A/78/PV.70 General Assembly

As we begin this important debate on the use of the veto, let me open with the perennial reminder that, although the principal organs of the United Nations — including the General Assembly and the Security Council — have distinct mandates under the Charter of the United Nations, they collectively form a unified whole. Those bodies are therefore expected to work in unison and are dedicated to one overarching purpose — saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. In that regard, while the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security rests with the Security Council, the Assembly also has an important residual role under the Charter of the United Nations  — a role that continues to attain more meaning as the Security Council is in serious deadlock with respect to effectively discharging its responsibilities. To that end, the so-called veto initiative, as approved by the General Assembly in its resolution 76/262, is a significant breakthrough towards involving the entire membership on those issues. It not only promotes greater transparency and accountability, but also reinforces collaboration between the Security Council and the General Assembly in their shared duty to promote global peace and security. I take this opportunity to thank the cross-regional group of 39 Member States that requested this plenary debate  — a platform the continuation of which I encourage at future sessions. Let us continue to utilize this initiative and its annual debate as a valuable accountability mechanism and as part of the ongoing review of progress towards designing solutions that are effective enough in addressing the ever-pressing peace and security challenges. It is regrettable that since last year’s annual debate (see A/77/PV.68 et seq.), a total of eight resolutions and one amendment have been vetoed in the Security Council. At this precarious time of heightened geopolitical tensions, and as ongoing and emerging crises demand our urgent and decisive action, it would be a derogation of our duty as the General Assembly if we stood idle and allowed the unrestrained use of the veto to paralyse not only the Council itself, but the United Nations ability to respond efficiently to questions of peace and security. Let us consider that the Council remains unable to collectively address critical peace and security situations in the Gaza Strip, Ukraine, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republic of Mali, as well as concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There is clearly a pronounced contrast between the urgent need for decisive action and the prevailing inaction that undermines both the work and the credibility of the United Nations as an Organization. If we do nothing, questions of continued relevance to the United Nations will escalate and public confidence in the institution will increasingly dwindle, with each veto cast perceived as our collective failure to act. Perhaps, despite the situation being unacceptable, it is precisely for the reason of its state of paralysis that we must ramp up momentum for Security Council reform, reinvigorating the Council’s capacity to fulfil its responsibilities. I therefore strongly urge Member States, especially those that are also members of the Council, to seize this debate as an opportunity to bridge divisions among themselves and to seek impactful solutions by further involving the General Assembly. Furthermore, as we broadly evaluate the veto initiative in its third year, I also encourage Members to approach today’s debate with a comprehensive perspective conducive to generating transformative, reform- oriented solutions. Let us reflect candidly on what the Member States can and must do differently. I invite them to engage with an open mind and a commitment to bringing about meaningful change. As I conclude, I remain confident that among all the 193 Member States, there is ample collective wisdom and the creative potential necessary to achieve our common goals on peace and security. Let us utilize the broad scope of the mandate of the Assembly, across all pillars and everything in between, to deepen closer cooperation among all the principal organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. To further that spirit of cooperation, just as the Council routinely sends special reports to the President of the General Assembly, I will continue the practice of transmitting a summary of today’s deliberations both to the President of the Security Council and to all Member States for further consideration. Building on what has been achieved to date since the adoption of resolution 76/262, I urge a productive discussion and the generation of innovative ideas for further enhancements to the veto initiative.

I speak on behalf of the following group of States committed to the implementation of resolution 76/262, otherwise known as the veto initiative: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Georgia, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Myanmar, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Türkiye, Ukraine and my own country, Liechtenstein. In opening, Mr. President, we thank you for convening the second annual debate on the use of the veto since its consensual adoption on 26 April 2022. We are gratified that debates under this agenda item, held close to the anniversary of the adoption of the veto initiative, will henceforth take place every year. These debates provide us with an opportunity to take stock of the progress of the implementation and impact of our initiative, as well as to chart the road still to travel. We thank the Secretary-General for his public support for the veto initiative, and we appreciate your strong support for it, Sir, as one of the most meaningful tools to empower the General Assembly as the central decision-making body of the United Nations. Over the past two years, the veto initiative has begun to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly and our collective approach to questions of peace and security. It has strengthened the accountability of the Council to the membership, in particular when its action is blocked by the veto, and it has become a tool to engage the General Assembly as a body fit and ready to take up its Charter-defined role in Chapter IV to uphold peace and security. Mr. President, we also welcome your commitment to working with the membership to produce a handbook on the peace and security role of the Assembly during your tenure. The implementation of the veto initiative over the past two years has led to very meaningful change and concrete results. Since the adoption of resolution 76/262, on each of the occasions a veto has been cast, the Security Council has produced a special report, in line with Articles 15 and 24 of the Charter — something that had not happened since the 1970s. Every State casting a veto has come to the General Assembly to account for its actions in front of the membership. Every veto cast, on issues ranging from the situations concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mali, the Middle East and Ukraine, has been addressed by a significant proportion of the membership, demonstrating the interest that we all have in upholding the Charter’s peace and security framework. States have taken the opportunity to respond to the explanations of those casting a veto. The veto is no longer the end of the conversation. As we move forward, we must also ensure that a veto is not the end of United Nations action. At the same time, we are aware that relations among the permanent members are further deteriorating, reflected in decreased unity and agreement, and we salute in particular the elected members of the Council that have risen to the challenge of building bridges where the permanent members are divided. The veto continues to be used in ways that violate other provisions of the Charter, ranging from Article 2 to Article 27 itself. We note in particular that the voluntary abstention principle contained in Article 27, paragraph 3, is repeatedly ignored, and we urge a recommitment to the letter and spirit of the text. In a context of increasing concern for the work of the Council, we must take further steps in this organ to safeguard the credibility and legitimacy of our Organization. In that respect, let us lay out a plan for progress. First, we must make further efforts to enhance the accountability of the Security Council to the membership. We must be ready to use the collective political weight of the membership to make clear our dissatisfaction with instances where the veto is used and threatened, and the ensuing deadlock of the Council, including through formal recommendations. Mr. President, your initiative to produce summaries of these debates is an important starting point in that respect. Secondly, we must consider how our commitments to opposing the abuse of the veto can be implemented in other ongoing processes. Resolutions on the revitalization of the General Assembly should continue to highlight the evolving peace and security role of this organ. Further, chapter V of the pact for the future is an opportunity to envision a world in which the veto is made subservient to our obligations to the Charter, rather than one in which the veto is abused to justify breaches of the Charter. As ever, we continue to encourage all States to sign the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct and the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint, which demonstrate the intent of the membership to limit the use of the veto. Finally, the General Assembly must be ready to fill the gap left by the use of the veto through the adoption of recommendations and products in line with its powers under Chapter IV of the Charter. While there are steps that the Assembly itself clearly cannot take, such as the exercise of Chapter VII powers, we must, each time a veto is cast or threatened, consider our responsibilities to act in advance of a meeting under this agenda item. In doing so, we acknowledge that the Council has a primary responsibility to maintain peace and security, and that action taken by the Assembly in that respect is in concert with that distribution of responsibility. A veto is a clear signal that the Council has failed to exercise its primary responsibility. The veto initiative was conceived as a reaction to Council paralysis due to the threat or use of the veto that endangers international peace and security. Each of us has an obligation of fidelity to the Charter to do our part in response. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity to express my personal thanks to this community for the enormous support that I have received over the past two weeks. It means more to me than I can possibly say.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the three Baltic States: Latvia, Lithuania and my own country, Estonia. It has been two years since the General Assembly adopted resolution 76/262, “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. In that time, it has served its purpose again and again. The use of the veto power has spiked to levels unprecedented in United Nations history. Over the past year, there have been nine times when the General Assembly has had to step up after Security Council decisions had been impeded by some members that had exercised their veto power. That is three times more than a year before. That worrisome trend not only undermines the credibility of the United Nations but also perpetuates injustice and instability around the world. The meetings of the General Assembly under the resolution have engaged us in multifaceted discussions. They have shown that the veto initiative is an invaluable tool for fostering collaboration between the main organs of the United Nations and bringing more transparency and greater accountability to the Security Council’s work. The veto initiative has empowered the General Assembly to openly discuss the most burning issues of today’s world, thus making the most of its authority, as it should. Having a permanent seat in the Security Council means having a significant responsibility to consistently strive towards fulfilling the goals and values of the Charter of the United Nations. However, veto power has not always been employed in accordance with its intended purpose. Abuse of the veto power impedes the Security Council from fulfilling its main responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Over the past year, the use of the veto has blocked action on the situations in Gaza, Syria and Mali, as well as on addressing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea proliferation issue. We have seen in past years how the veto power not only blocks effective action, but also serves the interests of a permanent member that has acted against the very core of the United Nations Charter and waged a war against its sovereign neighbour. The Council has failed to react to Russia’s unprovoked and brutal war against Ukraine. That has further encouraged Russia, which is the permanent member that has been using the veto power the most often. Moreover, it is happily using its veto to also sustain the illegal actions of its geopolitical client States. That undermines not only the United Nations Charter, but the whole multilateral, rules-based international system. Consequently, with the rapid increase in using — or rather, abusing — the veto power, reform of the Security Council is more pertinent than ever. The Baltic States highlight that the veto power is constrained under Article 27, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, which obliges a party to a dispute to abstain in the voting. We also believe that the Security Council permanent members should refrain from using the veto in case of mass atrocities, including the crime of aggression. The Baltic States would like to reaffirm their commitment to the United Nations Charter. Its principles are the bedrock of international peace and security. We continue to support enhancing the role of the General Assembly, and we are prepared to further collaborate to ensure more accountability, legitimacy and transparency in the use of the veto power.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries: Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. Today we mark the second anniversary of the adoption of resolution 76/262, on the veto initiative. Its adoption marked a significant step towards strengthening the accountability and transparency of the Security Council. The Nordic countries commend Liechtenstein for its important ongoing work on that landmark resolution. Two years on, the importance of the initiative is, unfortunately, still strikingly clear. In the first months of 2024, we have already seen five instances of the exercise of the veto. The frequent use and misuse of the veto are preventing the Council from effectively fulfilling its vital mandate of maintaining international peace and security. As the number of vetoes increases, so does the number of times we meet here in the General Assembly to discuss the vetoes cast and set out our expectations for the Council to uphold its responsibility. The Assembly could do more than just lament the failure of the Council to fulfil its responsibilities for international peace and security. The Charter empowers the Assembly to consider and make recommendations on any matter within the scope of the Charter, including to make recommendations on matters of international peace and security. In addition to those Charter-based powers, the General Assembly is also granted authority under the “Uniting for peace” resolution 377 (V). The Nordic countries hold the view that the General Assembly could act more decisively when the Security Council is unable to do so, and we invite all interested Member States to consider collective actions to that end. Let us be clear  — the Security Council does its work on behalf of all United Nations Members, as set out in Article 24 of the United Nations Charter. Its decisions affect us all and it is accountable to us all. In its second year, resolution 76/262 has further strengthened a recalibration of the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, thereby ensuring a more accountable and transparent relationship. The Nordic countries have been supporters of the veto initiative from the very beginning, and we continue to see its value as a landmark instrument for accountability between the Council and the broader United Nations membership. We also wish to commend the important role played by the 10 elected members (E-10) of the Security Council. Under difficult circumstances and increasing divides in the Council, the E-10 have demonstrated their ability to move the Council forward in delivering concrete results. The joint E-10 ceasefire resolution on Gaza serves as one clear example among many. In view of the dynamics in the Security Council today, including the blatant violation of the Charter by a permanent member of the Council, this debate is timely and our determination urgently needed. The misuse of the veto is blocking the Security Council from fulfilling its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Let me also take this opportunity to reiterate the Nordic countries’ full support for comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Much work lies ahead on the reform of the Security Council to make it more representative, more efficient, more transparent and more accountable. Addressing the matter of the veto is central in that regard. The Nordic countries also again urge Member States, including permanent members of the Council, that have not yet done so to sign on to the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct and the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, launched by France and Mexico. We encourage all delegations to share their views and work towards further initiatives to limit the scope and use of the veto, including by ensuring the full application of Article 27, paragraph 3, requiring the obligatory abstention of a party to a dispute from voting. In conclusion, let me reiterate that the Nordic countries stand ready to continue our engagement and contribution to strengthening the transparency, representativity, efficiency and accountability of the Security Council. The misuse of the veto continues to threaten the legitimacy of the Security Council and undermines trust in the United Nations ability to safeguard international peace and security. An effective Security Council is fundamental to delivering on the promise of multilateralism in providing solutions to global challenges through effective, representative and legitimate institutions.

