General Assembly: Reform of the Security Council | Cluster Debate on the Veto - Informal meeting of the plenary, 79th session

I will give you water.

Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues. I call to order the fifth informal meeting of the plenary on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council. We continue with the list of speakers remaining from our first meeting this morning. I give the floor to the United Arab Emirates.

Co-Chairs, thank you for convening this important meeting to discuss the question of veto. I express our appreciation for your commitment to promote the reform of the Security Council, and I would like to align myself with the statement delivered by the Kingdom of Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group. Co-chairs, looking back to last year, regrettably, we will find that the veto has been used eight times. This has led to the Council's failure to take decisions in a number of cases. Therefore, we stress the importance of the responsible use of the veto, especially in cases requiring a swift intervention to prevent conflicts and settle them. The repeated use of veto erodes the credibility of the Council and increases polarization. There is an urgent need to push for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, including the question of the use of veto. The continued presence of the veto requires the establishment of guarantees regulating its use, especially in cases of mass atrocities, and also to be able to respond to the will of the international community. veto should not be used when the Secretary General invokes Article 99, as we have witnessed during the war on Gaza. As long as the veto exists, we hope that the Member States would be able to reach consensus on the guarantees that we mentioned on the use of this right. In many cases, we have witnessed also the use of the silent veto. This is why it is important to promote dialogue and diplomacy in order to reach a consensus around the questions related to the international peace and security. In light of the ongoing efforts to reform the Council, notably On the question of veto, the UAE commends the other important initiatives, including the initiative of France and Mexico, on suspending the veto in cases of mass atrocities. We commend the code of conduct on the measures taken by the Security Council in the face of genocides, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. as established by the Accountability, Consistency, and Transparency Act team. These or such initiatives contribute to guarantee that the international community would not be hindered or prevented from acting on crimes against humanity and defenseless civilians. We have listened to many views on the use of veto, and we are aware of the historical context through which this right was established, but we stress the importance of dealing with this question in order to reinforce and enable the Security Council to tackle the current and emerging international crises. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United Arab Emirates for her.

Malaysia, thanks you for convening this debate on the use of the veto. We would like to express our appreciation for the timeline and roadmap for the work of the IGN this year as annex to your letter of 19 December 2024. Rest assured of Malaysia's commitment to contributing constructively to our discussions during these sessions. During the 40th and 41st plenary meetings of the General Assembly, in its 79th session under the agenda item "Use of the veto," we heard many delegations echoing concerns over the increased use of the veto by Security Council members and the growing paralysis in the Security Council, which has prevented action in relation to threats to international peace and security. Malaysia is one of the many delegations voicing this concern, and we will continue to advocate for reform of the Security Council to ensure it can effectively address global challenges and uphold the principles of the UN Charter. Co-Chairs, Malaysia considers the use of the veto in the Security Council as anachronistic, undemocratic, and contradicts the principle of sovereign equality of all member states. We maintain the position that ultimately, the veto must be abolished. Until such time as the veto is completely abolished, its use should be regulated, with a complete prohibition in cases of mass atrocity crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. For the exercise of the veto to be more accountable and transparent, It should be exercised by at least two of the permanent members and supported by three non-permanent members of the Security Council. The decision should then be ratified by the General Assembly through a simple majority vote. Co-Chairs, unrestrained use of the veto has allowed and will continue to allow certain member states to arbitrarily stand in the way of the collective will and wisdom of the general membership of the United Nations. The Pact for the Future recognized that the question of the veto is a key element of Security Council reform. We must take urgent and comprehensive steps to address the imbalance created by the veto in accordance with the principles and purposes outlined in the Charter, ensuring that the Council can function effectively and in the best interests of global peace and security. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia. And I give the floor to Nigeria.

