General Assembly: 47th plenary meeting, 80th session

Good morning, everybody. The 47th plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will begin its consideration of agenda item 64, entitled "Use of the veto." I will now make a statement as the President of the General Assembly. Excellencies, the single most important mandate bestowed upon this institution is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. This is only fitting for an organization born of the ashes of conflict, by people entirely exhausted by not one, but two world wars in a single generation. Yet, far too often today, we see that the United Nations is unable to deliver on its most important mandate. Its principal organ tasked with the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council, has far too often been deadlocked on the most devastating conflicts, as also discussed yesterday at the debate on the Security Council. Inaction or the use of the veto in the Council means real people watching in real time may question the credibility and legitimacy of not only the Security Council, but of the UN in its entirety. Indeed, the need for Security Council reform is the poster child of the shortcomings of the larger multilateral system. The veto initiative was and is a response in this predicament. It is a chance for this Assembly, all 193 Member States of it, to demonstrate to the wider world that the UN, even when facing a blockage in the Council, hears the desperate voices of those affected by these conflicts and is able to act. An opportunity to show that we are working to alleviate their suffering. That we have not forgotten the promise of this institution made to humanity in 1945. To save them also today, 80 years later, from the scourge of war. The video initiative is our chance to demonstrate, even in these fragmented times, that multilateralism is alive. that cross-regional cooperation has, in fact, even been strengthened with more debates within the General Assembly on peace and security matters. We see this in the resolution passed on topics vetoed in the Security Council, such as most recently was the New York Declaration adopted by 142 member states. Today's debate is an opportunity to discuss how we can further strengthen not only the V-2 initiative, but cross-regional cooperation and by extension, trust in our institution. Let us ask ourselves, which other tools can be added to complement its use? Should the General Assembly build on the V-2 initiative with further measures to uphold peace and security? Should it take action and make recommendations for parties in conflict or to the Security Council itself if the Council is unwilling or unable to act? These questions raised in the last debates here in this institution, but also in other settings, underline how important it is to reflect that we are not only being seen as one body, but a family together. This has been reflected also in the Working Group on the Strengthening and Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly. And when we speak of the veto initiative, we of course also have to reflect and discuss the question of the veto itself in the framework of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, as again discussed yesterday in this hall, on Tuesday in this hall. Excellencies, while it is unfortunate that we even have to use the video initiative in the first place, as it is more often than not an indication of the wider dilemma, we nonetheless should appreciate the opportunity that avails us to step in when needed, to hold ourselves and each other to account, to demonstrate intent and take action. to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. I thank you. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of members.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I'm taking the floor today on behalf of the following group of states committed to the implementation of resolution 76/262, otherwise known as the veto initiative: Albania, Australia, Austria, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Myanmar, New Zealand, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, and my own country, Liechtenstein. We thank you, Madam President, for convening this fourth general debate on the use of the veto agenda item since its consensual adoption. These debates provide us with the opportunity to take stock of the progress of the implementation and the impact of our collective initiative and to reflect on the potential for its further development in line with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We thank the Secretary-General for his public support to the veto initiative, and we appreciate your strong support for it, Madam President, including in your remarks this morning. We believe that the veto initiative has begun to realign the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly in accordance with the intentions of the drafters of the UN Charter, as well as our collective approach of our organization to questions of peace and security. It has strengthened the accountability of the Council to the wider UN membership, in particular when action.

Is blocked by the threat or use of the veto.

Most importantly, though, it is a tool for the General Assembly to use in the full exercise of its role under Chapter IV of the Charter to uphold peace and security. Madam President, the veto initiative has also shaped the working methods of the Council and its members. Since the adoption of Resolution 76/262 in April 2002, The Security Council has produced 19 special reports covering every veto cast in line with Articles 15 and 24 of the Charter. The first time since the 1970s that the special report provision has been used. Special reports are now fully integrated into the Council's annual report to the General Assembly, including in a dedicated chapter. Special reports, of course, need not be limited to those produced as a result of the veto initiative. Madam President, the state casting a veto has come to the General Assembly to account for its actions in front.

Of the wider membership on every occasion to date.

The response of the membership at every meeting convened as a result of resolution 76/262, including with respect to the vetoes cast on two situations and two amendments so far this year, indicates that the veto initiative, that the veto is neither practically nor procedurally the end of the conversation. Madam President, more than anything, the veto initiative is intended to empower this Assembly on matters of peace and security. The General Assembly has done valuable follow-up work in Resolution 79327 on the revitalization of the General Assembly in this respect, calling for strength and transparency between the General Assembly and the Security Council, including in the summaries produced as a result of veto initiative meetings, as well as in annual and special reports produced by the Council. The resolution calls on member states to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end the commission of atrocity crimes in para 7. Foremost among these measures, of course, is the use of the veto. Madam President, Resolution 79/327 also notes the functions, powers, and role of the General Assembly laid out in Articles 10, 11, 12, and 35 of the UN Charter. It encourages the update and dissemination of the digital handbook, Assembly for Peace, which provides the blueprints for exercising these prerogatives. We are pleased to support the Handbook, which is a vital resource for States exploring the role of the General Assembly in peace and security, and encourage all to read it closely. Accordingly, we encourage Member States to continue to consider what action this Assembly should take when the Council is blocked by the threat or use of the veto. If the Council is unable to fulfill its primary responsibility under the Charter, of which a veto is the most manifest demonstration, this Assembly should consider its responsibility to explore our options for action. In doing so, we acknowledge that while the Security Council has a primary responsibility to maintain peace and security, action taken by this Assembly is in line with that distribution of responsibility. At a time when many states are considering whether this organization is able to maintain peace and security in the context of the Secretary-General's UN80 initiative, a mutually reinforcing relationship between the Council and this Assembly is required to deliver on that promise. The impending selection and appointment process of the Secretary-General will similarly be a test for the institutional relationship between these two bodies. Madam President, finally, we turn to the legal basis for the veto itself. As everybody in this room knows, the word "veto" does not appear in the Charter, but is codified in Article 27, where it refers to the concurring votes of the permanent members. Immediately after this phrase, Article 27 ends as follows, and I quote, "provided that in decisions on the chapter six and on the para three of article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting, end of quote. The idea behind this obligation is simple. No state should be a judge in its own cause. Madam President, the implementation of this obligation by the council members has been lacking for some time. In the pact for the future, we have all agreed to I quote, "fully implement and deter," end of quote, to this provision, something echoed in para 9 of this year's General Assembly revitalization resolution. Unfortunately, the Security Council has been unable to fulfill the obligation in line with Rule 40 of its Provisional Rules of Procedures for voting to be in accordance with the relevant articles of the Charter. Members of this Assembly, therefore, have an obligation to ensure compliance with this provision in line with their own obligations to the fulfilment of the UN Charter. We look forward to taking further steps together in this respect in the weeks and months ahead. I thank you.

I thank the Danish representative of Liechtenstein. I now give the floor to the Danish representative of Luxembourg on behalf of the Benelux countries.

Madam President, I have indeed the honour to speak on behalf of the Benelux countries, Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and my own country, Luxembourg. We thank you for organising this annual debate on the use of the veto. We align with the statement just delivered by the distinguished Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of Member States. The Benelux countries were proud co-sponsors of resolution 76/262, which was adopted by consensus three and a half years ago. We once again thank Liechtenstein for its leading role in the adoption of this historic resolution. The past years have demonstrated the added value of the veto initiative. The veto is not a privilege, but a responsibility. The implementation of resolution 76/262 contributes to increasing the transparency of the Security Council and its accountability to all Member States. It is strengthening the role of the General Assembly by giving all Member States the opportunity to express their views on the veto cast and the issue on which the veto was cast. Madam President, since the adoption of resolution 76/262, there have been 20 vetoes in the Security Council. This Assembly has held debates on a number of issues: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and non-proliferation, the sanctions regime concerning Mali, the Middle East and the situation in Gaza, as well as Ukraine. Each debate has seen a very high participation. Article 24.1 of the Charter makes clear that the Security Council should act on behalf of all Member States in carrying out its mandate to maintain international peace and security. The veto initiative is therefore a powerful reminder that the use of the veto by any permanent member of the Council carries with it an obligation to be accountable to all Member States and to hear the views of the wider membership on whether the use of the veto is in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter or undermines those purposes and principles. We deplore any use of the veto that prevents the Council from taking decisive action, particularly with regard to ending and preventing the most serious atrocities and crimes affecting the international community. where the cost of inaction is measured in many human lives lost. The Benelux countries support initiatives to limit the use of the veto, such as the political declaration on the suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities presented by France and Mexico, and the code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes developed by the ACT Group. We call on all Member States, and in particular the permanent members of the Security Council that have not yet done so, to support those two initiatives. Furthermore, we believe that all members of the Security Council must act in accordance with Article 27 of the Charter. A party to a dispute shall abstain from voting when it comes to decisions of the Council promoting the peaceful settlement of that dispute. And limiting the use of the veto should also be a key consideration in the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Madam President, while the Security Council remains the body with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, The relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly must allow these two bodies to strengthen and complement each other. The veto initiative plays a crucial role in enhancing their interaction. This Assembly can and must be much more than a forum for expressing statements of principle. In the past years, the Assembly has demonstrated its capacity to identify alternative pathways to address threats to international peace and security, by strengthening preventive diplomacy, by requesting the International Court of Justice to give advisory opinions under Article 96 of the Charter, by creating truth and justice mechanisms and institutions, and by supporting humanitarian action, particularly when the use of the veto prevents the Security Council from discharging its duties and upholding the Charter, and thus from protecting the general interest of all UN members. We encourage this Assembly to continue to build on the V-2 initiative and take further action as necessary. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Luxembourg. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Latvia on behalf of the Baltic and Nordic countries.

Madam President, I have the honour to speak on behalf of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and the three Baltic states, Lithuania, Estonia, and my own country, Latvia. The veto, once envisioned as safeguard for peace, has too often become a barrier to collective action. It has prevented the Security Council from decisively responding to acts of aggression and the trusty crimes. Each time the Council fails to act, it is civilians who pay the highest price. We deeply regret that in 2025, four vetoes have been cast. The credibility of the United Nations and the multilateral system depends on our collective ability to uphold international law, including the UN Charter. and no state stands above international law. The authority of the United Nations derives from the principle that peace is secured through justice, accountability, and respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of all member states. International law demands that violations of the UN Charter are met with consequences, not silence. Time and again, we have seen the veto used or threatened to block Council action to protect civilians in Sudan and Gaza, to prevent Security Council-mandated sanctions and expert bodies supporting their implementation, and not least to stop Council action on Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine, which represents a grave breach of international law and the very principles on which this Organization is founded. We believe that the threat of veto should not paralyze the Council when it is expected to safeguard the most basic principles of the Charter, ensuring international peace and security and defending state sovereignty and territorial integrity. All Member States must fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter. We reiterate that for Council members, this obliges also the full implementation of Article 27. and we must take steps to ensure its consistent implementation. Madam President, the veto must never serve as a shield for impunity or as an instrument that silences the suffering. We underline the importance of restraint in the use of veto powers, particularly in situations involving mass atrocities. Therefore, we continue to fully support and promote the Act Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, initiated by France and Mexico. Both of these instruments reflect the moral responsibility entrusted to the Council. and reinforce its credibility in responding to the gravest threats to international peace and security. Transparency and accountability in the use of veto are essential. Every decision to block collective action should be subject to scrutiny, and those who wield the veto must answer to the wider membership for the consequences of their action, or more precisely, their inaction in the context of upholding international peace and security. We welcome the consistent implementation of resolution 76/262 that marked a significant step towards greater transparency and accountability within the UN system and calls for concrete outcomes from veto debates. It put on our agenda a reflective moment for the General Assembly to consider its own scope for action when the Council has failed to do so. The Charter empowers the General Assembly to consider and make recommendations on any matter within the scope of the Charter, including on matters of international peace and security. Finally, we encourage the Office of the PGA to continue the good practice of producing a summary of the recommendations and proposals expressed in today's debate and in all debates convened in line with the resolution 76262 and to circulate them to the President of the Security Council for further consideration and to all Member States and observers. I thank you.

I thank the Distinguished Representative of Latvia. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of France, also on behalf of Mexico.

