General Assembly: Intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council - Informal meeting of the plenary, 80th session

So, good afternoon, everybody. I call to order the sixth informal meeting of the plenary of the question of equitable representation on an 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, and I'd like to give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ireland.

Thank you, co-chairs. Ireland welcomes today's discussion, and we thank you for your continued efforts to reinvigorate the IGN and to move this process forward. We must openly face the context of today's meeting. A failure of the Security Council to adequately respond to crises and to uphold its responsibility to maintain international peace and security has led many to question its relevance and legitimacy. Sadly, these failures are measured in conflicts prolonged and lives and futures lost. One of the most persistent causes of the Council's inability to respond effectively has been the misuse of the veto. In this context, Ireland reiterates our long-standing position that the veto should be abolished. At the same time, we recognise the need to be pragmatic about what is achievable at this moment. We therefore strongly support a greater focus on limiting the most damaging impacts of the use of the veto. We deeply value efforts to curtail the use of the veto. as represented by the ACT Code of Conduct and the French-Mexican initiative to collectively and voluntarily suspend the use of the veto in situations involving mass atrocities. We recall that more than 100 Member States, including Ireland, have supported the French-Mexican initiative. This demonstrates the clear expectation from the wider membership that the veto should not be used in situations involving the gravest crimes. We call on all States that have not yet done so to join now. Effective implementation of these initiatives would offer a foundation for further work on qualifying mechanisms for the veto. We ask the co-chairs to consider whether, during this session of the IGC, there may be ways in which we can ensure renewed impetus to these efforts and to consideration of a possible qualifying mechanism. Progress in this regard would be an important confidence-building measure towards meaningful Security Council reform. We also believe that those seeking permanent Council membership should take a clear stance on this issue as we see very real difficulties with proposals to expand the veto without reform. Any such proposals will only replicate existing dysfunction and will not bring us closer to a more effective Council, capable of acting when most needed and delivering impact on the ground. At this critical international juncture, the UN Charter remains more relevant than ever and must be respected. Long-awaited Security Council reform must not obscure our collective efforts to deliver on its vision and promise. In that regard, and pending agreement on more substantive Council reform, we welcome initiatives aimed at ensuring full compliance with the Charter. In this regard, we thank Liechtenstein, a fellow member of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, and other countries for their efforts to encourage compliance with Article 27 of the UN Charter, which obliges the party to a dispute to abstain from voting on certain proposed decisions. We look forward to engaging further on this initiative in relevant fora in due course. Other recent initiatives, including the veto initiative, have served as an opportunity to promote transparency and accountability, making the Council member wielding the veto answerable to the broader membership. Adopted by consensus and co-sponsored by over 80 UN member states, GA Resolution 76262 signals that the majority of member states expect responsible use of or restraint of the veto power. We urge the Council, particularly as permanent members, to listen to and respond to this broad consensus. In closing, we thank the Co-Chairs for their efforts to advance meaningful progress, and we look forward to working and engaging constructively with all in this shared endeavor. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ireland for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Algeria.

Thank you, Co-Chairs. My delegation aligns itself with the statements delivered by Sierra Leone and Bahrain, respectively, on behalf of the African Member States and the Arab Group. and wishes to offer the following remarks in its national capacity. At the outset, Algeria reiterates its full commitment to the call made in the Pact for the Future to advance a reform of the Security Council that is genuinely driven by Member States. For Member States to remain faithful to both the letter and the spirit of this commitment, it is imperative that all five clusters of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform be addressed on an equal footing. Equal footing in this context entails that no cluster should be excluded, deferred, or placed on hold in pursuit of an incomplete or premature reform process. It is for this reason that Algeria attaches the utmost importance to advancing a genuine, meaningful, and comprehensive reform of the Security Council, one that addresses all five pillars and corrects, as a matter of priority, the historical injustice against Africa. while treating the continent as a special case, as reaffirmed in the Pact for the Future. Distinguished Co-Chairs, in the context of today's discussion, Algeria wishes to reaffirm that the veto should be abolished in principle. But as long as it continues to exist, it must be extended to all new permanent members, including future African members. This position is firmly anchored in the common African position as clearly articulated in the Izadiwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. This position admits of only one interpretation: the creation of any new category of permanent members without veto rights is and will never be accepted. So, as long as the veto remains in place, it must be fully and equally extended to all new permanent members, without conditions and without discrimination between current and future permanent members. With regard to the various initiatives aimed at limiting the use of the veto, my delegation wishes to underscore that these efforts are entirely distinct from the intergovernmental negotiations. As such, they should not obstruct or prejudge the ongoing discussions, which constitute the sole forum mandated to deliberate on Security Council reform, as mandated by General Assembly Decision 62/557. Distinguished co-chairs, in conclusion, Algeria remains fully committed to the discussion on the Security Council reform within the framework of the anti-governmental negotiations. We also wish to reiterate that meaningful progress towards text-based negotiations can only be achieved once Africa's legitimate demands are fully addressed and consensus is reached across our five clusters. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative

