General Assembly: 26th plenary meeting, 81st session

Good morning to all of you. The 26th plenary meeting of the General Assembly is called to order. The Assembly will resume its consideration of agenda item 62, entitled "Use of veto", to hold a debate on this item. I will now make a statement as the President of the General Assembly. Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, We meet today pursuant to General Assembly resolution 76/262, entitled “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”, adopted by consensus in April 2022. The resolution 76262 establishes a standing mandate for the President of the General Assembly to convene a formal meeting of the Assembly within 10 working days following the casting of a veto in the Security Council. Today, we meet for the fifth annual debate under this agenda item. It provides an opportunity for the wider membership to consider the use of the veto and its implication for the maintenance of international peace and security. With 21 meetings held under the veto initiative to date, most recently on October 1, This mechanism has become an established expression of transparency, accountability, and collective responsibility within our Organization. Resolution 76/262 affirms a simple but important principle: when the Security Council is unable to adopt a decision owing to the use of the veto, all 193 Member States large and small, will have an opportunity to exchange views on the matter. To that effect, I welcome the Security Council’s timely submission of special reports to the General Assembly, as well as the participation of permanent members of the Council in these debates. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, As I emphasized at the opening of this session, the Assembly and the Council serve humanity best when they operate in balance, each fulfilling its distinct yet complementary responsibilities under the Charter. The Charter entrusts the Security Council with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In discharging this responsibility, the Council acts on behalf of the entire membership. It therefore is expected to act with unity of purpose, guided by the principles and purposes of the United Nations. The effectiveness of the Council is not an abstract institutional matter. It has direct consequences for people living amid conflict, insecurity, and humanitarian suffering. When the Council acts decisively, it can help prevent escalation, protects civilians, and creates space for diplomacy, dialogue, and peace. When it is divided or unable to act, the costs are borne first and foremost by those most affected by violence and instability. As I have said before, when the Security Council works, the United Nations works. It is my hope that the Council will find the consensus needed to act decisively in the service of peace, and that the veto initiative will be needed less often. Until then, the Assembly will continue to use this mechanism fully and responsibly. These debates should not become an exercise in repetition. They should help keep dialogue alive, bring the full weight of the membership to bear in support of diplomacy, and identify pathways towards de-escalation, accountability, and peaceful solutions. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, as you know, the theme of this session is “Restoring Trust, Managing Transformation: A United Nations that Delivers for All.” At a time of deepening geopolitical tensions, and declining confidence in multilateral institutions, restoring trust requires transparency, accountability, and a willingness to engage, especially when consensus proves elusive. But trust also requires results. I encourage Member States to use today’s debate constructively to clarify positions, to listen carefully to one another, to identify areas of common ground, to support constructive solutions consistent with the Charter and international law, and to work relentlessly to restore trust in this Organization’s ability to deliver. Let us reaffirm that no veto should bring an end to dialogue and diplomacy, and that principles of the Charter must continue to guide our collective search for peace. Together, let us ensure the VETU initiative strengthens our collective responsibility to act and to deliver for all. I thank you. Before proceeding further, it has been proposed that the time limits for statements in this debate be five minutes for individual delegations speaking in their national capacity, and seven minutes for statements made on behalf of a group of States. The delegation of the Russian Federation has informed the President of its objection to this proposal. Accordingly, no speaking time limit will be applied to this debate on this item. Nonetheless, I earnestly request delegations to keep their statements brief, taking into account the suggested time limit. Now, the first speaker on my list is Liechtenstein, on behalf of a group of Member States. You have the floor.

Good morning, Mr. President, and welcome back to New York. Mr. President, it is my honor today to take the floor on behalf of the following group of 54 states committed to the implementation of resolution 76/262 otherwise known as the veto initiative: Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, Myanmar, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, Uruguay, and my own country, Liechtenstein. We thank you, Mr. President, for convening this fifth general debate on the use of the veto agenda item. These debates allow us to take stock of resolution 76/262 and to ask how it can be more effectively implemented in line with the purposes and principles of our Organization. Mr. President, vetoes have been cast on two occasions since our last debate: the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and on the panel of experts overseeing sanctions on Iran. On both occasions, this Assembly met within the 10 working days set by resolution 76/262. Both times, the Council produced special reports in line with Article 15 of the Charter, and the vetoing states accounted for their vetoes in the subsequent debate. We now have a consistent practice covering every veto cast since April 2022. That accountability for the use of the veto is no longer the exception, it is the expectation. Mr. President, seen simply in terms of numbers of vetoes cast, the Council would appear to be making progress. Seven draft resolutions were vetoed in 2024, the most since 1986. Four drafts were vetoed in 2025, and only two have been vetoed so far this year. Unfortunately, we do not see a decline in veto texts necessarily as evidence of a more productive Security Council. We know that numerous texts this year that may have been supported by a majority of Council members have been circulated or even opened for co-sponsorship only to be withheld from tabling. A draft that is never tabled brings no veto. and if it would be vetoed, no explanation, no special report, and no meeting of the membership. We call on Council members to put forward the text that its responsibilities demand and to be accountable to this Assembly when it fails to uphold its mandate both as part of its annual and special reports. Mr. President, the Council’s responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security is primary. but not exclusive. When the Council is blocked, the Charter does not fall silent. It turns amongst its other primary organs to this Assembly. The drafters of the Charter built a system in which the actions of one state cannot leave the membership without recourse. This Assembly's authority to act is not in doubt. What matters is that we use it. When Council action on Syria was vetoed, this Assembly established an international, impartial and independent mechanism, the IIIIM, in 2016. When Council action on Ukraine was vetoed, this Assembly recommended an International Register of Damages, which the Council of Europe established in 2023. In September 2025, this Assembly endorsed the New York Declaration on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine and the implementation of the two-state solution. None of these supplanted the Council, but each answered a need the Council could not meet. An Assembly that acts is simply doing what is required of us by the Charter. Convenings under this agenda item can be one platform for such action. including through the use of Articles 10, 11, 12, 22, and 35 of the Charter, as reaffirmed in resolution 79/327 on the revitalization of the General Assembly. In this respect, we note that this resolution also requests you, Mr. President, to continue to prepare detailed summaries of veto initiative meetings that include recommendations for action. Mr. President, in the meantime, support for veto restraint continues to grow. The Act Code of Conduct is supported by 130 states, and the French-Mexican initiative on the voluntary restraint of the veto in cases of mass atrocities by 128 states. We call on all states, and particularly the remaining permanent members, to join these initiatives, as those who hold the veto bear the greatest responsibility in its restraint. Mr. President, finally, we turn to Article 27(3), the article that lays out the veto in the Charter. It, as we know, contains one limitation that a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. The principle is simple: no state should be judge in its own cause. In the Pact for the Future, we all agreed to fully implement and adhere to this provision. The Charter is clear, and so is our commitment to apply it. We invite Member States to further discuss the circumstances in which this restriction would apply and urge all Council members to join us in this respect. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank you, the representative of Liechtenstein, and especially thanking him for staying within seven minutes limit. I now have the honour of inviting the distinguished representative of Norway, who will be speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. May I have the floor?

