General Assembly: 69th & 70th Meetings (AM & PM)

Note: A complete summary of today's meetings of the General Assembly will be made available on Wednesday, 27 April.

Action on Draft Resolution

CHRISTIAN WENAWESER (Liechtenstein), introducing the draft resolution titled "Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council" (document A/76/L.52), said that work on this text began over two years ago out of a growing concern that the Security Council was having difficulty carrying out its work in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The increased use of the veto "is but the most obvious expression" of that situation, he added. All Member States have conferred on the Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and have agreed that the Council acts on their behalf. Further, the veto power comes with the responsibility to work to achieve the purposes and principles of the Charter at all times. Therefore, membership, as a whole, should be given a voice when the Council is unable to act. Noting that the text represents a commitment to multilateralism, he stressed that "there has never been a stronger need for innovation in order to secure the central role and voice of the United Nations in this respect".

The representative of Brazil, speaking in explanation of position before action, said that, in case of a recorded vote, his delegation would abstain. The draft had not been properly discussed among Assembly membership, nor did the drafter organize informal consultations to allow delegations to make contributions to the proposed text. The draft changes the delicate balance between the Security Council and the General Assembly. Veto in and of itself is not a failure. Rather, it safeguards against the use of force by one or a group of countries. The Security Council should not be weakened. The "Uniting for Peace" mechanism was adopted by the General Assembly on an exceptional basis and used only 11 times in 70 years. The Assembly should resort to it in only exceptional circumstances.

The resolution was adopted without a recorded vote.

The representative of China, speaking in explanation of position after action, noted that her country participates in the Council's work in a constructive manner. When the Council is unable to act on major issues relating to peace and security due to a lack of consensus, China is in favour of discussions among Member States in the General Assembly, she said. Emergency special sessions can be convened, which allow Member States to play a role in international peace and security. However, this resolution gives the General Assembly a new mandate and is likely to cause procedural confusion and inconsistency in practice. She added that it is difficult to determine at this time if such an arrangement would serve the resolution's intended purpose.

The representative of India, also speaking in explanation of position after action, stressed that the only way to remedy what ails the Security Council is to make it more representative, credible and legitimate by including more underrepresented voices, including from developing countries and Africa. In 2008, the Assembly unanimously agreed that all five aspects of Council reform, including the question of veto, would be decided in a comprehensive manner; no single cluster could be addressed in isolation. Yet, when a group of pro-reform Member States, including India, moved a similar initiative nearly a decade ago, they were accused of promoting a piecemeal approach. It is therefore ironic that the same Member States who argued against "piecemeal" reform, are now supporting a piecemeal initiative which ignores the root cause of the problem. He expressed hope that other efforts addressing Council category of membership and working methods would be treated without double standards.

The representative of Belarus, while expressing concern over the considerable differences between Security Council permanent members, emphasized that trying to circumvent such disagreement is more dangerous. Instead of trying to determine why consensus in the Council is unable to be achieved, today's resolution "simply relies on brute force", he said, with the sponsors' ability to have a majority in the General Assembly using all kinds of tricks. Belarus decided not to break consensus, but it will disassociate from it, as the way the resolution was created is unacceptable, he said. The only exchange of opinion - on 19 April - was a mere pro forma activity. Further, the resolution is openly political and violates the division of labour envisioned by the Charter. Work on Security Council reform is devalued when attention is paid to issues problematic to only one group of countries, he added.

The representative of Namibia, speaking for the African Union Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government, called for comprehensive reform of the United Nations system to ensure that the Organization is fit for purpose. Stressing the need for regional balance, he said African States attach great importance to Security Council reform to make it more accessible, accountable, democratic, representative and effective, and to better reflect the current geopolitical reality. Welcoming the text's preambular paragraph that states "the present resolution and its provisions are without prejudice to the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform", he said the text just adopted has no bearing on General Assembly decision 62/557 and Africa's common position.

