New York, 15 October 2002

Mr. President,

This meeting of the General Assembly has been convened against the somber context of a heinous act of terrorism that took place in Bali during the last weekend. The Government of Indonesia has strongly condemned the bombing which has caused scores of victims, both Indonesian and foreign nationals. We wish to reiterate the condolences and deep sympathy of the Government of Indonesia to the families of the bereaved. The authorities are doing their utmost to investigate this brutal and inhuman act of violence and bring its perpetrators to justice. We reaffirm Indonesia’s commitment to work with the rest of the international community to overcome terrorism, which poses a threat to global security. My delegation gratefully acknowledges the sentiments of sympathy that have been expressed by various delegations to our Government and people.

Mr. President,

It is with appreciation that my delegation has welcomed the annual Report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. We also welcome the “Report of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and other Matters related to the Security Council.”

Following the decision of the Council in May 2002, my delegation has noted the changes in the format of the report of the Security Council to provide the General Assembly with a more timely and informative document. We agree that the report before us, which covers the period from 16 June 2001-31 July 2002, is more concise and informative.

We are gratified that in the quest for increased transparency, the Security Council continued to review its working methods during this period. In this connection, we applaud the increased openness that the wrap-up sessions have engendered, particularly with the participation of non-Council members in February, May and June. We hope that this trend will continue. 

Unfortunately, Mr. President, although the current report of the Council opens with an analytical segment, we had hoped for a more substantive rather than a historical recounting of the events as they happened in the Council during the year.  We had expected the kind of political analysis that will not only tell us what we do not already know, but also go beyond the surface to point out trends, rationale and justification in the work of the Council. The eight pages that are dedicated to the analytical summary in the current report have not come up to this expectation, and we hope that this will be improved in the future.

Needless to say, the way in which the Council reports is no less important than its reform and reconstitution. On this issue, I wish to point out that in the segment of the analytical summary concerning the working methods of the Council, reference is made to the increase in the number of meetings that were held in public during the year, as well as the briefings to non-members by Presidents of the Council.

My delegation welcomes this trend and commends members of the Council for making this possible and we look forward to this momentum being sustained. Its continuance is a step forward and represents progress towards greater openness in its deliberations, which has been one of the concerns of the majority of the member states. It is, however, important that efforts be taken to ensure that the views expressed by non-members be considered in the drafting of resolutions as well as presidential statements.

One question may be asked at this point: why do non-members join in open meetings of the Council?  If one may venture an answer, it is not because they want to have their statements entered into the record books. When non-members go there to offer their views on issues of peace and security, it is often because they want those views taken into consideration by Council members, who are in a position to convert them into policy.

However, this may not be the practice of the meetings of the Security Council particularly considering that in the structure of its work, an open meeting invariably comes after informal consultations, usually a series of informal consultation, at which a draft resolution or a presidential statement may have been prepared for adoption. Hence, the views of non-members of the Security Council are not properly reflected in its decision.

We deem it advisable if non-members of the Security Council be given the opportunity to speak prior to the informal consultations on a particular subject to allow them to express their views, followed by the members of the Council who will speak at the concluding discussion since they have engaged in informal consultation on such issues.

This kind of arrangement is realistic in another regard: the statements of Council members would then logically and immediately be followed by the adoption of the resolution or presidential statement.

The further strengthening of the Council’s dynamic interaction with the main organ of the United Nations, namely, the General Assembly, has emerged to be one of the important questions in the context of the over-all reform of the Organization. The reporting of its work to the Assembly, despite its importance would not suffice but rather more substantive relations have become imperative. In this context, we recall several items that were deliberated and decided by the Security Council during the period of its report, including issues such as HIV/AIDS. In dealing with many of these problems, the work of the Council should be structured in such a way in order to maximize the work and the role of the Assembly on this issue as mandated by the Charter. 

Mr. President,

I would like now to turn to the broader subject of Security Council reform.  

Seven years after the General Assembly first established the Open-Ended Working Group on this issue, the Millennium Declaration in 2000 called on us to “intensify our efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects.” This instruction was arrived at in recognition of the reality that, despite prolonged deliberations in the Working Group, we have moved no closer to an agreement on any of the substantive issues. These unresolved questions will have to be addressed in order to enhance the Council’s credibility and moral authority. As the Secretary-General has rightly remarked in his report on the Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change, the reform of the United Nations would be incomplete without a reform of the Security Council.    

Last June, the Working Group concluded its work for the 56^th session of the General Assembly, having decided to recommend consideration of the agenda item at this session, and that the Working Group also continues with its work. As I have indicated, Indonesia acknowledges the provisional agreement reached on a number of issues concerning the working methods of the Council. We are, however, disappointed at the failure to narrow down the substantial differences on other issues. 

In the view of Indonesia, the time has come when we must make progress, and we hope that the objective, which is to comprehensively reform the Council so as to make it into a transparent, democratic, representative and effective organ in the maintenance of international peace and security, must continue to guide our work.  If we put this objective before narrower national or group interests, it will accelerate the possibility of reaching agreements on the substantive questions.

Before concluding, my delegation wishes to extend its sincere felicitations to Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan and Spain upon their election as non-permanent members of the Security Council for 2003-2004.We are convinced that they will make concrete contributions to the work of the Security Council.

I thank you, Mr. President.