Senora President, I'd like to thank you for organizing this debate on the use of the veto. I have the honor of taking the floor on behalf of Mexico and my own country, France. In 2015, France and Mexico presented a joint declaration in favor of regulating the veto. Our position was simple. We could not and we should not resign ourselves to the paralysis of the Security Council when mass atrocities are committed, in other words, genocide, crimes against humanity, or large-scale war crimes. That same year, France announced that it was unilaterally renouncing the use of the veto in such situations. Our thinking was that the veto of permanent members is not a privilege, but rather a special responsibility that creates more obligations and rights. So, taking stock where we are 10 years later, on the one hand, there's a growing support for the principle of limiting the veto in case of atrocities. Its importance was acknowledged in the Pact for the Future last year and reaffirmed at the beginning of September in the framework of the resolution on the revitalization of the work of this General Assembly. with Armenia joining in 2025, our initiative now has the support of 107 states from all regions of the world. Madam President, in spite of this, repeated stalemates in the Security Council on major crises continue. 2024 saw two sad records set. First of all, the number of resolutions adopted by the Security Council in one year, that is 46 of them, was the lowest number since 1991. And furthermore, never since 1986 was there such a high number of resolutions blocked by the use of the veto, seven altogether. This is not an isolated phenomenon. 17 resolutions were not adopted for this same reason since 2022, in other words, more than one quarter of all such cases in the 21st century, and that happened in just three years. The use of these vetoes sometimes put in danger the lives of thousands of people, sometimes led to their death. We deplore, just as the vast majority of member states, this abusive use of the veto. It harms the effectiveness of the Security Council and its ability to fully exercise the mandate that was entrusted to it by the UN Charter, that is, bear the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. does not have to be that way. What we're proposing is simple. This is not an abolition of the veto, even a partial abolition, nor do we seek to modify the UN Charter or take away any of the prerogatives that are granted by this text. The idea is to improve the methods of work of the Council and to reach a political, collective, and voluntary agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council. to agree on refraining from the use of veto in case of mass atrocities. This agreement would have to specify the modalities of the use of the veto in order to prevent any abuse. Madame President, France and Mexico would like to recall their commitment to this initiative. And this year, as we mark the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, we remain determined to continue with all those who stand with us to continue our efforts to achieve a more responsible use of the veto. A large number of member states have defended the idea of regulating the veto in cases of mass atrocities during the high-level week this past September. They also expressed the same position during negotiations on the revitalization of the General Assembly. It is for this reason that we call on all those who haven't done yet to join our initiative. We are also ready to engage in discussions with other permanent members of the Council to negotiate on this agreement, which we want to see, because a more responsible Security Council is a more effective Security Council, because People who are victims of atrocities cannot wait any longer. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Madam Chairperson. South Africa welcomes the debate on the use of the veto a few days following the General Assembly debate on the question of equitable representation on an increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, where this important issue was also addressed. Indeed, the path of the future acknowledges the question of the veto as a key element in the reform of the Security Council. Furthermore, the Pact of the Future also asserts the importance of intensifying efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use. We note that there are several initiatives on the matter of the veto and its use. These include the efforts of Mexico and France, as well as the initiative by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group on limiting the use of the veto. Despite these initiatives, we have witnessed the continuous use of the veto by some members of the Security Council, demonstrating that these initiatives do not contribute to the prevention of the use of the veto. South Africa maintains the view, therefore, that the matter of the veto and its use should be addressed in a comprehensive manner, which requires a holistic rather than piecemeal approach. Madam President, South Africa aligns with the common African position, which opposes the veto in principle. Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations compels the Security Council to act promptly and effectively in matters related to the maintenance of international peace and security on behalf of the Member States of the United Nations. It is therefore unacceptable that the veto continues to be used by some members of the Security Council in violation of the Charter and against the mandate that Member States of the United Nations have conferred on the Security Council. The veto cannot be the exclusive right of five members, as it risks perpetuating power disparities and inequalities on the Council. We also reaffirm our support for the implementation of the operative paragraph 6 of resolution 79327, which requests the President of the General Assembly to continue to provide detailed summaries following consideration of the annual report of the Security Council on the use of the veto, including recommendations for action. In addition, South Africa restates its support for operative paragraph 11 of resolution 79327 welcoming the inclusion of a chapter on special reports on the use of the veto in the annual report of the Security Council. We urge the Security Council to continue this practice. Our view is that the provision by the President of the General Assembly of detailed summaries, as well as comprehensive Security Council annual reports on the use of the veto, will contribute to better transparency and accountability. It will also enable the General Assembly to follow up on the use of the veto. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Portugal.

Thank you, Madam President. Portugal aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by Liechtenstein in support of the Veto Initiative and would like to add a few remarks in its national capacity. Portugal is a co-sponsor of the Veto Initiative, the Franco-Mexican Declaration and the ACT Code of Conduct. These three initiatives remain important tools to enhance transparency, accountability and restraint in the use of the veto. This is the fourth time that this debate takes place, and it does so in the year of the UN 80th anniversary and after the adoption of the Pact of the Future, which reaffirmed our collective commitment to a more transparent, effective, democratic and accountable Security Council. Madam President, Excellencies, the veto initiative contributed to a realignment of the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, bringing it closer to the intentions of the Charter's drafters. Since April 2022, the veto has been exercised 20 times. The overall trend is indeed concerning. Last year's eight vetoes marked the highest annual count since 1989, the final year of the Cold War. The issuance of special reports, a practice dormant since the 1970s, has now been restored, each state casting a veto as appeared before this Assembly on every occasion. The message to the membership could not be clearer: the veto is no longer the end of the conversation. The veto is not merely a prerogative; it is also a responsibility. and recalling Article 27, parties to a dispute must abstain. Portugal, therefore, reiterates its support for the initiatives that reinforce transparency and accountability in veto usage. The membership has expressed its will very clearly. The use of the veto should be scrutinized and exercised strictly in line with the Charter. Excellencies, Portugal firmly believes that when the Security Council is blocked, the GA can step forward. This is fully consistent with the Charter. The Assembly for Peace Digital Handbook, which my country supports, provides a practical roadmap for how this Assembly can act when the Council cannot. We were equally proud to support the organization of workshops to capacitate all missions on the practice of the GA in the peace and security. We also welcome the progress made on the revitalization of the General Assembly, including its call for strengthening transparency between the Council and the Assembly, and for member states to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end atrocity crimes. In this spirit, Portugal, together with Ecuador and UNITAR, will again organize a GA Security Council workshop next year to deepen understanding and strengthen the relationship between both organs. And this year, for the first time, we have also created, with UNITAR, a dedicated training program for all missions wishing to better understand the function of the Security Council. As every mission follows the Council's work, members or not, knowledge can only strengthen accountability. Excellencies, ultimately, improving the function of the Security Council is not only about its composition, which definitely needs reform, but also about its working methods. Reforming working methods is achievable now. The Council must be more inclusive, more transparent, and more accountable to the wider membership. Portugal stands ready to continue supporting this initiative and to work with all delegations toward a system where the veto is used responsibly and never at the expense of the Charter. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Portugal. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Thank you, Madam President. Confronted with the deplorable reality that a permanent Security Council member continues to invade a sovereign member state in contravention of the UN Charter, while protecting its own national position through the use of or threat of use of the veto, the legitimacy of the Security Council and trust in the UN have been seriously undermined. Given the veto is a prerogative of significant influence, it must be exercised for the sole purpose of maintaining international peace and security, not for defending a clear violation of the Charter. Japan reiterates the need to fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter of the UN as they relate to the decision-making process in the Security Council including Article 27.3 of the Charter, as decided in the Pact for the Future. Madam President, against this backdrop, the importance of limiting the scope and the use of the veto has never been more apparent. In this regard, Japan reaffirms that the Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto Powers in Cases of Mass Atrocity, initiated by France and Mexico, as well as the ACT groups code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes are valuable initiatives. Japan continue to urge all permanent members of the Council who have not done so to commit to voluntary restraint on the use of the veto without delay and to implement this commitment accordingly. Japan also reiterates the importance of the veto initiative launched by Liechtenstein as a mechanism to hold the Security Council accountable to the entire UN membership. Madam President, despite all these initiatives, it must be pointed out they are not sufficient to deter the use of the veto, and a more fundamental reform of the Security Council is indispensable to address the existing imbalance within the Council, including the veto. It has already been more than a year since our leaders agreed on the urgent need for Security Council reform in the Pact for the Future. As we mark the 80th anniversary of the founding of the UN, we must make concrete progress in the coming IGM to realize a more representative, legitimate, and effective Security Council as soon as possible. Japan is committed to contributing constructively to advancing the reform process together with wider UN membership. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Qatar.

Sayid Al-Raythi.

Madam President, at the outset, it is a pleasure to take part in this annual meeting convened by the General Assembly under the agenda item use of the veto pursuant to resolution 76/262, of which the State of Qatar was among the core group of sponsors. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the permanent representative of Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of states committed to the implementation of this resolution. We also take this opportunity to commend your initiative in preparing summaries of the meetings convened by the General Assembly under the resolution, which contributes to its effective implementation. Madam President, Qatar's sponsorship of the veto initiative reflects its deep recognition of the importance of this initiative in strengthening the vital role of the General Assembly in line with the UN Charter, which entrusted it with addressing matters relating to the of international peace and security. Since the adoption of the General Assembly's historic resolution on the veto initiative, the Assembly has become more effective in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Charter when the Security Council fails to act. This initiative has helped in fostering a more effective and complementary relationship between the two organs in the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly as the Council is unable to discharge its responsibilities due to the use of the veto by permanent members. As we emphasized at the time of adoption, the resolution does not seek to encroach upon the mandate or functions of the Security Council. Its scope is limited to the role and functions of the General Assembly under the Charter. Nor does it affect the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform with respect to the veto. In this context, we stress the importance of the General Assembly continuing to exercise its role in discussing matters where the veto has been used. As the United Nations' most representative body, we call upon the General Assembly to uphold its role and implement its legal obligations and resolutions. By way of example, we urge the General Assembly to accelerate the implementation of its resolutions on the question of Palestine, which remains one of the longest-standing issues before the UN since its establishment. A comprehensive and just political solution to the Palestinian question constitutes a fundamental entry point for stability in the Middle East and promotes the maintenance of international peace and security. We also take this opportunity to call upon the General Assembly to renew UNRWA's mandate in line with the mandate it granted it under resolution 302 of 1949. Madam President, as we discuss the revitalization of the General Assembly pursuant to the veto initiative, we see merit in drawing upon the latest documents that reflect the achievements of multilateralism in reforming the United Nations. In this regard, we refer to the 39th action of the Pact for the Future, which notes that the question of the veto constitutes a central element in Security Council reform. The Pact calls for intensified efforts to reach agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope of use. We also refer in this context to the UN80 initiative, which aims to make the UN system more efficient and effective, particularly through its third work stream on structural change and program realignment, including efforts to strengthen and revitalize the peace and security architecture. In conclusion, the state of Qatar is guided by its steadfast commitment to the principle of multilateralism and the imperative of reforming the UN system, and reaffirms the central role of the General Assembly. We stress the importance of building upon the veto initiative by continuing to provide recommendations on matters where the Security Council has failed to discharge its role and responsibilities, especially in situations involving grave violations of human rights and serious threats to international peace and security. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Qatar. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom.

Madam President. In 1947, the founding members of the United Nations vested in the Security Council the chief responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, with the aim of shielding future generations from war. Accordingly, the permanent members of the Council were given veto power. This is a significant responsibility, and one the UK takes seriously. The veto should be used to prevent and resolve conflict and should be exercised with responsibility and with accountability. That is why in this hall in 2022, we co-sponsored the General Assembly resolution that facilitated scrutiny over the use of the veto. Since then, the General Assembly has met repeatedly in response to uses of the veto on Sudan, Ukraine, DPRK, Mali, on the blocking of humanitarian assistance to northwest Syria, and on Gaza. And we have given careful consideration to the views of the wider membership on those occasions. For our part, the United Kingdom has not exercised our veto since 1989. And as a proud signatory of the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency Group's code of conduct, We maintain our commitment to refrain from voting against any credible draft resolution aimed at preventing or ending a mass atrocity. We encourage all Member States, including the permanent members of the Council, to endorse this initiative. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates.

Thank you, Madam President, for convening this important debate.

Regrettably, the use of the veto has hampered the Security Council.

In fulfilling its mandate and eroded the credibility of the United Nations with the publics that we are here to serve.

In this context, I would like to highlight three points. First, the General Assembly is well placed to assess the use of the veto.

Given its charter-based role in matters related to the maintenance of international peace and security, and given that the Council acts on behalf of the entire UN membership. The formal meetings held in accordance with Resolution 76262 serve as a useful accountability mechanism that should be developed and built upon.

Such meetings can also spur breakthroughs toward peace. When there is a deadlock in the Security.

Council, the Assembly can chart a way forward, whether through the Uniting for Peace mechanism or by fostering political solutions, by supporting credible and timely decisive action by the Council or through other means. Second, we must redouble our efforts to prevent the misuse of the veto in the first place. While an assessment following the casting of a veto can prove useful, It is no substitute for preventing the misuse of the veto in the first place. The UAE reaffirms its position that there should be guardrails against the misuse of the veto to guide permanent members of the Council. In particular, a veto should not be used where a demonstrable overwhelming majority of its members are in favor of Council action on a particular point, where the Secretary-General has invoked Article 99 or where the use of the veto would undermine international law. The UAE reaffirms its support for the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint in cases of mass atrocities and the code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes that was put forward by the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group. Madam President, My final point is that the work of the Security Council is a collective endeavor of all its members. In the context of this debate on the use of the veto, it is helpful to examine the processes that lead to its use. Responsible veto-holdership and the need to guard against the misuse of the veto are two sides of the same coin. Veto-holders should conduct the drafting and negotiation process in line with the best practices to facilitate agreement. In closing, let us work towards a future marked by fewer case studies of Council deadlock and more examples of the Council taking robust action in fulfilment of its mandate to maintain peace and security. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Arab Emirates. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Maldives.