Portugal aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein, representing a group of countries, in support of the veto initiative. We commend the convening of today’s significant debate, marking two years since the adoption of the pivotal resolution 76/262, which Portugal proudly co-sponsored. The consensus reached with that initiative emphasized the need for increased accountability in the use of the veto within the Security Council, enhancing its responsibility to the General Assembly and the international community. The outcome is evident in the increasing number of General Assembly meetings called after vetoes in the Security Council — 9 in just the past 12 months — underscoring the importance of the initiative. Two years on, it is crucial to explore ways to enhance the resolution’s framework. As the representative of Liechtenstein highlighted, the veto should not halt United Nations action. We should consider proposals, like those from the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism, which suggests referring matters on which the Security Council fails to act directly to the General Assembly for action. Furthermore, we advocate for a more analytical annual report from the Security Council, including a chapter dedicated to the veto, to foster substantive discussions in the General Assembly. Portugal also supports developing a handbook detailing the Assembly’s role in peace and security, funded by voluntary contributions. We have already contributed and encourage others to do the same. While any change to the Charter of the United Nations requires the unanimous agreement of all permanent Security Council members  — meaning that the veto will remain until all agree to relinquish it  — we urge that its use be restricted and exercised sensibly and in strict adherence to the Charter. Portugal endorses the Franco-Mexican Political Declaration and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct regarding the use of the veto, urging all Member States, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, to support those initiatives. We also stress the need to honour the principle of voluntary abstention, as outlined in Article 27, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, and call for a recommitment to those values. Lastly, we invite all Member States to join the upcoming workshop on 13 May, co-organized by Portugal, Ecuador and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, focusing on the interaction between the General Assembly and the Security Council.

At the outset, my delegation thanks you, Sir, for convening this important meeting. We note that this is the second time that a debate on this agenda item is being held following the adoption of resolution 76/262. Malaysia values this opportunity for Member States to take stock of the progress and assess the implementation of the resolution. Based on the United Nations record, the veto has been used 293 times since 1946. Over the years, it has been observed that some permanent members are more inclined than others to exercise the veto. Arguably, the exercise of the veto is almost always unpopular and damages the credibility of the permanent member casting it. The use of the veto has time and again rendered the Security Council paralysed, making it completely ineffective and incapable of delivering on its mandate of maintaining global peace and security. It has led to widespread disillusionment and eroded trust and confidence in the overall United Nations-led multilateral process, particularly in the realm of peace and security. Malaysia recognizes that resolution 76/262, on the veto initiative, is pivotal in bolstering our efforts within the framework of the General Assembly to improve the transparency, accountability and legitimacy of the veto privilege. At its core, resolution 76/262 endeavours to recalibrate the balance between the exercise of the veto and the imperative of accountable decision-making by the permanent members. By introducing measures to enhance visibility into the veto process, we strive to curb potential abuse and ensure that the veto is exercised judiciously. My delegation commends the aspiration of the resolution to enhance transparency and accountability by holding the relevant permanent member responsible for its action. We are convinced that the resolution has strengthened the overall credibility and relevance of the General Assembly in its role of addressing pressing global challenges, in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The wider membership of the General Assembly now has the opportunity to also deliberate on political and security issues of common concern and scrutinize the suitability of the veto exercised in the Security Council. We have hoped that this would compel permanent members to apply more caution and exercise their veto power more responsibly. Malaysia welcomes the special reports prepared by the Security Council in accordance with paragraph 3 of resolution 76/262. Malaysia also values the summary of the veto initiative meetings prepared by the Office of the President of the General Assembly. While both documents have proven to be insightful, Malaysia strongly believes that the special report of the Security Council should move beyond procedural description and include more substantive analysis on deliberated subjects. It is most regrettable that despite our efforts, some permanent members continue to abuse their veto privilege. Since its adoption in 2022, resolution 76/262 has been activated one too many times. We have already observed the veto being exercised four times so far this year. We have witnessed in great exasperation how the veto power has frustrated initiatives towards establishing a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and blocked the admission of the State of Palestine as a full Member of the United Nations. Both issues enjoy the overwhelming support of the wider United Nations membership. Malaysia’s position on the use of the veto is clear. The veto power is outdated and undemocratic and contradicts the principle of the sovereign equality of all Member States. We maintain that, ultimately, the veto privilege must be abolished. Until the time when the veto is completely abolished, its use should be regulated, with complete prohibition in cases of mass atrocity crimes. The veto initiative is a positive step forward in strengthening multilateralism. We must continue our concerted efforts to make the United Nations more efficient, effective, democratic and fit for purpose. Let me conclude by assuring the Assembly of Malaysia’s commitment to that endeavour.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this important plenary debate on agenda item 63, “Use of the veto”, in response to the letter sent by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries on 8 March. This stand-alone debate on agenda item 63 provides us with an important opportunity to review and improve the implementation of resolution 76/262, adopted by consensus two years ago. Singapore aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries and would like to add the following points in our national capacity. First, Singapore reiterates our support for resolution 76/262. Singapore was a member of the core group that presented resolution 76/262 and co-sponsored that resolution, as we believe that it is important to affirm and strengthen the role of the General Assembly in maintaining international peace and security and to improve the working methods of the United Nations to achieve a more effective and responsive multilateral system. Over the past two years, the veto initiative has been an important tool in strengthening transparency and accountability in the work of the Security Council. We welcome the fact that Security Council members that have exercised the veto have explained their positions in the veto initiative debates and that most Security Council members have also participated in such debates to explain their considerations. Secondly, we regret the fact that the use of the veto has continued unabated. We have already seen four vetoes cast in the Security Council this year on draft resolutions that have enjoyed support from the overwhelming majority of the members of the Security Council and that have often reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of the members of the General Assembly. That is especially concerning as it reflects an increasing divergence among the permanent members of the Security Council at a time when Council unity in addressing issues of greatest concern to international peace and security is most needed. We express particular disappointment that the Security Council has been unable to agree on the way forward even on issues that have traditionally garnered consensus in the Security Council, such as the renewal of the mandates of subsidiary bodies. Thirdly, so long as the veto remains, we urge the permanent members of the Security Council to show further restraint in its use. Singapore strongly supports efforts to create more accountability over the use of the veto  — such as the French-Mexican initiative on suspending the use of veto in cases of mass atrocity and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes — and calls on Security Council members to abide by Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. We urge all members of the Security Council, particularly the permanent members, which have the grave responsibility of the veto, to lead by example and join those initiatives. Fourthly, as we mark the second anniversary of the adoption of resolution 76/262, the General Assembly should consider how we can make that initiative more mature and innovative. The debate on the casting of the veto in the Security Council allows the General Assembly to demand transparency and accountability from the members of the Security Council, but the General Assembly also has a role to play when the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act to maintain international peace and security. We therefore encourage the General Assembly to consider making constructive recommendations and taking action where Security Council action is blocked due to the use of the veto. In conclusion, I reiterate Singapore’s commitment to strengthening the role and effectiveness of the General Assembly. We will work with all interested Member States to reinvigorate the multilateral system for the needs of our time.

