UN General Assembly
1997

where, like it or not, we currently stand. A similar case could be made on the closely related question of financial reform. This too, has its own deep complexities; its own intrinsic contradictions between what would be acceptable to the majority and what the major Powers want. Not every change is necessarily for the better. We should therefore make progress cautiously, especially on such fundamental questions. This is why the Non- Aligned Movement has wisely decided that efforts at restructuring the Security Council should not be subject to any imposed time-frame. Of course, there has been an evolution in the positions of the major Powers over the last four years. There will be further positive changes over time. But it will certainly take time. No country readily changes the status quo if it benefits from the status quo. My point is therefore that, given this reality, it would be a historic mistake to artificially link the Secretary-General's managerial, administrative and structural reforms to far more contentious questions of Security Council or other matters that would require the