Thank you, Madam President. All protocols observed. Eight decades ago, the power of the veto was born in the works to maintain global order. Today, we are faced with one simple truth. It is the central cause that uproots the efforts in maintaining a rule-based global order. It is not the shield that protects human rights, but promotes political agenda at the cost of human lives. The power of the veto has repeatedly distorted the balance of justice, tilting it towards the powerful. It acts not as a safeguard, but as the root cause of paralysis of the Council to act. When the Council fails to carry forward its mandate, integrity of the system crumbles down. Its credibility erodes. For the Maldives, this is a grave concern. We depend on the integrity of the multilateral system. Failure of the Council to act when the world demands unity to get through global crisis, humanity is undermined. From the shockwaves that follows, small states pay a price. We have witnessed the veto being used not to promote peace or security, but to avoid accountability. This resonates in Gaza more than anywhere else in the world, painfully loud, immeasurably unjust. The entirety of the population in Gaza has endured relentless bombardment, starvation, and stolen human dignity. Numerous calls to take action, and yet the Security Council has failed to deliver. Repeatedly blocked by the authoritative power meant to uphold peace and security. A veto cast for each call, ignoring the suffering of the civilians. A political choice made at the cost of humanity. A choice that contradicts the oath to uphold the very obligations under the Charter. The time has gone to limit the veto. It is now the time to abolish the veto. This is not a call to undermine any state, but to stabilize the multilateral system. The veto must be allowed The veto must not be allowed to stifle action. For the people of Gaza and for the communities enduring violence of war, let us call for a Security Council that serves the world and not the privileged. We must not let peace be held hostage, and justice must never be subjected to the refusal by a single power. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Malaysia.

Thank you, Madam President. Malaysia values the opportunity to voice our views on the implementation of resolution 76262 and on the veto in general. The veto initiative remains crucial in strengthening efforts within the framework of the General Assembly to enhance the transparency and accountability of the veto power. My delegation commends the aspirations of this resolution, and we are convinced that the authority and credibility of the General Assembly in addressing global issues in line with the principles of the UN Charter. Madam President.

Malaysia has consistently opposed the use of the veto, especially when permanent members of the Security Council used it to.

Block actions that serve the maintenance of international peace and security. We oppose the use of the veto to block resolutions aimed at securing an immediate ceasefire in a conflict, ensuring unfettered humanitarian access, and preventing the further destabilization of entire regions.

We will continue to oppose the use of the veto to.

Provide certain member state allied to a permanent member of the council with impunity to commit atrocities, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes.

The misuse of the veto in these circumstances not only undermines.

The credibility of the council, but also perpetuates suffering and erodes the very principles of the UN Charter.

It further weakens respect for international law and places additional strain on the foundation of the multilateral system, which is.

Already at a breaking point?

Madam President, in light of these concerns and given the stakes involved for global peace, security and the credibility of the multilateral system, Malaysia would like to underline the following points. The veto power is outdated, undemocratic, and is against the principle of the sovereign equality of all member states.

Time and again, the.

Exercise of the veto, or even the mere threat to wield it, has prevented the Security Council from.

Discharging its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security as enshrined in the UN Charter. Malaysia maintains that ultimately, the veto must be abolished.

Until the veto is abolished, it must be strictly regulated. The veto should be prohibited in matters involving genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. The exercise of the veto by a.

Permanent member of the Security Council should be subject to strict oversight to prevent its use in serving the narrow

political interests of a permanent member or against the wishes of the majority of Member States.

In line with these principles, Malaysia has also advocated that the veto should not be exercised by just one, but by at least two permanent members and supported by three non-permanent members of the Security Council.

The veto should then require an endorsement by the General Assembly through a simple majority vote. Madam President, the veto and its undemocratic nature runs against the very principles that the UN was founded upon.

It is this profound reason that guides Malaysia to continue to work constructively with other Member States through the intergovernmental negotiations on the Security Council reform towards improving the UN to make it more efficient, open, transparent and inclusive.

I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives. of Malaysia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Poland.

Madam President, thank you very much for convening today's debate. Poland aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of the states committed to the implementation of the resolution 26/262, otherwise known as the veto initiative. Poland, as a member of the core group supporting this initiative, is a strong supporter of it. Let me now make a few remarks in my national capacity. Madam President, distinguished delegates, a few days ago, my colleague showed me a United Nations post on social media featuring a photo of the Secretary-General at this very podium with the quote, "In this moment of crisis, the United Nations has never been more essential." It is difficult to disagree. However, when you're reading the comments under the post, one theme stood out. calls for the UN reform and for delivering tangible results in the area, especially of the peace and security. Central to these calls were the use of the veto, the topic of today's debate. These appeals are coming at us from all sides. Ignoring them is a recipe for organization's irrelevance. The current veto procedure is one of the main concerns regarding the UN system. It hampers both efficiency and the credibility of the Organization as a whole. Madam President, because of the abuse of the veto power, the Security Council is too often unable to fulfill its responsibilities. Using or threatening to use the veto, in violation of the spirit and the letter of the UN Charter, repeatedly blocks life-saving actions. The veto initiative resolution and the overwhelming support it received from UN Member States send a clear signal of opposition to this state of affairs. Let me recall that, according to the UN Charter, the Security Council exercises its functions on behalf of all Member States. Madam President, when we know how difficult it is to amend the UN Charter in today's realities, but that does not relieve us from the obligation to pursue urgent UN reform. At the heart of this reform must be changes to the Council, and for the Council to be effective, it is essential to address the use of the veto. Therefore, Poland urges the implementation of the existing legal limitations to the use of the veto. We need to reflect on some fundamental principles and return to them. Let me highlight three existing legal limitations on the veto power. First, the veto power does not exist in legal void. The provisions of the UN Charter are subordinate to jus cogens norms. These are fundamental norms of international law and essential to relations among states. The international community as a whole recognizes, for example, the prohibition of aggression and genocide as jus cogens. Therefore, the veto should not be used to facilitate violation of these basic norms. Second, the exercise of veto power must align with Article 24 of the Charter, which emphasizes that the Security Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Any use of the veto contrary to these principles should be considered invalid. Finally, we need to implement Article 27.3 of the Charter, which regulates the abstention from voting by a party to a dispute. This provision was included in the Charter for a reason. Madam President, too often, what we see is not the proper use of the veto, but its abuse. We need to focus on limiting the use of the veto and an additional mechanism to ensure the Security Council can take the necessary actions. We must also remember that rules and legal provisions already exist to limit the scope of the use of the veto. Commitment to these fundamental principles is essential. And I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Poland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of India.

Madam President, I thank you for convening the plenary on a very important topic, the use of the veto. The five permanent members have been vested with the privilege of veto, which is accompanied by major responsibilities. India would like to underscore that the right of veto is to be exercised in a consensus manner, particularly on issues related to maintaining international peace and security. This must not become a tool to serve political interests. In this backdrop, I would like to make the following brief points. First, the provision of a veto is available to only five member states, and it goes against the principle of sovereign equality of UN member states. Second, veto has so far been exercised by the permanent members to achieve their respective political ends. It needs to be highlighted that over the 80-year period of existence of the United Nations, around 300 vetoes have been exercised on around 200 resolutions. Third, India notes that two out of the five permanent members have not exercised a veto for over three and a half decades. Fourth, in the context of the IGM, the consensus argument has effectively become a disguised de facto veto. This approach is blocking progress. Consequently, No concrete outcomes could be achieved under the IGN framework for Security Council reform. It also needs to be highlighted that Resolution 62/557 that paved the way for the IGN, spelt out that the guiding principle for Member States in their endeavours towards a solution is the widest possible political acceptance and not consensus. Fifth, the veto initiative as outlined in resolution 76/262 does not address the issue of exercise of veto in a comprehensive manner. It has not prevented permanent members from exercising the veto. And since the adoption of the resolution, 76/262 on 26 April 2022, the veto has been exercised on 20 occasions. Sixth, the use of veto is one of the five clusters in the context of Security Council reforms under the IGN framework. The fact that the veto initiative has been unsuccessful corroborates that a piecemeal approach towards Council reforms is bound to fail. India therefore reiterates its call for a comprehensive approach towards Security Council reforms. The starting point is early commencement of text-based negotiations with clearly defined timelines and milestones. Finally, India supports the common African position on veto. The power to exercise veto must be held by all permanent members in a reformed Council. The spirit of fairness and justice demands that all permanent members must enjoy similar rights as long as the veto exists. Any other arrangement in an expanded Council would only perpetuate the existing inequities in the Council. In closing, India would like to stress that the Security Council is facing questions relating to credibility, legitimacy and efficacy. It is imperative to make the Security Council fit for purpose. It must be equipped to purposefully intervene on current and future challenges. Reforming the Security Council is central to this. The eight-decade-old architecture must be redesigned to reflect the current geopolitical realities. India stands fully ready to contribute to this endeavor. I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of India. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of

Saudi Arabia. President, we thank you for holding this annual debate under resolution 76/262, adopted by consensus on Lichtenstein's initiative. We believe this resolution is an important procedural step to strengthening the role of the General Assembly as the representative body of the international community and as the main forum for deliberation and for policymaking at the global level. This contributes to complementarity and relations between the General Assembly and the Security Council, and also reinforces the effectiveness of the UN system in maintaining international peace and security. In this regard, we emphasize the importance of the Pact for the Future and its provisions on the right to use the veto, which is considered to be a key element in the process of reforming the UN. In paragraph 67, the Pact highlights the need to intensify international efforts to reach consensus on the future of the veto, including potentially limiting its scope and its methods of use. The veto is an integral part of the Security Council's functioning, and its use must be responsible and consistent with the purposes of the United Nations and avoid any practices that could hinder the Council's ability to fulfill its fundamental mission that is maintaining international peace and security. President, ladies and gentlemen, we commend efforts to strengthen multilateralism. And we place great importance on the UN80 initiative, which aims to revitalize multilateral action and to enhance the effectiveness of the international order through a comprehensive set of reforms. Security Council reform must take place in line with this ambitious initiative while taking into account the challenges that may hinder the reform process. This requires constructive dialogue and cooperation between all Member States. In this regard, efforts to combat misuse of the veto is one of the key elements for maintaining international peace and security, and this requires setting clear and specific standards for the use of the veto, including, for example, cases related to genocide, crimes against humanity, and serious violations of international law, to guarantee that the veto remains a responsible tool to serve global interests and international action. Faithful to our commitment to multilateralism, the Kingdom underlines the importance of continuing efforts to improve the working methods of the Security Council, to enhance transparency in its deliberations, and to expand inclusive participation in negotiation processes. This will help to consolidate the complementarity between the General Assembly and the main bodies of the UN. allowing us to take effective measures to maintain international peace and security. Strengthening this cooperation between different UN bodies is a cornerstone of ensuring a comprehensive and flexible response to international crises. In closing, President, my country calls on and encourages the General Assembly to continue bridging gaps caused by the use of the veto by adopting recommendations and outcomes consistent with its mandate under the UN Charter. And this is part of our unwavering commitment to achieving the goals and purposes of the United Nations and maintaining international peace and security. Thank you, President.

The distinguished representative of Austria.

Madam President, Excellencies, Austria aligns itself with the joint statement delivered by Liechtenstein. As we head into the fourth year since the adoption of resolution 76/262, and thus the creation of the veto initiative, Austria is convinced more than ever of the importance and relevance of this initiative. which we had the honor to co-sponsor and support from its outset. In action 41 of the Pact for the Future, which Austria had the honor to co-facilitate together with Kuwait, world leaders committed to strengthening the cooperation and communication between the Security Council and the General Assembly, including by continuing to fully implement and make use of the General Assembly resolutions on uniting for peace and the veto initiative. The purpose of the veto initiative is clear: to ensure the wider UN membership holds the permanent members of the Security Council accountable for the use of the veto, and to reaffirm that the members of the General Assembly also take on responsibility when it comes to the maintenance of international peace and security. Too often, the Security Council's work is hindered by permanent members exercising their veto rights when national interests prevail over the needs and expectations of the whole international community. Such behavior undermines the Council's legitimacy and, in the end, also affects the legitimacy of the UN as a whole, because the Council acts, or fails to act, on behalf of all UN members. We call on all Council members, elected and permanent ones, to consistently implement and observe the provisions of Article 27 of the UN Charter, namely that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. We call on the Council to ensure the full and consistent implementation of those provisions as they relate to a party to a dispute. Madam President, Excellencies, The General Assembly is the most democratic and inclusive organ of the United Nations. It can do more with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. And it has the authority and responsibility to recommend peaceful ways of dispute settlement. We need to be creative and open-minded with regard to complementary action or recommendations based on Chapter VI of the Charter. The veto initiative is an excellent tool for that end. We trust it can be developed into an even more effective instrument, one where resolutions are adopted, empowering the UN to become active in situations that urgently need multilateral support. In order to strengthen the response of the General Assembly in relation to matters of peace and security, Austria had the honor to co-finance the development of the GA Handbook on Peace and Security, which contains the past practice of the GA on peace and security. This handbook should serve as a useful tool for delegations to build on and expand the practice of the GA and contribute to the responsiveness and agility of the UN system. Austria stands ready to work with all partners on this. And I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Austria. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.

