geopolitical realities A Council that remains structurally anchored in 1945 cannot fully command the confidence of 2026 and beyond. Reform must therefore be principled, meaningful, and transformative. It must correct historical imbalances, strengthen multilateralism, ensure that the Council speaks with greater legitimacy in the name of the entire membership. I thank you. Co-Chair [2:32:52]: I thank the distinguished representative of Zimbabwe for his statement and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ecuador. Ecuador [2:33:00]: Gracias. Thank you very much, co-chairs. We all agree on the fact that in its current configuration the Security Council is anachronistic and it does not reflect contemporary geopolitical realities, nor does it reflect the legitimate aspirations of a broad swath of the world that demands reform. Nevertheless, finding a comprehensive solution that is viable and sustainable is a major challenge. Generally, we must recognize this. In this session, we've heard once again arguments that are repetitious. This doesn't make them less legitimate or valid, but in practice, they do not allow us to move towards Our shared objective to carry out reform unless our deliberations are truly anchored in a compromise spirit. My country respects and understands the aspirations of states that consider that permanent membership is a necessary condition for reform, but we do not understand how this would resolve the structural challenges of the Council. My delegation Of course, is open to continuing these negotiations. We are aware that this is a substantive issue, not procedural. Reform should broaden the participation of underrepresented regions. It should contribute to a decision-making process that is adequate and efficient, and it should not consolidate hierarchies or privileges in perpetuity. If our goal is to reconcile different models, then Our convergences should focus or could focus not on permanence, but rather on the stability of representation. Colleagues, an equitable and just expansion of the members elected by the GA, along with longer mandates and the possibility to stand for reelection, would seem to consolidate itself as the basis for a broad agreement. In any case, if If we agreed to longer mandates, it is essential to incorporate mechanisms for periodic review. Co-chairs, distinguished colleagues, any kind of solution in any case should be based on transparent criteria that apply equally to everyone, and this includes balanced geographic representation as well as a commitment to the principles of the Charter and our contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security. Ecuador recognizes the need to correct historic imbalances in regional representation. The case of Africa is a case that we should address in a special manner. At the same time, Ecuador is cautious in order to prevent or indirectly incentivize undercover permanent seats, which could affect the sovereign equality among states. Thank you. Co-Chair [2:35:59]: I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative Maldives [2:36:08]: of the Maldives. Thank you, co-chairs. The Security Council's credibility depends on who sits at the table. The Council cannot respond to today's threats with yesterday's composition. The Maldives supports expansion in both existing categories, permanent and elected. Reform must address the clear underrepresentation of Africa. It must also improve balance across regions, including for small island developing states. The Maldives proposes that the Security Council have a dedicated rotating elected seat for seats. This can be achieved in 2 ways. First, through reallocation of seats among the regional groups, reserving one seat for seats. Second, through expanding the membership of the Council, reserving a seat for seats. If permanent seats are expanded, they must not be redesigned into a lesser tier, a 3rd category. New permanent members must have the same rights and obligations as existing permanent members. Creating permanent members with fewer rights would only harden inequality. At the same time, elected members must expand. Elections are the Council's most direct link to the wider UN membership. They bring accountability. They also bring lived experiences into deliberations. For SIDS, this is especially urgent seats make up a significant share. The United Nations— we urge vast ocean spaces and face complex interlinked security risks, yet we remain structurally absent from the Council. This is why the Maldives supports a dedicated rotating elected seat for SIDS. The CARICOM model captures this approach. We also note that current mechanisms for representation from a sub-regional group within regional groups are accepted and working. On proposals for long-term regional seats, we are open to approaches that increase representation for underrepresented regions, but we're cautious against a third category that weakens accountability. Longer terms must not mean automatic renewal. Meaningful elections, rotation, and transparency Transparency must be preserved. We must ask ourselves whether they are truly expanding representations. If not, they risk locking today's imbalances into tomorrow's council. Co-chairs, we have discussed categories of membership for years. The contours of convergence are clear. It is time to translate them into text and negotiate with sincerity. I thank you. the distinguished representative of the Maldives for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative Namibia [2:39:01]: of Namibia. Thank you, co-chairs. Namibia aligns itself with the statement that was delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and wishes to make the following remarks in its own capacity. At the outset, we underscore that the credibility relevance, and legitimacy of this organization depends on our collective ability to honor the commitments we voluntarily undertake. It is no longer tenable for the Security Council to continue operating under the model that reflects the realities of the bygone era. The current composition of the Council, in which Africa remains entirely excluded from the permanent category of represents a fundamental injustice that regrettably persists to this day. This historical injustice is not abstract. It is lived daily by a continent of more than 1 billion people who continue to be subject of a disproportionate share of the Council's agenda, yet remains absent from its most powerful decision-making tier. Africa's exclusion from the permanent membership and underrepresentation in the non-permanent category cannot be justified on any legal, moral, or political grounds. It undermines the principle of equity, geographical balance, and sovereign equality of states enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. As long as this imbalance persists, the Council's decision will continue to suffer from a legitimacy deficit, particularly in the eyes of the people of the Global South. A reform of the Security Council that fails to provide for the expansion of the permanent membership to include Africa, or that seeks to preserve the privileges of of the permanent membership while denying them to Africa does not constitute genuine reform. Such models merely entrench existing inequalities and