Since the adoption of resolution 76/262, two years ago, there have been 13 vetoes — 10 since we last convened in the Hall for this annual debate  — representing a staggering increase from previous years at a point in time in which we desperately need unified solutions. Moreover, we have seen the Council defy the will of the wider membership of the United Nations on basic, solvable and common-sense issues, like the defence of the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime or the deliverance of aid to suffering and starving civilians in conflict zones, many of them women and children. At a time when global conflicts have reached a historic peak since the Second World War, those wielding the anachronistic veto power within the Security Council have neglected their obligation to maintain international peace and security. Instead of fostering collective measures for conflict prevention and resolution, they have become obstacles to progress. That dysfunction within the Security Council mirrors our own shortcomings. In our pursuit to combat external threats, the members of the Council have unwittingly turned against themselves, like an autoimmune disorder weakening our collective resolve. Despite the disappointments and failures of the past year, we must view each veto instance as an opportunity for collective action and reflection and step forward as a decisive and assertive General Assembly. After the year we have had, Costa Rica is more confident that the veto initiative is a critical step for real change. It has brought revolutionary transparency, forced the General Assembly to be involved in the daily life of the Security Council, and served as a poignant reminder that the Council’s failures are not isolated but reverberate throughout the United Nations body, demanding our collective accountability. Its failures are our own, and we can no longer accept that. While we continue to support other attempts at reform, that is not enough. The Charter of the United Nations gives the General Assembly enormous latitude to make recommendations across the Organization’s programme of work. Costa Rica therefore makes three recommendations that the Assembly could act on today, taking yet another step towards the efficient and collective maintenance of peace and security. First, the General Assembly should serve as the primary platform for addressing matters of peace and security. It has the authority to mandate emergency forces for peacekeeping and to implement effective measures, such as sanctions and arms embargoes, to uphold human rights and promote the peaceful resolution of disputes. Additionally, the General Assembly could establish a world-leading monitoring body to impartially support peace efforts and strengthen the United Nations human rights system. While respecting sovereignty and political independence and leveraging advanced technology, the General Assembly can monitor areas of conflict and bear witness to abuses, fulfilling one of the United Nations most vital functions. Secondly, Costa Rica urges a shift away from the binary debate of binding versus non-binding resolutions. We cannot continue to fixate on that distinction, but we all know that the reality is that many binding resolutions are ignored with impunity while many non-binding resolutions, such as resolution 70/1, containing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, have transformed an incalculable number of lives. Instead, let us focus on the efficacy of resolutions, regardless of their legal status, in effecting tangible change. Thirdly, the General Assembly can take control of the selection and appointment process for the person who will occupy the post of Secretary-General. The Charter clearly states that the Secretary-General is an Assembly appointment. In 1946, the General Assembly told the Security Council that it would be desirable for a single candidate to be recommended, but that is not set in stone. That advice must be rescinded. In 2026, we can ask for a list of more candidates, vote to reject candidates who perpetuate historical imbalances of power, or dictate the types of candidates that the Assembly would accept, namely, women candidates. Let me emphasize again that the next Secretary-General must be a woman. The veto initiative is two-years-old today. The initiative transcends the customary call for reform within the annals of the General Assembly; it embodies a collective call for justice, not merely a power shift sought by discontented States. The veto initiative represents a stride towards rebalancing power dynamics within the United Nations principal organs. It envisions the General Assembly assuming its rightful role as the nexus of global cooperation across all pillars of United Nations work. In adherence to the spirit of the Charter, we advocate for equality in decision-making where every Member State’s voice carries equal weight — one State, one vote.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this important plenary debate on the use of the veto, an essential component of the reform of the Security Council and of the United Nations as a whole. Our world and people today need a more transformed, more accountable, more inclusive and more transparent multilateral system. The Philippines reiterates its position that the use of the veto is an exceptional responsibility that should not be exercised without accountability. In that regard, I would like to emphasize the following. First, the special privilege to exercise the veto power is in direct contravention of the principle of the sovereign equality of all Member States, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Secondly, the veto power has no place in a twenty- first century Security Council. Recent geopolitical crises on multiple fronts underscore that the current system in place has constrained the Security Council from discharging its mandate in maintaining international peace and security. Thirdly, there is a need to curtail the use of the veto. We recognize that abolishing it completely would be extremely challenging because of the need for agreement among the five permanent members. The effectiveness and efficiency of the Security Council will always be under threat, especially at times of great geopolitical rivalries, if the exercise of the veto power is not limited. An important step is rationalizing the use of the veto by the permanent members. Security Council permanent members must refrain from exercising the veto power on matters involving genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and terrorism. In that regard, the Philippines continues to support the code of conduct proposed by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group and the French-Mexican initiative, which spell out exceptions to the use of the veto power. We encourage all five permanent members of the Security Council to join both initiatives. Another path is in the context of the General Assembly. The Philippines consistently supports the view that the General Assembly is the chief deliberative and policymaking and most representative organ of the United Nations. We therefore support the intent of the veto initiative resolution 76/262 to strengthen the General Assembly by enhancing its ability to act on matters affecting international peace and security, in accordance with Articles 10 to 14 and 35 of the Charter, in the event the Security Council is unable to do so for whatever reason. Timeliness in global action to ensure and maintain international peace and security is critical. The paralysis of the Security Council to act due to the use of the veto should be unacceptable, as it is a sentence of continued and unimaginable suffering and hardships, even death, for many who are caught in the crossfire, the majority of whom are innocent lives. Despite the challenges to completely abolishing the veto power, we must actively pursue measures to limit its use. We cannot just remain idle. After all, we want a Security Council that is fit for purpose for twenty- first century realties — one that is effective, timely and efficient, representative, inclusive and an organ of the United Nations that truly represents sovereign equality among Member States.

I thank you, Sir, for organizing this debate on the exercise of the right of veto. France is committed to multilateralism and, at its heart, the United Nations system. The Security Council, to which the Charter of the United Nations entrusts the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, continues to work. Given the gravity of the crises the world is facing and the expectations of the international community, it is essential that the Security Council be able to act. Regarding the situation in the Middle East, that is the meaning of the draft resolution put forward by France, which is in line with resolution 2728 (2024) and is not only aimed at responding to the urgency of the situation, but also addresses the future of Gaza and the parameters of a political settlement of the conflict. But in the face of the multiplication of crises and conflicts, France regrets the increasing use of the veto, which has reached levels not seen since the end of the Cold War — 11 vetoes of draft resolutions in the past 12 months — contributing to the deadlock in the Security Council on certain conflicts. For its part, France believes that the veto is not a privilege but a special responsibility for the permanent members. It is in that spirit that it has used the veto only 18 times since 1945 and has not used it for more than 30 years. It is also in that spirit of responsibility that France has been jointly supporting an initiative with Mexico since 2015, aimed at regulating the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities. It would not require any amendment to the United Nations Charter to be implemented and would be applicable to the current permanent members. That is a strong expectation of the Assembly, as demonstrated by the support expressed by 106 States for the initiative. We call on all Member States that have not yet done so, in particular the other permanent members, to support it. Finally, to strengthen our collective security system, we must reform the Security Council more broadly. France supports its enlargement in its two categories of membership and hopes that negotiations will begin without delay on the basis of a draft resolution. The summit of the future, to be convened by the Secretary-General in 2024, and the eightieth anniversary of the United Nations in 2025 offer us a unique opportunity to achieve that. France will be there with its partners.

It has been two years since the General Assembly adopted resolution 76/262, triggering an automatic debate in the Hall within 10 days of a veto cast in the Security Council. The adoption of the resolution by consensus was a demonstration that inaction or the prevention of action by the Security Council is unacceptable to the wider membership of the United Nations. That is particularly relevant with regard to imminent threats to international peace and security. It is unfortunate, of course, that we have had to convene on multiple occasions over the past two years. It is unacceptable that Security Council members put their own national interests above those of the whole international community. The five permanent members have a special responsibility to maintain international peace and security, according to the Charter of the United Nations. That is what the international community expects and that is how we understand the United Nations Charter. According to Article 24, paragraph 1, members of the Council assume their responsibilities on behalf of all Member States. They must act in compliance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. They must not conceal violations of international law with their veto and they must not block the Council from taking effective action. We are convinced that resolution 76/262 has improved the accountability and transparency of the Council towards the wider membership, whether it be through the issuance of a special report on the use of the veto in question to the General Assembly or through the debate we hold after a veto has been cast. That is clearly an important step in the right direction for more accountability among those members that have the right to exercise the veto. But the role of the General Assembly should be enhanced further. As we know, the responsibility of the Council for the maintenance of peace and security is not an exclusive responsibility. When the Council is unable to act, the Assembly has to put itself in the driver seat and take over responsibility, in accordance with Article 11, paragraph 2, of the Charter. The Assembly should not limit itself to mere discussions. There is no legal impediment for the General Assembly to assume a more operational role through complementary action, and Chapter IV grants broad rights to the Assembly in that regard. There are, as we know, many precedents for such action. We have authorized peacekeeping missions and requested the Secretary-General to appoint special envoys. We should not shy away from making recommendations to States, reaffirming principles of international law and providing our institution with the necessary mechanisms to function properly. We strongly welcome the fact that resolution 77/335 requested the President of the General Assembly to develop a digital handbook on past practices, data and recommendations for the fulfilment of the Assembly’s functions and powers, and we look forward to its publication. Austria will support the implementation of the handbook financially and we call on others to do the same. It could be a very useful instrument. At the same time, we continue to strive for improved effectiveness of the Security Council itself. In that regard, we acknowledge the initiatives of some permanent members to voluntarily limit the use of the veto, such as the French-Mexican initiative on the suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocities. Of course, we also fully support the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct and encourage all delegations to do the same. We also call on Council members to implement and observe in a consistent manner the provisions of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, namely, that parties to a dispute shall abstain from voting. Those are some very concrete and possible steps towards a responsible use of the veto and more accountability within the United Nations system, which is something that we all work for.

Luxembourg thanks you, Sir, for organizing this annual debate on the exercise of the veto. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries. Luxembourg is proud to be among the sponsors of resolution 76/262, which was adopted by consensus two years ago. We thank Liechtenstein once again for its leading role in the adoption of that historic resolution. The past two years have demonstrated the added value of the veto initiative. The veto is not a privilege but a responsibility. In a context marked by the increasing erosion of trust in the Security Council’s ability to maintain peace and security, the adoption of the resolution marked an important step towards increasing the transparency and accountability of the Security Council to all Member States. It has strengthened the role of the General Assembly by giving all Member States the opportunity to speak on the issue that was vetoed. In other words, the veto is no longer the final word in the discussion. Since the adoption of resolution 76/262, there have been 16 vetoes in the Security Council, resulting in 13 special reports of the Council. The Assembly has held eight debates on a range of issues, from North Korea and non-proliferation to the sanctions regime on Mali, from the Middle East and the Palestinian question to cross-border assistance to Syria. Each debate has been very well attended. The participation in each debate was very high. Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter states that the Security Council should act on behalf of all Member States in discharging its mandate to maintain international peace and security. The veto initiative is therefore a powerful tool to remind each permanent member of the Security Council that would consider exercising its veto that it will have to answer to all Member States and to hear whether, in their opinion, the use of the veto really serves peace and security and does not hinder them. We deplore any use of the veto that prevents the Council from taking decisive action, particularly in the fight against the most serious atrocities and crimes affecting the international community. Luxembourg supports initiatives concerning the limitation of the use of the veto, such as the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, presented by France and Mexico, as well as the code of conduct concerning Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, drawn up by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group. We encourage all Member States to join those important initiatives. Furthermore, we believe that all States members of the Security Council must act in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter. While the Security Council remains the organ with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly must allow those two organs to be mutually reinforcing and complementary. The veto initiative plays a crucial role in strengthening their interaction. The General Assembly has the political responsibility to address situations in which the use of the veto leads to paralysis of the Security Council. The Assembly can and must be much more than just a forum where we express statements of principle. It can, as it has done on many occasions in the past, guide political action and take decisions, particularly when the Security Council fails to fulfil its mandate due to lack of consensus or when a veto prevents it from protecting the Charter and thus the general interest of all United Nations Members. We hope that that will also be the case with regard to the admission of the State of Palestine as a Member of the United Nations.