Thank you, Madam President. The credibility and effectiveness of the Security Council is an issue of fundamental importance for the entire membership of the United Nations. The veto carries political and moral responsibility, and its use must always serve the principles and purposes of the Charter. When Council action is blocked by the veto, particularly when faced with mass atrocities or the gravest violations of international law, it erodes confidence in the United Nations and weakens our ability to uphold peace and security. Romania believes that the Security Council legitimacy depends on its ability to act collectively and decisively. Responsible restraint in the use of the veto is essential to preserve that legitimacy And we have seen some examples in the last year or two, and the latest being earlier this week. Four sessions ago, Resolution 76/262 was widely hailed as a breakthrough for accountability and dialogue between the General Assembly and the Security Council, describing the debate and new mechanisms as vital for upholding the UN's credibility. Romania is proud to have been among the co-sponsors of that resolution and today we confirm its timeliness and enduring relevance. And this is why we have also joined the statement put forward by Liechtenstein in the name of a group of states. It is also significant that in our last resolution on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly, adopted earlier this September, alongside recognition for the veto initiative, we also included for the first time in OP 7 an explicit call for member states to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The veto initiative cannot substitute for the genuine political will or readiness to act in accordance with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter. The provisions of the Charter, complemented by the comprehensive and continuously developing framework of international law, already provide the necessary means to address the full spectrum of threats to international peace and security. What is required is an unwavering commitment for the consistent application of international law in all circumstances. Madam President, since our debate on this topic last year, four vetoes have been cast, blocking crucial decisions on the dire situations in Gaza and Ukraine. At the 80th year mark of the United Nations, we are renewing our efforts to revitalize and reform our organization and to strengthen its capacity to provide effective solutions to increasingly complex global challenges. We are looking into ways which we can streamline and improve the working methods and the overall fluency of the decision-making mechanism of the General Assembly, and we are already starting to see progressive change happening in the work of the main committees. It is thus both legitimate and necessary to also focus our attention to the use of the veto in the Security Council and on how the substantial political and negotiating weight it carries can be mobilized for constructive compromise rather than disappointing stalemates. The debate fostered by the Veto Initiative has contributed meaningfully to reshaping the perception of the General Assembly's role and authority. Complemented by the early initiatives such as the Political Declaration initiated by France and Mexico, as well as the ACT Code of Conduct, it has created a space where the voice of the General Assembly has grown stronger. Its legitimacy and authority as the most representative and inclusive organ of the United Nations have been further consolidated. But it is true that additional efforts are required to unlock the Assembly's full potential, including through more systematic and result-oriented follow-up to instances where a veto is cast. We remain committed, Madam President, to continue working with our fellow Member States in this direction. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Romania. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Madam President, I'd like to start by thanking you for convening this debate on a topic that's very important for the functioning of this organization. Since the initial negotiations on the UN Charter, In 1945, Colombia declared that it did not support granting the right of the veto or establishing permanent members in the Security Council, since it goes against the sovereign equality of states and undermines the capacity of the Council to act collectively. Sadly, history has proven us right, demonstrating that the use of the veto affects the capacity of the organization to fulfill its mission of preserving international peace and security. difficult to understand that the United Nations Organization, that was created precisely to protect future generations from the scourge of war, cannot find a consensus to act, even in the face of the worst levels of cruelty and barbarity. It's unacceptable that the Security Council, with a simple negative vote, can then endorse by an action the commission of atrocities by permanent members. For this same reason, for Colombia, reform of the Security Council. especially in an international context increasingly fragmented, must correct rather than worsen existing imbalances. Colombia calls for the abolition of the veto rather than extension of it. More vetoes would mean more paralysis and less trust in this organization. The principle of sovereign equality of all members of the United Nations will not be fully implemented unless the veto is abolished or in this context the initiatives of limiting the use of the veto especially in situation of mass atrocities are a step in the right direction even though insufficient to address the root problem we cannot remain impassive in the face of human and suffering human suffering and and not act in the face of terrible atrocities. Colombia recognizes the importance of the resolution that makes it possible for this Assembly to discuss the possibility of the use of the veto, as well as to discuss the accountability of the Council to this organization. We should not forget that, in accordance with Article 24 of the of the Charter, to be a member of the Security Council is a responsibility that is conferred by member states. Colombia takes very seriously, with a sense of responsibility, its election as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the period 2026-2027. We will work constructively for peace, strengthening multilateralism and diplomacy. based on our experience of building peace in our country and the will of sharing what we have learned and contribute to global stability. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Colombia. I now give the floor to the representative of Singapore.

Madam President, thank you for convening this plenary debate on the use of the veto under agenda item 64. Singapore aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein and would like to make the following points in our national capacity. The United Nations Charter confers on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 24 of the Charter makes clear that this is a responsibility conferred by Member States on the Security Council to act on their behalf. However, Paralysis and gridlock have sometimes impaired the effective functioning of the Security Council as a result of the cynical use, misuse or threat of use of the veto. Last year, we saw eight vetoes cast that blocked Council action on key matters of international peace and security. This year, vetoes have been cast on two resolutions and two amendments so far. It is especially concerning that the veto has been cast even on resolutions that command substantial support within the Security Council, and which reflect the views of a significant majority of Member States. Singapore recognises the right of the permanent members to exercise their veto power as granted by the UN Charter. However, Members of the General Assembly have the equal responsibility to hold to account members of the Security Council for their actions as well as their inaction. Our debate today is therefore fundamentally about the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly on questions of peace and security, and how the General Assembly should help to strengthen the work and accountability of the Council. Let me make four points on how Singapore views this important issue. First, Singapore was honoured to be part of the group of co-sponsors of General Assembly Resolution 76/262, or the Veto Initiative. To be clear, the initiative does not question or seek to limit the right of the veto, nor does it encroach on the Council's mandate or weaken its role. Instead, it gives agency to the General Assembly by giving form to its powers under Article 11 of the Charter, by establishing a mechanism for the wider membership to deliberate on the use of the veto and the issue at hand. The fact that the veto has been cast 19 times since the adoption of the resolution does not invalidate the fact that, on every occasion, the State casting the veto has had to come before the General Assembly to explain its position. This has prompted greater accountability and transparency in the decision-making of the Council. It also demonstrates that when the Council is unable or unwilling to exercise its primary responsibility, it is incumbent on the General Assembly, the other principal organ of the UN, to exercise leadership. Second, we believe that parameters should be drawn for the responsible use of the veto. Action 39, paragraph 67g of the Pact for the Future clearly outlines the commitment of Member States to intensify efforts to reach agreement on the future of the veto. including discussions on limiting its scope and use. In this context, Singapore strongly supports initiatives that encourage restraint in the use of the veto under certain circumstances. The ACT Group's Code of Conduct and French-Mexican initiative are important proposals that aim to commit permanent members to suspend the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. In particular, We strongly welcome the commitment by two permanent members of the Security Council, France and the UK, not to exercise the veto in cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We would like to see more such acts of leadership by other permanent members of the Council. Third, we cannot speak about leadership and accountability without emphasizing the importance of adherence to the UN Charter and international law. The use or threat of use of the veto to shield violations of Charter provisions and obstruct the adoption of the Security Council's own resolutions prevents the Council from discharging its mandate. We urge all Council members, particularly the permanent members, to abstain from voting if they are party to a dispute, in line with Article 27 of the UN Charter. This practice is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Charter. It only serves to further undermine the Council's legitimacy and credibility. Finally, we call on all Member States to promote ideas or initiatives to strengthen the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council in support of a more effective Council. One key example is the Assembly for Peace Digital Handbook, which serves as a useful reference to the General Assembly's past practice and role on issues relating to peace and security. Singapore is pleased to have contributed to the production of the Handbook. A more effective Council can also be achieved by strengthening the leadership role of the elected members, who form the bulk of the Council. The E10 have consistently proven themselves to be constructive bridge-builders when the permanent members are divided. They should be encouraged to lead on key Council files, particularly those concerning their respective regions, where their knowledge will be useful in informing the decisions of the Council. Madam President, the veto is a special privilege held by the permanent members of the Security Council. However, it must be used judiciously and responsibly for the Security Council to properly discharge its duties on the maintenance of international peace and security. If we are to make the UN truly effective and responsive, the Security Council and the General Assembly must work together on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter, so that we can secure a collective future of peace, security and stability. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the Distinguished Representative of Singapore. I now give the floor to the Distinguished Representative of El Salvador.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We're grateful for your convening this debate, and we'd like to start by the statement by saying that we align ourselves with the statement made by Liechtenstein on behalf of states that are committed to this resolution 76/262. Madam President, the use or the threat of the use of veto continues to produce direct effects on the capacity of the multilateral system to respond to contemporary challenges of peace and security. In recent situations, the stalemate in the Security Council has prevented necessary measures being adopted to prevent or mitigate significant deterioration on the ground. There's very tangible consequences for the populations affected. This pattern is incompatible with the goal for which this organization was created. For El Salvador, there is still a need to question the idea that de veto is a right. It is rather an exceptional privilege that should be subject to strict and coherent limits in the spirit of the Charter. its use in contexts where there are imminent risks of atrocities is particularly problematic. The paralysis of the Council in these cases weakens the system of collective security and also erodes the trust of Member States, but most importantly erodes the the trust of the people and communities that we serve, their trust in the capacity of the United Nations to fulfill its mandate. This is why we reiterate our appeal for states who have not done so yet to consider joining the Mexican-French declaration and the code of conduct of the Group ACP. Madam President, the experience accumulated since 2022 demonstrates that resolution 676/262 has generated a significant rebalance in the institutional arrangements between the Security Council and this Assembly. Plenary meetings convened in this framework have made it possible to make progress in political monitoring and has emphasized that the decisions of the Council cannot be considered as a procedural closing of the debate. However, since from the point of view of El Salvador, this mechanism is only a first step in the response, the General Assembly has authority that is broader under Articles 10, 11, 12, and 35 of the Charter. that must and should be activated in a systematic way when the inaction of the Security Council puts in danger international peace and security. This is why, from our point of view, today the General Assembly is facing a fundamental question. Will we continue limiting ourselves to react reacting to the use of the veto or will we make a concrete step to using the authority that the Charter grants us? If the General Assembly aspires to preserve its role as a universal deliberative body and the ultimate guarantor of collective action, it cannot limit itself to an exercise that is purely reactive. It is up to the membership here to use proactively the authorities that the Charter grants it them, including considering situations that threaten peace and security when other organs are not acting, and to activate the necessary mechanisms to avoid vacuums in protection. Inaction in such context is not neutral. It perpetuates the paralyzing effects of the veto and reduces the capacity of the United Nations to respond in a timely and effective way. With this in mind, we strongly support updating and the use of the digital manual assembly for peace that proposes concrete orientations for the practical use of these authorities. Its implementation would strengthen coherence among the existing mechanisms and constitutional practice of the Assembly. Madam President, an element that deserves priority attention is the lack of compliance with Article 27.3 of the Charter. that is the obligation to refrain by a party to a conflict from voting on it. This directly affects the validity of the decisions of the Council and weakens the legal foundations of the Security Council. El Salvador considers that the membership must advance towards codification of this obligation as mentioned in the pact for the future and the resolution on revitalization of the General Assembly that was adopted this year likewise we believe it's timely to examine additional formulas that make it possible in exceptional circumstances that this assembly examined the mechanisms to mitigate or counter the effects of a veto used against the purposes of the charter. The credibility of the architecture of peace and security depends on our ability to correct institutional stalemates when these have grave humanitarian consequences. Madam President, for my country, El Salvador, Strengthening the role of the General Assembly is a reaffirmation of its role as the deliberative and representative body that is universal. In a global context of growing complexity, a more balanced relationship, more functional one, between the Assembly and the Council is essential so that the United Nations maintains its relevance, but also its effectiveness. We trust that the membership, all of us, will continue to advance towards a vision of more robust forms of supervision, transparency, and responsibility in the use of the veto. That is our responsibility. Thank you very much, Madam.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Turkey.