The representative of the Russian Federation said that, without the veto, the Council would simply rubber-stamp questionable decisions imposed by a nominal majority that would be hardly possible to implement. The veto is not the problem; it is certain Council members' unwillingness to listen to others and achieve compromise, thus compelling the use of the veto. The veto is used as a last resort, and when using it, permanent Council members provide exhaustive and openly accessible clarification as to why it was cast. Providing the same explanation of veto to the General Assembly would not add value. He rejected today's attempt to create an instrument to exert pressure on the Council; the division of powers between the General Assembly and the Security Council has allowed the United Nations to function effectively for more than 75 years.

Statements

ANNA KARIN ENESTROM (Sweden), speaking for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, expressed support for the resolution. In the past five years, the veto blocked action of the Council no less than 17 times. As the most recent use of veto by the Russian Federation highlights, there is an urgent need for veto restraint and for more transparency and accountability when the veto power is used.

The Security Council is entrusted with the responsibility to maintain peace and security on behalf the Member States represented in the Assembly, she said. Thus, it is natural that, when permanent Council members use their veto to block action, they are invited to the Assembly to explain their positions and engage with Member States on the matter. The resolution adopted today in no way encroaches on the veto power, but seeks to increase transparency and accountability in its use.

RYTIS PAULAUSKAS (Lithuania), also speaking for Estonia and Latvia, said today's adoption aims to have the General Assembly take a more resilient role in matters of international peace and security. This is necessary to make the United Nations more capable and to restore its reputation. The adoption occurs at a timely juncture, following the unprovoked, unlawful and unjustified Russian war of aggression against Ukraine

He went on to say that, not only does that event shed new light on the Russian Federation's continuous misuse of its Council perch to misrepresent international norms, sow discord and spread disinformation in the pursuit of national interests, but it also serves as a stark reminder of the implications of the Council's reduced ability to effectively act against threats to international peace and security. The United Nations has a responsibility to seek productive ways to deliver on the promise of peace, he added.

OLIVIER MAES (Luxembourg), also speaking for Belgium and the Netherlands, said they are proud to have co-sponsored the resolution. Today's adoption comes after more than two years of preparation and very wide consultations among Member States. As a result, the text enjoys broad cross-regional support.

The use of veto is not a privilege, but a heavy responsibility, he emphasized. The resolution just adopted is a crucial step to strengthen multilateralism by making the permanent Council members more accountable to the general membership when they use the veto to block the adoption of a Security Council resolution.

FERIDUN HADI SINIRLIOĞLU (Turkey) expressed regret that the Council has failed to carry out its mandate to maintain international peace and security on many occasions. The veto power is the very reason for that organ's frequent paralysis. It is not uncommon that permanent members exercise such power to pursue their self-interest, and most of the time, the use of the veto has far-reaching consequences that can lead to or deepen humanitarian crises. With today's resolution, the General Assembly now has an additional tool with which to address matters pertaining to international peace and security. He emphasized that this is an important step to enhance the Assembly's role and to make the Council more accountable and efficient.

JUAN GÓMEZ ROBLEDO VERDUSCO (Mexico) said that the resolution may seem like a modest initiative, but is an important step forward in strengthening the United Nations, which has suffered from the absence of an effective accountability system. The exercise of veto reveals the weak position of those who failed to persuade others through reason. Therefore, those who wield veto power do not offer solutions, but simply obstruct action. Mexico, as a founding member of the United Nations, opposed this prerogative at the San Francisco Conference. However, its decision to accept a veto was based on the principle of responsible use of that power. For several years, Mexico, together with France, has led an initiative to voluntarily restrict the use of veto in the situations of mass atrocities. Today, this initiative enjoys 105 signatories, he said, inviting all States who have not yet done so to support it.

KIMIHIRO ISHIKANE (Japan) said that, while the Russian Federation's recent use of the veto made the United Nations appear irrelevant, this is not the case. Although the Security Council is far from flawless, the international community must make use of it. Today's resolution is a good tool towards this end; from now on, vetoes cannot be cast without providing an explanation to the entire United Nations membership. He pointed out that permanent Council members could also embrace today's resolution, recognizing that they must face a higher level of accountability commensurate with their heavier responsibility. He went on to note Japan's support for several other veto-related initiatives and called for further discussion on Council reform to make the United Nations more effective.