of Chile.

Thank you very much, Madam President. We very much appreciate you convening this new meeting on reform of the Security Council in order to address the scope of the veto and the need to restructure the Council and its working methods. We have seen that the use of the veto has not adequately solved conflicts or prevented them. The veto does not promote unity in the Council, nor does it promote the search for collective understanding. On the contrary, it erodes the credibility of the whole multilateral system. However, We are aware of the difficulty in finding intermediary formula to limit the use of the veto. This requires broad political willingness to arrive at consensus. This is a major challenge in current times as we are seeing the proliferation of armed conflicts. But having said that, we would like to highlight proposals aimed at limiting the use of the veto in circumstances such as mass atrocities and war crimes. We believe that this is a moral imperative in circumstances related to respect for international humanitarian law and safeguarding the civilian population. This is why we would like to see consensus around the French-Mexican proposal and the code of conduct for the response of the Security Council in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes of the ACT Group. With regard to extending the use of the right to veto, my country would like to extend to new members, reiterates that extending to new members. the current situation could be complex. We feel that the veto should be understood as a responsibility and not as a privilege. We hope, Madam President, that the discussions that we will have will help us to reach common understandings that will help to maintain international peace and security. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste.

Co-Chairs, distinguished delegates, Timor-Leste appreciates the opportunity to share its perspective on one of the most defining issues of our reform process, the question of the veto. We align ourselves with the statement delivered on behalf of the L69 group. Timor-Leste shares the conviction that the Security Council's architecture must be contemporary to remain credible and legitimate. For many, the veto is seen as a vestige of an era long past, a mechanism that can at times hinder the very collective action that the United Nations was established to facilitate. In principle, Timor-Leste subscribes to the position that the veto is inconsistent with the sovereign equality of all Member States and should therefore be abolished. However, we recognize that our path forward requires both principled ambition and pragmatic appreciation of the current political realities. In the spirit of seeking a balanced and lasting solution, we wish to emphasize three fundamental points. First, should a permanent category be expanded, it is essential that all who hold such status possess the same rights and responsibilities. ensuring that the new representatives are not structurally disadvantaged from the outset. Second, we must be cautious not to replace one form of inequity with another. Introducing a two-tier system of permanence would only entrench the hierarchy within the Council and create classes of permanent membership, which we believe would be counterproductive to our goals of seeking substantial reform. Third, we are mindful of the human dimension of this debate. When the Council is unable to act in times of devastating crisis, the cost is often borne by the most vulnerable. We therefore support constructive measures that encourage greater transparency and a more judicious use of the veto, ensuring that the Council remains a responsive instrument for international peace and security. Co-chairs, Timor-Leste also aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of the Cross-Regional Group for Promoting the Implementation of Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations. We underline the importance of the proper application of all provisions of the Charter relating to the Security Council's decision-making, including this article, in line with the commitment contained in the Pact for the Future. Strengthening the consistent application of this provision can contribute to enhancing the transparency, credibility and effectiveness of the Council. Timor-Leste's vision for a reformed Security Council is one where the architecture of the past does not limit the possibilities of the future. We look forward to text-based negotiations to ensure that our reform efforts move beyond symbolic gesture towards of truly representative and accountable body that serves the interest of the entire global community. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Panama.