Madam President, Thank you for convening this fourth debate on the use of veto after the consensual adoption of General Assembly resolution 76/262, which Turkey co-sponsored as a core group member. The veto initiative was a significant, timely move to enhance the role of the General Assembly in line with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter to ensure the Security Council's accountability. The General Assembly, as the most representative organ of the United Nations, has priority and power over all other organs of the organization, including the Security Council. This august body stands as a forum for dialogue, cooperation, and collective action to ensure progress for current and future generations. It is a safeguard for the international community to freely voice their collective will. The Security Council, on the other hand, draws its legitimacy from the wider membership. therefore, it has to fulfill its responsibilities on behalf of all UN members. It is regrettable that the veto continues to be invoked when overlapping crises demand urgent and decisive action. The Security Council failed to respond to the immediate challenges we face today in a swift and efficient manner, as millions of people affected by the severity of conflicts around the world will attest to. On this note, we would be amiss in failing to acknowledge the constructive role undertaken by the elected Council members. We thank their increasing engagement and endeavours in the work of the Security Council. The growing criticism on the permanent members of the Council for prioritising their own narrow interests continue to adversely affect the credibility of the United Nations. We reiterate that the UN should be fit for purpose in order to properly, efficiently and urgently address contemporary challenges. We therefore once again underline that ideally the veto should be abolished. Failing to do this, its use and framework should be limited, especially under specific circumstances such as mass atrocities or war crimes. Madam President, the veto initiative has proved a valuable tool on issues pertaining to international peace and security for the collective good of humanity. We are pleased to see that Resolution 76262 is serving its purpose and we appreciate seeing its concrete results. General Assembly debates held under this resolution garner broad participation from the wider membership whenever a veto is cast. They enable the reflection of the collective political weight of the larger portion of the world and pave the way for further options to be explored. Special reports and summaries prepared by your office in line with the provisions of this resolution provide a legitimate and fertile ground for transparent and informed discussions. The veto initiative has also substantially contributed to a strengthened relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. Madam President, Turkey will continue to fully support this important mandate and to engage constructively in these general debates. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Turkey. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya.

Thank you, Madam President.

Kenya thanks you for convening this important discussion on the use of the veto. Allow me at the outset to pose a question.

What purpose does the veto serve?

The question before us is is not merely institutional. It is moral, political, and historical, going to the heart of whether our collective security system reflects today's realities or remains bound by the logic of 1945. As it stands today, the veto is the greatest embodiment and the symbol of anti-democratic conduct in the world. It has been viewed as an expression of unbridled power, a frequent assertion of immunity in the face of international law and international humanitarian law, and a deployment to undermine rather than promote international peace and security. The veto has too often been used to protect narrow national interests

rather than to uphold collective security, eroding confidence in the multilateral system.

Most of the vetoes recorded in the last years blocked action on pressing humanitarian situations and prevented meaningful responses to conflict and instability. When the Council cannot act, the burden of unresolved crisis falls hardest on the peacekeepers and civilian populations pay the human cost of the conflict.

Madam President, Kenya

views the issue of the veto true to interrelated and mutually reinforcing lenses, the procedural and the structural. The procedural dimension concerns how the veto is used within the existing charter framework. Kenya has been a strong supporter of initiatives that promote responsible veto use, including General Assembly resolution 76/262, which ensures automatic review of any veto by the General Assembly and encourages permanent members to refrain from vetoes in cases of mass atrocities. In 2024, Kenya proposed the idea of a constructive veto, where any state exercising this privilege puts forward a credible alternative proposal that can command Council support. This reflects our belief that the veto should not paralyze international action, but guide it towards a consensus and a constructive solution by improving its practice. and strengthen the Council's legitimacy today, even as we continue to work for deeper reform tomorrow. Regarding the structural context, the Security Council's composition no longer reflects the diversity, equality, representation that the United Nations espouses. Today's discussions expose a deeper structural imbalance Africa remains the only continent without permanent representation, despite dominating the Council's agenda and contributing significantly to peacekeeping. As long as decisions affecting African lives can be vetoed without African voices in the room, the legitimacy and fairness of the Council remains fundamentally compromised. In this regard, Kenya aligns fully with Africa's common position as articulated in Ensuing Consensus and the Silta Declaration. Kenya believes that true reform must therefore be structural, expanding both membership and rights in a way that reflects today's geopolitical realities. Madam President, Kenya firmly believes that all members of the international community, including permanent members of the UN Security Council, have a duty to act in accordance with their obligations under international law and to prioritize the maintenance of international peace and security above narrow national interest. We therefore call for three urgent steps. One, member states exercising the veto must provide full, reasoned justification ensuring transparency and accountability for actions that affect global peace and security. Second, the General Assembly must continue to serve as a check when the Council is unable or unwilling to act, ensuring that humanitarian principles and international law are not sidelined.

Three, meaningful progress

on the responsible use of the veto must go together with comprehensive Security Council reform, including equitable permanent representation for Africa. Only then can the veto be used in a manner consistent with the Charter and the expectation of all members. In conclusion, Kenya encourages member states to reaffirm our commitment to unity, diplomacy, and reform to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter and safeguard international peace and security, and stands ready to work with all Member States to advance this vision of accountability, equity, shared responsibility within the United Nations system. I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.

Madam President, thank you for convening this debate. Under the UN Charter, member states have conferred on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. And the Charter confers a special responsibility on the Security Council permanent members, in relation to substantive decisions which require an affirmative vote of nine members. This includes the concurring votes of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The United States takes this responsibility seriously. When it exercises its veto, it has a compelling reason for doing so, and it communicates those reasons clearly. The United States does not support alteration or expansion of the veto. That non-support also applies to any initiative aimed at circumventing the UN Charter's provisions relating to the powers and functions of the organization's principal organs. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank the distinguished representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

President, thank you for convening this fourth general debate on the implementation of Resolution 76/262. And of course, we are mindful of the statement made by the Ambassador of Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of the veto initiative. Since the adoption in 2022, the debate mandated by the resolution has helped to strengthen transparency, accountability, and the institutional dynamic between the Security Council and the General Assembly. The issue of the veto is at the heart of the credibility and effectiveness of the Council, which is the reason why Switzerland commends this holding of a targeted discussion on this question. During our mandate, 2020 through 2024, at the Security Council, we have witnessed both the capacity of the Council to prevent and resolve crises, as well as the severe limitations that emerge when the veto or threat of the use of the veto too often block its action. In situations of mass atrocities and acute humanitarian need, This kind of paralysis further undermines the legitimacy of the Council. Our experience, therefore, has deepened our conviction that the use of the veto ought to be fundamentally reconsidered. We believe that the concept of the veto itself ought to be abolished in the long term to create a more responsible Council. Until such a reform is undertaken, we ought to at least establish more strict limitations on the use of this right. We also can see several complementary measures to be taken. First of all, we said often, but it's important to repeat this, no member of the Council should veto a resolution that aims at preventing or ending a genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. More than two-thirds of member states have already endorsed the code of conduct of the ACT Group. As that group's coordinator, we encourage all states that have not yet done so to join it and to follow this code. Of course, we also support the French-Mexican initiative, which also calls on permanent members to voluntarily abstain from using the veto in situations of mass atrocities. These two initiatives enhance shared responsibility for acting when civilians are in severe danger. Secondly, accountability before the General Assembly ought to be heightened. We commend the trend that was set by regular meetings of the General Assembly after the use of a veto. The many statements made during those sessions would be more beneficial if they included in-depth analyses, concrete proposals, and an evaluation of the structural causes of the impasse within the Council. Greater engagement with this subject could demonstrate that the veto is not the end of the conversation, but that, on the contrary, it ought to be a starting point for identifying possible solutions in order to maintain international peace and security. It's in this spirit that Switzerland welcomes the adoption of resolution A/RES/79/327, in which OP.6 calls on the President of the General Assembly to include in the records of the debates on the use of the veto recommendations addressed to the Security Council. We strongly encourage the Council to attentively examine these recommendations and to engage in constructive dialogue with the General Assembly order to strengthen interaction between these two bodies. Thirdly, at the 80th anniversary of the UN's creation, the General Assembly has dedicated itself to reforms. The reform of the Council ought to be in full keeping with this overall effort. Major reforms on the Council's composition and the abolition of the veto still seem remote. However, concrete improvements could be made on the methods of use of the veto. They are possible and realistic. We welcome the constructive proposals that aim to limit and increase accountability for the use of the veto. This includes requirements for broader support before a veto is valid, or options allowing involvement of the General Assembly. We will examine these proposals and other ideas carefully. One relevant obligation already exists, Article 27, which we place great importance upon in terms of rigorous implementation. According to this article, Council members that are involved in a dispute must abstain from voting on decisions adopted under Chapter 6 and paragraph 3 of Article 52. The coherent application of this rule is crucial for guaranteeing legitimacy, impartiality, and credibility of the Council decisions. Lastly, we recall that the threat of using the veto should never be weaponized as a tool for negotiation or a strategy to weaken necessary responses to acute crises. The veto cannot and should not lead to protracted blockages on key questions of peace and security. If these blockages do arise, we underscore that the General Assembly has the responsibility and legitimacy to fully exercise its role under the Charter, including by addressing situations in which the inaction of the Council could endanger lives. Madam President, at a time of deep global instability, the Council must regain the trust of the international community. A more responsible, transparent, and limited use of the veto is crucial to allow it to fulfill its mandate and protect civilian populations. Switzerland is willing to work with all member states to strengthen the effectiveness, accountability, and legitimacy of the Council. Thank you.

Merci. I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Republic of Korea.

President, the Republic of Korea thanks you for convening this plenary debate on the use of the veto. The growing calls for the restraint of veto are loud and clear. This sentiment was reflected in the Pact for the Future adopted by this General Assembly last September. Although we're not yet at a stage where the veto can be abolished, the wider UN membership has taken meaningful steps to prevent its abuse through several initiatives, including the Veto Initiative, the Franco-Mexican Initiative, and the ACT Group's Code of Conduct, all of which the Republic of Korea proudly continues to support. President, our concern extends to two dimensions of the veto's impact. First, The veto carries profound implications when decisive action is required to maintain international peace and security. In such cases, arbitrary or excessive use of veto does not merely delay actions, it prevents the Council from fulfilling its primary responsibility. The result is a weakening confidence that is felt not only within this organization, but across the international community as a whole. Second, when a single veto can overturn what the Council had previously agreed, it raises serious questions about the credibility and integrity of the Council's decision-making. Mechanisms established through Council decisions should have safeguards to ensure their continuity and coherence. Unless there are significant changes in circumstances, revoking or dismantling such decisions should require thresholds that reflect the gravity of reversing a mandate that Council itself created. President, as we reflect on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the United Nations, the Republic of Korea stands ready to engage constructively with all Member States to enhance accountability of the use of the veto in a manner fully consistent with the Charter and to ensure that the Council can act effectively. Thank you.

I thank you for the

Korea and now give the floor to Italy.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. President. Italy aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the distinguished representative of Liechtenstein and would like to add some remarks in national capacity. Italy welcomes this further opportunity to discuss Resolution 76/262 and its implementation. This discussion is crucial given the Pact for the Future and the commitment contained therein

to "strengthen the cooperation and communication between the Security Council and the General Assembly,

including by continuing to fully implement and make use

of Assembly Resolution 76/262 of 26 April 2022 on the veto initiative."

Italy was among the co-sponsors of Resolution 76/262.

We are of the view that

the mechanism established by the resolution contributes to strengthening the UN system and is a good example of effective multilateralism. By convening this Assembly automatically every time a vet is cast, it increases transparency and accountability.

Its operation twice in the last 12 months

with regard to vetoes cast in relation to serious threats to international peace and security confirms its importance.

The initiative has injected

new life in the way the General Assembly engages with matters of international peace and security, well behind the traditional

remit of the United for Peace Resolution. It has ensured that all member states, through the General Assembly, may have a say when the

Security Council does not deliver on its important mandate due to the opposition of one of its permanent members.

Mr. President, Italy wishes to reiterate one simple proposition: the veto power is the problem. While inevitable in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the veto blatantly

contradicts one of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter, that of sovereign equality of states.

In too many occasions, it has prevented the Security Council from discharging its vital responsibilities with regard to situations endangering international peace and security, in which the UN could have made a real difference on the ground.

Which is why Italy has consistently advocated for a Security Council reform that does not exacerbate further the functional malaise of the Council by adding new permanent members with veto power. While we do not expect the P5 to renounce to their privilege under the Charter,

and their position in this respect is fully guaranteed by the amendment procedures

under Article 108, we ask and expect them to act responsibly and to provide a full

explanation to the whole membership represented in the General Assembly when they cast a veto.

Such expectation is largely shared by the UN membership, judging from the consensus adoption of the resolution and by the broad participation in the meetings that have been held so far on its basis.

Similarly, the P5 should comply with Article 27.3 of the UN Charter, which provides for the obligation

to abstain when action is taken on Security Council draft resolutions that deal with disputes in which they are parties. Had that

obligation been adhered to in the past, we would be looking at a much more relevant and effective United Nations with regard to some of the most serious threats to international peace and security. Mr. President, the global challenges ahead of us, be it in the field of peace and security,

sustainable development, climate action, or human rights and the rule of law, need a stronger multilateral response. Let us take today's opportunity to reaffirm our resolve in pursuing an effective, democratic, accountable, and inclusive multilateral system.

I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank Italy for that statement and now give the floor to Egypt.

