There was no consensus on the issue in 1945, and there is even less today. While we agree that Security Council needs to be reformed to reflect some of the shifts and changes in the world over the past decades, we see no justification in allocating yet another seat to a single co-ordinated European Union, which already occupies two of the five permanent seats in the Security Council. If deep differences continue to exist on the subject, it is also because two important principles have been brushed aside by the few who are seeking to impose their will on the many. The first of these principles is a respect for regional acceptability for representation on the Security Council. It is this principle which is applied in the gentleman's agreement on the allocation of regional seats in the elected category of non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Regional acceptability becomes even more important in case permanent membership has to be reformed.
The second principle is that of the strict fulfilment on the part of any aspirant, whether for permanent or non-permanent membership, of the obligations resulting from the purposes and principles of the Charter, and an equally strict compliance with the resolutions passed by the United Nations over the years. The question of crowning countries which are persistently in demonstrated and obvious non-compliance with the United Nations resolutions does not arise. Mr. President, The negotiations in the Working Group over the last four years show that deep differences exit between delegations on the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council. The Working Group would be resuming its work in mid January next year. If we earnestly desire to move the process forward, then we will have to take into account the positions of the NAM, the African Group, the OIC and the Arab Group.