Panama. Panama expresses its thanks for the giving of this meeting and the presentation of the guiding questions, which allow us to move forward the substantive analysis of one of the most sensitive aspects of the Security Council reform process. The question of the veto continues to remain at the center of deliberations on the legitimacy, credibility, and effectiveness of the Council. In this context, any consideration of its future evolution must be part of a holistic approach to the reform one that both bolsters the representative nature of the organ as well as preserves its responsiveness. Panama believes that the various proposals regarding the veto, including those related to its eventual extension, limitation, or the introduction of accountability mechanisms, must be examined prudently, avoiding any solutions that would deepen divisions or introduce new asymmetries into the Council's architecture. Particular attention deserves to be paid to avoiding any configurations that would give rise to different categories of permanent membership. This is a measure that would only deepen imbalances of power within the Council and weaken the organ's institutional cohesion. Likewise, Panama believes that any discussion relating to the use of the veto must proceed cautiously, avoiding creating a negative impact on the perception of the organ's effectiveness by the membership as a whole. In this context, initiatives aimed at promoting greater transparency, as well as strengthening accountability in its use, could contribute to strengthening the perception of the organ as an impartial one as long as these proposals are developed prudently on the basis of constructive dialogue and consensus. Panama reaffirms that the reform process of the Security Council must move forward inclusively, transparently, and on the basis of the broadest possible consensus. In this spirit, Panama reiterates its readiness to continue participating constructively in these discussions with a view to promoting solutions that contribute to strengthening the cohesion and the proper functioning of the organ. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Panama for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malta.

Distinguished Co-Chairs, Malta aligns its statement with the Uniting for Consensus Group statement delivered by Italy and thanks the Co-Chairs for convening this third meeting of the IGN to discuss the question of the veto, an issue central to the credibility and effectiveness of the Security Council. As the preeminent body entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, it is essential that the Security Council operates effectively, transparently, and in line with the collective interests of the United Nations. We continue to call for the meaningful reform that strengthens the Council's capacity to act in a consistent, credible, and decisive manner in the face of threats to international peace and security. Malta stresses the urgent need to promote the responsible, restrained and accountable use of the veto in line with the existing initiatives supported by a majority of the UN membership, including the Franco-Mexican initiative and the ACT Code of Conduct. In this respect, we welcome reform efforts such as the Liechtenstein-led veto initiative as an important step towards enhancing transparency and accountability. Malta reiterates the institutional accountability of the UN Security Council to the collective membership of the UN, as embodied in the General Assembly, and urges that any use of the veto be consistent with these principles. From its inception, the United Nations has been grounded in the principle of sovereign equality of all its Member States. We need a more accountable, inclusive and effective multilateral system, including the Security Council, to respond to the challenges facing us today. Malta stands ready to contribute constructively to this process and echoes calls for an open, transparent and inclusive dialogue on Security Council reform as a prerequisite for strengthening the legitimacy of this institution. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malta for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.

Co-Chairs, thank you for giving the floor to Malaysia, and please accept our appreciation and confidence in your stewardship as you drive this process forward. Malaysia welcomes the encouraging development regarding the African group submission of its model on Security Council reform as circulated by the co-chairs on 7th April 2026. We also welcome the initiative by a cross-regional group of member states proposing a draft resolution to address the implementation of Article 27 of the UN Charter. Although we understand that this process is pursued separately from the IGN process, we note that this initiative reflects ongoing efforts by Member States to consider issues related to the transparency, accountability and effectiveness of the Security Council's decision-making process. We look forward to further engagement as discussions progress. Co-Chairs, allow me to address one of the key guiding questions for this meeting, which you have posed to us. Malaysia continues to view the veto as an anachronism that impedes the Security Council in discharging its primary responsibility under the UN Charter, namely the maintenance of international peace and security. In this context, the continued use of the veto in its current form or the threat to wield it has increasingly been cited as affecting perceptions of the UN's effectiveness, both among member states and the broader public. It must therefore be reformed. Malaysia is also of the view that to be effective and more accountable, the veto should be exercised by at least two of the permanent members and supported by three non-permanent members of the Council. The decision should then be ratified by the General Assembly through a simple majority vote. In the long term, we believe that the veto has no place in a modern and democratic multilateral architecture, and Malaysia reiterates our call for the veto to be abolished. Until these proposals are brought to fruition, Malaysia will continue to support proposals, initiatives and practical measures aimed at limiting the use of the veto, enhancing the accountability in the use of the veto and improving the effectiveness of the Security Council in carrying out its mandated responsibilities. These include the veto initiative and the non-use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities or war crimes. Co-Chairs, allow me to conclude by reaffirming Malaysia's commitment to play a constructive role in the IGM process. We believe that multilateralism matters, that the UN matters, and that the reforms under discussion, as well as the progress achieved through this process, also matter. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba.