Thank you, co-chairs, for giving me the floor. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and the distinguished representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for the group of L-69. Nigeria remains committed to this process and the urgency for a comprehensive reform that is democratic, transparent, and accountable. We also reiterate Nigeria's continued support for the common African position for a reform of a council that will uphold the principle, objective, and ideal of the United Nations. In addition, we are consistent with our demand for a representational, inclusive, and responsible system as set out in Article 241 of the Charter, reflecting the membership as well as a system that has the capacity to address current global security challenges. Co-Chairs, the United Nations was created against the backdrop of the collapse of the international order. However, it has become dysfunctional with conflicts, wars, hungers, and sufferings. caused by the proliferation of the veto, with unbearable situations beyond humanitarian assistance. The veto is now being used for political interests, thereby exacerbating geopolitical tension. Hence, my delegation is in full support for the abolition of the veto. Our stand stems from the fact that the world has become more polarized, while the Security Council is grappling with the twin problem of nationalism and politicization. thereby making it ineffective and incapable of carrying out its mandate. The veto undermines the democratic legacy of the Organization and cannot be defended on the basis of any principle of just governance. Nigeria will continue to support the African proposal for the expansion in both categories and the two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges for permanent membership and the rights of the veto. However, Africa believes that the veto be abolished, but if it remains, it should be extended to all the members in the permanent category. We appreciate the overwhelming support for the African position, including also from the permanent members. However, my delegation wishes to request the permanent members who support the African position to explain how can we achieve the expansion of the permanent categories without the right of the veto. It is important that we all are on the same page and to avoid double standards. The use of the veto and its abuse is the most controversial and fundamental issue on the reform. We must decide either to expand the veto to new permanent members or to abolish it completely. Co-chairs, our world leaders adopted the Pact of the Future at the summit last September and affirmed their commitment to the reform of the Council. It is, therefore, contingent upon every member state, including those with a veto, to prioritize this process for a structured and functioning system to achieve sustainable peace and security in the world. We must all provide new and utilize existing solutions to address the many conflicts, as there are no substitutes to a multilateral approach to addressing global issues. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nigeria, and I give the floor to the Maldives.

Thank you. Thank you, Co-Chair. I thank you for convening today's important discussion on the Security Council reform. You have the full support of my delegation in achieving substantial progress in the work of the IGN this session. I also thank Member States and groups of States for their engagement in the IJN through the submission of proposals for reform of the Council. Co-Chairs, sovereign equality is the foundation on which the UN was established. This means that all Member States, without discrimination, must be able to continue and contribute to efforts to establish and sustain peace. Every country, large or small, should have an equal opportunity to serve in any UN body, including the Security Council. Just as we reject discrimination within our countries, we must do so globally, starting with the UN itself. Sovereign equality is then the basis on which our deliberations on the reform of the Security Council must be based. As such, the Council must be representative of the membership of the UN. At the moment, it represents a mere 7.7% of membership. This is why we believe an expansion of the Council must address the historical injustices against Africa. This is also why we support cross-regional representation. Small Island Developing States represent nearly 20% of UN membership, yet SIDS remain woefully underrepresented at the Security Council. Of the 60 countries that have never been elected to the Council, nearly half are SIDS. SIDS can present crucial perspectives on issues like climate change, which are affecting global peace and security. This is why SIDS deserve a rotating seat on the Security Council. We highly appreciate the support this proposal has received from the membership. The specific formula with which a seat would be allocated for SIDS is a matter that should be decided through consultation within SIDS. On the veto, our position, as articulated by the President of Maldives, Dr. Mohamed Moiz, is to abolish veto. Veto undermines justice, equality, and prevents actions, especially when it's needed the most. It has enabled unchecked aggression and even genocide, as Israel's war on Palestine is a clear recent example. Veto undermines the Council's credibility, calls to question its moral authority, and erodes the trust in its ability as well as in the multilateral system. Co-chairs, the IJN process needs urgent action. After 15 years, it has yet to deliver meaningful results. It is therefore time to transition to text-based negotiations. I urge the co-chairs to begin substantive text-based negotiations before the end of the 79th session. This is not just a procedural, it is an essential, real reform. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives, and I give the floor to the Republic of Korea.