Thank you, Mr. President, and good morning, colleagues. I do indeed have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. President, a veto, or even the threat of a veto, may prevent the Security Council from acting, but it cannot silence people around the world when the Council fails to respond to grave violations of international law. fails to protect civilians in Sudan and Gaza, or address Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine. These failures of the Security Council reflect on the Organization as a whole. To preserve the credibility of the United Nations, the broader membership of this Assembly must not allow the use of the veto to silence the debate or action on matters of peace and security. The transparency and accountability created by the veto initiative is an essential first step, but the following one must be action. As the primary body in which all Member States have a voice, the role of the General Assembly must be strengthened. It must regain its footing as a platform for action on matters of international peace and security, against the backdrop of a Security Council increasingly deadlocked or unwilling to act. We have tools that can help us. The Digital Handbook, Assembly for Peace, provides Member States with a practical account of the General Assembly's charter-based powers, evidence of its past practice, and its complementary role alongside the Council. We encourage the annual update of the handbook, wider dissemination by the President of the General Assembly, and its use by Member States, including through its new digital platform. We also welcome the informal summaries produced following GA debates on the use of the veto, particularly when they clearly identify the recommendations and actions put forward by Member States. We encourage the President of the General Assembly to continue and further develop this practice, as requested by the General Assembly in resolution 79/327. We further encourage the Security Council and the Assembly to consider these recommendations for action. President, We are deeply concerned by the vetoes cast on the renewal of the Panel of Experts of the 1737 Iran Sanctions Committee. It leaves all Member States without the independent technical expertise needed to oversee the implementation of UN sanctions. These vetoes also represent the continuation of a worrying trend from the 2024 veto of the Panel of Experts of the 1718 DPRK Sanctions Committee. Member States are obliged to implement UN sanctions. This implementation is most effective if all Member States have the means and the information to do so, information which should not be blocked by a veto. President, we are also witnessing the disproportionate influence of the veto over the selection and appointment of the next Secretary-General. The choice of the United Nations' highest official must not be reduced to an opaque bargain among permanent members. The process should be transparent, inclusive, and a joint process with the General Assembly in accordance with the UN Charter and relevant GA resolutions. The legitimacy and independence of the next Secretary-General are strengthened by a credible process that reflects the interest of the entire UN membership, not merely the preference of those holding the veto. President, the Nordic countries are committed to ensuring that the veto does not prevent action in the face of mass atrocities. When populations face the risk of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, the Council must be able to fulfill its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Our countries and the majority of this Assembly have signed the Act Code of Conduct. and expressed support for the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint. We urge all, particularly all permanent members, to join us in these commitments. Finally, President, the founders of this organization understood the importance of the fundamental legal principle that no one should be judge in their own case. Article 27 of the Charter reflects this insight. It established the principle that a party to a dispute should abstain from voting in decisions under Chapter VI concerning the peaceful settlement of disputes and paragraph 3 of Article 52. We must take steps to ensure its consistent implementation. We all have a responsibility to uphold the UN Charter, those with the veto particularly so. to ensure it is never used as a shield against accountability for violations of the Charter. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Norway for her statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the representative of Mexico, who would also speak on behalf of France. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I have the honour of taking the floor on behalf of France and Mexico in this debate on the general issue of the use of the veto. First of all, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all Member States who, since the launch of the Franco-Mexican Initiative in 2015, have decided to support it. 11 years ago, when the war was in full swing in Syria and the Security Council was paralyzed by the use or the third of the use of the veto, France and Mexico agreed to promote this initiative, moved by a fundamental conviction, and that is when life, human life and human dignity are at stake, the Security Council must be able to act, and the permanent members of the council must act responsibly. This initiative proposes a voluntary suspension of the use of the veto in situations of mass atrocities such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed on a large scale in order to strengthen the ability of the Security Council to fulfill its main responsibility in the area of maintaining international peace and security. This is a pragmatic initiative that does not seek to change the UN Charter. Its goal is indeed a voluntary one, to strengthen the effectiveness of the Security Council through a voluntary and responsible political commitment of the permanent members of the Council to preserve the capacity of action by the Council when the scale of atrocities requires a response from the international community. Mr. President, in the past few years, the excessive use of the veto has hindered the adoption of substantive measures in the face of urgent situations, such as the ones in Myanmar, Sudan, Palestine, and Ukraine. Furthermore, the use of the veto has been growing. In 2024, seven draft resolutions were vetoed. That was the highest number since 1986. In 2025, the veto was used four times. on draft resolutions on Gaza and Ukraine. Since the start of this year, the veto has been used four times. At the same time, in this context, we applaud the renewed momentum that this initiative has regained. 21 states from various regions have decided to join the initiative, which has significantly increased the number of countries that share this commitment. With the support of 128 states, this initiative shows that it is not merely a proposal promoted by two countries, but rather it reflects a growing collective interest in strengthening the effectiveness, the legitimacy, and accountability of the Security Council, and in particular when its action is essential in situations of mass atrocities. We in particularly welcome the fact that the United Kingdom, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has joined the initiative. Its support is a very important step and a clear message on the responsibility that the permanent members of the Security Council have This growing support offers us an excellent opportunity to consolidate and deepen our common understanding. We want to promote an open dialogue among all the Member States of this Organization to progressively strengthen this initiative, with a view to achieving the broader recognition and it's being institutionalized within this General Assembly, as well as to increase the political cost of the use of the veto. France and Mexico are convinced that veto cannot become an obstacle for collective action when the gravest violations of human rights against civilians occur. When human lives are at stake, our responsibility, our shared responsibility, must be to act. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico, who also spoke on behalf of France, for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of Bahrain, who will be speaking on behalf of Gulf Cooperation Council. You have the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to deliver this statement on behalf of the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council: the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, and my own country, the Kingdom of Bahrain. At the outset, I would like to thank you for convening this annual debate, the important annual debate on the use of the veto. The adoption by the General Assembly in 2022 of Resolution 76/262, an initiative presented by Liechtenstein, constituted an important step toward strengthening the role of the General Assembly in discussing the use of the veto and enhancing transparency and accountability regarding its impact on the Security Council's ability to discharge its responsibilities. Mr. President, as efforts continue to develop the United Nations system with a view to enhancing the Organization's effectiveness and efficiency and modernizing its working methods. Special attention must be given to the Security Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Strengthening coordination between the Security Council and the General Assembly is essential to achieving greater coherence and consistency in the work of the United Nations. Against this backdrop, the GCC states consider deliberations concerning the use of the veto to be an important component of the international community's efforts to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes and alleviate humanitarian suffering. Mr. President, discussions of the use of the veto are a fundamental element of efforts aimed at Security Council reform, as reaffirmed in the Pact for the Future adopted by the General Assembly in 2024. Mr. President, the unlawful, unjustified Iranian attacks against our countries a challenge to the decisions of the international community and to the principles of the Charter of this Organization. They require a firm and responsible international response to prevent such attacks. In this context, the adoption of Security Council resolution 2817 reflects the Council’s commitment to its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and confirms that collective action when based on constructive dialogue and a spirit of shared responsibility, can contribute to addressing challenges that threaten international security and stability. Conversely, The failure to adopt the draft resolution concerning the security of maritime corridors and freedom of international navigation, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, as a result of the use of the veto, underscores the importance of fostering constructive dialogue and bridging differences among states. This contributes to upholding the Charter of the United Nations and addressing regional and international issues in a spirit of shared responsibility. thereby helping to preserve international peace and security, reduce tensions, and promote stability and prosperity around the world. In conclusion, the GCC countries reaffirm that continued dialogue concerning the use of the veto represents an important step in strengthening the role and responsiveness of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security, as well as supporting international efforts aimed at achieving prosperity and development in all parts of the world. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bahrain, who spoke also on behalf of GCC, for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of Latvia, who will be speaking on behalf of the Baltic countries. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished colleagues. I have the honour to speak on behalf of the three Baltic States: Estonia, Lithuania, and my own country, Latvia. We align ourselves with the cross-regional statement delivered by Liechtenstein. The United Nations Charter entrusted the Security Council with a primary responsibility of the maintenance of international peace and security. This responsibility entails an obligation to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. Yet, too often, the use of the veto has prevented the Council from fulfilling its mandate, including in the face of grave violations of international law and threats to international peace and security. Particularly unacceptable is when a permanent member responsible for the breaches of international law invokes the veto to evade accountability for their own misconduct. For the Baltic States, this is not an abstract concern. Russia continues to wage its illegal war of aggression against Ukraine while exploiting its permanent seat on the Security Council to prevent meaningful Council action. The veto must never be used for the violations of the very Charter that the Security Council is entrusted to uphold. We wish to make three points. Firstly, every use of the veto must be subject to greater accountability and transparency. The adoption of General Assembly’s resolution 76/262, known as a veto initiative, was an important step towards strengthening accountability within the United Nations. It established a mechanism requiring the permanent members to explain and justify their use of the veto before wider UN membership. However, transparency alone cannot prevent misuse of the veto or address its consequences. We support strengthening the practice of preparing informal summaries of General Assembly debates of the use of the veto, including concrete recommendations and proposals for further action. Secondly, Security Council paralysis must not result in paralysis of the United Nations as a whole. While the Security Council bears primary responsibility for international peace and security, this responsibility is not exclusive. The General Assembly has an important complementary role under the Charter, particularly when the Council is unable to act. We must use all tools available to the General Assembly to ensure that the Security Council in action does not impede the wider membership from responding to threats to international peace and security. We believe that if particular action is essential for the performance of the General Assembly's duties, as, for example, action for maintenance of international peace and security, then there is an assumption that this has a competence to act. The use of the veto must be exercised responsibly and with restraint. The Baltic States remain committed to the Act Code of Conduct and support the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint in situations involving mass atrocities. We urge all Member States, particularly the permanent members of Security Council, to support these commitments. Mr. President. The use of the veto to undermine the effectiveness of the Security Council sanctions regimes is also a matter of serious concern. Panels of experts are a vital instrument for the comprehensive implementation and oversight of the Council’s mandated sanctions. They play a particularly important role in identifying efforts to circumvent sanctions and recommending necessary changes to sanctions regimes. Effective sanctions require credible, independent monitoring and access to reliable information. Undermining these mechanisms weakens implementation and the Council's ability to uphold its own decisions. Finally, we reiterate the importance of the Article 27, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter, which requires a party to a dispute to abstain from voting decisions under Chapter VI. This is not an optional political commitment, but a binding obligation under the Charter. Its full and consistent implementation is essential to preserving the integrity, credibility, and effectiveness of the Council’s decision-making. Mr. President, in conclusion, I would like to underline that the veto is a part of the Security Council’s decision-making system. It was never intended to place any Member State above the principles, purposes, and obligations of the UN Charter. Permanent membership carries special responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security, not immunity from accountability. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Latvia who spoke on behalf of Baltic States. I now have the pleasure of inviting the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. President, the Security Council is entrusted with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and permanent members have a particular responsibility. The United Kingdom has long been clear that the veto must be used responsibly. in support of the Council's duty to prevent and resolve conflict. The Security Council must be able to act when faced with the gravest crises. That is why the United Kingdom co-sponsored General Assembly resolution 76/262 in 2022. The meetings convened under that resolution give the wider UN membership an important opportunity to scrutinize uses of the veto and to express views when the Council has been unable to act. We listen carefully to those views. Greater transparency, including explanations to the General Assembly when a veto is cast, can help strengthen confidence in the judgment with which the Council's powers are exercised. For our part, the United Kingdom has not exercised its veto since 1989. We remain a proud signatory of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group's Code of Conduct, and are committed not to vote against credible Security Council action aimed at preventing or ending mass atrocities. Furthermore, last month, my Foreign Secretary announced that the United Kingdom had joined the veto initiative led by France and Mexico. That decision reinforces our long-standing support for responsible use of the veto and our commitment not to veto credible Security Council action aimed at preventing or ending mass atrocities. By supporting both these initiatives, the UK is pleased to uphold the principle that when populations face mass atrocities, members of the Council have a responsibility to enable action, not prevent it. Mr. President, despite geopolitical divisions, All Council members must demonstrate that the Council can act to defend those who are most vulnerable, to uphold the UN Charter, and to help build a more peaceful and secure world. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now have the honor to invite the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Mr. President, the UN Charter confers on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security with an explicit objective, and I quote, "to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations," end of quote. Yet, time and time again, a single negative vote by a permanent member has kept the organization from acting at all, blocking a proposal without offering a viable alternative. As it often blocks necessary and legitimate collective action, it has prevented responses to serious breaches of international law, including international humanitarian law, thus leading to impunity. It has also prolonged armed conflicts and human suffering, and multiplied death and destruction. In sum, the abuse of the veto contradicts the Charter and delivers serious prejudice to the United Nations and its Member States, on whose behalf the Council is entrusted to act, always in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. This is the one key reason why Brazil supports the call for permanent members to refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Sadly, however, GA debates on vetoes have not changed the political dynamics of the Council. Holding formal UNGA meetings after the casting of a veto has actually given the vetoing member or members a platform to restate national positions and even cause more disunity and acrimony in the Council and bring them to the GA. This Assembly should look closely at the effects of resolution 76/262 and discuss how to make it more effective. Mr. President, the question of the veto cannot be isolated from the necessary and long overdue comprehensive reform of the Security Council. The vast majority of the membership supports its expansion in both categories. This is the only way to rebalance its internal dynamics, including with regard to the veto, and restore its capacity to maintain international peace and security. Brazil's position is consistent and well known. The further deterioration of the Council's capacity to act on behalf of the international community, however, has led to the presentation of new ideas in this regard, and it is perhaps time to start giving them cautious consideration. A Council that reflects the world of today will be more representative, legitimate, credible, and effective. It will also be more capable of avoiding and overcoming deadlock, thereby restoring the international community’s trust in the body. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brazil for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of Germany.

Mr. President, Excellencies, Germany aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of the group of states committed to the implementation of resolution 76. 262 and would like to add the following remarks in national capacity. Mr. President, four and a half years after its adoption, the veto initiative has become an established and indispensable part of the work of this Assembly. This initiative has brought transparency to where there was little or even none, and accountability to where it was most needed. The special reports of the Security Council and the participation of the permanent members concerned in our debates, as most recently on October 1st, show that the initiative works. And we thank Liechtenstein for its leadership. Mr. President, Excellencies, distinguished delegates, the veto initiative has helped to recalibrate the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Under Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Primary, however, does not mean exclusive. As the International Court of Justice confirmed more than six decades ago, the General Assembly too has a responsibility in matters of peace and security, and the Charter provides it with the means to exercise it. Where the Council is unable to act because of the veto, the General Assembly cannot confine itself to repeating the Council's debate. It has the authority and indeed the duty to develop its own responses. And let me give a concrete example: sanctions. Sanctions decided by the Security Council are binding on all Member States. Their credibility, however, depend on independent monitoring of their implementation. Yet, as we have witnessed, panels of experts can be put on hold by a veto, as it happened in 2024 with regard to the DPRK and only weeks ago with regard to Iran. Germany, together with partners, has responded by establishing the Multilateral Sanctions Monitoring Team, which continues to report on the implementation of the sanctions against the DPRK, and this shows that such gaps can be closed. Mr. President, in the Pact for the Future, our heads of state and government committed to reforming the Security Council and to intensifying efforts to reach agreement on the question of the veto, including on limiting its scope and use. Germany is convinced that the veto must not be used to prevent the Council from acting in the face of mass atrocities. And we therefore call on all Member States to support the Code of Conduct on the Accountability Coherence and Transparency Group, and the French-Mexican Initiative on Veto Restraint in Situations of Mass Atrocities. The veto initiative has shown that reform of the United Nations is possible, so let us build on this success in the spirit of the commitments we made in the Pact for the Future. Thank you very much.