Thank you very much, co-chairs. We're very grateful for you convening this meeting and for your efforts to best use this debate on reform of the Security Council. With regard to the subject at hand, the position of my delegation is a historical position. We are against the existence of the veto. However, if that veto is not eliminated, then Those new permanent members should have the same rights as the current members, including the right of veto. We should not establish discriminatory or selective criteria in this regard. At the same time, we would underscore that the veto needs to be looked at with regard to the other aspects of the IGN, the five core areas for reform of the Security Council. also including the use of the veto are closely interrelated and they form a package. In this regard, we should take into account the absolute links that exist between the five questions that are being covered in the IGN on Security Council reform. And as is stated in 72 557 of the General Assembly. In this way, we can continue to make progress on reform of the Security Council to make this an organ that is really transparent, democratic and representative. Co-Chairs, the IGN gives us the ideal forum to continue to have a broad exchange between Member States on the reform of the Security Council. You can count on our willingness to continue to make progress towards a solution that will meet with the broadest possible acceptance on the part of Member States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Singapore.

I thank the Co-Chairs for their excellent leadership throughout this complex and important intergovernmental process. Today's debate has been made even more timely by the fact that the General Assembly will convene on Thursday for a debate under the veto initiative following the casting of vetoes in the Security Council last week. In our last statement at these negotiations, Singapore spoke about the need to ensure that the composition of the Council reflects the diversity of the UN membership, and our support for expansion in both the permanent and non-permanent membership categories. However, the issue of expansion must be accompanied by the question of how it will affect the decision-making process in the Council. I will make a few points in this regard. Co-Chairs, the greatest concern in respect of decision-making in the Council remains the veto, and how this mechanism allows the decision of one State to override the will of the majority of Council members. As a matter of principle, Singapore has always taken the view that the veto is an impediment to a more effective and responsive Council. It prevents the Council from discharging its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. For this reason, my delegation has said on many occasions that we do not support extending the veto to potential new permanent members. Let me be clear. We are not calling for the abolition of the veto, but to establish parameters for its responsible and accountable use. In addition to accountability, the question of equity between the Council and the General Assembly also arises. Fundamentally, the existence of five permanent members on the Council is an inequitable arrangement. But even the fact that there are only 15 members in the Council at any given time, and the rest of the membership has no say in the Council's decisions, is an inequitable arrangement. Therefore, we do not see how adding more vetoes to an expanded Council will create greater equity. In fact, it could worsen equity, since there will be more obstacles to the Council taking prompt and effective action. This brings me to the point that as long as the veto remains in place, we urge the permanent members of the Council to show the greatest restraint in its use, and not to deploy it to further their own interests. To this end, Singapore supports the French-Mexican initiative on suspending the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities, and the ACT Group's code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In particular, we also urge all members of the Security Council to conform to Article 27 of the Charter and its exhortation for parties to a dispute to abstain from voting at the Council. We lament that the last time this provision was observed was by an elected member in 1960. We therefore welcome the recent circulation by Liechtenstein of the draft resolution on the implementation of Article 27, on behalf of a group of countries. We look forward to engaging constructively on this draft, which we hope will advance discussions for the consistent and effective implementation of Article 27. Co-Chairs, in our view, a reformed Council must play a more effective role in upholding international law and adherence to the UN Charter. We believe that any reform should include measures to strengthen the accountability of all Council members, particularly the permanent members. Singapore remains committed to engaging constructively with all Member States in this process. I thank you.

Thank you, I thank the distinguished representative of Singapore for her statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador.