Distinguished co-chairs, Tarek and Axel, we look forward to engaging constructively in the discussions ahead under your capable leadership. There is a growing consensus that the veto power should be limited, if not abolished. This spirit was reflected in the Pact for the Future adopted last September. Notably, two permanent members of the Council have also refrained from using the veto for nearly three decades. As we mark the 80th anniversary of the UN this year, it is an opportune moment to reflect on the challenges that hinder the effectiveness of the Security Council, one of the main issues being the veto. This growing consensus on the limitation of veto entails two key points: First, if abolishing the veto entirely is not realistic, At least we should ensure that no new veto rights are added. Second, the question remains of how to specifically limit the existing veto. First, on the expansion of veto members in the Security Council. This cannot be separated from the issue of categories of membership. Veto and unlimited terms are two defining elements of the current permanent membership. As far as we understand, there are differing views among countries advocating for the expansion of permanent membership on whether veto rights should be included. It is essential for each country to clarify its position on this matter. The main argument for expanding veto is that it would correct the inequality between the P5 and other members. as granting veto rights to additional permanent members could counterbalance the current P5's dominant power. We should carefully examine whether this logic holds up. To truly counterbalance, the new veto power would need to offset or neutralize the P5's veto. However, Adding more veto members does not mean they can now reject another country's veto. Instead, it simply adds another veto. This merely enlarges the privileged group, even more exacerbating the Council's decision-making paralysis. Moreover, it will further marginalize both the non-permanent members in the Council and the broader UN membership. as they will be left with less room to influence the Security Council outcomes, thus reinforcing existing inequality. Our reform efforts must avoid deepening inequality artificially and should aim to improve, not deteriorate. For these reasons, if we consider that expanding veto rights is unwise, only the issue of long-term membership, their long-term membership remains among the two elements of permanent membership. In this regard, we believe that the UFC's proposal presents a practical and inclusive way forward: longer-term, non-permanent seats with the possibility of an immediate re-election, which is a new formula of membership. It addresses some member states' aspirations to serve longer, allowing institutional memory, which can help balance the influence of the current permanent members. At the same time, it ensures accountability through rotational elections and avoids expanding the perpetual privileges of the veto. Therefore, member states are encouraged to give thoughtful consideration to this model. We note the potential similarity between this and Africa's vision of permanent seats representing the region, without excluding the possibility of regional rotation. We look forward to working together to find a possible common ground. Second, on possible specific ways to limit the existing veto, one concrete measure worth considering is establishing a higher threshold for overturning Security Council decisions. After all, decisions that were adopted originally reflect the Council’s collective agreement. It seems ironic that something they themselves agreed upon in the first place can be so easily overturned by a single veto, without even without significant changes in circumstances. This greatly undermines the Council's credibility and the integrity of its decision-making process. For instance, The abolition of 1718 Committee's panel of experts last year by a single veto has left the council without effective means to monitor and report North Korea's and others' evasion and violation of Security Council sanctions. With North Korea continuing to escalate its provocation and violate Security Council resolutions, this gap in oversight created by a single veto presents an undeniable threat to international security. Mechanisms created through Council’s decisions should have safeguards to ensure their continuity. Unless there are significant changes in circumstances, revoking Council decisions should be limited by restraints, such as requiring more than one veto. Only with such higher thresholds can we prevent decisions made by the Council from being undone lightly and reinforce trust in the Council's decisions. Thank you, co-chairs.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea, and I give the floor to El Salvador.