The Republic of Korea, as a proud co-sponsor of the landmark resolution 76/262, thanks President Francis for convening this plenary debate on the use of the veto. We also welcome the fact that today marks the start of the general debate on the veto initiative on an annual basis. While the structural constraints persist, under which the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power over limiting or abolishing the veto itself, this initiative has proven to be a valuable tool and continues to offer signs of hope. First, it strengthens the accountability of the permanent members to the wider United Nations membership, in line with Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, by ensuring that the General Assembly is a forum for engaging whenever a veto is cast. Secondly, it impacts the calculation of the permanent members on using the veto by raising the perceived costs of doing so. Thirdly, it signals that there can indeed be innovative ways to put political pressure on the use of the veto, even if we fall short of legally abolishing outdated privileges. Nevertheless, the reality is harsh, and we continue to gather in the Hall to respond to vetoes wielded in various contexts. For the Republic of Korea, especially as an incumbent member of the Security Council, it is of particular concern that we keep falling victim to self- contradictory vetoes that are not only detrimental in the context of a specific situation, but also self-destructive from an institutional perspective. We recall the first two vetoes wielded after the adoption of resolution 76/262. Those vetoes of May 2022 (see S/PV.9048) were against a draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, submitted in response to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s flagrant violations of multiple Security Council resolutions prohibiting any launch using ballistic missile technology. It is worth noting that the violated resolutions had been negotiated and voted in favour of by the two permanent members that vetoed the draft resolution, yet they prevented the Council from taking action in accordance with its previous decisions. Since those self-contradictory vetoes, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has launched at least seven intercontinental ballistic missiles, all in blatant violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. However, the Council has been unable to take any corresponding measures up to now, despite paragraph 28 of Security Council resolution 2397 (2017), in which it “expresses its determination to take further significant measures in the event of a further DPRK nuclear test or launch”. Last month’s veto of draft resolution S/2024/255, renewing the mandate of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), went a step further (see S/PV.9591). The veto caused the loss of the United Nations monitoring mechanism on the enforcement of the Council’s sanctions against North Korea. It also tarnished the Council’s authority by silencing the Panel’s future reporting on the veto-wielding member’s own unlawful procurement of weapons from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. That is why the Republic of Korea was deeply disappointed by the veto of 28 March. As the Secretary-General mentioned in his New Agenda for Peace, permanent members have not only a special responsibility but a shared interest in maintaining the credibility of the Security Council, where they continue to enjoy privileged status. In that regard, we reiterate that the use of the veto does not come without costs and urge the permanent members to run their calculations again. The self-contradictory vetoes, in particular, not only risk damaging the reputation and integrity of the veto-wielding permanent members; indeed, the costs of veto use in those cases also include the substantial impairment of the Security Council’s pre-existing decisions and institutions, and the very authority and credibility of that organ. Before concluding, the Republic of Korea reaffirms its commitment to join collective efforts in limiting the scope and use of the veto, in addition to its support for the France-Mexico initiative and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct. We are encouraged by the increasing convergence among Member States in pursuing that goal. With the summit of the future ahead of us, we believe that further efforts could be made even without amendments to the United Nations Charter, and we look forward to mobilizing our strong political will to that end.

We are at a critical juncture in international politics today. The fissures in the United Nations, especially in its Security Council, are out in the open, where the Council has struggled to find common ground to address challenges that pose a threat to international peace and security. Let us look back to 2022, when resolution 76/262 was adopted by the General Assembly. The adoption of the resolution, as well as ongoing debates about the urgent need for reform of the Security Council, are important markers of the pulse of global opinion on the decreasing confidence of the larger membership in the manner in which the Security Council has been dealing with its mandates. India’s position on the issue of reform is well known, and today we will speak to the bigger issue that the current debate has thrown up. The adoption of resolution 76/262 touched upon three important aspects of the Security Council reform discussion: the question of the veto, the relationship of the Security Council with the General Assembly, and the working methods of the Security Council. It therefore reflects and touches upon the natural interlinkages between those three clusters. While the issue opens up several questions, the path to finding a solution to those questions lies in following the tools available to us in multilateral structures and doing so in good faith, which means more dialogue and more diplomacy, reforming and strengthening our multilateral structures to make them more representative, making them fit for purpose and doing what the United Nations does best, that is, text-based negotiations. As the most representative global body of the United Nations, the General Assembly is the closest institution to a global parliament. Its primacy and legitimacy flow from the universality of its membership and the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. The inclusive character of the General Assembly and the moral weight of its decisions and opinions cannot be compared to any other global organization or institution. While the United Nations Charter remains clear about the division of labour between those two principal organs, it also presumes that those frameworks will be respected and that cooperation will take the larger global sentiment on challenges of the day into account. In undertaking its responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council, as per Article 24 of the United Nations Charter, acts under powers that have been conferred upon it by the members of the General Assembly. The United Nations Charter is very clear: “Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.” However, when countries disregard that obligation and act purely and solely based on their national political interests, it is obvious that the effectiveness of those organs will be under question and that the relationship between the two principal organs will be strained, while also endangering the credibility of the United Nations system as a whole. The work as regards restoring a healthy relationship between principal organs lies therefore in respecting the spirit of that original mandate emanating from the United Nations Charter. What is very clear today is that a majority of the Member States, including most of those that were not even independent at the time of the drafting of the United Nations Charter, want reform and do not feel represented in the decisions of the Security Council. The issue of the dysfunctionality of the Security Council and the use of the veto that we are discussing is not only because the veto is being used but also because of the binary nature of the composition of the membership of the Council, which is not reflective of contemporary realities and therefore ensures that the Council takes decisions in a vintage Cold War mode. We are all aware that issues on which the Security Council has failed to find consensus have seen more progress and solutions outside the United Nations. The consensus arrived at the New Delhi Summit of the Group of 20 is one example of that. Therefore, unless we change the composition of the permanent membership and make it reflective of today’s realities, diplomacy and dialogue will not get a real chance to find solutions to our challenges. Members may agree with me that the working methods of any body must respond to the challenges confronted by it, and the Security Council’s record in measuring up to the mounting challenges has been abysmal, to say the least. On the other hand, the Council has used its working methods to also hide vetoes and disguise them under the ad hoc working methods of its committees, which act on its behalf but have little accountability. Those of us familiar with the work of the sanctions committees and their tradition of putting holds and blocks are aware that those are disguised vetoes on matters on which some Council members will not take any responsibility and are not required to explain their decisions. The sentiment expressed in resolution 76/262, reflecting the need to address the opaqueness of the working methods of the Council and to instil accountability, is therefore welcome, but it only scratches the surface. While recognizing the significance of those efforts, we would want them to be undertaken in a manner that creates the environment for consensus-building rather than finger-pointing. Another kind of hidden veto that is being used is what we see in our intergovernmental negotiations process on Security Council reform. While differences on substance remain, some members, motivated by their attachment to perpetuating the outdated status quo, simply do not allow any text to be submitted in the process. A veto is essentially the idea that the views of one country or group of countries must take precedence over all the others in a manner that disregards the collaborative spirit and respect for the rules and regulations of the Organization. In the intergovernmental negotiations, we have witnessed a minority of naysayers holding the entire process of Security Council reform hostage over the past four decades. By calling for consensus before negotiations themselves, some countries have cast a hidden veto on a well-defined process of text-based negotiations that is indeed the bread and butter of the United Nations. My delegation believes that the only way to begin to remedy what ails the Security Council is to make it more representative, credible and legitimate by including representation for the global South in both categories of membership, including that of Africa. Going forward, we hope that the United Nations summit of the future process will ensure that we move closer to that goal.

In the opinion of our delegation, resolution 76/262, “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, adopted two years ago, is on the right track because it seeks greater legitimacy, accountability and transparency in the Organization and thus strengthens the system. Since the previous debate of the General Assembly on this matter (see A/77/PV.68 et seq.), the Security Council has vetoed nine draft resolutions and even one amendment. In less than four months this year, four vetoes have been recorded. We ask that prudence be maintained so that this year is not remembered as one in which the necessary multilateral dialogue and consensus were destroyed by the unilateralism of the veto. The veto must be exercised with responsibility, standards and judiciousness, bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, as we seek formulas to move forward, we call on the five countries that enjoy that prerogative to comply with the higher political will and refrain from using it. The debates of the General Assembly on the veto mechanism have helped us to understand the reasons, explanations and motives for the veto and thus to better understand the decision-making of the permanent members of the Security Council. We reiterate that the resolution that gave rise to the veto initiative does not fall within the Security Council reform process and is a one-off measure that is not part of the work being carried out in the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. We emphasize our position on the use of the veto and the danger it entails by eroding the credibility of the multilateral system. We insist that it must be limited, particularly in the face of mass atrocities and war crimes. We therefore urge continued discussions aimed at the General Assembly’s adoption of the Franco-Mexican initiative, which already has 106 signatory States, and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct with regard to Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, which has 130 signatory States. We call on more Members to sign both initiatives.

We thank President Francis for convening this annual debate on the use of the veto. That right, strongly contested today in our debate, was already far from unanimous among the founding Members when our Organization was created. Yet it was presented as essential” in 1945 in order to create an international organization through which “all peace-loving nations can effectively discharge their common responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security”. To that end, the permanent members promised to bear increased responsibility. The polycrisis we face today, with armed conflicts in every region of the globe, inclines us to doubt whether the use of that right is truly guided by the sense of responsibility that should go hand in hand with it. Since the right of veto exists, Switzerland is committed to its restricted use. It also supported the adoption of resolution 76/262, even as it hoped that its provisions would rarely be applied. We note that this hope has not materialized. A veto has been exercised 13 times since the resolution was adopted. Since Switzerland took up its seat on the Council, vetoes have been issued in a variety of contexts, including on Syria, Mali, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and, frequently, the Middle East. Even taking into account the sharp increase in the use of vetoes since the 2000s, that is a worrisome peak. The four vetoes cast in the past four months make us fear that we are on an exponential curve. While a veto can bring the Council’s action to a halt, it cannot prevent the General Assembly from assuming its responsibilities and, increasingly, from taking action. Allow me to suggest three ways of strengthening the role of the General Assembly: The first is through transparency. The debates of the Assembly make the use of the veto more transparent. The special reports provided for in the resolution oblige us, as members of the Council, to draw up a report on the use of the veto. Switzerland is committed to strengthening and perpetuating that transparency. It must also be included in the Council’s annual report, such as that soon to be submitted to the General Assembly. The second way is through action. The use of a veto does not relieve us — as members of the Council, individually or collectively  — of our responsibilities for the maintenance of peace and security. The General Assembly can help us do so. Allow me to illustrate my point with the example of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Despite the veto of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), the sanctions will remain binding even though the support of independent experts for implementation is coming to an end. We must therefore look for alternatives until the Council is once again in a position to resume its work. Switzerland remains open to exploring solutions, including within the Assembly. The third way is through accountability. Resolution 76/262 reminds us of the important role that all Member States can play in Security Council decisions. The veto does not render us powerless. All Member States, whether sitting on the Council or potential members, have the choice to act by adhering, for example, to the code of conduct with regard to Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We encourage all those that have not yet signed the code of conduct to join us in that commitment. We also recall that under Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting, and we welcome any conduct or communication of such restraint. Let us together send a clear signal in favour of transparent, responsible and effective multilateralism. In the face of failure, we are not condemned to giving up. We will continue to commit ourselves, within the Security Council and beyond, to assuming our responsibilities. As noted when the Organization was founded, “changing world conditions will require readjustments, but they will be the readjustments of peace and not of war”. The New Agenda for Peace offers us the chance to take the first steps towards such readjustment. Let us seize it.