Thank you very much, Madam Co-Chair. Allow me to begin by expressing our gratitude to the Co-Chairs for convening this meeting, as well as for the structured approach and the innovative spirit reflected in the guiding elements presented, which contribute to steering a more substantive debate on an issue that is central to the credibility of the Security Council. Madam Co-Chair, El Salvador would like to reiterate our historic and principled position regarding the veto. Since the San Francisco conference, we have maintained that it is an anachronistic mechanism incompatible with the principle of sovereign equality of states, and one that continues to significantly limit the Council's ability to fulfill its mandate. For this reason, we reiterate our position both to its retention and to its extension to new members. Nevertheless, in the constructive spirit that should guide this process, we consider it appropriate to refer to the elements raised by the co-chairs. With regard to the possibility that limitations on the use of the veto could serve as a basis for broader consensus, we believe that these may constitute a pragmatic point of convergence. However, such limitations must be understood as measures aimed at mitigating its most harmful effects, and not as a validation or consolidation of this mechanism in the long term. In this regard, we consider it's essential to further develop existing mechanisms, as well as to explore innovative proposals that would give binding character to instruments aimed at restricting the veto, and that would empower the General Assembly to pronounce itself and to act, including with a view to mitigating its effects in specific circumstances. This, we feel, would contribute to strengthening accountability and reinforcing the institutional balance provided for in the Charter. Likewise, we believe it is important to underline that the impact of the veto cannot be analysed in isolation. Its recent use is part of a broader context of challenges related to the effective implementation of Security Council resolutions. Addressing these underlying dynamics is essential to strengthening the credibility and effectiveness of the collective security system. With regard to a possible differentiation between current and future members, El Salvador views this approach with caution. The creation of differentiated regimes could institutionalize new forms of inequality within the Council and further distance this body from the principles that underpin our organization. This is why we believe that the debate should not focus on how to adapt or redistribute the veto, but rather on how to progressively limit its effects on the functioning of the Council. Regarding possible qualification mechanisms, we consider that any proposal in this area must prioritise transparency, accountability and the role of the membership as a whole. In particular, we see value in measures such as establishing a substantive obligation to justify the use of the veto, as well as strengthening the link with the General Assembly so that it can fully exercise its functions when the Council fails to act. At the same time, proposals of a more structural nature would require deeper analysis, both from a legal perspective as well as in relation to institutional practice. Madam Co-Chair, we also wish to highlight the relevance of the initiative concerning the full implementation of Article 27 of the Charter. Its effective application constitutes a concrete and immediate avenue to limit the improper use of the veto and to strengthen the legitimacy of the Council's decisions. In a context where we are seeking practical solutions, advancing in the operationalization of this provision represents a tangible opportunity to reinforce the coherence of the collective security system. Madam Co-Chair, for El Salvador, the core of the discussion remains clear. This is not about legitimizing, consolidating, or extending the veto, but about limiting its effects and moving toward its more representative, transparent and effective Council. We reaffirm our commitment to continue contributing constructively to this process. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal.

