News

I thank you for convening this meeting. Our full support to your efforts to move the process forward. My delegation believes that the use of veto as currently practiced is damaging the credibility of the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole.  We live in a world of unprecedented crises and human displacement.  The Nordic countries, Australia and some others before me have referred to the crisis in Syria. Indeed, while other unfortunate examples exist, including the blocking by veto of a tribunal for the downing of MH17, the four Syria vetoes mean to protect perpetrators at the cost of the victims stand out in particular, with unparalleled consequences.   

In the recent years an increasing number of states have rallied behind two specific veto related initiatives: the Franco-Mexican initiative calling for veto restraint in situations of massive human rights violations, genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and ACT initiative on the code of conduct. My country strongly supports both of these initiatives.   

While many call for the abolition of veto, we believe we have to be realistic about the chances of such a major step and   focus on the two initiatives on veto restraint, supported by over a hundred member states.  Existing country positions on the matter offer solid ground for convergence  and could be streamlined accordingly, in the process of producing a shorter updated version of the text, alongside other points of convergence that  have been listed by L69, CARICOM, and others.  

My delegation is also open to further discussion and streamlining of country positions on other issues, including the calls to explain veto use to the wider membership regarding the consistency of such use with the purposes and principles of the Charter; or a modified veto system whereby more than one veto would be required to block a resolution.

We note with interest proposals by some member states on the issue of the use of veto by permanent members in cases where they are a direct party to a dispute or where they have committed an act of aggression against another country.  We therefore see merit in and are ready to further consider proposals by Georgia and some other countries relating to Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter, which states clearly that “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”.

With regard to the extension of veto right to new permanent members, we concur with the view that as a matter of principle all permanent members should have the same rights and obligations. This being said, our overall objective should be less veto, not more. 

At the same time we have to be conscious of a possibility that more veto wielding countries could plunge the Council into even greater inaction and semi-paralysis. We therefore have to make sure that an extension of veto right to new permanent members, if so agreed, does not impair the ability of the Council to act promptly and effectively where action is needed. We are therefore open to work on the proposals by a number of countries that put the issue of veto right for new permanent members in the perspective of a future review of the Security Council reform, at an established date.

To conclude, we trust that you, Madam Chair, have the   necessary powers and the wisdom to proceed with a view to producing a streamlined, shortened text on the basis of existing convergences that would give a new impetus to the discussions we’re all engaged in.

I thank you.