As we mark two years since the adoption of resolution 76/262, Malta reiterates its unwavering support for the spirit and mandate behind that important resolution. The immediate implementation of the resolution and the fact that it was supported by a cross-regional group of sponsors underscore its significance. The Charter of the United Nations mandates the Security Council to act on behalf of the United Nations membership. Malta stresses that when the Security Council fails in its primary responsibility of upholding peace and security, the United Nations cannot remain idle. By granting the General Assembly the opportunity to discuss the use of the veto, resolution 76/262 reaffirms the collective responsibility of all Member States to uphold international peace and security. The resolution illustrates the complementary approach that the General Assembly and the Security Council should take, namely, in promoting transparency and accountability on the use of the veto. We must continue to ensure that the Security Council remains accountable to the wider United Nations membership. The resolution serves as a reminder that the use of the veto does not grant permanent members complete autonomy or allow them to disregard the Council’s duty in upholding international peace and security. Regrettably, over the past year, we have seen an increase in the use of the veto within the Security Council. Multiple instances of veto use have been recorded, particularly concerning the sanctions regime with respect to Mali, under Security Council resolution 2374 (2017); the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), concerning Mali; and most recently, the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. We are deeply concerned by those trends, which continue to hinder the Security Council’s ability to respond effectively. The repeated use of the veto has not only led to a deadlock in the Security Council, but it has also hindered progress through peaceful means. In the same vein of our commitment to resolution 76/262, we reaffirm Malta’s support for two other pertinent initiatives: the French-Mexican proposal aimed at restraining the use of veto power in cases of mass atrocities; and the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group, which advocates refraining from voting against draft resolutions intended to end mass atrocities. Additionally, the “Uniting for peace” resolution 377 (V) remains relevant to our discussions. We also emphasize the importance of abiding by Article 27, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, which stipulates that parties to a dispute should abstain from voting on decisions related to peaceful settlement of disputes. It is nonetheless crucial to clarify that the convening of these debates do not equate to altering veto procedures. We underline that the intergovernmental negotiations framework on Security Council reform remains the sole and legitimate process where Security Council reform is discussed and agreed upon. To conclude, as an elected member of the Security Council and as part of the core group led by Liechtenstein, Malta continues to recognize the crucial role that resolution 76/262 plays in strengthening the principles of the United Nations Charter and fostering greater transparency and accountability within the Security Council.

I thank President Francis for convening this meeting on the second anniversary of the historic adoption of resolution 76/262, which Türkiye co-sponsored as a core group member. Turkey fully aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein. Two years ago, Member States took a key step to enhance the role of the General Assembly, in line with the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations, so as to make the Security Council more accountable. As the most representative organ of the United Nations, the General Assembly has priority and power over all other organs of the Organization, including the Security Council. With the legitimacy, convening power and normative impact to ensure progress for future generations, the General Assembly safeguards the collective will of the international community to be freely voiced, whereas the Council draws its legitimacy from the wider membership and has to fulfil its responsibilities on behalf of all United Nations Members. In a world marked by complexity, uncertainty and multiplying crises, the General Assembly stands as a forum for dialogue, cooperation and collective action. In that context, the larger membership has adopted two resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Alas, the Security Council has repeatedly failed to follow suit, despite the severity of the humanitarian situation and despite the horrific crimes against the civilian population in Gaza, where the death toll has now surpassed 34,000. The level of death, destruction and displacement in Gaza, including of United Nations staff members and services, is catastrophic. Recent global challenges to peace and security have exposed the flaws of the Security Council in achieving its mandate, specifically through the use of the veto. Criticism of the permanent members of the Council for prioritizing their own interests is growing, and that perception adversely affects the credibility of the United Nations. It is therefore imperative that the United Nations be fit for purpose in order to address those issues and challenges with efficiency and urgency. Therefore, we reiterate once again that, ideally, the veto should be abolished; at a minimum, its use should be limited. The veto initiative has proved to be a valuable tool on issues pertaining to international peace and security for the common good of humankind. During the past two years, we have witnessed how the resolution served that purpose and we appreciate its concrete results. General Assembly debates organized in accordance with the resolution garner the broad participation of Member States. The special reports and summaries prepared by the Office of the President of the General Assembly, in line with the provisions of the resolution, enable transparent and informed discussion. Overall, the veto initiative has also made a substantial contribution to efforts to improve the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Much has been achieved so far, but we have a long way to go. Türkiye will continue to fully support that important mandate.

Our annual debate today on agenda item 63, “Use of the veto”, comes at an extremely important and significant time, given the disastrous consequences of the misuse of the veto in the Security Council. Less than a week ago, the Council witnessed another use of the veto (see S/PV.9609), based on no objective or logical reasons, that deprived the State of Palestine of full membership of the United Nations, an Organization that is supposed to be a gathering of all the peoples and countries of the world. That veto came after dozens that preceded it in connection with the Palestinian question, which have contributed over the decades to the delay in the Palestinian people’s ability to exercise their full legitimate rights in accordance with United Nations resolutions, international legitimacy and international law. The past six months alone have seen vetoes cast six times in connection with the Palestinian question. Three of those vetoes were against draft resolutions that sought to stop the fierce war that Israel has been waging against the Gaza Strip since 7 October 2023, allowing the Israeli killing, destruction and sabotage machine to pursue its genocide of the Palestinians in the Strip in full view of the entire world, unfortunately without deterrence and accountability. What the Security Council is witnessing today is the best evidence that its reform has become an urgent necessity without which it will be difficult for the Council to continue to carry out its role under the Charter of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security. The events of recent months have made it clear that all efforts to reform the Security Council will remain futile unless they include a real reform of the veto issue. That right is the cornerstone of the Council’s work and the main reason for the disruption of its role, entailing many tragedies, especially in the Middle East. We meet here today in accordance with resolution 76/262, which was adopted as a direct result of the initiative of the State of Liechtenstein to grant the General Assembly a permanent mandate to hold an open debate every time the veto is used. We welcome that resolution and all efforts aimed at limiting the use of the veto, but we also emphasize the following points. First, all initiatives and efforts aimed at stopping or limiting the use of the veto complement but do not replace real reform of the veto and its use within a comprehensive reform package for the Security Council, in accordance with decision 62/557 and its five components. Secondly, the best reform of the veto is to abolish it completely so that no country enjoys preference or priority over another in the Security Council. However, if that is not possible, for reasons we all know, it would be fair and logical to grant the veto to any new permanent members of the Council, including the two desired permanent African members, in accordance with the unified African position stipulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. Thirdly, the intergovernmental negotiations to reform the Security Council remain the only and exclusive forum for consultation among Member States on that issue, leading to the adoption of a comprehensive reform package based on the widest possible political acceptance, contributing to achieving fair representation in the Council and making the decision-making process more democratic, while enhancing the values of transparency, accountability and efficiency.

Two years ago, the General Assembly adopted resolution 76/262 on the consideration of the cases of veto in the Security Council. It can be stated that during this time the resolution has not been able to prove its added value. That is not surprising, because it was conceived primarily as a vehicle for self-promotion for the authors, who decided to exploit for their own purposes the fact that, in conditions of steadily increasing turbulence in international relations, the opportunities for finding a compromise on complex issues of international peace and security in the Council have significantly decreased. At the same time, apologists for attacks on the Security Council try not to notice the intense, sometimes round-the-clock work of the Security Council members in an effort to find a compromise. The parties in the best position to confirm that are the States that recently left the Council after two years of being non-permanent members. It is only when it has become obvious that a compromise cannot be found, or if the initiative thrown into the Security Council was originally conceived solely as a way to compromise the opponent, that the veto is applied. At the same time, the supporters of this controversial idea, which allows them to praise themselves for its implementation from the Assembly rostrum once a year, operate exclusively on the basis of statistics and do not try to analyse the reasons and consequences of the use of the veto by permanent members of the Security Council in each specific case. Those circumstances are extremely important. For example, since October 2023 our American colleagues have used the veto four times so as to ensure that nothing would prevent Israel from pursuing, in violation of the principles of international humanitarian law, its inhuman operation in Gaza, the number of victims of which has risen to more than 34,000 peaceful Palestinians, most of them women and children; and once to block Palestine’s membership of the United Nations. They did so and continue to do so contrary to the will of the overwhelming majority of United Nations Members, reflected in particular in resolution ES-10/22, which was adopted by the General Assembly at the resumed emergency special session on 12 December 2023 (see A/ES-10/PV.45) and supported by 153 States. And yet, for example, the decision taken by us and our Chinese colleagues to veto the American draft resolution on Gaza (draft resolution S/2024/239) on 22 March (see S/PV.9584) allowed the Council three days later to adopt the condensed resolution 2728 (2024), prepared by the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council, the core of which was a direct demand for an immediate ceasefire for the period of Ramadan, which was supposed to lead to a sustainable ceasefire. Accordingly, it was the only correct one and reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of members of the international community. That situation is the best response to those who criticize the existence of the veto power of the five permanent members and the best confirmation of the senselessness of the mechanistic approach of the initiators of today’s discussion, because none of them have even mentioned that qualitative difference. We have consistently stated both in the Security Council Chamber and in the framework of intergovernmental negotiations on Council reform that the veto power of its permanent members is the cornerstone of the entire United Nations architecture. Without it, the Council would be a body rubber- stamping dubious decisions imposed by a conditional majority, the implementation of which would hardly be possible. Of course, the veto is the most extreme measure when other options for solutions have been exhausted. Russia has never hidden its reasons for using the veto power, and we are ready to explain them in the future, including in the General Assembly. All such statements are publicly available. However, we should not forget that the veto is an integral right, a full-fledged part of the mechanisms enshrined in Article 27 of the United Nations Charter. Its use violates nothing. We are convinced that it is not the veto itself that should be criticized, but the unwillingness of some Council members to hear and take into account the opinions of others with a view to finding compromise and balanced solutions. The example I gave of the United States covering up Israel’s actions in Gaza is the best illustration of that. It is also necessary to criticize those who do not implement the provisions of Security Council resolutions, deliberately ignore them or interpret them freely. The international community, in particular, is still confused by the United States statement to the effect that Council resolutions are not legally binding. That is in itself a clear violation of the United Nations Charter. Among such resolutions consistently sabotaged by Western colleagues are decisions on Palestine, Western Sahara, the Kosovo settlement and the Iranian nuclear programme. At one time, they tried to ignore the Minsk agreements on the settlement of the intra-Ukrainian conflict, approved under a Security Council resolution. We are now all witnessing the outcome of that criminal and short-sighted policy with our own eyes. We urge our colleagues, instead of engaging in today’s useless discussion about the right of veto, which essentially boils down to blanket criticism of the Security Council, to consider the need for a clear division of labour between the Security Council and the General Assembly so as to ensure that neither of those bodies encroaches on the prerogatives of the other and that both act strictly in accordance with the United Nations Charter. That will benefit both our global Organization and the entire system of international relations, which is undergoing a difficult transformation and genuine multilateralism.