Thank you, co-Chair. I would like to thank both the co-Chairs for their continued efforts and for the guiding questions that help frame today's discussion. Portugal approaches the question of the veto with a clear sense of responsibility and realism. We recognize that the veto is a defining feature of the Security Council architecture since 1945. While its existence reflects a specific historic historical and political context, it continues to shape the Council's dynamics and its ability to act. On proposals to create new permanent members without veto rights, Portugal remains cautious. While we recognize such approaches seek to bridge positions, they risk introducing new layers of differentiation within the Council and may not adequately address its concerns regarding equity and legitimacy. At the same time, we recall that the common African position remains a central reference point in these discussions and thank the African group for circulating its updated model. Addressing the historical underrepresentation of Africa is indispensable for any meaningful reform, and this includes due consideration of the question of the veto. Portugal believes that, in the current context, the most constructive path forward lies in identifying areas where convergence is possible. In this regard, limitations on the use of the veto deserve particular attention. The veto is not only a prerogative, it is a responsibility, and we should focus on increasing its political costs. We therefore support ongoing efforts to promote restraint and safeguards, transparency and accountability in its use, including through existing initiatives such as the ACT Code of Conduct and the Franco-Mexican initiative, and also the veto initiative of the General Assembly. We also underline the continuing relevance of the Article 27.3 of the Charter, its full and consistent application could contribute meaningfully to strengthening the credibility of the Council's decision-making. In this regard, we recall our commitments under the Pact of the Future to fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter related to Council decision-making, including this provision. The proposal recently put forward by a group of Member States is a step in that direction. Regarding possible qualifying mechanisms, Portugal believes that any approach should aim at enhancing political accountability while preserving the balance between the prerogatives of permanent members and the collective responsibility of the Council. Measures that encourage transparency, dialogue and scrutiny may offer a pragmatic way forward. Excellencies, after many years of discussions, positions remain complex and in core, divergent. Our collective challenge is therefore to move beyond abstract models and focus on building convergence around a reform that is realistic, legitimate, and capable of strengthening the Council's effectiveness. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Liberia.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, Liberia aligns itself with the statement delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Union and wishes to deliver the following remarks in our national capacity. We reaffirm our commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter, including the Security Council's responsibility to maintain international peace and security on behalf of the wider membership. In this regard, we underscore the importance of ensuring that the Council's decision-making processes remain not only credible, transparent, and consistent with established legal obligations, but that they also build trust and strengthen the Council's legitimacy in the global community. Liberia acknowledges the ongoing efforts by Member States to clarify the meaning of party to dispute under Article 27.3 of the Charter, noting that such efforts are both timely and essential to strengthening the integrity of the Council's decision-making. For instance, A state that is directly engaged in hostilities, provides military support to a belligerent, or asserts a competing territorial claim in a matter before the Council could reasonably be considered a party to a dispute, and as such would be expected to abstain from voting, including refraining from exercising the veto. In this context, Liberia affirms its support for the principles that any member state directly involved in a conflict should refrain from exercising the veto. Such restraint, particularly when expressed through abstention, reflects a commitment to the broader interests of the international community rather than a narrow national interest. By choosing not to block collective action, Member States can help foster an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the Security Council. This approach can play a meaningful role in reducing tensions, encouraging constructive dialogue, and opening pathways for diplomatic engagement. At the same time, Liberia takes cognizance of the broader context of Security Council reform As such, efforts towards reform progress, and as Africa strives to attain permanent representation on the Council, Liberia reiterates the African common position as articulated in the Asiwuini Consensus and the SAG Declaration. In line with these frameworks, African permanent members must maintain and exercise the full prerogatives of permanent membership, including the use of the veto, for as long as the veto remains in effect. To conclude, this position is grounded in the principles of equity and the imperative to reflect geographical balance within the Security Council. It would be neither just nor acceptable for new permanent members particularly from Africa, to be accorded a status inferior to that of existing permanent members. Ultimately, Liberia remains committed to a reformed Security Council that is more representative, equitable, and effective. Proper implementation of Article 27.3 should complement, not replace, the urgent need for comprehensive reform to address historical imbalances and enhance the Council's legitimacy. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Liberia for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Thank you, Co-Chairs, dear colleagues. My delegation fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and would like to make the following remarks in its national capacity. First, The delegation of Senegal would like to reaffirm that the common African position leaves no room for ambiguity on the question of the veto. On the one hand, the position supports the general abolition of the veto, but for as long as the veto exists, it must be extended to all new permanent members. On the other hand, it firmly opposes the creation of a hybrid or intermediary category that would add another layer of inequality, including to the detriment of non-permanent members without addressing the legitimate demands for permanent representation, particularly those raised by Africa, which has been unjustly absent from this category since the Council's founding. Second, it follows that the extension of veto rights to new permanent members on an equal footing with current permanent members is a requirement of equity in responsibility. The extension of the veto is not a favor, but one of the necessary conditions that will enable new permanent members to fulfill their duties in the interest of all. This extension should be automatic once those members are designated to occupy those seats. Imposing conditions through mechanisms would amount to maintaining an apparent equality of status between old and new members, while in reality preserving a form of inequality that the reform is meant to correct. Third, regarding limitations on the use of the veto, Senegal remains of the view that the frequent use of the veto due to diverging interests contributes to the Security Council's difficulty in fully playing its role in the maintenance of international peace and security, including in situations of acute crisis, which continue to arise, and even more so recently. In this regard, it is important to continue reflecting on ways and means to ensure that the veto is used in a manner more consistent with the demands of the security community we are building. As a supporter of the French-Mexican initiative, Senegal will continue to support all efforts aimed at restricting the use of the veto, including in cases of mass atrocities or humanitarian emergencies. Likewise, my delegation would like to recall that the Pact for the Future adopted by the General Assembly solemnly commits all member states to fully implement Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations. This provision is neither optional nor obsolete. It constitutes a legally binding limitation on the right of veto in decisions falling under Chapter 6 and Article 52. In the same spirit, beyond the discussions within the IGN, the application of this provision could be the subject of deeper discussions within the Council and within the General Assembly. Finally, the impact of the veto is such that it can no longer remain the exclusive concern of the Security Council. As the principal deliberative body of the United Nations, the General Assembly has a duty of oversight on how the veto is exercised. because international peace and security remain the concern of all. In this regard, resolution A/76/262, which establishes a standing mandate allowing the General Assembly to hold a debate whenever the veto is exercised, although adopted in a framework separate from the IGN, is an initiative from which lessons must be drawn. It is one avenue for reflection on which we can build to allow the General Assembly to better support the Security Council in the fulfillment of its responsibilities through modalities yet to be defined with a view to achieving better complementarity, greater accountability of the permanent members of the Council, and the reexamination of matters vetoed by the Council. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal for his statement, and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Namibia.