Mr. President, the veto has been one of the principal structural flaws afflicting the United Nations since its establishment. Regrettably, as we mark the UN's 80th anniversary this year, we continue to witness the negative consequences of the use of the veto in the Security Council and the resulting erosion of the Council's ability to discharge its responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security as mandated by the Charter. Since 1946, the Security Council has seen the veto cast 327 times, most frequently to block the admission of new members to the organization, followed by the question of Palestine, which was the subject of the most recent veto last September during the Council's 10,000th meeting. Indeed, after more than 10,000 meetings, Some permanent members of the Security Council still do not grasp the grave implications of exercising the veto and its direct impact on the lives of millions across the world. As we speak today about reforming the UN and enhancing its ability to fulfill its mandates, we must not overlook the fact that the veto is one of the principal reasons behind the weakened performance of this organization, particularly in the maintenance of international peace and security. Nor should we ignore calls to reform the veto as part of a comprehensive reform package of the Security Council based on the five key clusters identified in GA resolution 62/557 and in a manner that contributes to making the Council more democratic, fair, and reflective of current international realities. Mr. President, as we value the convening of today's debate and strongly support the implementation of GA resolution 76/262, which mandates a General Assembly debate whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council, and while we participate actively in those debates, we stress that such resolutions, or any other resolutions, are not and will never be substitutes for genuine reform of the question of the veto. The same applies to other efforts aimed at the voluntary restraint of the use of the veto, such as the French-Mexican initiative and the code of conduct of the ACT group, or any other existing or future initiatives, whether already out there or still under development. In this regard, Egypt believes that meaningful reform of the veto can only be achieved through one of two options, and no others. First, the complete abolition of the veto. This is the preferable option, the one most consistent with the principles of justice, fairness, and equality, as well as with basic logic and common sense. It is unacceptable that the will of a handful of States should prevail over the will of the overwhelming majority of the membership, nor should a tiny minority continue to dominate the Council's decisions and the destinies of entire nations and peoples. This was neither correct nor ethical in 1945, and it is no more correct or ethical today as we approach the second quarter of the 21st century. The second option, a less preferable, though arguably more practical option, is extending the veto to all new permanent members in an enlarged Council, including the two African permanent members, in line with the African common position enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Cirt Declaration. This is the minimum necessary to prevent the continued monopoly and dominance of the current five permanent members over the entire membership, and to ensure a balance of powers among permanent members and their collective ability to guide the Security Council's performance in all directions. Mr. President, The injustice and illogic of the current veto regime has become a matter of consensus among the vast majority of member states and regional and political groups in the organization. Indeed, even within the current P5, some acknowledge the flaws inherent in the veto and support extending it to new permanent members. I would like to commend France, which has consistently and clearly expressed this principled position aligned with the values of fairness and justice. And I call upon the other permanent members to adopt a similar stance with the same clarity and firmness. Egypt will continue throughout the session to work with all member states and groups to achieve a comprehensive reform of the Security Council with the veto question at its core. We call on all to support -- we all on -- all members to support and reinforce the African common position and the Arab position on Council reform, and we hope that this session will witness a tangible breakthrough in this regard. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you.

Egypt, and I give the floor to Germany.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

Aligns itself with a statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries. And I would like, in addition to that, to underscore the following points in my national capacity. In the past three and a half years, the veto initiative has been transformative, transformative in recalibrating and even realigning the sensitive balance between the Security Council and the General Assembly, especially in the area of peace and security. The veto initiative has contributed to more transparency and accountability. And a call it has been that we have jointly recommitted to and the resolution 79/327 on the revitalization of the General Assembly. Germany is convinced that even more can and must be done. We can go beyond the veto initiative. The General Assembly does not need to limit itself to repeat the debate of the Council. It has the power to develop its own responses to questions of peace and security. And that is especially true in cases where the Security Council is gridlocked, and it has a large variety of instruments to do so, as they are laid out in the digital handbook Assembly for Peace. And frankly, it is also, in our view, the duty of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative policymaking and representative body of the United Nations. I would like to underline our view that it is of critical importance to address the question of the veto also in the context of Security Council reform, which was also highlighted in the Pact for the Future. Limiting both the scope and the use of the veto, in our view, is essential to create a more inclusive, transparent, and responsive Security Council. Germany is a strong advocate for restraint in the exercise of the veto, particularly in cases involving mass atrocities and war crimes, in order to prioritize the protection of civilians in conflict situations. And we call upon all Member States to support the ACT Code of Conduct and the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint. Mr. President, the veto initiative shows reforms in the United Nations are possible. And in this vein, I would like to stress that we strongly support the UN80 reform initiative that needs to be a success for the UN to remain fit for purpose. Germany stands ready to work with all Member States on these reforms, and we also stand ready to finally make substantive steps towards the reform of the Security Council. Germany has consistently advocated for an accountable and transparent Security Council, and it will continue to do so. And in that particular regard, I would like to stress that we agree with the Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein and others that we need to make progress in implementing Article 73, Section 3 of the UN Charter, which states, in essence, that no state should be a judge in its own cause. This commitment is yet to be committed to and finally carried out. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. President,

for giving me the floor and

for convening this important and timely debate. We join our fellow Member States here in expressing appreciation to the President of the General Assembly for her unwavering support, which has been instrumental in elevating these mechanisms from a model resolution to a cornerstone of UN accountability practice. Similarly, we thank the Secretary-General for his public endorsement of the veto initiative, underscoring the Secretariat's pivotal role in fostering institutional reform. Mr. President, the recent veto exercise on the draft resolution addressing dire and deteriorating situations compels us to reflect not only on the immediate humanitarian consequences, but on the broader implications for international diplomacy, peacekeeping, and the credibility of the multilateral system we all depend on. For Timor-Leste, a nation whose history is marked by conflict, solidarity, and the hard work of rebuilding, the stakes could not be clearer. We sincerely believe in the principles of collective security and multilateral cooperation. And we welcome the growing openness among some permanent members of the Council to engage in reform, including discussions on the appropriate use of the veto. However, the reality remains that the Article 27.3 of the Charter grants five states the power to unilaterally block substantive resolutions unilaterally. even when an overwhelming majority of the Council, or indeed the General Assembly, stands ready to act. This arrangement, designed eight decades ago in the aftermath of a world war, no longer reflects today's geopolitical or moral landscape. We have all witnessed the consequences when vetoes are cast in the face of escalating violence. In 2025 alone, the Security Council has struggled to respond decisively to urgent crises, including the vetoed Gaza-related draft resolution in June, which occurred against the backdrop of mounting humanitarian needs and repeated warnings in the Secretary-General's reports. When lives are at stake, delays are deadly.

Mr. President,

Vetoes of this kind do not merely express disagreement. They isolate the Council from those it is mandated to protect, undermine its authority, and erode global trust in our shared institutions. As a member of G7+ country that has lived through the failures and the promise of international engagement, Timor-Leste insists that no political calculus can justify inaction in the face of mass suffering. It is essential to acknowledge the inherent imbalance between permanent and non-permanent members. The 10 elected members, representing the diversity of our regions, often bring fresh ideas and the people-centered lens to crisis response. However, a single permanent member can override their efforts. More than 300 vetoes have been cast since the UN's founding, many in situations involving atrocity crimes, moments when decisive action was most needed. The veto must never be used when genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing are at stake. Doing so contradicts not only the responsibility to protect, but also the fundamental moral principles upon which this organization was founded. Mr. President, the urgency of Security Council reform cannot be overstated. The Council's composition and its decision-making structures are increasingly misaligned with a world of shifting power centers, persistent conflict, and climate-driven fragility. The Secretary-General's UN80 initiative, launched this year, has reminded us that repairing the credibility of multilateralism depends on institutions that are inclusive, legitimate, and accountable. The reaffirmations in the 2030 or 2050 Pact for the Future have amplified calls from Africa, from the global South, from small island developing states, including my own, for a council that reflects the realities of our century, not the last. Encouragingly, the July 2025 elements paper from the intergovernmental negotiations has crystallized real momentum. It identifies the regulation of veto use as a central pillar of reform and builds on initiatives that many states have long championed. Over 100 countries now support the France-Mexico initiative for voluntary veto restraint in mass atrocity situations, and 121 states, including two permanent members, are signatories to the ACTS Group's Code of Conduct on Action Against Atrocity Crimes. Azulwini consensus continues to call for at least two permanent African seats with veto rights to address historical inequities. Broader proposal envision an expanded council of 21 to 27 members, including longer term non-permanent seats and more representative regional allocations. Other ideas under discussion, including multi-veto requirements and general assembly override options signal a growing will to strengthen legitimacy through checks and balances. Mr. President, Timor-Leste believes that the Council must act, and to be seen to act, on behalf of those who do not have a voice in the chambers. We reaffirm our commitment to consensus-building that prioritizes human life, stability, and dignity above political divides. Moreover, we stand ready to work with all member states to ensure that the Security Council is equipped, both morally and structurally, to meet the challenges of the next generation. In that spirit, Timor-Leste offers four recommendations. First, we call for mandatory restraints on the use of vetoes in our trustier situations, with the France-Mexico initiative and the ACT Code serving as the foundation for binding commitments through charter review. Second, we support expanding the Council to 25-27 members, including new permanent seats for Africa, the Asia-Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean with veto rights, as well as rotating seats for small island developing states, complemented by long-term non-permanent seats. Third, we urge to strengthen accountability and transparency regarding the use of vetoes. including enhanced General Assembly debates and more inclusive working methods, particularly through the diversification of panelholder roles. Finally, we call for an accelerated, text-based reform process under the Pact for the Future, aiming to produce concrete outcomes by the 81st UNGA session, including pragmatic veto regulation such as multi-veto thresholds. Mr. President, these steps are not abstract aspirations. They are necessary to revitalize the Council's effectiveness, restore faith in multilateralism, and uphold the principles on which this organization was founded. Timor-Leste remains committed to a future where cooperation prevails over rivalry, where the Council speaks with moral clarity, and where no community is left to face crisis alone. Thank you.

Thank the representative Timmermans and I give the floor to Malta.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. Malta aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of states committed to the implementation of resolution 76/262, known as the veto initiative. and is making these remarks in its national capacity. President, we thank you for convening the fourth general debate on the use of the veto since the resolution was adopted by consensus in 2022. Our debate today provides an opportunity to review the use of the veto and to discuss ways in which we may be able to build on the initiative. Malta firmly believes that the veto initiative remains a critical tool to ensure that the Security Council fulfills its responsibility to address serious threats to international peace and security. Over the past three years since its creation, we've seen firsthand how the initiative promotes transparency and accountability and ensures that the Council member who exercises the veto is also responsible for justifying its use to the broader UN membership. Notwithstanding this, the veto initiative has not had a fully deterrent effect. The veto continues to be used, though thus far in 2025, it has been used less frequently than last year. But let us be clear, any use of the veto in the face of human suffering is deplorable. Such instances demand immediate action by the Security Council. President, One added benefit of the veto initiative is that it has provided UN members with an opportunity to publicly explain their stance on the situation that prompted the veto. It has given the General Assembly a stronger voice on issues of international peace and security, and member states have justifiably urged the Council to act and to heed the urgent pleas of the international community. However, despite this voice, the Council retains the primary responsibility for matters of international peace and security. We are glad that several permanent members of the Council have not exercised their veto for several years. And during our time as an elected member, we experienced firsthand the efforts of Council members to reach agreement. Yet the veto issue remains a key element in the discussion of Security Council reform. Malta fully believes in the idea of limiting and eventually eliminating the veto, particularly in cases of mass atrocities and war crimes. The French-Mexican initiative on instances where veto powers can be suspended also deserves full consideration. We encourage all Member States to consider proposals to limit the use of the veto, and as part of this process, Malta looks forward to actively engaging with all countries. I thank you.

I think Malta.

I give the floor to Bulgaria.

Mr. President, Bulgaria aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of states committed to the resolution 76/2/62, and I would like to further make the following points. Four years ago, this Assembly, by adopting the resolution widely known as the veto initiative, decided to provide the Security Council with another opportunity for dialogue and transparency towards those on behalf of whom the Security Council is acting. Each annual debate on the use of the veto is an opportune moment to reflect on how the veto initiative is enhancing the ability of the Council to fulfill its primary responsibility to maintain the international peace and security, and how the General Assembly can elevate its engagement with the same matter in instances when the Council cannot deliver. Bulgaria has long advocated for an enhanced role of the UN General Assembly in upholding the UN Charter values, norms, and principles, and is encouraged to see how the B2 Initiative has been able to strengthen the interaction between the Security Council and the General Assembly, and how it has left its positive mark on the institutional practice of the organization. each veto cast, leads now to a special report, which becomes integrated part of the Council's annual report, and each special report is increasingly becoming a catalyst for substantive debates on peace and security. Turning now to the digital handbook, Assembly for Peace, that has been cited out by speakers before me, I would like to state Bulgaria's support for this initiative and to acknowledge its contribution not only in raising awareness of the functions and powers of the General Assembly under the UN Charter, but also awareness of the important accountability role the General Assembly has played in the international system. The 18 case studies of past accountability measures contained in the digital handbook form not only substantial part of the General Assembly holistic responses to peace and security situations, but have also encouraged accountability measures by the Security Council. The negotiations of the Pact of the Future presented the UN Member States with another opportunity to step up their resolve towards the full implementation of the UN Charter and the maintenance of international peace and security. The provision of Article 27.3 is rooted in the principle that no state, big or small, can be judge of its own deeds. We look forward to working with all Member States who consider that it is time to ensure that this provision is implemented. In closing, Bulgaria remains committed to building a multilateral system that is transparent, accountable and effective in safeguarding peace and security, and encourages all Council members to show continued restraint on the use of veto and work together to meet their collective Charter obligations. I thank you.