We appreciate the call today to discuss a topic of relevance to the United Nations peace and security pillar, which is the use of the veto within the framework of the Security Council. My delegation supports the joint statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the veto initiative. Guatemala was one of the 83 Member States that promoted resolution 76/262, “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, and applauds the fact that, for the second consecutive year, a topic that unfortunately concerns us all has been included and retained in the General Assembly’s programme of work. The vetoes of the draft resolutions on the renewal of border crossings for humanitarian operations in the north-west of the Syrian Arab Republic; the renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 2374 (2017) concerning Mali; the renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the condemnation of the unprovoked and unjustified aggression against Ukraine; the condemnation of Hamas’ terrorist attacks against Israel; the condemnation of Israel’s disproportionate response to Gaza; a ceasefire to allow for the resumption of dialogue towards a two-State solution, and most recently, the veto of Palestine’s membership as a full Member of the United Nations have once again exposed the paralysis of the highest organ responsible for maintaining international peace and security. We recognize the work of the non-permanent members in submitting and negotiating three resolutions on the humanitarian situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, which were adopted by the Security Council. However, so long as resolutions addressing the causes of the conflict continue to be vetoed, crises will continue to escalate and the Council will fail to fulfil its fundamental obligation to preserve world peace and security. The Security Council must be consistent in its functions, as established in the Charter of the United Nations. It is therefore more urgent than ever to carry out reforms in order to avoid the exacerbation of regional and global crises. In that regard, Guatemala is carefully analysing the various proposals that have been presented to date in the intergovernmental negotiations process regarding the issues of equitable representation, increase in the membership of the Security Council and the duty to use the veto responsibly. We welcome the full implementation of the “Uniting for peace” resolution 377 (V), which has allowed the convening of a special emergency session of the General Assembly when, due to a lack of unanimity among the permanent members, the Security Council is unable to fulfil its functions. That resolution has been a useful mechanism for involving the international community in decision-making on maintaining peace and security, but unfortunately it does not substantially change the problem of the use of the veto. On the other hand, once again we strongly urge the permanent members to avoid the use of the veto when it comes to preventing or stopping situations involving mass atrocities, in accordance with the Franco-Mexican initiative, which our country supports, based on the normative political premise of the responsibility to protect. Guatemala is in favour of a restriction on the use of the veto, as contemplated in the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct. We demand that the Security Council, in particular the permanent members, rise to the occasion, comply with their obligations in matters of international peace and security and thereby avoid further bloodshed, especially among the civilian population, serious humanitarian crises and underdevelopment. We unequivocally reiterate the urgent need to put an end to all aggression and seek a peaceful solution to conflicts, with unrestricted respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, human rights and the security of all. We cannot tolerate expressions of war, which affect all in the community of nations.

South Africa appreciates the convening of this General Assembly debate on the veto initiative. While the adoption of resolution 76/262 continues to bring attention to the invocation of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, requiring all decisions of the Security Council on substantive matters to include the concurring vote of the permanent members, we do not believe that the initiative obviates the need for urgent Security Council reform, which will address the structural challenges within the Council itself. In fact, the deficiencies in the Council have been made all the more glaring with the increasing number of General Assembly debates on items on which the veto has been used in the Council. Indeed, we have seen the rift and challenges in the Council become more pronounced during this period of increased geopolitical tensions. While the world is witnessing what the International Court of Justice has concluded is a plausible case of genocide in Gaza, the Council is unable to act and we continue to witness the credibility and determination of the United Nations to save succeeding generation from the scourge of war being called into question. Achieving that purpose appears to be farther and farther away from becoming a reality. South Africa continues to reaffirm the central role and authority of the General Assembly as the most inclusive, representative and democratic organ of the United Nations. The General Assembly therefore needs to be able to hold the Security Council accountable and, at the same time, allow the Council to execute its mandate. When the Council is deadlocked, bringing the matter to the General Assembly must be aimed at breaking the impasse in the Council and not at perpetuating the divisions. We should also recognize that the more frequent use of the veto, as we have seen recently, signals an increasing lack of unity in the Council. The Charter makes clear that the Security Council acts on behalf of the broader States Members of the United Nations. If the Council displays failures in that regard, the General Assembly must not reinforce those failures, but instead lead the international community onto a path of resolution. Despite the earnest attempts of Member States to do just that, the moral voice and persuasiveness of the General Assembly is being ignored. We therefore need to consider whether the veto initiative has fulfilled its objective of accountability, and what exactly that accountability means in terms of Article 10 of the Charter, on the General Assembly’s role, and Article 24, paragraph 1, on the Council’s circumscribed responsibility to the broader United Nations membership. In that regard, it would be important to bear in mind that the General Assembly cannot make any recommendations with regard to a dispute or situation being considered by the Security Council during any regular meeting. However, that should not have to mean that the wider United Nations membership needs to be powerless in the face of mass atrocities or the threat of genocide. Instead, it may be worth exploring how the General Assembly may be able to make its position known on such issues, which can be considered an effort to promote unity within the Council when it is at an impasse. Therefore, focus should remain firmly on giving greater momentum to the reform of the Security Council itself. We must move away from merely responding to crises and make a more concerted effort to prevent them, as well as to address their root causes. A reformed Council, as well as a revitalized General Assembly, could make that a reality. In conclusion, my delegation will continue to work constructively and participate actively in the processes both to revitalize the General Assembly, and to reform the Security Council, so that we do not have to resort to piecemeal approaches to making the United Nations and its organs more efficient, effective, inclusive, transparent and fit for purpose.

We are pleased to participate in this annual debate of the General Assembly on agenda item 63, “Use of the veto right”, pursuant to resolution 76/262. Qatar was among the core group of States that submitted the resolution. We associate ourselves with the statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of States committed to the implementation of the resolution. We take this opportunity to commend the initiative of preparing summaries of the Assembly’s meetings pursuant to the same resolution, which contributes to its effective implementation. The State of Qatar is closely following this initiative, recognizing its importance in embodying the vital role of the General Assembly under the Charter of the United Nations, which grants the Assembly jurisdiction in matters related to maintaining international peace and security. As the most representative organ of the United Nations, it is critical for the General Assembly to continue to play that role and to continue to debate all issues on which the veto is exercised, especially those with economic, human, social and legal dimensions. Since the resolution was adopted, the General Assembly has played a growing role in maintaining international peace and security. The initiative has helped build a more effective and complementary relationship between the two organs in the context of maintaining international peace and security. In that context, it is worth noting that the General Assembly has held five meetings since the beginning of the current session, including three on the situation in the Gaza Strip, given the Security Council’s repeated inability and failure to shoulder its responsibilities and respond to that catastrophic and unprecedented humanitarian situation. Those meetings followed the exercise of the veto by permanent members of the Security Council. The General Assembly has thus had an important opportunity to discuss the situation seriously, reflecting the global unanimity in favour of immediately ending the hostility against the Gaza Strip, sparing the blood of and protecting our Palestinian brothers under international humanitarian law. As we explained when we adopted resolution 76/262 (see A/76/PV.69), the resolution does not seek to infringe on the mandate of the Security Council. It is limited to the role and functions of the General Assembly, in line with its mandate under the Charter. It does not affect the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council with respect to the right of the veto. However, we believe that the adoption of the resolution and the subsequent discussions in the General Assembly of the various issues on which the veto has been exercised will contribute to reaching a consensus and to avoiding the use of the veto on those questions in the future. That would allow the Security Council to discharge its responsibilities in maintaining international peace and Security. In conclusion, the State of Qatar, in its commitment to multilateralism, emphasizes the central role played by the General Assembly as the most representative and inclusive organ of the United Nations. We should build on the initiative by allowing the Assembly to submit recommendations on matters on which the Security Council has failed to discharge its role and responsibilities, especially those pertaining to blatant violations of human rights and major threats to international peace and security.

I thank President Francis for convening this important debate on the use of the veto. Slovenia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries committed to the implementation of resolution 76/262. We are deeply worried over the surge in the use of veto power over the past 24 years, which has marked a rise of divisions in the Security Council. It has prevented the Security Council from pronouncing itself and acting on several situations representing a threat to international peace and security. Another year has passed since the General Assembly adopted the landmark resolution 76/262, establishing the mandate for the General Assembly to hold a debate every time a veto is cast in the Security Council. It has also been a year since we held our first debate on the use of the veto (see A/77/PV.68 et seq.) to reflect on the impacts of the veto initiative. We had hoped that the initiative would have a deterring effect and that we would not need to use the mechanism very often. It is therefore particularly concerning that, already in the first year of its existence, the General Assembly had to convene three times to discuss the use of vetoes blocking the adoption of draft resolutions on peace and security issues. Regrettably, the trend is moving even further in the wrong direction. Since our last debate in April 2023, the veto has been cast nine times — four times already this year — preventing the Security Council’s urgently needed action on Gaza, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mali and Syria. We should see that not only as a story of statistics but as an example of the Security Council’s inability to deliver on its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. They are the stories of lost lives, shattered dreams, endless suffering and lost hope in those who, 79 years ago, were entrusted with the power to prevent such tragedies. Therefore, we believe that it is important for the Security Council to regularly reflect on the use of the veto in its annual report to the General Assembly. The right of the veto is not a privilege. On the contrary, it is a power that carries the highest degree of responsibility for those holding it. Therefore, it must be used responsibly, transparently and with full accountability. It should never be abused or used to block urgently needed action to maintain peace and security. For that reason, Slovenia supports initiatives that limit the use of the veto. As a member of the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency group, Slovenia advocates for the code of conduct with regard to the use of the veto in Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Furthermore, we support the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, launched by France and Mexico. We encourage those Member States that have not yet done so to join those important initiatives. With the veto initiative, the membership demanded greater accountability from the Security Council for its decisions not to act on its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It is an important step towards delivering on our commitment to taking effective collective measures to prevent and remove threats to international peace and security. Slovenia not only supported the resolution on the veto initiative but also co-sponsored it and has actively participated in all of the debates of the General Assembly after a veto has been cast in the Security Council. Furthermore, during our term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, we have spared no effort to try to facilitate positive outcomes in the work of the Council.

As a member of the core group of States that introduced resolution 76/262, also known as the veto initiative, two years ago, Bulgaria fully subscribes to the joint statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of States committed to its implementation. We would like to add our voice to those who have already welcomed the structural shift the veto initiative has brought to the relations between the General Assembly and the Security Council towards increased transparency and accountability in the work of the latter. The veto initiative has also had a real political effect on the modus operandi of the General Assembly. The debates, the special reports and the practice of the President of the General Assembly to produce summaries of the debates increase the avenues through which the veto initiative is receiving significant attention across Member States and can reach the wider public. The veto initiative has already received a positive reflection in the report of the High-Level Advisory Board on Effective Multilateralism, and expectations are growing that it will be recognized in the pact for the future as a critical tool to further expand, in accordance with the Charter, the role of the General Assembly on issues of peace and security. The veto initiative is a powerful tool to remind every permanent member of the Security Council that through Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations, we Member States have conferred on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and have agreed that, in carrying out its duties under that responsibility, the Security Council shall act on our behalf. Therefore, casting a veto will result in facing the full membership and hearing whether or not the membership agrees that the use of the veto has in fact benefitted peace and security. In that regard, we call on Security Council members to consistently implement and observe the provisions of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter. While that Charter provision is addressed to each Council member, it carries special weight for the permanent five, since the permanent Council members should not veto actions aimed at the maintenance of international peace and security solely to protect their own national interest. Debates in the General Assembly should be constructive and seek solutions related to the subject of the Council’s veto. It is exactly for that reason and for the sake of the credibility and effectiveness of the Organization that the General Assembly should make full use of its powers under Article 11 of the Charter and not shy from exercising its authority to recommend actions to the Security Council on questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. In conclusion, for my delegation today’s debate represents a valuable opportunity to chart new avenues for multilateralism and cooperation and to build trust among the two key organs of our Organization. As we look at how to build upon the veto initiative and find ways for the General Assembly to act when the Council cannot or will not, we should remember not only that each veto cast highlights the paralysis of the Security Council and damages effective multilateralism, but that, first and foremost, the exercise of the veto increases the suffering of civilian populations in conflict-torn areas. In that regard, initiatives like the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct and the French-Mexican Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity are already available and credible steps towards making the Council better equipped to respond to twenty-first century challenges and merit the support of all members of the Assembly.