Distinguished representative of Germany, for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of Singapore. You have the floor.

Mr. President, thank you for convening this important debate on the use of the veto. My delegation aligns itself with the statement delivered by Liechtenstein. Today's debate on the use of the veto in the Security Council is fundamentally about the Council's accountability and effectiveness. Article 24 of the UN Charter makes clear that the Security Council has a primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and that this is a responsibility conferred by Member States. Last year, vetoes were cast that impeded Council action in major conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. This year, four vetoes have been cast to date. on two resolutions that concern major issues of international peace and security. Please allow me to make three points from Singapore’s perspective. First, the General Assembly has a responsibility to examine every veto and hold Council members to account for their actions or inaction. That is why Singapore supported resolution 76/262 that formalized the veto initiative in 2022. This annual debate and the debate held after every veto is intended to encourage Council members to fulfil this mandate by promoting greater accountability and transparency in decision-making. It is also a demonstration of the General Assembly's leadership on issues of peace and security when the Council is unable or unwilling to fulfil its Charter responsibilities. Second, Singapore supports the establishment of parameters to guide the judicious and responsible use of the veto. We support initiatives such as the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency Group's Code of Conduct, and the French-Mexican initiative that calls on permanent members to suspend the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. On this note, Singapore welcomes the UK's recent decision to endorse the French-Mexican initiative, the second permanent member to do so. We call on other permanent members to demonstrate their leadership. In particular, we call on all Council members to abide by Article 27 of the Charter, to abstain from voting if they are party to a dispute. Third, Singapore affirms our support for initiatives that strengthen the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of the work of the Security Council. We appreciate the role of the elected members of the Council who have been constructive bridge builders both within the Council and between the Council and the General Assembly. We hope that they can continue to be proactive in building consensus on various files and help to avoid the use of the veto. Mr. President, the misuse or threat of use of the veto to shield violations of the UN Charter or block the adoption of the Security Council’s own resolutions prevents the Council from fully discharging its mandate. This ultimately erodes its own credibility and legitimacy. If we are to ensure that the UN remains truly relevant and responsive, all Member States must not only support the work of the Security Council, but also hold it to account so that it fulfils its responsibility to deliver peace and security for the benefit of all our peoples. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Singapore for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now have the pleasure of inviting the representative of Indonesia to make a statement. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for convening this important meeting.

When the Security.

Council was entrusted with the primary responsibility for international peace and security, it was designed to act as an anchor of global stability. Instead, the exercise of veto has turned many Council’s decisions into impasse. In 2024, the Council cast eight vetoes, followed by four vetoes in 2025 and two vetoes in 2026. While the number of vetoes is decreasing, the statistics do not capture the lost opportunity of discussing critical matters for Member States that resulted from failure to table a resolution, or the watered-down substance of resolution due to a threat of a veto. Mr. President, Indonesia's stance on the veto remains clear, principled, and unwavering. First, regulating the veto must serve as a stepping stone toward its complete abolition. Indonesia believes that the veto is inherently undemocratic and violates the principle of sovereign equality. We continue our call that pending its abolition, veto must not be exercised. on proven cases of humanitarian issues, serious violations of international humanitarian law, and war crimes. Second, strengthening the role of the General Assembly. As long as the veto exists, General Assembly fail-safe mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure true democratic representation. We must strengthen the veto initiative than a mere procedural exercise. It must catalyze the Security Council to act decisively to deliver tangible progress on the ground and to undertake long-overdue reforms so it can effectively fulfill its mandate. Mr. President, our goal today is not to divide, but to restore faith in a multilateral system that truly reflects the collective responsibility of all Member States. Indonesia reiterates its steadfast and constructive commitment to working with all Member States toward meaningful, actionable reform of the Security Council. Let us work together to bridge our differences strengthen our shared institution, and deliver the peace and dignity that humanity expect of us. Thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Indonesia for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of Japan to make a statement.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting. As has been mentioned repeatedly, the veto is a prerogative of significant influence, and accordingly, it must be exercised for the sole purpose of maintaining international peace and security. In this regard, it is deplorable a permanent member of the Security Council continues to invade a sovereign member state in contravention of the UN Charter while protecting its own national position through the use of the threat of use of the through the use or threat of use of the veto. This has seriously undermined the legitimacy of the Security Council and trust in the UN. Japan reiterates the need to fully implement and adhere to all provisions of the Charter as they relate to the decision-making process in the Council, including Article 27 of the Charter, as stipulated in the Pact for the Future. Mr. President, in light of the present circumstances, endeavors to limit the scope and use of veto are significant undertaking. In this regard, Japan reaffirms the political declaration on suspension of veto powers in cases of mass atrocity initiated by France and Mexico, as well as ACT groups, Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide crimes, against humanity or war crimes are valuable initiatives. Japan would also like to welcome the United Kingdom's joining the aforementioned veto initiative led by France and Mexico, which reaffirms the UK's long-standing commitment to the responsible use of the veto. Japan continues to urge all member council members all permanent Council members who have not done so to commit to voluntary restraint on the use of veto without delay and to implement this commitment accordingly. Mr. President, despite all these valuable initiatives, Japan must point out that they have proven insufficient to prevent responsible use of the veto. We reiterate the importance of a more fundamental reform of the Security Council to address the existing imbalance within the Council, including the veto. It has already been two years since the adoption of the Pact for the Future, which recognizes the urgent need for Security Council reform. To make the Council truly representative, legitimate, and effective, the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership which is supported by a majority of Member States, must be reflected in a balanced and equitable manner in the reform process going forward. Japan is committed to contributing constructively to advancing the process together with the wider UN membership. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Japan for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of India to make a statement. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking you for convening this meeting on this important cluster on the question of the veto. India has always maintained that the veto, which is right now a prerogative only of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is a responsibility that must be exercised with great restraint. especially on matters bearing upon the maintenance of international peace and security. It should not be an instrument of narrow political expediency. The record of the veto is stark. Over the life of this organization, the veto has been exercised 331 times on around 200 resolutions. We also note that two out of the five permanent members have not exercised a veto for over three and a half decades, and most of the vetos or threat of vetos have emanated from only three of the P5. The veto initiative of 2022 was seen as a harbinger of change by mandating a General Assembly debate every time a veto is cast to fix accountability. However, the actual record of the large number of vetoes cast since resolution 76/262 was adopted tells a contrary story. The question of veto is one of the five clusters of Security Council reforms under the IGM framework. While we agree with the sentiment behind resolution 76/262, as well as the initiatives on mass atrocity situations, the lived experience shows that piecemeal approaches, however well-intentioned, amount to fail. Limiting the veto cannot be separated from the questions of categories of membership, regional representation, size, and working methods. We need to move forward on all five clusters together. India 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. Addressing the veto in isolation does not change the decision-making dynamic of the P5. The veto is not only what is cast in the open. There is the effective or the de facto veto that every council member, elected and non-elected, holds over presidential statements, press statements, Decisions of sanctions committees, where the unwritten rule of consensus allows a single member to hold or block a proposal, most often without explanation. In the same vein, the argument of consensus has been harnessed as a disguised or a de facto veto in the IGN process as well. Resolution 62/557, the foundational decision for the IGN, is clear. The guiding principle is the widest possible political acceptance. not consensus. 17 cycles later, we have no outcome to show for it. India's position on the veto is principled and well known. It is aligned with the common African position. We reiterate that as long as a veto exists, it must be held by all permanent members of a reformed Council. Fairness and justice demand that all permanent members enjoy the same rights and responsibilities. A new category of permanent members, with or without the veto, would only further complicate a discussion that’s already very difficult and would further entrench the very inequity we are seeking to correct. Periodic elections and the concept of permanency are fundamentally contradictory. History has a lesson for us. The only expansion of the Council, in 1965, enlarged the non-permanent category alone. The ratio of permanent to elected members moved from 5:6 to 5:10 and further strengthen the relative power of the P5. A reform that expands the UN Security Council by creating another category of long-term members without the veto effectively makes them second-class members and would not change the decision-making dynamic of the P5. Mr. President, our ask remains simple and unchanged: Begin text-based negotiations, the most democratic and time-tested method in this House, at the earliest, with clear timelines and milestones. India will engage constructively with the co-chairs and all delegations in such an effort. In closing, the questions of credibility, legitimacy, and efficacy that hang over the Security Council will not be answered by managing the veto alone. They will be answered by a Council fit for purpose, whose architecture reflects today’s realities, and not that of the outcome of a war eight decades ago. India stands ready to contribute to that endeavor. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of India for this statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now have Pakistan on the list. I invite the distinguished representative of Pakistan to make a statement.

Mr. President, I wish to thank you for convening this important debate to discuss the use of veto. The General Assembly's universal membership and democratic decision-making lend it unique legitimacy and credibility.

It has demonstrated its ability.

To respond to crises when Security Council is unable to act on matters of international peace and security, including.

Due to the use of veto.

Security Council, which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, has too often been paralyzed by narrow interests and strategic rivalries among its permanent members, leading to the misuse of the veto and Council inaction. The misuse of the veto undermines the Security Council's effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations as a whole, while giving the permanent members unmatched influence and profile throughout the UN system. More permanent members and more vetoes would deepen existing inequalities, perpetuate historical privileges, create new centers of exclusive power, and increase the risk of Council paralysis. Let’s be clear, the problems cannot be the solution. Pakistan, together with the Uniting for Consensus group, remains opposed, as a matter of principle, to addition of any new individual permanent member on an expanded Security Council. Mr. President, proposals on the veto range from its abolition to restriction on its use. We believe that veto should be abolished or at least severely restricted, it must not be expanded. We understand the motivation of those seeking to moderate the use of the veto and note their proposals designed to reinvigorate the Charter function of the General Assembly, and are not related to or impinge upon the IGEN’s consideration of Security Council reform. In this context, Pakistan supported resolution 76/262, which provides for a GA debate following the exercise of the veto and seeks greater accountability. Any measures to restrict or restrain the use of the veto will have to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the UN Charter. Mr. President, one of the underlying issues is the negative power of the veto to block. Pakistan believes that this can be better balanced by, on the one hand, placing restriction on the use of veto, and on the other, by enhancing the number and role of the elected members of the Council through larger representations, and thereby changing the threshold for the approval of decision by the Council to make it more democratic and to serve as an effective check on the use of veto. The question of veto is one of the five interrelated clusters in the IGN, and the decision on all five clusters need to be adopted together in a comprehensive reform. In conclusion, Mr. President, Pakistan remains committed to a comprehensive, democratic, and equitable reform. The objective must be democratize the Council, correct existing imbalances, and a strengthened accountability. Reform must serve collective interests of all UN membership, not a select few. Reform for all, privilege for none. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Pakistan for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the representative of Kuwait to make a statement.

Mr.