I thank Bulgaria and now give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

Mr. President, in 2024, seven vetoes were cast, which is the highest annual figure since 1986. This has merely demonstrated that the use of the veto, far from being something exceptional or unusual, continues to condition in a determining fashion the ability of the Security Council to act effectively and with responsibility in the face of actions that compromise international peace and security. We must not forget that when the Security Council finds itself paralyzed because of a veto, it is the civilian populations that pay the highest price. We've seen this in various contexts where national political interests prevail over the collective obligation of maintaining peace and seeking just solutions to conflicts that occur between nations. We cannot accept or even less so normalize this reality. When each decision and most importantly, each absence of decision has direct, measurable and devastating human consequences. The cases of Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine have been horrific examples that illustrate this problem. It's clear, of course, that not all the permanent members resort to the veto in the same way or with the same frequency. However, the paralysis of the Security Council is not only the result of the use or the abuse of the veto, but it is also the result of the threat of its use. Diluted draft resolutions that come before the Security Council for it to vote on often are the result of adjustments that are made in the face of an imminent veto. Not much is said about this, either because of the discomfort this causes among permanent members or due to the opacity of certain negotiations on resolutions. Since the San Francisco conference in 1945 until today, that is 80 years later, Mexico has maintained a consistent position regarding the veto. We questioned its addition to the UN Charter and we abstained from supporting the formula that that gave rise to this authority that is exercised by the five permanent members of the Security Council. The veto has not contributed to the collective interest or to promote unity within this organ. Those were the arguments that were used by the proponents of the veto in favor of a more united organization. The elimination of the veto, therefore, is a legitimate aspiration, and we applaud the fact that every year more countries support with great conviction and sense of urgency its abolition. However, the political and legal conditions are not there at the moment to achieve this goal in the short term. Mexico, therefore, welcomes the fact that the most recent resolution on the revitalization of the General Assembly called upon the members of the Security Council, and I quote, "to refrain from taking measures that obstruct preventing or putting an end to the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes," end of quote. It is encouraging to note that the international community is of one view on such a fundamental matter. We must also recall that for some time now, the United Nations has undertaken initiatives that are precisely aimed at eliminating this authority by the permanent members of the Security Council, which has become the target of most of the criticism of the UN. Since the last debate on the question of the veto, which took place a year ago, I'm happy to underscore that one more state has joined the Franco-Mexican initiative to limit the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. That brings us to 170 signatories of this initiative already. The group on accountability, coherency and transparency, ACT, has also adopted a clear position on the need to limit the veto. Both of these initiatives are tangible examples of the possibility of reaching political agreements that make it possible to restrict the use of the veto. It's something that's very positive that these two initiatives increasingly enjoy broader support. In conclusion, I would like to recall that we must do more to empower the General Assembly with regard to its own mandate in maintaining international peace and security. The use of the veto in the Security Council should not be the last word and therefore paralyze the UN in the face of the frustration and the indignation of the international community. When this happens, the General Assembly must be able to agree on courses of action in response to this, whether this be the Security Council to reconsider this matter or to chart its own path to reestablishing peace. Let us make the voice of this Assembly heard. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of

Mexico and now give the floor to the representative of Brazil.

Mr. President, a few weeks ago in this plenary, we regretted that during its symbolic 10,000th meeting, the Security Council failed to meet its responsibilities under the Charter. Once again, action by the UN was blocked by one Council member, despite the support of the other 14 delegations. The repeated and excessive resort to the veto has proven a systematic failure of the Council to fulfill its duties. Instead of promoting international peace and security, it has too often obstructed collective action, prevented responses to serious violations of international law and international humanitarian and human rights law, and perpetuated cycles of violence. The consequences are measured not in abstractions, but in human lives and in appalling damage to civil infrastructures. Mr. President, Brazil joins the call for a profound reflection on the use of the veto. It must never result in disrespect for the letter and the spirit of the Charter, nor should it result in shielding impunity or in prolonging human suffering and destruction. We must ensure that this power serves the UN Charter's purposes, rather than obstructing them. This issue cannot be avoided in the discussions toward a comprehensive and long overdue Security Council reform, which remains a priority for the overwhelming majority of the membership. For the sake of consistency, Brazil believes that the same responsibilities and obligations inherent to the current permanent members should also be extended to new permanent members in a reformed Council. However, as highlighted in the G4 reform model, new permanent members would commit not to use the veto until a decision on the matter is taken during a review to be held 15 years after the coming into force of the reform. Brazil also believes that more transparency and accountability are needed now. As much as we supported the approval of resolution 76/262, we feel that it has not fulfilled its purpose of constraining permanent members to cast their vetoes in the Council. On the contrary, it gave the permanent members another platform to come before the entire membership to yet again present the reasons why they vetoed a resolution. This Assembly should look back at the effects of resolution 76/262 and seriously discuss what can be done to improve its effectiveness. As we aim to move toward Security Council reform, the question of the veto is essential. Brazil is committed to finding solutions that make the Council truly fit for maintaining international peace and security. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil, and I give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand.

President, three years ago, Member States took the landmark decision to adopt by consensus the resolution establishing a standing mandate for a General Assembly debate whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council. This resolution created a vital mechanism to strengthen accountability between UN organs and to require any Security Council permanent member that casts a veto to explain themselves to the wider UN membership. Unfortunately, since its adoption, Resolution 76262 has been activated too many times. Last year alone, the world watched with frustration as the veto was used seven times to block the Council from acting on important security issues. The Veto Initiative emerged because the Security Council has too often been unable to discharge its responsibility to act on behalf of all member states. While the initiative has not stopped the use of the veto, it has improved transparency, increased diplomatic pressure, and ensured public scrutiny. It has also given non-council members a voice on critical peace and security issues where the council is paralysed. The veto initiative remains a significant achievement, and one which New Zealand believes has contributed to wider UN revitalisation efforts. It has strengthened the credibility of the UN and wider multilateral system. In today's climate, where the UN's credibility is in doubt, it is more essential than ever that we find ways for the General Assembly to step up and take responsibility in line with its role in the UN Charter on occasions where the Security Council has fallen short. We welcome the stronger language adopted in this year's GA revitalization resolution, calling on member states to refrain from measures that impede Security Council action to prevent or end the commission of atrocity crimes, and language explicitly encouraging adherence to the ACT code of conduct. Further, tools such as the digital handbook on the General Assembly's past practice on peace and security provide valuable guidance on how this body can take meaningful action in matters of international peace and security, and foster deeper interaction with the Council. Finally, as we reflect on the continued use of the veto, it is timely to recall Article 27.3 of the Charter, which states that members who are party to a dispute must abstain from voting. We encourage all members of the Council to ensure that voting practices remain fully consistent with the Charter. As we look ahead, it's important to note that transparency is only the first step. The credibility of this organization depends on our collective willingness to act and to continue to act. New Zealand will continue to work with other delegations to identify opportunities to enhance accountability and improve the practice of the Security Council. Thank you, President.

I thank the representative of New Zealand and now give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

Madam President, with regard to the mandate that has given rise to today's exercise, Cuba expressed its consideration during the adoption of resolution 76/262 of the General Assembly. Bearing this in mind, my delegation would like to reiterate that what is stated in operative paragraph 4 of resolution 76/262 on the inclusion of the use of the veto as a permanent item of the agenda of the General Assembly cannot be interpreted to the prejudice of the existing links between the five questions addressed during the intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council, as stipulated in decision The question of the veto should not be analyzed separately from the other issues under the mandate of the IGN. The five key topics identified for the reform of the Security Council, which includes a question of the veto, are closely related and form a package. With this in mind, we can continue to move forward towards a comprehensive reform of the Security Council to make this organ truly transparent, democratic and representative. We insist that it is insufficient that we limit ourselves to the presentation of special reforms of the Security Council in cases when a veto has been used. This would be clearly restrictive and selective approach compared to what is established in the UN Charter, and specifically in Articles 15.1 and 24.3. Quite to the contrary, the Security Council has an obligation to present special reports for the consideration of the General Assembly each time when that is necessary, and not only for issues related to the veto. Likewise, you will recall that the mandate in resolution 76/262 does not replace the provisions of articles 8B and 9B of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly on convening extraordinary emergency sessions. For this reason, we consider that we could explicitly exclude the possibility for the president of the General Assembly to convene a debate pursuant to operative paragraph one of the aforementioned resolution. if prior to that a vote has taken place by of the assembly pursuant to resolution 377 a Roman 5 union pro pos which in the majority of member states for which the majority of member states has stated their position against convening an assembly to discuss this topic then madam president we reaffirm our appeal for the general assembly to assume its full and relevant role in the area of international peace and security as stipulated in the UN Charter. The mandate of the Assembly with respect to these topics has been seriously affected as a consequence of the growing tendency of the Security Council to usurp its functions. Bearing this in mind, and as we have reiterated at other opportunities, the Council should stop its interference in issues outside of its remit, in particular those topics that fall under the mandate of this General Assembly, in order to continue to promoting multilateralism and once again advocate for a broad reform of the Security Council. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Cuba. And I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Georgia.

Mr. President, distinguished delegates, we are pleased to take part in this annual debate on the question of veto pursuant to the resolution 76/262, commonly known as the veto initiative. As one of the main co-sponsors of the resolution, We wish to reiterate our gratitude for Liechtenstein's leadership in negotiating this significant document. In that spirit, Georgia joins the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of states committed to implementing resolution 76/262. We believe that the veto initiative serves the goal of upholding the multilateral system that we all seek to achieve. By adopting the resolution in 2022, we reinforce the role of the General Assembly, the universal body that grants all States equal rights and responsibilities. The resolution promotes a process for more efficient, fair and modern ways of cooperation between the two principal organs of the United Nations. Distinguished delegates, Article 24 of the United Nations Charter explicitly states that the Security Council acts on behalf of all UN Member States. when carrying out its mandate related to the maintenance of international peace and security. However, in recent years, we have seen the Council fail the entire membership in addressing violations of the UN Charter. The clear evidence is Russia's ongoing aggression against Ukraine. This demonstrates the Security Council's inability to effectively fulfill its mandate to prevent and halt war and bloodshed. All of this comes down to the detrimental effect of the abuse of the veto right by a permanent member state. The issue of the abuse of the veto is particularly sensitive to us, as before Russia's aggression against Ukraine, there was Russia's aggression against Georgia. In 2008, we experienced firsthand what the failure of the UN Security Council looks like. Article 27 of the UN Charter explicitly states that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. However, in 2008, we witnessed the exact opposite. A permanent member of the UN Security Council and a party to the conflict cast a veto in breach of the UN Charter. This prevented the Security Council from halting the aggression against Georgia, as well as the subsequent illegal occupation of Georgia's two regions, Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region, which continues to this day. Distinguished delegates, Georgia's position on the limitation of the veto power is clear. We support the political declaration on the suspension of the veto in cases of mass atrocities presented by France and Mexico during the 70th session of the General Assembly, as well as the ACT Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. We would also like to underline the commitments adopted under the Pact for the Future. which envisages accelerating our efforts towards achieving an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use, as well as the commitment under Action 41 of the Pact to fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter of the United Nations as they relate to the decision-making process in the Security Council, including Article 27/3 of the Charter. We recognize that the considerations regarding UN Security Council reform fall under the exclusive prerogative of the IGM process, mandated by Decision 62/557. However, until there is tangible progress, our efforts should focus on revitalizing and strengthening the role of the General Assembly in cases of threats to the peace or acts of aggression, without prejudice to the primary responsibility of the Security Council to uphold international peace and security. In conclusion, let me reiterate that Georgia will continue to contribute to strengthening this body and the multilateral system. I thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President. I think that is the relationship that we have with Georgia.