RICHARD M. MILLS, JR. (United States) said that, when a permanent Council member concludes that a particular resolution will not advance international peace and security, it may use the veto. Such authority, however, comes with enormous responsibility. That member should be prepared to explain why that resolution would not have furthered the maintenance of international peace and security. Voicing his support for automatically convening an Assembly meeting when a veto is cast, he added that the United States would be willing to participate regarding any veto they made. The Russian Federation vetoed resolutions seeking accountability in Syria; a resolution that establishing a criminal tribunal on the downing of flight MH-17 over Ukraine; and a resolution when it attempted to illegally annex Crimea. Recently, the Russian Federation vetoed a resolution deploring its aggression against Ukraine. In short, Moscow egregiously violated the Charter and then blocked the effort by the Council to address the situation. The veto was not intended as a carte blanche for impunity for the five permanent members nor was it meant to confer automatic protection from accountability in perpetuity, he said.

BARBARA WOODWARD (United Kingdom), adding her support to the resolution's adoption, said the veto power should not be used lightly or without accountability and should not prevent the Council from fulfilling its mandate. She pointed out that the Russian Federation has used such power 17 times since 2011 to block the Council's efforts to protect the Syrian people and has also used the veto to prevent the Council from taking action in response to its illegal, unprovoked war in Ukraine. Noting that the Russian Federation did so in isolation from other Council members - reflecting lack of international support - she welcomed the call for permanent Council members to explain their use of the veto to the General Assembly. For its part, the United Kingdom has not exercised its veto power since 1989, preferring to win votes rather than use the veto to block Council action.

NJAMBI KINYUNGU (Kenya) said that the International Court of Justice has determined that the powers and functions of the General Assembly include the general competence to consider questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. Therefore, the Security Council should not be prevented from acting responsibly due to the exercise of the veto. The adherence to today's resolution will enhance the ability of the United Nations to live up to its primary purpose "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". For these reasons, Kenya supported this initiative, he said.

SERHII DVORNYK (Ukraine) said that the mechanism adopted today is transparent and neither politicized nor selective. The Charter grants extraordinary power to permanent Council members. The veto is not a privilege; rather, it is a responsibility. Noting that past vetoes have prevented the condemnation, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes, he emphasized that no indication exists in the Charter's drafting history that the power was intended to be used in this fashion. Almost every draft resolution in the Council concerning Ukraine has been blocked by "the country occupying the Soviet seat" - the Russian Federation - and he questioned whether such obstruction demonstrates responsibility. Expressing support for today's resolution and other initiatives to limit the use of the veto, he pointed out that permanent Council members who are responsible in carrying out their duty to maintain international peace and security should have no problem committing themselves to such initiatives.

NATHALIE BROADHURST ESTIVAL (France), stressing that the veto is not a privilege, but a responsibility, noted that France only used the veto 18 times since 1945 and has not used it for more than 30 years. Condemning the unacceptable blocking of the Security Council by the Russian Federation regarding its aggression against Ukraine, she added her support for the convening of an emergency session of the General Assembly to allow the international community to react to the violation of the Charter. France is fully committed to the process of reforming the Council in order to make it more representative of today's world while preserving its executive and operational nature. Such reforms must be in line with core values of the Organization and the responsibilities of each organ. In this regard, the General Assembly cannot become a judge of the Security Council or of its members, elected or permanent. It is in this spirit that France, together with Mexico, have introduced a proposal on the use of the veto for the five permanent members of the Council to voluntarily and collectively suspend the use of the veto in the event of mass atrocities, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

Right of Reply

The representative of Syria, in exercise of the right of reply, said that certain Member States making statements about the humanitarian situation in his country were the same countries, including the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, that used coercive measures countless times to stifle Syrian voices and impede access to electricity, fuel and food. The use of the veto in the Security Council on allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria was to correct the trajectory of the investigations. The reports, emanating from those investigations were politicized and manipulated by the United States and were based on unverified sources. He suggested that an investigation be carried out on the trafficking of oil and fuel from his country, as well as the trafficking of Syria's cultural heritage. Further, western intelligence cannot say where funds to finance these terrorists in Syria come from. He called for an international tribunal to investigate the countries that were trying to destroy his country.

...

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.