Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at 2023 UNSC Election Briefing Series
I thank Permanent Representatives of Belarus and Slovenia for their presentations. In fact, I have two questions.
One the Ambassador of Slovenia attempted to answer, which didn't sound very convincing to us. It was on the choice of Slovenia's application for the Security Council membership. He claimed that it was a sovereign decision by Slovenia. Still, we see it as an attempt to hijack a seat in the Security Council from a candidate, who stood out and contested for long 14 or 15 years. Yes, competition happens in the Security Council, but this time the competition looks clearly unfair to us.
Here is the second thing that I wanted to ask to the distinguished Permanent Representative of Slovenia. The international community knows pretty well the position of Belarus on international and regional issues. How does the position of Slovenia differ from that of the European Union, of which it is a member? Will Ljubljana be promoting its own priorities in the Security Council or follow the common foreign European policy line, which it is obliged to follow, as far as we understand?
If the latter is the case, what value added will Slovenia bring to the Security Council? We have been saying this consistently and for a long time, both within the intergovernmental negotiation process of the Security Council reform and elsewhere, that we see no value added in having another member from the Western European group in the Security Council. There are already too many. Their positions are not diverging. They have never diverged in a single resolution voted in the Security Council. I don't remember any diverging votes by EU or NATO members there. And frankly, even the statements of these countries are practically being copied. So, what added value do you see in Slovenia being a member of the Security Council?