Thank you very much, co-chair. Allow me to begin by thanking you for convening this meeting, which addresses a central issue for the efficiency, but also the legitimacy of the Security Council of the United Nations. Co-chair, it's clear that the ability of our organization to maintain international peace and security has been severely limited by the use and the threat of use of the veto. This mechanism, far from strengthening collective action, has led to an ongoing paralysis at critical times, with devastating consequences for the entire United Nations. El Salvador expressed its firm opposition to the veto way back in the negotiations of the San Francisco Conference in 1945, and our posture has not changed more than seven decades later. The veto is an anachronistic mechanism which contravenes the fundamental principle of sovereign equality between States and undermines the efficient functioning of the Security Council. Its use also reflects an imbalance of power which is incompatible with the foundational principles of our United Nations. As everyone knows, And as has been mentioned here many times, the veto casts a constant shadow over every interaction and deliberation in the Security Council, affecting the consensus agreements between permanent members. This system, designed originally to guarantee stability, has ended up entrenching the imposition of national interests. over and above the collective needs of the international community. In this way, the constant threat of using the veto blocks crucial decisions, it limits multilateral action, and it compromises the capacity of the United Nations to fulfill its mandate of maintaining international peace and security. That’s why we firmly believe that the veto must be addressed as part of a reform of the Security Council. My country advocates for its removal, and we reiterate our opposition to extending this privilege to other Member States. Today, Co-Chairs, it's essential to underscore that the veto cannot be justified, nor should it be cast in context of prevention or commission of mass atrocities. Its use in these circumstances is absolutely inadmissible and represents a moral and operational failure of the collective security system of the United Nations. In this regard, we would call upon Member States that have still not done so to join the French-Mexican Declaration and the Code of Conduct of the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency Group. promoting the restriction of the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. We also would highlight the importance of fully implementing Article 27(3) of the Charter, which establishes the obligation to abstain from voting for parties to a dispute, particularly when it comes to decisions under Chapter VI. Co-Chairs, in a reformed Council, the veto must cease to be a permanent threat and become a tool of the past, thus allowing the United organizations the United Nations organization to be more effective. In the Pact for the Future, we undertook to intensify our efforts to reach an agreement on our future with debates on limiting the use and scope of the veto. Strengthening global governance means making progress on existing initiatives, such as 76/262, which strengthens accountability and transparency in the use of the veto, and at the same time, it amplifies the voice and influence of the General Assembly in situations where there is a stalemate in the Security Council. It's also essential to explore innovative proposals which would render binding those instruments aimed at restricting the veto and which would enable the General Assembly to override a veto cast under specific circumstances. Both this process, co-chairs, as well as the Special Working Group on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly are valuable platforms for an in-depth discussion of these elements. Co-Chairs, in conclusion, we thank you for your leadership, we thank you for your commitment, and you can count on the support of El Salvador and our constructive participation in these debates, and also the commitment of El Salvador to the necessary and so desired transformation of the Security Council. Thank you.

Representative of El Salvador, and I give the floor to Timor-Leste.

Co-Chairs, thank you for convening this intergovernmental negotiation on the reform of the United Nations Security Council. Allow me to assure you of my delegation's full support of this process. My delegation aligns with the statement made by the representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines on behalf of the L-69 group. I would like to add the following elements in my national capacity. Co-Chairs, the reform of the United Nations Security Council has become an urgent necessity, as the current composition reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945 rather than today’s global landscape. The widespread agreement among Member States on the need for comprehensive reform is evident. with various groups of states proposing important ideas and initiatives. However, despite the progress made, significant divergence persists among member states on the five fundamental key areas of reform, including the expansion of permanent membership, changes to voting procedures, and adjustment to regional representation. These differences in opinion and interest have made consensus building a challenging task. To overcome these challenges, these obstacles, it is essential to recommit to negotiating in good faith and in the spirit of compromise. This year's session presents an opportunity to enhance the process of Security Council reform, and my delegation is fully committed to contributing to this effort. A crucial aspect of reform is the enlargement of the category of membership. My delegation supports the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories, which could make the Council more representative of current global power dynamics. The new permanent members should have the same rights and privileges as existing members, including the expansion of the right of veto. However, the use of veto must be refrained, particularly in cases where the Council aims to prevent or end genocide, crimes against humanity, and crime and war crimes. This is essential to ensure the Council's effectiveness, credibility, and legitimacy. Co-Chairs, To facilitate the reform process, it is necessary to develop a consolidated text that is acceptable to all member states. This text should be used to track changes and ensure that the evolution of the draft text is well documented and traceable. A structured feedback mechanism should also be implemented, allowing members to provide inputs on models and proposals. This feedback should be systematically incorporated into the draft text, and a cycle of continuous improvement should be established. In conclusion, my delegation reiterates its commitment to contributing to the comprehensive Security Council reform. We stand ready to work constructively with the IGN and the co-chairs to achieve these goals, and we look forward to making progress in this year’s session. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste, and I give the floor to Cuba.