And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, in April 2022, about two and a half years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 76/262 on examining cases when a veto is cast in the Security Council. At the time, the sponsors of that initiative solemnly and eloquently presented it as an effective measure to limit this right of permanent members of the Security Council and a mechanism of strengthening accountability before the international community. They also spoke of strengthening the role of the General Assembly in relation to the exclusive prerogatives of the Security Council. Allow me to give you a few statistics. Since this ambitious resolution was adopted, the veto was used in the Council 17 times. That's almost three times higher than in the analogous period, that's to say, two and a half years before the adoption of the practice of convening plenary sessions of the General Assembly to discuss veto use, that is to say, six times from December 2019 to April 2022. None of the resulting 17 plenary sessions of the General Assembly had any practical effect on the questions at hand. And yet the holding of those sessions cost about 1 million US dollars out of the regular budget of the UN. As they say, no further comment is needed, especially given the liquidity crisis and severe underfunding of humanitarian aid needs in global hotspots. The initiative's co-sponsors, in their efforts towards self-promotion amid international tensions, set themselves an artificial and unrealistic goal and then proceeded to fail it. At the same time, they deliberately ignore the tense and often round-the-clock work of the Security Council members to reach compromises on pressing issues on their agenda. This year alone, there were two cases of veto use, both times by the U.S. delegation. At the same time, the Council adopted 36 resolutions, seven presidential statements, and many press statements and releases. Each of these decisions was achieved despite acute geopolitical disagreements, the great complexity and sensitivity of the topics, and under enormous public pressure. Current and recent former non-permanent Council members can attest to this. One recent example is the Council's presidential statement adopted on Russia's initiative on the 80th anniversary of the UN, in which we were able, despite difficulties, to agree on common approaches toward its role and activities in modern times. Given that the practice of discussing each use of the veto has lost all added value, I'd like to remind you about the reasons that may lead to the use of the veto. In most cases, this reason is the unlikelihood of reaching a rapid compromise when a half-baked draft resolution is placed on the Council's table under time pressure. This practice was, from the very beginning, intended to be used as a method of forcing the opponent's hand. in a number of cases, the reason for a veto is the flagrant misuse of that right by a permanent member to protect the interests of its allies. For example, I mentioned that the veto had been used twice this year. This occurred when the US strove to provide international protection for the Israeli operation in Gaza, which has killed about 70,000, more than 70,000 civilians. And at that time, where were our colleagues from Liechtenstein? those who like to say that they are impartially criticizing the work of the Council. And then, for example, there was a decision taken by Russia and by our Chinese colleagues in March of last year to veto the draft resolution by the US on Gaza. This allowed the Council, three days later, to adopt a concise draft resolution prepared by the 10 non-permanent members. The core of that resolution was a direct call for an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan. which was supposed to then lead to a lasting ceasefire. This was therefore the only correct approach and reflected the will of the vast majority of the international community. This situation is the best response to those who criticize the existence of the veto right for the five permanent members. It is also the strongest proof of the futility of the mechanistic approach of the initiators of today's discussion. for none of them even mentioned this qualitative distinction. Mr. President, we repeatedly stated at the Security Council as well as at the IGN on Security Council reform that the veto right for permanent members is the cornerstone of the entire UN architecture. Without the veto, the UN would not have been created, and the Council currently would have become a body that simply rubber-stamps dubious decisions that are imposed upon it and which then are impossible to actually implement. Without the veto, the UN would instantly lose its authority or any levers of influence on international policy. Of course, the veto is an extreme measure to be used only when all other options have been exhausted. Russia has never concealed the reasons behind its use of the veto and prepared to explain our vetoes in the future, including at the General Assembly. Although the practice of repeatedly reading out statements that are already publicly available is unlikely to make this body more effective or revitalize its work. In this context, in our view, we need to thoughtfully assess whether this practice is actually in keeping with the UN 80 initiative and according to resolution 79/318. Let us not forget that the veto is an inalienable right, an integral part of the mechanisms that are laid out in Article 27 of the UN Charter. The use of the veto is in no way a violation. What ought to be criticized is not the veto itself, but the refusal of certain members of the Council to listen to and take account of the views of others and to reach compromises for balanced decisions. Colleagues, we strongly urge you, instead of today's useless discussion on the right of the veto, to reflect on the need for a clear division of labor between the Security Council and the General Assembly, so that neither of these bodies encroaches on the prerogatives of the other and that they act strictly in keeping with the UN Charter. This would benefit the United Nations as well as the entire system of international relations, which is undergoing a complex transformation on its way toward true multilateralism. Thank you for your attention.

I thank the British Federation and now give the floor to the delegate of Australia.

Thank you, President. Australia is pleased to align with the group statement delivered by Liechtenstein. In our national capacity, I would like to make the following remarks.

Australia's opposition to the veto is longstanding and goes back to our involvement in the very earliest.

Negotiations of the United Nations Charter. In our view, the veto operates as a significant impediment to the Council's ability to discharge its mandate.

And all of us have a responsibility to do what we can to make sure that the Security Council is equipped to help the world solve the biggest problems of the day, delivering for the people who need it most.

And I can't help but respond and refute to the dismissive remarks made.

Just a moment ago by our Russian colleague on the veto initiative's effectiveness.

Given the reality of the veto.

It's all the more important that its use be transparent and, most importantly, voluntarily restrained.

This is why Australia has been a supporter of the veto initiative since its inception. Looking ahead, we see three approaches which would help us further address the use of the veto. First, we encourage the President of the General Assembly to take a more active role in deterring its use, including making concrete recommendations based on Assembly discussions of Security Council annual reporting. Second, we call for a candid.

Discussion amongst all member states in recognition that the future of the veto is central to progressing reforms to enhance the Council's efficiency and credibility. And third, we reaffirm our support for exploring measures that assist Council members to uphold Article 27.3 of the United Nations Charter.

Which provides that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting in Council deliberations on a relevant matter. Australia welcomes Liechtenstein's efforts to promote consistent application of Article 27.3. Finally, we're delighted that the most recent General Assembly revitalization commits to the continued implementation of the veto initiative. This, combined with the reaffirmation of the charter-based role of the General Assembly on matters related to the maintenance.

Of peace and security.

And the call for all member states to refrain from any measures that impede action to prevent or end genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, sends a powerful message about our collective focus on the use of the veto power.

President, Australia urges all permanent members of the Security Council to refrain from using the veto and calls on all member states to join in implementing Resolution 76262. Thank you.

Thank you, Australia.

I now give the floor to Pakistan.

President, at the outset, I would like to thank you for convening this important meeting of the General Assembly to discuss the use of the veto. The universal character of the General Assembly and its Democratic decision-making gives this organ a level of legitimacy and credibility unlike any other organ of the United Nations system. The General Assembly has also proven that it can respond to crises by taking timely and effective decisions, particularly when the Security Council is unable or unwilling to act on matters of international peace and security. including due to the use of veto. The Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has often been paralyzed or incapacitated due to pursuit of narrow interests and the strategic rivalry between its permanent members, and that leads to misuse or abuse of veto. It thus prevents the Council from discharging its duties. And then we also are aware of the cascading effect of the veto that gives the permanent members unmatched influence and profile throughout the UN system. It comes as no surprise, therefore, and past and recent experiences have confirmed that the abolition or restraint on the use of veto will have to be an integral part of the reform of the Security Council. But as we know, the existing permanent members, and by the way, they are pretty much united on that, they are opposed to any change in the UN Charter that would chip away on their power or privilege as permanent members. And it is for this reason also that Pakistan, together with the Uniting for Consensus group, remains opposed, as a matter of principle, to the addition of any new individual permanent members on an expanded Security Council. More permanent members and more vetoes will only aggravate the problem. will multiply the likelihood of paralysis or inaction by the Security Council. So let us be clear. The problem cannot be the solution. President, various proposals have been advanced over the years concerning the veto, ranging from its abolition or limiting its use. And the alternative is status quo. We believe that the veto right of the existing permanent members should be abolished, or at least severely restricted, and that the right of veto certainly must not be expanded. We understand the motivation of those who wish to find ways to moderate the use of the veto, and we note that their proposals are designed to reinvigorate the Charter functions of the General Assembly. and are not related to or impinge upon the IG's consideration of Security Council reform. It is in that vein that Pakistan supported Resolution 76262, calling on the president of the assembly to convene the assembly within 10 working days after the exercise of a veto by one or more permanent members, and asking for a report on the rationale for such use of veto. We also understand that any measures adopted to restrict or restrain the use of the veto will have to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter. President, the discussion of the veto, which preoccupies so many of us, has revealed certain realities. And one of the underlying central issues is the negative power of the veto, that is, the power to block. Pakistan believes that this can be better balanced by, on one hand, placing restrictions on the use of the veto, and on the other hand, by enhancing the number and role of the elected members of the Council through larger representation on the Council, and thereby changing the threshold for approval of decisions by the Council. That is, to make it more democratic and to serve as an effective check on the use of veto by the permanent members. So currently, we have five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members, a ratio of one to two. So you increase the elected members to 20, for example, and you have a ratio of one to four. That will significantly change the balance of power in the Council in a democratic way, putting the power to approve or to block in the hands of the majority and not just a few. My delegation remains convinced that the final resolution of the issue of the veto will have to be found in an integral part of the reform of the Security Council. The question of the veto is one of the five interrelated clusters for Security Council reform in the intergovernmental negotiations, and the decisions on all five clusters will need to be adopted together in a comprehensive reform. For reasons perhaps prevailing in 1945, veto was perhaps considered necessary by the framers of the Charter at that time. However, Times have changed, and this privilege, especially its misuse, has little justification today in the eyes of the majority of the membership. What we want is reform for all, privilege for none. I thank you.

I thank Pakistan and I give the floor to Slovenia.

Mr. President, thank you for convening this important yearly debate on the use of veto. Slovenia is one of the co-sponsors of resolution 76/262, known as the veto initiative, which has proved to be an important tool for the wider membership of the UN to reflect on the work of the Security Council when a veto is used and thus providing a degree of accountability. We align with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of States committed to its implementation. President, since our last debate on this item exactly a year ago, the veto has regrettably been used to block the adoption of two amendments and two draft resolutions addressing the war on Ukraine and humanitarian situation in Gaza. Slovenia, as an elected member of the Council with six weeks left of its term, including a presidency in December, will persist in working towards a more responsible, efficient and transparent Council, capable and willing of fulfilling its mandate. Slovenia's principal position is that the veto requires the highest degree of restraint, responsibility and accountability. It should never undermine the Council's mandate of maintaining peace and security. Likewise, it should never stand in the way of urgent action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. We therefore support the existing initiatives towards limitations on the use of the veto. As a member of the ACT Group, Slovenia supports and advocates for the ACT Code of Conduct, and we support the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint in cases of mass atrocities. We continue to encourage those Member States that have not yet done so to join these important initiatives. Furthermore, in her address to the General Assembly last September, the President of Slovenia proposed an initiative to seek an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legal limitations to casting a veto in the Security Council situations involving widespread atrocity crimes such as genocides and crimes against humanity, since their prevention and punishment are considered as peremptory norms of international law. Mr. President, the international environment is never static. It is continuously changing. However, there is at least one element that is constant: the need for international cooperation and multilateralism. The world is not the same as it was 80 years ago, but the crucial importance of the UN and its promise remain. They actually grow with the ever more complex global changes that demand collective action. To be able to address these challenges effectively, Multilateralism, with the UN at its centre, must adapt and evolve. Reforms are not optional, they are necessary and overdue. We need to continue discussions on a comprehensive reform of the Security Council, with a renewed urgency, and within these discussions, and I quote, "intensify efforts to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use", end of quote, as pledged in the Pact for the Future. It is also important to remember and highlight that in the same document, we also decided to fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter, as they relate to decision-making processes in the Council, including Article 27. We cannot afford this to have been empty promises. Furthermore, we should continue strengthening the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, and further highlight the General Assembly's role in maintenance of peace and security in accordance with the Charter, especially when the Council is unable to deliver. on its mandate. In conclusion, Mr. President, the adoption of resolution 76/262, veto initiative, was a milestone in the relations between two of the main UN organs and for the role of the General Assembly in peace and security. We continue to hope that it will also contribute to more responsible and restrained use of the veto. I thank you.

Thank the delegate of Slovenia.

And give the floor to Bahrain.

Mr. President, allow me to thank you for holding this important annual debate on the use of the veto. The adoption of GA resolution proposed by Liechtenstein in 2022 was an important step to promote the role of the General Assembly in following on the implementation of the, um, on following up on the, use of the veto and to address the growing challenges internationally. Mr. President, in light of the growing calls to reform the UN system comprehensively, including UN80, there is a need to develop working mechanisms in the system, including to promote efficiency and transparency of its main organs, including the Security Council, so that it can support the organization's ability to shoulder its responsibility mainly to maintain international peace and security. Promoting coordination between the Council and the GA is important to achieve further cohesion and consistency in the work of the UN. On this basis, we believe that the deliberations on the use of the veto right is an important track as part of international community's efforts to promote peaceful resolutions and alleviate humanitarian suffering. Mr. President, the veto right is an essential element in our efforts to reform the Security Council. This was stressed in the Charter. in the Pact for the Future that was adopted by the General Assembly last year. We stress that the international governmental organizations on the reform of the Security Council as part of the GA is the only platform to ensure a comprehensive reform of the Security Council in line with GA Resolution 62/557. This will allow us to address the five key the five key issues for negotiations in a balanced and comprehensive way. We will work during our membership of the Security Council in 2026-2027 to bring member states together to promote consensus and support efficiency and effectiveness in the Council. In conclusion, we reaffirm that the continuation of the dialogue on the use of the veto is an important step to promote the efforts of the United Nations and its major role in the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as to promote efforts to achieve prosperity and development in the world. Thank you.

I think that's the representative.

Of Bahrain for that intervention. We have now heard the last speaker on this question and for this meeting. The Assembly has concluded its examination of this question and the meeting is now adjourned.