perpetuate the very injustice this process was meant to correct. Africa is therefore very pleased that in the Pact for the Future, member states collectively reaffirmed the imperative of comprehensive reform of the Security Council and committed to, and I quote, redress the historical injustice against Africa as a priority and while treating Africa as a special case, end of quote. Co-chairs, at the recent AU Summit in Addis Ababa, African heads of state and government reiterated a unified position on this issue through the Ezulwini Consensus and the Siirte Declaration, and most recently the endorsement of the African Model on Reform, which is a fair, balanced, and reasonable framework. They reiterated that Africa's common position remains the sole legitimate foundation for addressing the continent's concerns within this reform process and should be treated as such. This position is not maximalist. It is corrective. It seeks not to undermine the Security Council, but to strengthen it by making it more comprehensive, more inclusive, and more responsive to contemporary global realities. In conclusion, co-chairs, We urge all member states to demonstrate the necessary political will and flexibility by lending their full and sustained support to ensure equitable representation of Africa in global governance institutions, particularly the Security Council. This support must endure until Africa achieves its rightful and legitimate objective That is full representation at the table where decisions on international peace and security are taken, with all the responsibilities and privileges accorded to existing permanent members. Co-Chair [2:43:30]: I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa, to be followed by Costa Rica, who will be the last speaker of this morning's South Africa [2:43:44]: session. South Africa, you have the floor. Thank you, co-chairs. South Africa aligns with the statements delivered by— on behalf of the Africa Group and the L69 and delivers the following remarks in our national capacity. We express our appreciation to you for convening this session with a particular focus on categories of membership. South Africa appreciates the innovative idea by the co-chairs for— of regional fixed seats as a new category of longer-term membership with the rights and privileges of permanent members of the Security Council. We note that this is a way of bringing divergences between those in favor of— of bridging divergences between those in favor of expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories and those in favor of expansion in the non-permanent category only. However, the proposal presents a significant shift in position of the majority within the IGN calling for expansion in both categories and warrants further deliberation and consideration by the various regions and groups. Our view is that any effort to redress the historical injustice against Africa should include its representation on the Security Council in both permanent and non-permanent categories, with no less than 2 permanent seats with the privileges of permanent members, including the right to the veto, and 5 non-permanent members. In this regard, the African Union should determine the criteria for the selection of African members to serve on the Security Council. The Pact for the Future also provides for representation of underrepresented and underrepresented regions and groups, including Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean. South Africa supports equitable representation for regional groupings, not only to ensure inclusivity and a democratic Security Council, but also as a way to address the question of simultaneous membership in regional and cross-regional groups. We also support the guiding principle contained in the Pact for the Future on the inclusion of a review clause as part of a comprehensive reform to ensure that the Security Council continues to deliver on its mandate and remains fit for purpose. Co-chairs, we must continue to be guided by the imperative to urgently reform the Security Council to make it more representative, inclusive, transparent, effective, effective, efficient, democratic, and accountable. We reiterate our call for text-based negotiations to commence to achieve the common objective of Africa and like-minded countries of a more representative Security Council. I thank Co-Chair [2:46:39]: you. I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Costa Rica. Costa Rica [2:46:53]: Co-facilitators, Costa Rica would like to add its voice to the statement made by Uniting for Consensus, and we would like to add these additional considerations in our national capacity. As a small state from the Global South, Costa Rica reaffirms the principles set out in the Security Council reform model proposed by Uniting for consensus. In this context, we think that it is especially important to specifically reaffirm the principle of sovereign equality among member states, which is enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter. This is a principle upon which rests the legal architecture and legitimacy of all decisions adopted in this organization. Any proposal that puts us farther away from this principle will not have our support. Building consensus demands that we go from areas where we do have convergences. And throughout intergovernmental negotiations, we have seen that there is no opposition to expanding the number of elected seats. The United for Consensus proposal, which includes longer-lasting which would be elected and eligible for reelection, offers us a middle-of-the-road solution which will generate broader participation without privileges or any kind of illegitimate representation in perpetuity. It also allows for states from historically underrepresented regions to access the Council in a more sustained manner. If we all agree on the fact that reforming the Security Council is urgent, it should also be a reform that is truly inclusive and capable of broadening opportunities for the vast majority of members, and specifically for the 59 states that have never served on the Security Council, as we have touched upon and heard again and again today on behalf of some delegations Those 59 states deserve an open door through which they can access the Council and contribute to its work. Elections are the only mechanism that offers this open door. Reforming the Council should adapt to changing realities, and it should not ossify permanently today's reality, which is but a snapshot of, of the present. Geographic representation which is equitable, can be consolidated through legitimate and periodic elections, not through permanent seats or the privileges conferred upon those that hold those permanent seats, as we have seen in the documents that we have on the cascading effect of permanent seats in the Security Council. Our reform should make the Council more democratic and broaden Co-Chair [2:49:53]: I thank the distinguished representative of Costa Rica for his statement. We have heard the last speaker for this meeting. We will reconvene this afternoon at 3:00 PM in this conference room to continue the discussion, followed by a closed interactive dialogue without webcast. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. It's mine. Yes.