Dima. Dear co-chairs, we thank you for convening this debate to continue to have an exchange on key aspects of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. We recognize your efforts to continue to promote discussions during the 79th session. With regard to the central issue of this meeting, we'd like to reiterate that our country has always been opposed to the right of the veto, however, uh, unless it's until such time as it's eliminated, the new categories of permanent members should be given the same pro- prerogatives and rights as current members, including the right to veto. There shouldn't be selective or discriminatory criteria established in this regard. Co-Chairs, we reaffirm our historic commitment to the complete reform of the Security Council. This is particularly relevant for our organization. To conclude, we reiterate our willingness to continue to participate in the IGN on Security Council reform through detailed discussion of the five clusters as stated in Resolution 547 of the General Assembly. This will help us to move towards a solution that should have the broadest possible acceptance on the part of Member States, so that we can make the Security Council genuinely democratic, transparent, and representative. Thank you.

Representative of Cuba. And I give the floor to Belarus.

Thank you, distinguished co-chairs. Because we are speaking for the first time during this session of the IGN on Security Council reform, allow me to wish you every success in carrying out your duties and assure you of the unwavering support of the delegation of Belarus. This process negotiation examines, we believe, is the only legitimate format for discussing Security Council reform. The right to veto is one of the key elements of discussions on the parameters for reforming the Security Council. This is the most controversial issue and has been the subject of many disagreements. It's clear that today there's a lack of consensus with regard to a mutually acceptable solution or decision on the fate of the veto as part of these reforms. For our part, we'd like to emphasize several points. First of all, the veto is a unique institution that is enshrined in the UN Charter. and which we believe places lofty and exclusive responsibility on the permanent members of the Security Council. This responsibility lies in the obligation to be guided by the spirit of cooperation and take into account differing positions to arrive at measured and balanced decisions that reflect the goal of supporting international peace and security. We believe that it is responsibility and not privilege that defines the right to use the veto. Secondly, the veto is essential a sole and unique mechanism for checks and balances within the Security Council. There simply are no alternatives to this mechanism, and it is critically important for examining issues falling within the purview of the Security Council. It is no accident that the founding fathers of the UN and the member states that signed the UN Charter back in 1945 agreed on this courageous, and as it turns out, farsighted decision. And that is why interfering with the veto could undermine the foundations of the UN and its Charter. It could launch a chain reaction of irreversible consequences. Thirdly, the inability of the Security Council to adopt effective decisions is often blamed exclusively on the use of the veto. And practice has shown that it is cases of use of the veto that has become the pretext for calls to limit this mechanism or even abolish it entirely. We believe that the problem goes much deeper. It lies in disagreements between member states during the preparation of decisions, including due to political disagreements. And the veto then becomes an instrument of conflict and threats instead of a means to achieve consensus. With this regard, the task of all states, we believe, during the negotiation process on the reform, is to strive to agree upon reform parameters that would not undermine the veto, but would at the same time increase the effectiveness of the work of the Council with a view to developing balanced decisions. to strengthen trust and to increase responsibility for its positions. And this goal, we believe, is only possible if all aspects of reform are examined as an interconnected whole, from the issue of equitable representation to the issue of membership categories and other problems. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Belarus, and I give the floor to Ukraine.