President, I first salute you, the salute of Islam, the peace of mercy. Peace and mercy be upon you all. We align ourselves with the statement delivered by the Kingdom of Bahrain on behalf of GCC member states. We also align ourselves with the joint statement delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of member states. We further express our appreciation to Liechtenstein for its leadership in advancing the initiative on accountability for the use of the veto. The State of Kuwait has had the honour of serving as a member of the initiative’s core group, reflecting our firm conviction in the importance of strengthening transparency and accountability while safeguarding the credibility of our Organization. Mr. President, more than eight decades ago, The peoples of the world pledged in the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. However, today, a fundamental question comes from us: How can we fulfill that pledge if the will of the majority within the Security Council can be impeded by the objection of a single state? And how can we preserve the confidence of peoples in our Organization if its ability to act becomes contingent upon consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council? The State of Kuwait reaffirms its full respect for the Charter of the United Nations and our full respect for the Security Council's primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet that responsibility is not a political privilege; it is an international trust that carries obligations toward all States and peoples. While the veto is a prerogative established under the Charter, it should not become an obstacle to the fulfillment of the very purposes for which the Charter was created. Mr. President, For the State of Kuwait, the discussion of the consequences of the use of the veto is not a theoretical exercise; it is a lived reality whose direct repercussions on the security of our region and the stability of the wider world we have witnessed firsthand. In the aftermath of the unjustified and reprehensible Iranian attacks against the State of Kuwait and the GCC member states, as well as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, in the aftermath of these attacks, the Security Council adopted resolution 2817 that condemned those attacks and demanded their immediate cessation. The Council subsequently failed, however, to adopt a draft resolution submitted by the Kingdom of Bahrain in coordination with the GCC Member States and Jordan concerning the protection of freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, owing to the use of the veto. This prompts a broader question: when international maritime corridors come under threat and global energy supplies, trade flows, and supply chains are disrupted, Do the consequences remain confined to our region, or does the entire international community bear the cost of the Security Council's inability to adopt a unified position? Mr. President, if we turn to Palestine, the picture becomes even more distressing. How many times has the Security Council considered draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire? calling for the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian assistance, only for those efforts to be blocked through the use of the veto? And how many Palestinian families have awaited a decision that might alleviate their suffering while political considerations have prevailed over humanitarian imperatives? The children who lost their lives in Gaza, We're not parties to disagreements within the Security Council, and the civilians awaiting food and medicine are not concerned with the justifications advanced for the paralysis of the Council's decision. The protection of civilians, the respect for international law and international humanitarian law, are not matters of political discretion or selective application. They are obligations that must be upheld and implemented. Mr. President, the strength of the United Nations is not measured by the number of resolutions it adopts, but by its ability to uphold its principles, protect peoples, and safeguard rights. The General Assembly is not a substitute for the Security Council, nor does it seek to diminish its authority. Yet, when the Council is unable to act, the international community must not remain silent. This Assembly is the common house of nations and the forum in which the voices of all States, large and small, carry equal weight. Within the powers conferred upon it by the Charter, the Assembly is capable of ensuring that issues of critical importance remain at the forefront of the international conscience and of advancing fair and sustainable solutions. Mr. President, our call today is not to weaken the Security Council, but to enhance its effectiveness; not to circumvent the Charter, but to remain faithful to its spirit and purposes. The responsibility entrusted to the Council members requires the exercise of the utmost restraint in the use of the veto, particularly when civilian lives and international peace and security are at stake. A veto may prevent the adoption of a resolution, but it cannot extinguish a right, negate a fact, or absolve the international community of its responsibilities. In conclusion, Mr. President, let us remember and let the United Nations remain, as its founders intended, an organization that protects rights rather than merely records the violation of these rights, a forum in which nations build peace rather than a witness to missed opportunities to achieve that peace. Thank you, Mr. President. Peace and mercy be upon you all. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Kuwait. I now call upon the representative of Qatar to make a statement.

Sir, it

is a pleasure for me to participate in this annual meeting on use of veto pursuant to resolution 76/262. We underscore, or rather align ourselves with the statement made by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries and also the Gulf Cooperation Council. Four years have elapsed since the adoption of 76/262. During that time, the use of the veto was used more than 20 times. The General Assembly had a meeting each time the veto was used afterwards. This shows that It is an issue of accountability for the international community. Rather, it is boostering complementarity between the Security Council and the General Assembly. There was the meeting held by the General Assembly on 16 April this year, following the use of the veto against a draft resolution in the Security Council on freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. That was presented by the Kingdom of Bahrain in partnership with the State of Qatar, the State of Kuwait, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. following the attacks that targeted the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our countries. These attacks also targeted the safety of navigation and commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. This was a violation of international law and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, in particular. 2817, the veto was used because that draft resolution was co-sponsored by 112 member states of the UN and supported by 11 Security Council members. It was there as a platform for non-members of the council, in particular those directly affected. It was a platform for them to raise their voices and to encourage the Security Council to shoulder its responsibilities. During that meeting, in our joint statement by the co-sponsors, we stated that the veto and its use there would send a wrong message regarding the threat to peace and security in the region and the use of the veto in the case of threats to navigation. We saw that disruption to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is an issue for supply chains and humanitarian provision and energy. We need to work in a responsible way, in line with UNCLOS. 76/262 does not talk specifically about the mandate of the Council. It rather focuses on the role of the General Assembly regarding when the veto is used within the Security Council. This resolution does not harm intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council. We do hope that we will see notable progress regarding this reform. 76/262 and discussions based on that is an opportunity to achieve this consensus and to avoid the use of the veto in the future, in particular in the case of mass atrocities and serious violations of international humanitarian law. We welcome the fact that more permanent members of the Council have endorsed this initiative, and we would urge other states to follow suit. We fully respect multilateralism, and so the State of Qatar would reiterate the key role played by the GA as the more representative body of the UN. We are striving to implement this resolution S/76/262 and other relevant resolutions. stemming from the General Assembly when the Security Council is not in a position to shoulder its responsibilities to maintain international peace and security, in particular in the case of flagrant violations of human rights and serious threats to international peace and security? Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Qatar for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation to make a statement. You have the floor, ma'am.

Mr. President, Once again, we have to note that the discussion in the General Assembly on the use of the veto increasingly boils down to the same hackneyed topics about the Security Council's inability to carry out its functions and accusations against permanent members of the Security Council. Each time based on these discussions, there's a primitive understanding here: if a resolution is adopted, it means the council is acting; if it's blocked through a veto, that means the council is paralyzed. The draft, a priori, is supposed to be correct and necessary, but any member of this council who blocks it is guilty of all sorts of ills. That is a convenient but totally non-viable logic. Since the adoption of a resolution in and of itself has become, since when has it become akin with the effectiveness of Security Council? Surely when a document is submitted for a vote, that directly helps regulation, and a lack of decision is worsened by its adoption. Is that the case? We have looked at the inappropriate sanctions or use of force that are likely to worsen a conflict with catastrophic impacts, we should just think about the grim experience of Libya. Resolution 1973 that was adopted in 2011 using the pretext of protection of civilians served as a basis for a large-scale military operation by NATO countries that grew into a regime change by force and triggered a protracted domestic crisis and the spread of instability far from the country itself. The Security Council was created not to provide statistics on which resolutions were adopted. Its main aim is to maintain international peace and security. If the proposed decision creates a threat of further escalation, then blocking it meets that need more so than if it's adopted. A recent example, our joint veto with China on the 7th of April on the draft resolution on navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. We were asked to adopt a one-sided document, ignoring the root causes of the crisis and creating dangerous conditions for further hostilities in the region. And we do not allow that. Soon after, a ceasefire was announced between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and then there were negotiations between the countries. It’s hard to imagine that that could have occurred straight after the Security Council had adopted a confrontational document that would have deprived the crisis of space for diplomacy. Mr. President, it’s time to stop imagining the veto as some kind of unfortunate shortcoming of the UN system or a procedural flaw that the Organization needs to eliminate. When the organization was set up, that was a deliberate choice by the founding states made with bearing in mind the tragic experience of two world wars. It was precisely the need to take into consideration the positions of the permanent members that was a guarantee for preventing new global threats. Stopping or limiting the veto would not eliminate the existing disagreements between permanent members of the council. It would just move it out of the Security Council chamber to epicenters of armed conflicts. where the quest for solutions would be conducted not around the negotiation table, which has procedures, but by harnessing military means on the ground. The veto, of course, is the most extreme measure when other options have been exhausted. Russia has never hidden the reasons for using that right. We are prepared to continue to explain them, including in the General Assembly. However, the practice of repeatedly reading out statements that are openly available is highly unlikely to improve the effectiveness of this body. In this context, and in our opinion, we should have an in-depth analysis of this practice because of the UN80 initiative and the revitalization of the General Assembly. Also, the ongoing discussions about the so-called paralyzed state of the Security Council is also null and void. Let's look at the facts. This year, over almost a 10-month period, the Council adopted 21 resolutions and four PRSTs on complex issues of international peace and security, issues that the affected member states had themselves brought. for example, the situation in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the situation in Afghanistan and Haiti, the parameters for sanctions regime and operations for peace, the work of peace operations, rather, over that period, only two drafts were rejected, as I said, because they were too swiftly addressed and the documents weren't properly thought through. So what paralysis are we talking about? Such assertions clearly really have nothing to do with the real situation. The Council is continuing to work on a daily basis to adopt decisions and to find compromises, even in a context of acute international disagreements. On different issues, it's not always possible to reach agreement. However, the problem is not in the veto itself, but that some states, rather, are increasingly preferring to replace diplomacy by ultimatums. It's easier to put to a vote an inappropriate draft and publicly accuse others of blocking it rather than seriously work on settling crises and eradicating its root causes. It's easier than listening to and hearing the opinions of others to find mutually acceptable solutions. We would urge all member states to use the General Assembly forum more effectively and to pay attention to a clear delineation of work between the Security Council and the General Assembly, so that neither body steps on the feet, so to speak, of the other or the prerogatives, and acts in line with the UN Charter. The international organization that we are in will benefit from this, as will all international relations. that is undergoing a difficult transformation and will promote genuine multilateralism. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation for this statement, and I now invite the distinguished representative of Timor-Leste.