Thank you, Co-Chairs. We thank you for convening this meeting. Namibia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the distinguished delegate of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African Group and wishes to deliver the following remarks in its own capacity. Against the backdrop of deepening geopolitical fractures and escalating regional crises, the international system is straining under pressure, as it was never designed to withstand and struggling to uphold its core responsibilities. These realities underscore the truth we can no longer ignore. The Security Council's ability to act, or its failure to act, is too often determined by the use or threat of the veto. The consequences are borne not by the powerful, but by the vulnerable we serve here. For Namibia, the question of the veto is inseparable from the broader question of equity, legitimacy, and historical justice for Africa. The Azulini Consensus and the Sirta Declaration remain the authoritative expression of Africa's common position. So long as the veto exists, it must be extended to Africa's permanent seats. Anything less would entrench the very imbalance that has marginalized our continent since the founding of the United Nations. At the same time, Namibia reiterates that the veto is currently used and misused in situations of grave humanitarian concern, such as what we have seen with the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. This has exposed a structural imbalance that undermines the Council's credibility, legitimacy, responsibility to maintain international peace and security, and erodes trust in multilateralism. Addressing the veto is therefore not a procedural matter. It is a political imperative. Today's geopolitical reality requires a Security Council that is committed to implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter of the United Nations as they relate to the decision-making processes in the Security Council, including Article 27.3 of the Charter in the maintenance of international peace and security. We therefore support efforts to abolish the veto or promote responsible use of the veto. including initiatives that require greater transparency, accountability and explanation when the veto is cast in situations involving mass atrocities or threats to international peace. The adoption of the Pact for the Future in 2024 has created a renewed opportunity to advance meaningful reforms, but commitments on paper must be translated into action. The Pact must not be become another exercise in deferred ambition. Its implementation must address the structural deficits that have weakened multilateralism, including the unrepresentative and underrepresentative composition of the Security Council and the unrestrained use of the veto. The Pact is very clear in its call for the improvement and democratisation of the working methods of the Security Council and strengthens its relationship with the General Assembly in accordance with and with full respect for their functions, authority, powers and competencies as enshrined in the Charter in the maintenance of international peace and security and to prevent or end the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. Namibia stresses that the credibility of the United Nations depends on the Council that reflects today's geopolitical realities, not those of 1945. A Council that excludes the entire continent of 1.4 billion people from the permanent representation cannot claim legitimacy. A veto power that is held, or the proposals that it should be held, by only 2.5% of the wider membership cannot claim moral authority. Chairs, as we consider the question of the veto, Namibia underscores that the meaningful reform cannot be achieved without addressing both the distribution and its use. A system in which a single member can unilaterally block action supported by the overwhelming majority is neither sustainable nor defensible. After years of secular discussion, the membership expects tangible movement on the veto. its scope, its accountability, and its equitable extension. Leaving the veto untouched while conflicts escalate and regions are destabilized is a failure of a collective responsibility. Reforming the veto is essential in restoring the Council's authority and ensuring that no region, including Africa, remains permanently excluded from the power structures that shape global peace and security. Finally, Chair, Reforming the veto is not a favor to any region. It is essential to restoring the Council's legitimacy and effectiveness. Namibia will continue to contribute to a reform outcome that confronts these realities directly and without equivocation. I thank you, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Namibia for his statement. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Papua New Guinea.