Thank you. Distinguished co-chairs, at the outset, let me thank you for convening this meeting. Many speakers have already referred today to the provisions of the Pact for the Future regarding the question of veto. It's indeed important that all member states have committed to intensify efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including on limiting its scope and use. My country is among the most interested in achieving real progress on this track. The Russian aggression against Ukraine is the most vivid example of how detrimental the misuse of veto could be for the Council’s capacities to respond effectively to the threats to international peace and security. Total incapacity, I would rather say. The aggression against Ukraine exemplifies an issue where the prospects of adopting any substantial Council decision with a clear reference to the need to restore respect to the UN Charter, are not merely elusive; they are entirely absent. At the same time, I would like to emphasize that it is not the veto right itself that poses a major obstacle to the Council's efficiency in addressing threats to the international peace and security. Rather, it's a cynical misuse of this power by the violator. We therefore continue to insist that veto should not serve as a weapon for those who are driven by hatred and war. The legitimate reasons for restricting the use of veto should include cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, as well as conflicts and situations a permanent member is involved as a party. Ukraine signed the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. prepared by the ACT Group, as well as join the initiative of France and Mexico on the suspension of veto. We encourage those Member States that have not yet joined the above initiatives to do so. We are also convinced that concrete actions are required to ensure that a permanent member which is involved in a conflict or a situation that the Council is considering is limited in the exercise of its veto right, as it cannot do it impartially due to a conflict of interest. On this point, let’s not forget that Article 27 of the UN Charter, which establishes the veto right, also includes a clear provision stating that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. This clear requirement of the Charter has to be operationalized. Distinguished Co-Chairs, the veto initiative has strengthened the role of the General Assembly in cases the veto is cast in the Council. It's important to continue exploring ways of how to further improve the Assembly's toolbox and ability to help the Council in case the latter is paralyzed on certain issue by veto. We fully support the calls for the responsible use of veto. The question, however, is what can be done in cases of its irresponsible use, which is our grim reality. This brings us to the need for adequate enforcement toolbox. We consider that an efficient solution to the current challenge, when just one delegation can render the Council completely paralyzed using its veto right, should be one of the main outcomes of the Security Council reform. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine. And I give the floor to Algeria.

Thank you, co-chair. Mr. Co-Chair, we are now beginning our first meeting of the year, and so allow me to express my thanks and deep appreciation to you for your skillful guidance of our IGN on equitable representation in the Security Council and its working methods in order to achieve our ultimate goals through the reform of the UN. We align ourselves with the statement made by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group, and Bahrain on behalf of the Arab Group. Co-chairs, Algeria reaffirms its commitment through its status as a member of the Security Council to cooperate and coordinate to ensure the voice of Africa is heard and consolidate its presence in the UN, in this body of the UN, which is in charge of international peace and security. Therefore, representation of Africa in the council is an issue that cannot be addressed except through the inclusion of all of its elements and components, including the provision of two permanent seats with all the associated privileges and rights of permanent members. We must emphasize that if the right to veto remains a topic of the Security Council reform, there’s the need to expand this right to extend to all permanent members of the – all members of the Security Council equally in order to rectify the historic injustice that deprives new permanent members of this right. That would simply reflect an incomplete an exhaustive reform that is not in line with the realities on the ground. Mr. Co-Chair, my delegation would like to reaffirm the importance of combined efforts to arrive at a just and consensus-based solution for a constructive and effective reform of the Security Council in order to overcome global obstacles and address the various threats weighing upon humanity, especially the issue of Palestine. And this requires equitable representation and comprehensive participation in decision-making, especially through granting African members of the council the right to the veto, like other members of the Security Council. This is This is the exclusive privilege of permanent members. In closing, we hope that this meeting will help to promote the reform process in order to realize the aspirations of the African people based on the and the Sirte Declaration, in order to lead to the inevitable reform of the Council. in order to preserve international peace and security, and that is the lofty mission of the UN. Thank you.

Thank you, my brothers, says the co-chair.

Thank you very much, co-chairs. At the outset, I would like to thank you for convening this informal meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations during the 79th session of the General Assembly dedicated to the issue of the veto. As we begin this new year, you can count on the renewed commitment of my delegation, which aligns itself with the statement delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues, in the same vein as the adoption of the Pact for the Future, this session of the IGN is of particular importance. It invites us to implement this reform, which is more important than ever to restore the legitimacy of the Security Council, which has been tarnished by its inadequate and imbalanced handling of challenges that are both constant and ever-changing. It goes without saying that our process, if it is to bring about a viable and long-lasting reform, must, insofar as possible, seek to satisfy all stakeholders, and this satisfaction cannot be attained without balance in representation. in the expansion of the two categories of membership, and therefore in the issue of the veto. On this last point, which is the focus of our meeting, the African – the common African position is clear and unambiguous: Africa supports the abolition of the veto. Indeed, the frequent use of the veto due to diverging interests contributes to the inability of the Security Council to fully play its role in maintaining international peace and security, including in situations of acute crisis. Therefore, we should continue reflecting on possible ways to bring about veto rights that would be more aligned with the needs of our community, our security-based community. Therefore, Senegal supports the French-Mexican initiative and commends efforts to limit the use of the veto, especially in cases of mass atrocities. In addition, the impact of the veto is such that it cannot remain within the sole purview of the Security Council. As the main deliberative body of the United Nations, the General Assembly must also have a voice that is heard on the use of the veto, because international peace and security concerns all of us. Our reform ought to ensure that the General Assembly can better support the Council as it carries out its missions. Lastly, given the interconnection between the five pillars of reform, the issue of the veto remains inextricably linked to the issue of representation and membership categories. On this pillar, as well as the others, my delegation continues to oppose any approach that would lead to the creation of an intermediate category of membership, which would only exacerbate inequalities where they already exist and would not in any way resolve inequalities. That is why my delegation believes that as long as the veto exists, new permanent members, including the two that Africa is calling for, ought to enjoy all prerogatives and privileges that are attached to these seats, including veto right. This is also what is called for in order to rectify the historic injustice done to Africa. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal, and I give the floor to Papua New Guinea.