Mr. President, Excellencies, and distinguished delegates, Timor-Leste welcomes this opportunity to reflect on the use of the veto and its implication for the effectiveness and credibility of the United Nations. As a small state, Timor-Leste places great confidence in multilateralism and the principles of the United Nations Charter. The Security Council has been entrusted with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, acting on behalf of the wider membership. The veto is a power established under the Charter, but its exercise carries responsibilities that extend beyond the interest of any individual permanent member. When the exercise of the veto prevents the Council from responding effectively to threats to peace, the consequences can extend far beyond the Council’s chamber. For Timor-Leste, this is not merely an institutional question, but a question of the importance of international solidarity and effective multilateral action. We all understand the human consequences when international institutions fail to act. Behind every unresolved conflict are families forced from their homes, children deprived of education, and communities struggling to rebuild their lives. It is against this background that Timor-Leste attaches particular importance to General Assembly resolution 76/262. By providing the wider membership with an opportunity to examine the circumstances surrounding the exercise of a veto, this mechanism strengthens transparency and accountability. It also reinforces dialogue between the General Assembly and the Security Council, while respecting their respective responsibilities under the Charter. Mr. President, nevertheless, transparency alone cannot overcome the challenges arising from the use of the veto. We must therefore ask whether its exercise serves the maintenance of international peace and security, or deepens divisions at moments when collective action is most needed. Timor-Leste believes that permanent members should exercise restraint, particularly in situations involving genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In this regard, Timor-Leste underscores the contribution of the Franco-Mexican Initiative and the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency Group’s Code of Conduct in promoting responsible action within the Security Council. These initiatives offer practical avenues for encouraging restraint and strengthen Council’s ability to respond when human lives are at stake. Timor-Leste also reaffirms the importance of the proper application of Article 27, paragraph 3, and other relevant provisions of the Charter governing the Security Council’s decision-making. Their faithful implementation can contribute to strengthening the Council’s transparency, credibility, and effectiveness. Beyond these measures, discussions under resolution 76/262 should encourage meaningful follow-up. The explanations provided by the permanent members and the perspective expressed by the wider membership can help identify opportunities for dialogue, bridge differences, and encourage renewed diplomatic efforts to address the situations concerned. The veto should never replace dialogue or become an obstacle to every possible compromise. Mr. President, the credibility of the Security Council depends not only on the authority conferred upon it by the Charter, but also on how responsibly that authority is exercised. For Timor-Leste, the central question is not simply who has the power to prevent a decision,

but how that power is exercised in?

In the interest of international peace and security. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Timor-Leste for this statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the representative of Spain to make a statement.

Mr. President, Excellencies, Delegates, Spain aligns itself with the statement made by Liechtenstein on behalf of the Group of Friends promoting the application of Article 27(3) of the Charter. In addition, we would like to add a few considerations in our national capacity. Spain would like to reiterate its position of principle. We oppose the right of veto and are in favour of its elimination. As long as this goal cannot be achieved, we will continue supporting all initiatives that limit its scope and use and strengthen accountability for its exercise. Pursuant to Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security that must be exercised in the interest of all and in conformity with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We are extremely concerned that the veto, or even the mere threat of the use of the veto, conditions negotiations, weakens responses of the Council, or blocks decisions that are necessary to protect the civilian population and confront severe crises. When this prerogative is put in the service of individual narrow interests, trust in the Council is eroded and in the entire multilateral system. The Prime Minister of my country defended before this Assembly on 23 September the need to put an end to the veto, as he stated at the time: "No country should be judge and jury, no matter how powerful it is." Mr. President, Spain suggests moving forward on three specific First of all, restricting the use of the veto in cases of massive atrocities. We reiterate our support for the Franco-Mexican initiative and the code of conduct of the ACT group, supported already by two-thirds of this Assembly. We urge those who have not yet done so to join both these initiatives, and to all the permanent members of the Council not to use the veto in such cases. Spain, furthermore, is in favour of seeing this limitation to be included in the provisional rules of procedure of the Council to give it more consistency and predictability. Secondly, the full application of Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter to which we committed ourselves in the Pact for the Future. This remains a current obligation, although it has been in practice and not applied for decades, and it reflects a principle that I mentioned earlier, that no one can be judge and jury at the same time. Limiting the veto in such situations does not require reforming the Charter, but rather full complying with it. Thirdly, strengthening accountability before this Assembly. We strongly support the mandate established by this Assembly in Resolution 76/262. Whoever uses the veto must explain to the entire membership how they reconcile that decision with the responsibility that all of us have entrusted to the Council. Mr. President, as a member of the United for Consensus, Spain against establishing new permanent members or extending the veto, and we'll continue working for a reform that benefits the entire membership and allows the Council to respond effectively to the needs of those who depend on its decisions. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of Spain for the statement and for staying within the suggested time limit. I now invite the distinguished representative of Brunei Darussalam to make a statement. You have the floor, ma'am.

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Mr. President, Brunei Darussalam welcomes this debate on the use of the veto and the opportunity for Member States to review the implementation of the resolution 76/262, the veto initiative. We firmly believe the initiative is an important step towards a more transparent and accountable Security Council. By requiring every use of the veto to be brought before the General Assembly, it gives the wider membership a voice where there was none. Nevertheless, Mr. President, the initiative has fallen short of its intended purpose, as the veto continues to be exercised without meaningful restraint. Since its adoption, the veto has been cast 28 times across 19 resolutions. This raises serious questions about the Council's inability, ability to fulfill its mandate to maintain international peace and security. We share the view that the veto is not merely a privilege. It is a responsibility entrusted to the permanent members by the wider membership to uphold the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 24 of the Charter under which the Council acts on behalf of all member states. Brunei Darussalam therefore calls on the Security Council to implement and adhere fully to the UN Charter provisions governing its decision-making. Compliance with the UN Charter is an obligation, not an option. President, for a small state like Brunei Darussalam, the Charter is our principal security guarantee. When the veto prevents the Council from taking action, it undermines the confidence of smaller states. It is states like ours that bear the cost of a system that no longer applies its rules evenly. Brunei Darussalam maintains that the veto should ultimately be eliminated, but until then, it should be exercised with maximum restraint, subject to greater transparency and accountability. In this regard, we commend France and Mexico for renewing momentum behind the efforts to suspend the use of veto in the Security Council in situations involving mass atrocities. Action 41 of the Pact of the Future points in the same direction. It brings us back to Article 27, bracket 3, of the Charter, under which a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting on decisions under Chapter VI and Article 52, bracket 3. To strengthen the veto initiative itself, we encourage permanent Security Council members that cast a vote to provide explanations prior to the General Assembly debate on the veto and ensure that the Assembly's views are duly considered in the Council's deliberations. Mr. President, it is deeply regrettable that the use of the veto has repeatedly prevented the Council from acting decisively and in a timely manner on ongoing crises, most notably on the question of Palestine, where the Council’s inability to act prolonged the suffering of innocent civilians and hindered prospects of peace and stability of the region. The Council's inaction, together with the selective application of international law, undermines the credibility of this organization and erodes confidence in the multilateral system. Brunei Darussalam therefore supports the ongoing intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform and calls for the veto to be addressed as a core issue, alongside representation, working methods, and effectiveness. So until the veto is eliminated, we will continue to support efforts that make General Assembly a venue for accountability, such as the veto initiative and the resolution 377/5, uniting for peace. President, to conclude, Brunei Darussalam remains committed to supporting a more representative, transparent, and accountable Security Council that acts effectively, consistently, and in full accordance with the UN Charter and international law. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Brunei Darussalam. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Federated States of Micronesia.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my country, Micronesia. on this important issue of the use of the veto. Micronesia recognized the veto as a charter-based responsibility entrusted to the permanent members of the Security Council. We encourage this exercise with prudence, restraint, and a steadfast commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security. Micronesia therefore supports efforts to enhance transparency and accountability when the veto is exercised, including opportunities for the General Assembly to discuss the circumstances surrounding its use. Such discussions can strengthen understanding among the Member States and contribute to greater confidence in the work of the Council. For small island developing States, such as my own, A rule-based international order and an effective Security Council are essential. The credibility of the Council depends not only on its ability to act, but also on its ability to explain its action to a wider membership. While views differ on proposals concerning the future of the veto, we believe that any form Any reform must preserve the effectiveness of the Security Council while strengthening its legitimacy and responsiveness to the concerns of the broader membership. Micronesia therefore encourages continued dialogue aimed at fostering greater transparency, accountability, and responsible use of all powers entrusted under the Charter, including the veto.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Four years ago, this Assembly decided that no veto should pass in silence. Through General Assembly resolution 76/262, or the Veto Initiative, every veto is explained to the wider membership in this Assembly. Malaysia sees this as a progress and we commend Liechtenstein and the core group for this initiative. Mr. President, the veto was born of a war that ended more than 80 years ago. The world has changed, but the veto has not. Time and again on situations across the world requiring decisive action to maintain international peace and security, including the question of Palestine, The will of the overwhelming majority has been silenced by a single vote. Malaysia reaffirms our principled position: The veto is undemocratic and it must eventually be abolished. In his address to this Assembly in September, Malaysia’s Foreign Minister called on every Member State to question and to challenge the veto each time it is used, particularly in cases of crimes against humanity. Until it is abolished, the veto must be strictly regulated, and its use in situations of mass atrocities must be prohibited completely. A veto should require the support of at least two permanent and three elected members of the Council, and endorsed by a simple majority of this Assembly. Resolution 76/262 should be the catalyst for greater accountability on the use of the veto. Building on the veto initiative, the Council should report more regularly to the wider membership on its decisions. To this end, Malaysia will continue to support mechanisms that ensure every veto cast is explained and accounted for before this Assembly. Mr. President, Malaysia will continue to work with you and all Member States, including through the intergovernmental negotiations process, for a Security Council that is more efficient, transparent, accountable, and inclusive. I thank you.

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

Mr. President, we thank you for convening this debate on the use of the veto.

Article 24.

Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter entrusts the Security Council with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, so that the United Nations may act promptly and effectively when peace is threatened. The use of the veto places that responsibility in sharp relief. A single permanent member can prevent the adoption of a response supported by the wider Council, even when collective action is urgently needed.

The threat to peace does not disappear when a draft is blocked, and the Council’s responsibility to address it remains. Therefore, the exercise of the veto.

Calls for restraint commensurate with its consequences. At first glance, recent figures may seem encouraging.

In 2024, seven DRES resolutions were vetoed, four DRES were vetoed in 2025, and two have been vetoed so far this year. Yet, fewer recorded vetoes should not be mistaken for a less constrained Council.

Each veto concerns a particular crisis in which a timely collective response may be essential.

The consequences of a blocked response cannot be measured by the number of vetoes alone.

There is also a less visible dimension.

The prospect of the veto.

May be substantially altered, or derailed, or prevented from being put to vote at all, as Council deliberations have illustrated.

Again this year.

These constraints go unrecorded in vital statistics, yet may seriously impair the Council's ability to act.

In response, Member States have sought both to strengthen accountability for the use of the veto and to encourage restraint in its exercise.

General Assembly resolution 76/262, spearheaded by Liechtenstein and co-sponsored by the Republic of Korea, He established a standing mandate for this assembly to meet within 10 working days following a veto and invited the council to submit a special report.

At the same time, the Franco-Mexican initiative and the ACT Code of Conduct seek to prevent council paralysis in the face of mass atrocities by encouraging restraint in voting.

They have attracted the support of 128 and 130 states, respectively, including the Republic of Korea. These efforts share a common purpose: to ensure that the Council's authority.

Is exercised in keeping with the responsibility entrusted to it under the Charter.

We hope to see broader support for these initiatives among Member States.

Such collective engagement can help reinforce transparency and accountability in the.

Exercise of the veto, and ultimately strengthen the Council’s ability to fulfill its mandate. The Republic of Korea, for its part, will continue working with all Member States to advance these shared objectives and strengthen the United Nations’ ability to maintain international peace and security.

I thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. Romania welcomes the convening of this annual debate. The debate is in itself an avenue for assessing the implementation of resolution 76/262. an instrument designed to enhance the Council accountability to the General Assembly. For my delegation, the baseline for engaging on this topic is set forth in Article 24 of the UN Charter: Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts on their behalf. The UN Charter leaves no room for interpretation. The use of the veto is first and foremost a responsibility. It is within this remit that our national position has been strongly supportive of initiatives that seek to promote a responsible use of the veto by the UN Security Council. President, responsibility requires permanent members of the Security Council to exercise restraint from the use of the veto in particular situations. The French-Mexican initiative on the voluntary restraint of the veto in cases of mass atrocities and the Act Code of Conduct are concrete examples and benefit from large support in the UN membership. Building on these initiatives, the General Assembly achieved yet another milestone on this front through Resolution 79/327 on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. Operative paragraph 7 contains the consensual endorsement of all Member States. to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. Colleagues, Romania regards the special relationship between the work of the General Assembly and the Security Council not as a competition, but as an exercise in complementarity. Debates stemming from the implementation of resolution 76/262 are not aimed at confronting action taken by the Security Council. They offer a platform for dialogue, cooperation, and a more transparent engagement between the General Assembly and the Security Council. This is the same spirit that guided Romania’s work as one of the co-chairs negotiating with Member States an enhanced framework for collaboration between the General Assembly and the Security Council. and matters related to the maintenance of international peace and security. And resolution 79/327 on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly contains several improvements with regards to enhancing the relationship between the main two organs of the United Nations. For example, greater coordination, strengthened transparency and interaction, the continuation of the practice by the Security Council to submit special reports. and the submission of a more comprehensive annual report and inclusion of a chapter on special reports on the use of the veto in the annual report of the Security Council. President, the theme of the 81st session of the General Assembly is centered around restoring trust in the UN system. My delegation firmly believes that this objective can be achieved by translating our commitments into action. When a majority of Member States call for the responsible restraint on the use of the veto to avoid the perpetuation of mass atrocities, the action of the Security Council should follow suit. When all members, including the permanent members of the Security Council, agree to refrain from measures impeding action to prevent or end the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, they set a standard which, if left unimplemented, erodes the same trust that we are collectively working to restore in the UN. In conclusion, similar to any other process that we carry out in the UN, trust is an ongoing effort that requires contributions from all parties involved. We cannot claim to restore trust if we act in dissonance with our own political commitments. Romania will continue to be a solid partner in advancing greater accountability and transparency on the use of the veto through the implementation of resolutions and initiatives on this topic. Last but not least, Mr. President, we look forward to your detailed summaries following relevant discussions related to the annual report of the Security Council on the use of the veto and resolution 76/262, including recommendations for action based on such discussions as called for in resolution 79/327. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

Thank you, Mr. President. South Africa welcomes this debate on the important question of the use of the veto. The Pact for the Future recognizes the question of the veto as a central and indispensable element of Security Council reform. Furthermore, it underscores the need to intensify efforts to reach agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use. Article 24 (1) of the Charter of the UN entrusts the Security Council with the responsibility to promptly and effectively, on behalf of all Member States, in the maintenance of international peace and security. Mr. President, we remain deeply concerned that the continued use of the veto by some permanent members of the Security Council has contributed to persistent paralysis in the Council’s decision-making processes, undermining its effectiveness and credibility. It is untenable that the veto continues to be used by a select few members of the Security Council in ways that impede the Council’s ability to discharge its responsibilities effectively. South Africa opposes the veto in principle, in accordance with the common African position as articulated in the Ezulwini Consensus and in the Sirte Declaration. However, pending its abolition, we reiterate that the veto must be extended to new permanent members in an enlarged Security Council. Anything less would merely perpetuate existing inequities and institutionalize unequal treatment among permanent members. A reformed Council must be underpinned by the principles of fairness, inclusivity, and equal representation, rather than the preservation of historical privileges. South Africa has no objection to voluntary arrangements and political commitments, such as those proposed by Mexico and France, as well as by the ACT Group, aimed at limiting the use of the veto, particularly in instances of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. However, we do note that these initiatives have not succeeded in preventing the use of the veto by certain Member States of the Security Council. South Africa therefore maintains that the issue of the veto should be addressed through a comprehensive and holistic approach to the reform of the Security Council within the IGN process. Mr. President, South Africa urges full compliance by all members of the Security Council with Article 27(3) of the UN Charter, which provides that in decisions under Chapter VI and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. In this regard, we reaffirm our support for the full implementation of resolution 79/327, which, amongst others, requests the President of the General Assembly to continue providing detailed summaries of the discussions relating to the annual report of the Security Council and the use of the veto, including recommendations for further action arising from those discussions. We further reiterate support for the inclusion of a dedicated chapter on the use of the veto in the annual report of the Security Council. We urge the Council to institutionalize and further strengthen this practice. Enhanced reporting by both the President of the General Assembly and of the Security Council is essential to advancing transparency, accountability, and oversight regarding the use of the veto. Such measures will strengthen the ability of the General Assembly to scrutinize, assess, and follow up on instances where the veto has been exercised, thereby reinforcing the broader accountability of the Security Council to the membership as a whole. I thank you.

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

President, the United Nations was founded on an idea of saving successive generations from the scourge of war. To achieve this goal, we must abolish the veto. Since 1946, the veto has been used over 330 times. In just the last decade, veto was used over 50 times, compared to just 19 times in the decade before. This proliferation of the use of veto especially on issues related to maintenance of international peace and security, is concerning. At a time when we are attempting to rebuild trust in multilateralism, the use of veto continues to erode it. Since 2023, over 70,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and in occupied Palestinian territories, most of them women and children. And yet, the Security Council remains paralyzed by the veto. In that same time frame, 16 resolutions were presented to the Council regarding ceasefires, humanitarian assistance, protection of civilians, and post-conflict arrangements in Palestine. More than half of these resolutions were vetoed. Discussions on the use of the veto, therefore, must go beyond statements, working papers, and informal discussions. This is why the Maldives has continued to emphasize the need to transition to text-based negotiations on the reform of the Security Council. The Maldives recognizes that the full abolition of the veto will not happen overnight. This does not mean accepting the status quo. In the interim, the Maldives calls on the Security Council to refrain from using the veto against credible draft resolutions aimed at halting or preventing genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. The MOLDUS also calls on the P5 members who have not yet done so to join the initiative to suspend the use of veto in cases of mass atrocities, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed on a large scale. The existence and use of the veto has created a two-tier system for states: one for those who wield the veto and their friends, and one for those who don’t. Eighty years after the creation of the United Nations, this inequality cannot continue. The veto must go. The Maldives wishes to highlight three points. First, the veto has made the UN slow to act and even slower to react. The Security Council has been slow and paralyzed due to the veto. This has raised questions of the relevance and utility of the UN and the Council. It has overshadowed the many positive contributions of the United Nations over the last 80 years. Abolishing the veto will make the Security Council more agile and more responsive to the urgent needs of the world. Second, the veto is a remnant of a time long gone. In the decades since the creation of the UN, the world has changed significantly. The centers of economic, political, and military power have shifted. When the current international system was established, most member states of this organization were still under colonial rule. The veto continues to uphold those archaic systems that states fought to break free from. The Security Council can only become effective if it resembles the dynamics of the contemporary world. That begins by abolishing the veto. Third, veto weakens international law. When there's one set of rules for one group of countries and another set of rules for another group that erodes trust and credibility. The equal application of law is therefore a necessary prerequisite for building a trustworthy multilateral system. As long as the veto allows countries to evade accountability and promotes impunity, it will encourage countries to undermine and disregard international law. Over eight decades after the UN was established, The work before the Member States is no easy task. It is about restoring trust and enhancing efficiency of the UN and its principal organs. It is also about restoring trust in rule of law, especially in the equal application of international law. For us to achieve this, the veto must go. I thank you.

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

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 a national capacity. Today's discussion on resolution 76/262 is more necessary than ever, especially in the wake of the Pact for the Future. As a proud co-sponsor of the veto initiative, Italy views this mechanism as an example of effective multilateralism and a vital instrument for reinforcing the entire UN architecture. By convening this assembly automatically every time a veto is cast, it increases transparency and accountability of the whole UN system. The fact that it has been activated twice in the last year in response to vetoes over serious threats to international peace and security confirms its importance. It has revitalized how the General Assembly addresses security crises, moving well beyond the traditional remit of the Uniting for Peace resolution. Above all, it guarantees that the entire UN membership can make its voice heard when institutional deadlock paralyzes the Council. Mr. President, Italy wishes to reiterate one simple proposition: the veto power is the core of the problem. While it reflected the immediate aftermath of World War II, today its abuse stands in contradiction to the foundational principles of the sovereign equality of states. In too many occasions, the veto has paralyzed the Security Council, preventing it from discharging its primary mandate and denying protection to the people suffering from conflicts. This is why Italy has consistently opposed any Security Council reform model that would create new permanent seats with veto power, which would only aggravate the Council inefficacy. 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 procedure under Article 108, we call upon the permanent members of the Security Council to exercise their veto power responsibly and to provide a comprehensive explanation to the entire membership of the General Assembly whenever they choose to do so. The widespread support for the veto initiative and the strong participation in the meetings convened under its framework reflect a shared commitment among UN Member States to greater responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, we underline the importance of respecting Article 27, paragraph 3 of the UN Charter, which requires a party to a dispute to abstain from voting on decisions under Chapter VI and VIII concerning that disputes. Consistent adherence to these provisions would have strengthened the credibility and effectiveness of the United Nations in addressing some of the most pressing threats to international peace and security. Mr. President, the challenges facing the international community, from peace and security to sustainable development, climate action, human rights, and the rule of law, need a strong multilateral response. Let us use this opportunity to reaffirm our determination to build a multilateral system that is more effective, democratic, transparent, and inclusive, and that is accountable to all its members. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Italy. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Luxembourg on behalf of the Benelux countries.

Mr. President, I have 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 delivered by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of countries. More than four years ago, the Benelux countries were proud co-sponsors of resolution 76/262, which was adopted by consensus. We once again thank Liechtenstein for its leading role in the adoption of this historic resolution. The past years have clearly demonstrated the added value of the veto initiative. 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 on the issue on which the veto was cast. Since the adoption of said resolution, There have been 21 vetoes in the Security Council, and this Assembly has held debates on a number of issues, ranging from non-proliferation and the Middle East and the situation in Gaza to Ukraine. Since our last debate, this Assembly has met within 10 working days after vetoes have been cast on resolutions concerning the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and the renewal of the mandate of the Iran Panel of Experts. Mr. President, Article 24(1) of the Charter provides that the Security Council acts 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. In other words, the veto does not end the discussion; it triggers a wider debate on the consequences. Let us be clear: the veto is not a privilege, but a huge responsibility. And the veto is neither a carte blanche for impunity, nor an automatic shield against accountability, nor a license to disregard the UN's collective interests. 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. We must never forget the cost of inaction is measured in lost human lives. For this reason, 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, elaborated 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(3) 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.” Limiting the use of the veto should also be a key consideration in the comprehensive reform of the Security Council. Mr. 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 pursuant to 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 Member States. The Benelux countries welcome the inclusion of the question of the veto in the Pact for the Future, and we encourage this Assembly to continue to build on the veto initiative and take further action. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Luxembourg. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Australia.