Distinguished Co-Chairs, Excellencies, and colleagues, at the outset, may I thank the Co-Chairs and their respective delegations for their continued commitment and leadership to steer this onerous and challenging task on our collective behalf. You have my delegation's full support. Co-Chairs, Papua New Guinea subscribes fully to the remarks delivered by the distinguished chair of the L69 group, Saint Lucia, and I would like to add a few additional points in my national capacity in relation to the question of the veto. First, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Papua New Guinea reiterates the urgency and the critical importance of closing the revolving door on the reforms of the Security Council, which has for far too long enable the current status quo to the detriment of the UN being fit for purpose and not representative of today's geopolitical realities. We must ensure the Security Council is truly an organ that better serves we, the peoples of the United Nations. While we welcome the continuing dialogue on the cluster on the question of the veto, which the Co-Chairs have prescribed for us to have a more focused discourse. However, in our view, this and the IGM process as a whole will benefit immensely from a text-based negotiations with attribution under the General Assembly Rules of Procedure, as overwhelmingly and consistently called for by many delegations, including my very own. Co-Chairs, on the question of the veto, in the Security Council. Let us not forget that it is a product of the UN Charter, crafted by a few wartime victors in their interests and awarded permanency. It reflects a bygone era. For my delegation, we would prefer the total elimination of the veto, as it is an arrangement inconsistent with the UN Charter principle of sovereign equals among UN member states. However, so long as it exists, any new permanent members of the Security Council, in our view, should have the same rights and responsibilities as those who hold veto power. There must also be careful consideration, as this has often been applied for narrow interests of a few, rather than the greater good of the majority. Accountability of the use of the veto is an important area meritorious of further discussions in my delegation's view. Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, Article 27.3, is instructive, and we encourage all Security Council permanent members to do better by adhering to this important provision. Also, as a member of the ACD group, my delegation is of the firm view that the French-Mexican initiative and the ACT Code of Conduct on the prevention of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity and war crimes needs to be seriously accounted for in veto considerations. In closing, Co-Chairs, we encourage all of us to be the change for the better that makes the UN Security Council fulfill its mandate in a way that serves all countries better in an accountable and transparent manner, rather than not. This is the case perpetuated in part by the existing veto. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Papua New Guinea for his statement. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine.

Distinguished co-chairs, first and foremost, I would like to express Ukraine's appreciation to the delegation of the State of Kuwait and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for their stewardship of the ongoing intergovernmental negotiation on this critical issue. Ukraine, perhaps more than any other member state, know what it means when the veto power is abused in the Security Council. For more than four years, the Russian Federation, having committed the crimes of aggression against Ukraine and continue to perpetrate the war crimes and crimes against humanity, has demonstrated that it doesn't deserve to prevail the veto. Moreover, Russia doesn't even deserve to occupy a permanent seat of the Security Council, which is acquired on the highly questionable legal grounds. For years, the Russian Federation blatantly abused the veto to shield its war of aggression against Ukraine, but not only against Ukraine, but also to protect the regime and rogue states around the world. thereby preventing the Council from fulfilling its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Dear colleagues, Ukraine considers the Security Council reform to be a matter of exceptional importance and a central element of broader reform of the United Nations. Without a credible, representative and accountable Security Council, the entire system of collective security is weakened. The issue of veto lies in very heart of this current crisis of the Council effectiveness and legitimacy. Ukraine has consistently advocated limitation of the use of the veto. This position reflects our longstanding policy and has become particular origin in the light of Russian full-scale aggression against Ukraine. It is unacceptable that a permanent member retaining privilege of exercising the veto while being directly involved as a party of the armed conflict. Ukraine, therefore, strongly support all initiative aimed at limiting the use of the veto. We believe that the legitimate grounds for restriction of the use of veto should include situation in war and genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Such restrictions should equally apply when a permanent member state is directly involved in a conflict and cannot act impartially. We also support broader efforts to enhance accountability, transparency, and responsibility of the Security Council before the General Assembly. In this regard, we stress the importance of the full implementation of the Article 27, para 3 of the UN Charter, which clearly require the party of the to abstain from voting. Distinguished co-chairs, the veto was never intended to paralyze the Council or to grant impunity for the grave violation of international law. Its systematic abuse, particular in situations of war and acts of aggression and mass atrocities, undermined the trust in the United Nations and eroded the foundation of international legal order. Reforming the veto is not merely institutional adjustment. It is a moral imperative. Ukraine stands ready to work constructively with all Member States to achieve meaningful progress in this critical issue. And I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ukraine for his statement. We have now heard the last speaker of this part of the meeting. I would like to thank all delegations for their contributions. Since the meeting will continue in a closed format, the webcast will cease streaming. I will now suspend the meeting for a few minutes so we can make sure that the webcast has effectively shut down. Thank you.