Distinguished co-chairs, let me begin by extending my delegation's appreciation to the co-chairs and your respective delegations for your commendable willingness, commitment, and leadership to, on all our behalf, steer our collective work in this important yet challenging process. We also welcome and thank you for the early start to our work at the onset of the year. We have listened with keen interest to your preliminary thoughts and from other delegations and groups on moving this important work forward, and wish you well in your mandate. You have our full support. Co-Chairs, let me place on record my delegation’s alignment with the remarks made by my colleague and Chair of the L-69 Group, the distinguished Permanent Representative of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, In my national capacity, I would like to make the following additional points on the cluster on the question of veto. Before I do so, firstly, my delegation would like to support and underscore the salient point reiterated this morning by the Chair of L69 and others that the IJN process as a whole will benefit immensely from a text-based negotiation with attribution of input and convened under the General Assembly Rules of Procedure. The importance of this cannot be overstated, and we reiterate our call on this fundamental point. We have heard those who believe otherwise, but in our view, this will enhance this IJN’s transparency, accountability, and a measure of how we are progressing this mandate. It is our understanding that with the creation of the IJN, the aim was to have a text on which discussions could be based. Co-chairs, we need to seriously ask ourselves, how long must we wait to start text-based negotiations? For my delegation, we have the opportunity to do better. by having a single consolidated document, now, not in the indeterminate future. The multitude of contributions and the plethora of documents in nearly two decades of the IJN process, in and of itself, provides the basis for serious consideration of text-based negotiations to bring this process to a successful conclusion. For small delegations such as my own, We cannot continue to endlessly in this process, endlessly in the way this process has unfolded over the years, as there are many other important areas of work that we need to also accord focused attention. Co-Chairs, turning to the question of the veto, first, there is indeed a unanimous and clarion call made by many Member States rid the veto. This is given the unjust and unfair nature of the veto, its continued abuse by certain members of the Council's permanent members to the detriment of the effective delivery of its UN Charter mandate for preserving international peace and security, and an arrangement that is devoid of today's reality and reflects a bygone era. Second, For my delegation, we prefer the complete elimination of the veto. However, so long as it exists, any new permanent members of the Council, in our view, should have the same rights and responsibilities as those who hold the veto power. Third, there must also be careful consideration in the context of its application. including as highlighted by UN Charter Article 24, 1 and 2, and Article 27. Regrettably, the veto has often been applied for the narrow vested interests of a few rather than the greater good of the majority. Accountability of the use of veto must not be taken for granted, as many lives and livelihoods are at stake. Fourthly, and in closing, co-chairs, as a member of the ACT Group, my delegation is of the firm view that the ACT Code of Conduct on Prevention of Mass Atrocities and Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, and the France-Mexican Initiative, needs to be seriously accounted for in veto considerations. And I do thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Papua New Guinea. Colleagues, that was the last speaker that we heard, and I'd really like to thank you all for your contributions, as it's been a very interesting debate. I can only say that for me, this has been very interesting to watch how this discussion has evolved over the past two and a half years that we have been working on this. I think in particular, the impact of the Pact of the Future, I think, was very palpable, and I think we all see that very strongly. This meeting now, of course, which is — which was webcast, is now going to be closed.