Thank you, President, and thank you for convening this debate. Australia’s longstanding opposition to the veto reflects our commitment to a more effective, representative, and responsive United Nations. We have three key points today. First, The use of the veto should be subject to appropriate transparency and accountability measures. The strong participation of Member States in the recent General Assembly debate that followed China and Russia's veto of a resolution renewing the mandate of the Panel of Experts assisting the 1737 Iran Sanctions Committee is an encouraging sign. As a strong supporter of the veto initiative, Australia underscores the importance of the wider membership debating the circumstances surrounding specific uses of the veto. We particularly value the engagement of permanent members in providing explanations in their use. Second, Australia urges greater restraint in the use of the veto. We continue to support the French-Mexican initiative, as well as the ACT group of code of conduct, These initiatives represent practical steps that can help the Security Council fulfill its mandate while ensuring that use of the veto is transparent and limited. Australia calls on all permanent members to exercise maximum restraint and to refrain from using the veto in cases involving mass atrocities. Finally, Australia supports stronger engagement between the Security Council and the General Assembly when the veto has been used. The General Assembly has an important role to play in promoting accountability and transparency to ensure the responsible use of veto powers. We would like to see the Security Council's annual report contain substantive analysis of the occasions on which the veto has been used over the reporting period. We also encourage the President of the General Assembly to provide concrete recommendations arising from relevant General Assembly meetings with a view to improving the Council's effectiveness, credibility, and responsiveness. President, as a candidate for the Security Council for the 2029-30 term, Australia is committed to working with Member States to strengthen the institutions that sustain international peace and security. We encourage all Member States to support initiatives that promote transparency, accountability, and restraint in the use of the veto, and continued implementation of the Veto Initiative. Together, these efforts can help ensure that the United Nations is better equipped to respond to the challenges of our time and deliver for those who need it most.

I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Türkiye.

Mr. President, Thank you for convening this debate on the use of veto after the consensual adoption of General Assembly resolution 76/262, which Türkiye co-sponsored as a core group member and which established a standing mandate for a General Assembly debate whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council. The adoption of this resolution reflected a shared conviction: the exercise of exceptional powers must be accompanied by responsibility towards the entire membership of the United Nations. It is regrettable that the veto continues to be invoked, as the Security Council, in its current formation, fails to respond to the immediate challenges the world faces today. The inability of the Security Council to act undermines the credibility of the UN and erodes public confidence in multilateralism. We must be clear: accountability for the exercise of the veto is a necessity, but it is not sufficient. The General Assembly debates cannot substitute for effective Security Council action. The General Assembly, as the most representative organ of the UN, has priority and power over all other organs of the Organization, including the Security Council. It stands as a forum for dialogue and collective action in a world plagued by a myriad of conflicts and as a safeguard for the international community to voice their collective will. The veto must not become a symbol of the limits of multilateralism, nor an instrument for shielding violations of international law from scrutiny. We therefore reiterate that ideally, the veto should be abolished. Failing to do this, it's paramount to limit the use and framework of negative vote, especially under specific circumstances such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. We acknowledge the constructive role undertaken by the elected Council members and thank their increasing engagement in the work of the Security Council. Mr. President, The veto initiative has proved a valuable tool on issues pertaining to international peace and security, in line with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. We are pleased to see that the General Assembly debates held under this resolution garnered broad participation from the wider membership. They enabled the reflection of the collective political weight of the larger portion of the world and paved the way for further options and implications to be explored. The special reports and summaries prepared by the Office of the PGA, in line with the provisions of this resolution, provide a legitimate and fertile ground for transparent and informed discussions. The veto initiative has further strengthened the institutional link between the Security Council and the General Assembly. The discussion on the veto cannot be separated from the broader question of the Security Council reform. Türkiye has consistently advocated for a more democratic, representative, transparent, and accountable Council that reflects the realities of today’s world. Mr. President, the authority of the United Nations ultimately rests on the confidence of its Member States and people it serves. Türkiye calls for greater restraint in the use of the veto, stronger accountability, full respect for the UN Charter, and renewed determination to reform the Security Council. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, thank you. El Salvador is grateful for the holding of this plenary debate and would like to align itself with the statement made by Liechtenstein on behalf of a group of friends committed to implementing resolution 76/262. President, implementation of the veto initiative has introduced meaningful changes in the institutional practice of the United Nations. Today we have mechanisms that are more effective to examine decisions of the Security Council, require explanations, and expand participation of member states on issues of international peace and security. These advances also raise challenges that require a more in-depth reflection. How can we translate greater accountability into greater capacity for collective action? For El Salvador, this question is especially relevant. as we note that in spite of the strengthening of the mechanisms of transparency, there are still difficulties by the Security Council to respond in a timely way to situations that threaten international peace and security. The effectiveness of this council cannot only be assessed based on the number of vetoes used. We also have to consider those initiatives that never materialize, decisions that are postponed, and opportunities for action that are lost when a veto is expected. From our point of view, the absence of a decision does not necessarily mean absence of responsibility, which is why we believe it is essential to strengthen transparency and accountability, not only with regard to decisions adopted, but also in the face of circumstances that prevent the Council from fully fulfilling its mandate. Mr. President, resolution 76/262 has demonstrated that the exercise of the veto not put an end to the consideration of a specific situation by the United Nations. For El Salvador, we must go further. The true potential of this initiative does not reside only in our capacity to examine the reasons for a veto, but rather our readiness to determine what the Assembly should do when the Council is not capable of acting. From our point of view, the deliberations conducted pursuant to this resolution must also be an opportunity to identify possible follow-up measures, formulate concrete recommendations, and endorse the exercise of authority that the Charter grants to this General Assembly. This requires moving from a practice that is predominantly reactive towards a more systematic approach where member states examine the options for action that are available pursuant to the Charter, and also addressing the specificities of each situation. With this in mind, we consider it important to take full advantage of existing mechanisms, including recommendations that derive from these meetings, to promote greater continuity between our deliberations and the decisions that the Assembly could adopt. President, Salvador, since the founding of the United Nations, has maintained a position of principle against the veto and in favor of strengthening the authority of this General Assembly. position remains fully valid. The primary responsibility of the Security Council does not exclude the role of the General Assembly. This is why, as part of efforts to reform the United Nations, we consider it essential to strengthen precisely the relationship between these two organs to ensure a system of collective security that is more effective but also more representative. Mr. President. The credibility of the United Nations does not depend only on its ability to recognize the limitations of its institutions, but also on its determination to overcome those limitations. It's not enough for the General Assembly to have the authority to act. We must demonstrate that there is a collective will to exercise that authority. This should be our commitment: transforming institutional advances into concrete responses, strengthening the shared responsibility of Member States and ensure that international peace and security do not remain subordinate to the paralysis of one of its organs. And this Assembly can count on El Salvador to work towards that goal. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, Resolution 76/262 has guaranteed the role of the General Assembly by ensuring that every use of the veto is followed by a debate allowing all Member States to assess its implications. Since it was adopted in April 2022, the Assembly has convened 21 times following the exercise of a veto. These debates should also help identify courses of action and concrete measures. When the Security Council is blocked, the General Assembly has an important role to play in upholding the and principles of the Charter, and addressing threats to international peace and security. Resolution 79/327 requests the President of the General Assembly to include in the detailed records of these meetings recommendations addressed to the Security Council. We welcome the implementation of this mandate by the President of the 80th session and encourage the President of the 81st session to continue this practice. We invite the Council to review these recommendations and engage in dialogue with the Assembly in order to strengthen cooperation between our two organs. The veto was not intended to be a tool for obstructing the Council’s work. The permanent members bear a special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. We call on them to exercise the utmost restraint in using the veto, and to consider explicitly the consequences of the Council's inaction for civilians. In the face of overly frequent, even abusive use of the veto, all Member States can help promote a more responsible use of this right, whether or not they hold a seat on the Security Council. We call on those States that have not yet done so to adhere to the ACT Group’s Code of Conduct. We also support the Franco-Mexican initiative promoting voluntary restraint in the exercise of the veto. Mr. President, Switzerland welcomes all new initiatives aiming at limiting the use of the veto and stands ready to participate in substantive discussions on ways to ensure its measured use. In this regard, Switzerland also emphasizes the need to fully respect Paragraph 3, Article 27 of the Charter: Council members which are parties to a dispute must abstain from voting on decisions under Chapter VI and Article 52, paragraph 3. This obligation must be consistently upheld. Switzerland will continue to work with all Member States toward a more accountable Security Council, and a United Nations better equipped to act for international peace and security. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ukraine.

Thank you, Mr. President. Ukraine thanks for convening today's debate on the use of PETR. Ukraine, perhaps more than any other member state today, knows what the abuse of the veto means. Since 2014, the Russian Federation has used its veto to block Council action on its own aggression against Ukraine. It vetoed against a draft resolution on Crimea in 2014. It vetoed against the creation of a tribunal for the downing of flight MH17 in 2015. In 2022, it vetoed against the draft resolution on condemning its full-scale invasion and resolution rejecting its attempted illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. For years, Russia has blatantly used the veto not only to shield its war of aggression against my country, but it also blocked Council’s actions and important decisions on Iran, DPRK, Sudan, Mali, Syria, and many other situations. Most recently, the vetoes cast on draft Security Council resolution concerning the Strait of Hormuz once again demonstrated how the misuse of the veto can prevent the Council from responding effectively to threats to international peace and security. Disruptions to shipping through this vital international waterway have far-reaching implications for global trade, energy markets, food security, and economic stability. Mr. President, resolution 76/262 has proven its value. Since April 2022, every veto has been followed by a meeting of this Assembly, and those who cast it have to explain themselves before the entire membership. Accountability for the use of the veto has become a standard practice. We must keep it that way. When the Council is blocked, The General Assembly has both the authority and responsibility to act. Ukraine’s experience shows that it can. After Russia’s vetoes and obstructive position, this Assembly condemned the aggression, demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops, rejected the attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory, and called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, as well as a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in line with international law and the UN Charter. Mr. President, the issue of the veto lies in the very heart of the current crisis of the Council's effectiveness and legitimacy. Ukraine has consistently called for limits on the use of veto. This is our long-standing position, and it has become more urgent in light of Russia's aggression against Ukraine. Ukraine supports all efforts to restrict the veto in cases of mass atrocities. The veto must not be used in situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. A permanent member that is a party to a conflict must not be able to block Council action on the conflict, as it is stipulated in the Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter requires a party to a dispute to abstain from voting. Also, in the Pact for the Future, we all committed to implement this provision fully: no state should be a judge in its own case. Ukraine calls on Council members to apply this rule consistently. Mr. President, the veto was never meant to grant impunity for aggression, but to ensure participation and unity. A state that wages a war of aggression and commits war crimes cannot credibly carry the responsibility that the Charter gives to permanent members. The Russian Federation has never been admitted to the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter and never corresponded to a notion of a peace-loving state. Today, it uses the seat it occupies in the Security Council to shield its aggression against Ukraine and other countries of the region. Reforming the permanent members' veto power is not a technical matter. It is a question of whether the Charter applies to everyone, including the most powerful. Ukraine stands ready to work with all Member States to achieve meaningful progress in this critical issue. I thank you, Mr. President.