The General Assembly must be able to fully assume the important role granted to it by the Charter of the United Nations in matters of international peace and security. The mandate of the Assembly with respect to those issues has been seriously affected by the growing tendency of the Security Council to usurp its functions and to increasingly broaden the scope of the definition of international peace and security, to the detriment of the responsibilities that fall to the most democratic and representative organ of the United Nations system. With regard to the mandate that gives rise to the exercise we are carrying out today, my delegation recorded its considerations when resolution 76/262 was adopted (see A/76/PV.69). However, I reiterate that, in Cuba’s view, the provisions of paragraph 4 of resolution 76/262, on the inclusion of the item “Use of the veto” as a standing item on the General Assembly’s agenda, cannot in any way be interpreted as prejudicing the indissoluble links that exist between the five issues addressed by the intergovernmental process on the reform of the Security Council, under decision 62/557. The issue of the veto should not be analysed separately from the other issues under the mandate of the intergovernmental negotiations. Otherwise, the comprehensive reform of the Council that we need could not be achieved. The five key issues identified for the reform of that organ, which include the issue of the veto, are closely related and form a package. At the same time, we insist that it is insufficient to limit the presentation of special reports by the Security Council to cases in which the veto has been used. That would be a clearly restrictive and selective approach to what the Charter establishes in its Articles 15, paragraph 1, and 24, paragraph 3. On the contrary, the Security Council is obliged to submit special reports for consideration by the General Assembly whenever necessary and not only for issues related to the veto. Finally, we recall that the mandate of resolution 76/262 does not replace the provisions of rules 8 (b) and 9 (b) of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, on the convening of emergency special sessions. As for the Council, we advocate once again for an urgent and comprehensive reform of the Security Council so as to make it the representative, democratic and transparent body that the international community demands. This meeting is being convened a few days after the United States Government once again used the anti-democratic and obsolete veto power to protect Israel. The United States must stop blocking Palestine’s entry into the United Nations. The double standards and selectivity of the United States Government, which constantly invents new tricks to guarantee Israel’s impunity and exonerate it from responsibility for the war crimes and crimes against humanity it has committed, increasingly undermine the credibility of the already discredited Security Council.

I would like to commend President Francis for convening once again this important debate on the use of the veto. We commend Liechtenstein for the veto initiative and welcome resolution 76/262 and the achievements made so far, especially on the transparency and accountability of the work of the Security Council. With a number of conflicts worldwide and in the face of escalating violence and the current situation in the Middle East, consensus has proved elusive among the veto-casting permanent members, impeding effective action to address the deteriorating security challenges confronting the world. Those security challenges, including the use of the veto, have been debated repeatedly, yet we are experiencing widening, deepening and ever newer conflicts. The proliferation of vetoes recently has hindered the opportunity to address the current situation in the Middle East. The United Nations was created against the backdrop of the collapse of international order and experiences of wars, hunger and human suffering. However, 80 years later we are still experiencing even worse situations that should have been abated by the action or inaction of the five permanent members of the Council, which should be held responsible. It is therefore contingent upon every Member State, including those with the veto, to abide by and defend the rules-based order, in accordance with the principles and objectives enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, as there is no substitute for a multilateral approach to addressing global issues, including the current situation unfolding before us. The Security Council must continue to be a voice of reason and moderation and must never fail to work, within the framework of the United Nations Charter, for international peace and security, human progress, justice and sustainable development. We must all seek new and utilize existing solutions to address the many conflicts in the world. With recent developments, the veto has become a weapon of self-interest, and that is why my delegation joins and supports the call for restraint, prohibition or abolition of the use of veto. The world has become more divided by geopolitical tensions, and it is obvious that the Security Council has been politicized and is incapacitated to effectively uphold its mandate on the maintenance of international peace and security. We therefore call for a transformed and transparent multilateral system devoid of selectivity and double standards. Nigeria calls on the permanent members of the Security Council to assume their responsibilities. We must be predisposed to steps that ensure the Organization’s importance by working assiduously to accomplish meaningful reform of the system, including by addressing the misuse of the veto for political interest. Nigeria remains fully committed to the need for a comprehensive reform of the United Nations system that would contribute to upholding the principles, objectives and ideals of the United Nations Charter for a fairer world based on universalism, equity and regional balance. A transformed and expanded structure will ensure the full participation of the African region and other regions that continue to be marginalized in the decisions of the Council, as well as to instil much-needed values, restore confidence, enhance the legitimacy of the work of the Security Council and contribute to peace and security. In conclusion, the international community must take concerted decisions for the achievement of a lasting solution based on the international principles enshrined in the Charter and relevant resolutions, and we call on Council members to abide by the rules and be transparent and accountable in the use of the veto.

Resolution 76/262 was initiated two years ago under extremely challenging circumstances. A nuclear-armed permanent member of the Security Council and veto-holder had started a brutal and illegal war of aggression against its neighbour — a neighbour that previously had renounced its nuclear arsenal, trusting that it would be protected against aggression by international agreements and international law, not least the Charter of the United Nations. The Security Council was not able to fulfil its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security at that stage. That is the background of the resolution we are debating here, which Germany co-sponsored. We are grateful to Liechtenstein for that initiative. Two years later, the veto initiative has clearly made a difference. First, the resolution has led to the increased transparency and accountability of the Security Council and enabled the General Assembly to engage more widely on matters of international peace and security when the Security Council has been unable to fulfil its primary responsibility due to a veto. In such instances, it is key that the broader United Nations membership be not only informed of the reasons for that inability, but also given the opportunity to express its opinion in the General Assembly. Secondly, the initiative is part of a bigger question with regard to a more restricted use of the veto. Germany fully supports in particular the French- Mexican initiative and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct, both aimed at halting or averting atrocity crimes. We call on other Member States to support those initiatives. Finally, transparency, efficiency and accountability within the Security Council’s operational framework are fundamental to its effectiveness and legitimacy. In that logic, we see the veto initiative as part of the necessary efforts towards a comprehensive reform of the Security Council.

We align ourselves today with the statement delivered today by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the veto initiative group. I should like to add the following points. The past two years have been marked by a resurgence of the use of the veto. While the veto power draws its origins from the Charter itself, there is no doubt that there is room to address more consistently the high responsibility that comes with it and its relationship to accountability. We recall that the General Assembly adopted by consensus resolution 76/262, on the veto initiative, which calls for the Assembly to meet whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council. Its consensual adoption and large number of sponsors are an indication of the value and relevance of the resolution to the entire United Nations membership. Romania was one of the sponsors. We continue to believe in the value and relevance of that tool. It acts as a bridge between the Security Council and the General Assembly, fosters a sense of accountability among the permanent members of the Council, and highlights the strength of the General Assembly. We hope that, in the long run, the voice of the General Assembly will be further reinforced and that the initiative will serve as a moral compass, leading to a more careful and responsible use of the veto. Ultimately, the veto initiative is a procedural tool. It cannot compensate for the lack of political will or willingness to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. The provisions of the Charter and the existing rich international law framework are sufficient to address the full range of threats to international peace and security. What is needed is a firm commitment to the rules of international law in all situations, greater support for international institutions and a Security Council that is perceived as taking effective and legitimate action. We would be remiss if we did not mention that the veto initiative complements previous efforts, such as the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, initiated by France and Mexico, which is aimed at having the permanent members voluntarily pledge not to use the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes on a large scale, as well as the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct. Romania supports both initiatives. Lastly, Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter, stating that “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”, is an expression of the consensus that the five permanent members once achieved and is underutilized. There is no doubt that vetoes affect the Council’s ability to address some of the most serious violations of the United Nations Charter and international law. The veto initiative provided a much-needed innovation and a stepping stone for the increased accountability of the Council before the entire international community. The Council cannot afford to ignore the growing voices in the Hall any longer.

This year marks the second anniversary of the adoption of resolution 76/262, the so-called veto initiative. As we have seen the repeated use of the veto over the past two years, we cannot stress enough the importance of that initiative as a mechanism for holding the Security Council accountable to the entire United Nations membership. Despite the clear mandate of the Council as the chief guarantor of the maintenance of international peace and security, it is a horrible reality that a permanent member has invaded another sovereign State, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, while protecting its own national interest through the use or threat of use of the veto. Member States have witnessed the Council unable to take necessary actions on the some of the most critical issues of the day, which has significantly undermined the legitimacy of the Council and the United Nations as a whole. That must be rectified. The veto initiative is important, but it is a retroactive measure and unfortunately, in our view, not sufficient to deter the use of the veto. The majority of the Member States believe that, at a minimum, it is necessary to introduce measures to limit the use of the veto in certain circumstances. The Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, initiated by France and Mexico, and the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group’s code of conduct with regard to Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are valuable initiatives for that purpose. We urge all permanent members of the Council that have not done so to commit to voluntary restraint in the use of the veto without delay and, once committed, to implement it accordingly. The veto is another example of the existing imbalance within the Security Council on top of the permanency of the five States. We need to reform the Council as soon as possible so that it can better reflect today’s reality rather than that of 80 years ago. Let us do that together.

I thank President Francis for convening today’s meeting. A discussion on the use of veto is pertinent, especially as we have witnessed how, in the past few months, the Security Council has been paralysed from taking urgent actions to save lives due to the casting of a veto. That must change, and the adoption of resolution 76/262 under this agenda item is a step in the right direction. The veto initiative has enabled all Member States to give their views on difficult issues that fail to reach the consensus in the Council. But it must not stop there. The resolution is not an end in itself. It is, in fact, a means to an end. Allow me to put forward three points in that regard. First, the resolution must be utilized to restore the credibility of the Council. It must be a catalyst for the Council to resolve the agenda item in question, and it must provide further impetus to ensure that Council members, in particular those with veto power, carry out their mandate to address international peace and security and, in doing so, send a clear message to the world that the Council works effectively. Secondly, the resolution must improve in a more substantive way the complementary role of the General Assembly to the Security Council. Our deliberations must further empower the role of the General Assembly and should contribute not only to the discussion of Security Council reform, but also to the revitalization of the General Assembly. In that regard, we welcome the summaries of the Office of the President of the General Assembly on this agenda item, which will not only strengthen the institutional memory of the General Assembly, but also serve as an input to the process of General Assembly revitalization, as well as a point of reference for the Security Council to resolve the matter at hand. Thirdly, the resolution should not and cannot be used as a substitute to ongoing discussion on Security Council reform, including on the question of veto. The resolution is a temporary fail-safe mechanism while the veto has not yet been abolished. As we move forward, the right of the veto should be seen as an antiquated privilege that should be phased out. The overall work of the multilateral system will be defined by the effectiveness of the work of the United Nations. High political commitment must be exercised to reform the United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, to be more fit for purpose. While progress needs to be made on that matter under the intergovernmental negotiations, we also need to reflect our highest commitment to reforming the Council and the overall multilateral system in the pact for the future. Members of the Assembly may rest assured of Indonesia’s commitment and continued support in the recalibration of a more democratic and accountable Security Council.

On behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, I extend our gratitude for the convening of this annual debate on the use of the veto. The Kingdom of the Netherlands proudly co-sponsored resolution 76/262, better known as the veto initiative. We align ourselves with the group statement that was delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein, the champion of that wonderful initiative, and in our national capacity I would like to make three points. First, the veto initiative marks a pivotal step towards enhancing the accountability of the Security Council regarding peace and security matters, because General Assembly debates now take place whenever a Security Council veto occurs. Importantly, the power of the veto is not merely a privilege; it really is a responsibility. So far, we have seen more recent use of vetoes. That increased number of vetoes and ensuing General Assembly debates all reflect the urgency and necessity of the initiative, as has also been demonstrated by the very active participation of many Member States in each General Assembly debate. Collectively, that clear reflects the broadly shared demand for the accountability of the Security Council. Secondly, the veto initiative encourages greater General Assembly involvement in the realm of international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. While we fully acknowledge the primary responsibility of the Security Council, we believe that the General Assembly also has a significant role to play here. The veto initiative has facilitated the General Assembly’s discussions on peace and security and possible actions following Security Council vetoes. That contributes to strengthening the General Assembly’s very necessary peace and security role, as set out in Chapter IV of the Charter. In that regard, we commend the President’s commitment to producing a digital handbook on the Assembly’s peace and security role during his tenure. The digital handbook will empower the General Assembly to more actively engage on matters related to peace and security, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The handbook can thus be a very useful tool. Lastly, the veto initiative marks a significant shift in the dynamics between the Security Council and the General Assembly. It has fostered a more symbiotic and mutually supportive relationship in addressing peace and security challenges. Importantly, the veto no longer ends or stifles discussions; rather, both the Security Council and the General Assembly are now encouraged to collaborate in preserving global peace and security. We consider that increased collaboration to be really essential. In conclusion, the Kingdom of the Netherlands reaffirms its unwavering support for the veto initiative. Assembly members can also count on our active engagement in discussions aimed at further strengthening Council accountability and fostering stronger General Assembly-Security Council cooperation in peace and security matters.

I thank President Francis for convening this debate on the use of the veto, pursuant to resolution 76/262. Kenya aligns itself with the statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of the veto initiative countries. On 11 April (see A/77/PV.69), Kenya decried before the Assembly the negative vote cast in the Security Council on 28 March (see S/PV.9591), with respect to the renewal of the mandate for the Panel of Experts of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We noted that, lacking the expertise of the Panel, Member States would struggle to comply with the Council’s resolutions to denuclearize the Korean peninsula, thereby posing a major threat to international peace and security. We recall the hard compromises made at the Yalta Conference of February 1945, which were critical to the formation of the United Nations and its embrace of collective security. Given the subject of the debate a couple of weeks ago, we could not help but notice that a few months after Yalta, the nuclear bomb was used for the first and only time in anger, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of that year. The introduction of nuclear weapons marked a watershed in international relations. It is well documented that the creation of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council with its veto powers, occurred at a time when the long-term implications of nuclear weaponry were not fully understood. For instance, in 1950, the adoption of Security Council resolutions 82 (1950) and 83 (1950) led to a United Nations military intervention in Korea, and the use of the nuclear threat as a form of deterrence was attempted, with little success. However, the utility of those weapons soon became obvious. The early Cold War years marked the beginning of a nuclear arms race. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction developed during that period served as a grim deterrence strategy. Every permanent member of the Security Council is now a nuclear Power. They have gone to great lengths to develop sophisticated doctrines of use to deter major conventional attacks or the use of nuclear weapons. In the tense days of the Cold War, eminent strategists assured the world that those weapons were necessary to the global balance of power to which we owed our collective security. In many ways, the future of humankind depends on whether those weapons are used or not used by the major Powers, including every permanent member of the Security Council. Must we remain permanently on this precipice? We need to consider the role that the veto plays in serious efforts to rid the world of that existential threat, since it enables the permanent members to block actions that could lead to meaningful disarmament. In that way, the veto plays a crucial role in the global governance of nuclear weapons and helps perpetuate an existential threat to every single human being. We therefore encourage a broad and deep inquiry into the continuing utility of the veto as a critical tool in maintaining a global balance of power. We must examine its effectiveness in preventing world war, considering the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. Additionally, as part of Security Council reform, it would be beneficial to assess the attitudes of Member States vying for possession of the right of the veto towards nuclear weapons use and disarmament. While the right of the veto has often been defended by those that possess it as a means to prevent armed confrontations among major military Powers, its role in the nuclear age may be exaggerated. If that is the case, it could make it easier for us to embrace the French- Mexican proposal that seeks to prevent the use of the veto from obstructing United Nations resolutions that are aimed at addressing and halting genocides, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We can also insist that all permanent members of the Council and potential new members in the permanent category subscribe to strong nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament norms, and that the present conduct of the potential new permanent members with regard to peace and security be considered in their bid. In line with the African Union proposal, we can also seriously consider abolishing the veto as we undertake a reform that makes the Council more representative, democratic, transparent, accountable and effective. I close by reiterating our pride in having been a key sponsor of resolution 76/262. We urge Member States to continue using it as a platform to explore new ideas and, just as crucially, to hold the use of the veto to account in increasingly innovative and bold ways.

I thank President Francis for convening this meeting, which marks two years since the adoption of resolution 76/262, known as the veto initiative. It provides an opportunity to take stock of its implementation. Pursuant to resolution 76/262, the General Assembly has held several debates on the use of the veto in the Security Council. Such debates have proved to be timely and useful. Unfortunately, they have not been able to prevent the abuse of the veto power. The veto initiative is a step forward in further empowering the General Assembly to develop and voice its perspectives on issues related to international peace and security. Those perspectives should be duly taken into consideration in the Council’s decision-making process, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. While the veto initiative is a welcome development in exposing the Security Council’s ineffectiveness and dysfunctionality, it does not tackle one of the main root causes of that problem, which is the Council’s anachronistic composition. Indeed, a symptom rather than a cause, the repeated use of the veto is a clear expression of the great divide that renders the Council incapable of compromise and of acting in major conflicts. We will continue to witness the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Security Council as long as developing countries remain sidelined and whole regions, such as Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa, are not represented among the permanent members. That is why veto reform alone will not solve the paralysis or correct the ineffectiveness of the Council; the expansion of both categories of membership is also vital. That is key to a true and consequential reform. And we must go further. Security Council reform should be seen as part of a larger, holistic approach to reform, with a comprehensive and integrated view of the changes needed throughout the United Nations system. Each of the United Nations main organs and subsidiary bodies must be examined and adjusted to ensure that they are equipped for their intended purposes. In our discussions leading up to this year’s summit of the future, we are assessing and identifying the specific areas that require transformation to better address the evolving challenges in a fast-changing and volatile geopolitical environment. Even a comprehensive reform of the United Nations is not enough, nor can it be seen in isolation. The whole architecture of global governance must be made fit for purpose again. We need ambition and political courage. Brazil, including in its current capacity as the Group of 20 presidency, is firmly committed to such a reform — a comprehensive, transformative and equitable reform that strengthens the multilateral system to meet the needs of our time. We kindly but firmly encourage all the United Nations membership to commit to that urgent task.

It has been two years since the General Assembly took the landmark decision to adopt by consensus resolution 76/262, “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. In the intervening period, the veto initiative has played a demonstratively meaningful role in ensuring greater accountability between United Nations organs, in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, the veto initiative has better equipped members of the General Assembly to exercise our collective political responsibility to address matters of international peace and security where the Security Council has otherwise failed to do so. The veto initiative has not put an end to the use of the veto. Since its adoption, 13 vetoes have been cast with increased frequency over the past 12 months. That is 13 too many. Vetoes that have had real implications for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the many millions of people around the globe currently living under the spectre of war or conflict. New Zealand has been a consistent and vocal opponent of the veto since 1945. Our position that the veto should never be used remains unchanged. Therefore, while we would have preferred that no veto had been cast, we are encouraged to see that the veto initiative has nevertheless led to meaningful results. On every occasion a veto has been cast, the Security Council has produced a special report, and on each occasion the caster of the veto has appeared before the General Assembly to explain its reasoning for doing so. Member States have engaged actively and in number in veto initiative debates, demonstrating the paramount importance Members place on the maintenance of international peace and security. Faced with the prospect of ongoing paralysis in the Security Council across many issues of international peace and security, New Zealand strongly believes that we must redouble our efforts to protect the credibility of the United Nations. As a proud proponent of the veto initiative, we are working closely with partners to consider ways in which to further enhance the accountability and effectiveness of the Security Council in upholding its primary responsibilities. In that regard, we fully align ourselves with the statement delivered by the representative of Liechtenstein this morning. We support efforts to further promulgate the veto initiative through other ongoing processes and for the General Assembly to take action, such as the adoption of recommendations and products in circumstances where the Security Council has failed to do so.

I thank President Francis for convening this important debate. The United States was pleased to co-sponsor resolution 76/262 in 2022 and was gratified that it was adopted by consensus. We continue to believe that the veto initiative is an important innovation to increase transparency and accountability in the Security Council. The five United Nations Member States that have been granted the right to veto draft resolutions in the Security Council bear a special responsibility. The veto initiative affords a member that has vetoed a draft resolution an opportunity to explain itself to the full General Assembly and also gives all of the United Nations Member States an opportunity to express their views on the veto that was cast. The United States has participated actively in the implementation of resolution 76/262. In 2022, the United States prepared the first draft of the special report on the use of the veto, as requested in that resolution, because the first veto cast after its adoption was during the United States presidency of the Council. The United States has been pleased to see that the Council has consistently followed a practice of preparing and submitting such special reports each time a veto has been cast, no matter which member State cast the veto. The United States has also taken the opportunity to explain its vetoes when meetings have been convened under the auspices of the veto initiative or during meetings of the tenth emergency special session. We recognize that the veto is at times controversial. That is why the veto initiative is so important to increase transparency and accountability on one of the most contentious aspects of the Security Council’s operations. We look forward to continuing to engage openly and candidly on that challenging and difficult issue.