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

Mr. President, with regard to the mandate that led to the exercise that we're conducting, Cuba would like to express its statement during the adoption of resolution 76/262. Bearing that in mind, my delegation would like to state that operative paragraph 4 of this resolution on the inclusion of the use of the veto as a permanent item on the agenda of the General Assembly cannot be interpreted at the expense of the other five issues that are conducted in the Intergovernmental Process of Negotiations on reforming the Security Council. The question of the veto should not be examined separately from the other questions that are under the mandate of the IGN. The five key topics identified for the reform of the Security Council, among which is the issue of the veto, are closely related, interconnected, and form a whole; otherwise, it would not be possible to achieve the necessary comprehensive reform. We insist that it is insufficient to present special reports of the Security Council on cases when a veto is used. This would be a very selective and restrictive approach, unlike what is stated in the Charter. Quite to the contrary, the Security Council is under obligation to present special reports for consideration of the General Assembly. each time when that is necessary, and not only for issues related to the veto. We also recall that the mandate of resolution 76/262 does not replace the provisions of article 8b and 9b the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly on holding extraordinary meetings or emergency meetings. For this reason, we consider that they should explicitly explicit the possibility for the President of the General Assembly to hold a debate pursuant to the aforementioned resolutions if before a vote was held by the General Assembly itself pursuant to resolution 1377 as the Union proposed resolution, when a majority of Member States voted against convening the Assembly to discuss this topic. Mr. President, we reiterate our appeal for the General Assembly to fully assume its role in the area of international peace and security, as stipulated in the UN Charter. The mandate of the Assembly on these topics has already been seriously affected as a consequence of the growing trend of the Security Council to usurp its functions. With this in mind, and as we have reiterated on other opportunities, the interference of the Security Council in issues outside of its remit should cease, in particular those items that fall under the mandate of this General Assembly. We advocate once again for a broad reform of the Security Council. Thank you very much.

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

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s debate. Poland, as a member of the veto initiative’s core group, supports the implementation of resolution 76/262 and the role it plays in strengthening accountability for the use of the veto. Since the adoption of the resolution, we have established an important practice: every exercise of the veto in the Security Council is followed by a discussion in the General Assembly. This is a meaningful achievement. Mr. President, when discussing the use of the veto, we must remember that the threat of a veto can be just as consequential as the veto itself. The anticipation of the veto discourages Council members from bringing proposals forward. Can we consider the Council productive if a necessary action is never put to a vote for fear of a veto? A busy calendar does not always bring meaningful progress in the maintenance of international peace and security. We must therefore address not only the consequences of the veto when it is exercised, but also the impact of its anticipated use on the Council's ability to act. One way to address this challenge is to exercise greater restraint in the use of the veto. We should recall that the veto cannot be considered in isolation from the broader framework of international law. The veto should not serve to facilitate violation of the most fundamental norms of international law, including norms of jus cogens. In this spirit, we recognize the importance of the French-Mexican initiative calling for restraint in the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Mr. President, the Security Council does not operate in a legal or political vacuum. Under Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Council exercises its responsibilities on behalf of the membership and must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. These obligations must inform the exercise of all powers, including the veto. We must also give due consideration to Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Charter. The principle of abstention is an important element of the Charter and should be respected. Mr. President, in this context, we should also remain open to exploring practical ways of reducing the risk of a veto. One possibility worth examining would be to introduce an option to vote against a draft resolution without triggering a veto. This could help preventing the prospect of a veto from becoming an obstacle to meaningful deliberation and action. Mr. President, our objective should be to foster a Council that is better able to fulfil its primary responsibility. The international community has established common rules and principles. The exercise of a veto must be understood and assessed within this framework, rather than a prerogative detached from the legal obligation and the purposes of this Organization. We must continue working together to ensure that the veto does not prevent the Council from acting when international peace and security are at stake. And I thank you.

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

Thank you, President. Since we last met under this agenda item a year ago, we have seen two instances in which vetoes have been cast in the Security Council. One blocked the adoption of a resolution on the Strait of Hormuz, a resolution that reaffirmed key principles of international law and addressed critical issues of maritime security and freedom of navigation in regard to a situation with profound global impacts. The second prevented the renewal of a mandate for an important sanctions monitoring and reporting mechanism that provided objective analysis and reporting for the benefit of all Member States. While the issues were different, the outcome was the same: the Council was prevented from acting, despite broad support for the measures before it. Every time a veto is cast, it prevents the Security Council from carrying out its responsibilities on behalf of the wider membership. It damages the Council’s credibility and contributes to scepticism about the effectiveness and relevance of the United Nations itself. This is particularly concerning at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions and proliferating conflicts, when the world needs a Security Council capable of taking effective action. President, it is at least encouraging to have seen fewer vetoes cast over the past year than in recent years. We also acknowledge that vetoing Member States have consistently sought to explain their actions in the meetings convened pursuant to resolution 76/262. That is very important. But fewer vetoes should not be confused with genuine progress towards achieving a more effective and better functioning Security Council. Ultimately, it is the Council’s ability to agree on meaningful action to address the most pressing challenges to international peace and security that determines the UN’s credibility and its relevance. It is against this criterion that the Council, and especially its permanent members, will be judged. And it is against this criterion that the Council too often continues to fall short. President, Four years on from the adoption by consensus of resolution 76/262, the veto initiative remains one of the most significant accountability innovations introduced by the General Assembly. It has strengthened transparency and ensured that the wider membership has a voice on important peace and security issues. For New Zealand, the initiative also reflects another important principle. that while the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, this responsibility is not exclusive. The General Assembly has a legitimate interest and an important role to play in peace and security matters, in accordance with the UN Charter. This important principle was recently reaffirmed in resolution 79/327 on the revitalization of the General Assembly. As one of the co-chairs of the Working Group on Strengthening and Revitalizing the Work of the General Assembly for the 81st session, New Zealand will continue to support its implementation. We intend to reaffirm the General Assembly's functions, powers, and role on peace and security matters, and ensure that the General Assembly is ready to exercise its responsibilities under the UN Charter. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand. We have heard the last speaker in the debate on this item for this meeting. We shall hear the remaining speakers at a date to be announced. Excellencies, the exercise of the right of reply has been requested. I propose that the time limits for statements and exercise of the right of reply under this item be limited to five minutes for the first intervention and to three minutes for the second intervention. Is there any objection to this proposal? I hear none. It's so decided. Accordingly, pursuant to rule 72 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, when a representative exceeds her or his allotted time, the President shall call the speaker to order without delay, which will be done by means of automatic microphone cut-off. To assist delegations in managing their time, a countdown clock will be displayed on the screens. Members are also reminded that statements and exercise of the right of reply should be made by delegations from their seats. I call on the representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to take the floor.

Mr. President, Security Council must uphold the UN Charter and international law and reject any attempt to manipulate its authority for political ends. The veto is not a privilege without responsibility. It is an essential safeguard against the abuse of the Council's authority. While the United States and its allies have repeatedly sought to instrumentalize the Council to advance their political agendas, Russia and China have acted responsibly to prevent such abuse. They rightly demonstrated that they are genuine defenders of the UN Charter and international law. Their vetoes on 7 April 2026 concerning the Strait of Hormuz and on 17 September 2026 concerning the cynical attempt at revival of the illegitimate 1737 Seven committees, panel of experts were principled and necessary to defend the charter and the integrity of this council. The US draft resolution on the Strait of Hormuz ignored the root cause of this crisis, the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran. Its adoption would have undermined the sovereign rights of coastal states and reached further escalation. The war of aggression by the US and Israeli regime against Iran And the U.S. subsequent unlawful measures, including an announced maritime blockade, constitute a grave violation of Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and breach Article 2, paragraph 4 of the Charter. Likewise, the U.S. draft resolution S/2026/740 sought to revive an illegitimate panel of experts whose mandate had been terminated. Iran’s position is clear and consistent: Resolution 2231 expired on 18 October 2025. As of that date, all its provisions ceased to have effect. The E3 had no valid legal basis to invoke the so-called snapback mechanism, and the Council’s failure to act could not cure an unlawful procedure to revive terminated resolutions. The Security Council is not above the law. Its authority must be exercised in strict conformity with the Charter. Any attempt to weaponize the Council for political purpose undermines the credibility and the international legal order it is mandated to protect. Mr. President, the United States must bear full responsibility for this internationally wrongful act. and for any consequences arising therefrom, including its impact on regional and international peace and security. Throughout the United States and the Israeli regime’s war of aggression against Iran, the aggressors have crossed every legal, moral, and humanitarian boundary. They have violated international humanitarian law and committed war crimes by deliberately and indiscriminately targeting civilian infrastructure, including residential areas, schools, hospitals, healthcare facilities, airports, sports facilities, and cultural and historical sites. Furthermore, the U.S. utilized military bases and facilities located in the countries of the Persian Gulf region. Evidence indicates that military movements and operational Preparations were underway at these bases for the planning, preparation, equipping, and execution of unlawful military attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran, despite Iran’s prior warnings that such unlawful actions were being planned. We categorically reject all unfounded and politically motivated allegations against my country made in this meeting. These claims lack any legal basis and serve only to divert attention from the realities on the ground, namely the illegal and savage war launched by the United States and the Israeli regime against my country. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran for exercising his right of reply. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bahrain.

I would like to exercise my right of reply on behalf of the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Kuwait, the Sultanate of Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Kingdom of Bahrain. Regarding the statements made by Iran, the resolution of the Security Council that was co-sponsored by 136 states condemned the attacks of Iran against the countries of the region, including my country, the Kingdom of Bahrain. The resolution called on the cessation of these hostilities against my country and reaffirmed that these attacks are a violation of international law and a threat to international peace and security. In paragraph 5 of that resolution, the Council called on Iran to immediately and unconditionally end all provocations and threats against the countries, including the use of its proxies. I also want to reaffirm the condemnation contained in the resolution of the Council. of the Human Rights Council 71/1, which in its resolution, paragraph 7, called on the Islamic Republic of Iran to fully respect the resolution 28/17 of the Security Council and fulfill its obligations in conformity with international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The resolution calls on Iran to immediately put an end to all provocations, unjustified ones, and all attacks and threats against our countries, including the use of proxies. The resolution calls on protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure. I reiterate that this is not the time to change these realities.

Of the Kingdom of Bahrain for exercising his right of reply. I see that The Islamic Republic of Iran has requested the right of reply, and the time limit for the second intervention is limited to three minutes. The Islamic Republic of Iran, you have the floor.

Thank you again, Mr. President. Under international law, states are prohibited from allowing their territory to be used directly or indirectly – I emphasize, directly or indirectly – to cause damage to other states. In addition, they must take all necessary measures to prevent foreign armed forces based in their territory from committing acts of aggression against other states and must not facilitate or support such acts. In the event of a breach of these fundamental obligations, they bear international legal responsibility. Our defensive acts against U.S. military infrastructure were carried out in exercising our inherent right to self-defense. The Islamic Republic of Iran remains committed to maintaining and strengthening friendly relations with the countries in the region based on mutual respect and principles of good neighborliness and respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. I thank you again.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I see Bahrain has requested the floor. The time limit is three minutes for the second intervention. Bahrain, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, and we apologize for taking the floor for a second time to respond to the representative of Iran. I would like to remind him of the condemnation of international community as in Resolution 2817. The resolution called for the cessation of the attacks