Veto Must Not End UN Action, Speakers Stress in General Assembly Debate, as President Warns Against Perception of “Our Collective Failure to Act”
Amidst ongoing paralysis in the Security Council due to the proliferating use — and misuse — of the veto despite escalating global crises, speakers in the General Assembly today called for action to ensure that casting one is not the end of United Nations action when the eyes of the world are looking to the Organization to deliver an effective response.
In April 2022, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “Standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council” (document A/RES/76/262), which has come to be described as the “veto initiative”. Under this initiative, the General Assembly has a standing mandate to convene within 10 working days of a veto being cast in the Council.
Hailing the veto initiative as a “significant breakthrough”, Dennis Francis (Trinidad and Tobago), President of the seventy-eighth session of the General Assembly, noted that the role of that body continues to attain more meaning as the Security Council is in serious deadlock that hinders the effective discharge of its responsibilities.
He voiced regret that, since the 2023 debate on the veto initiative, a total of eight resolutions and one amendment have been vetoed in the Council. “Consider that the Council remains unable to collectively address critical peace and security situations in the Gaza Strip, in Ukraine, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Republic of Mali and concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” he stressed.
“If we do nothing, questions on continued relevance of the United Nations will escalate,” he stressed, “and public confidence in this institution will increasingly dwindle — with each veto cast perceived as our collective failure to act.” Calling for increased momentum towards Council reform, he urged Member States — especially those who are also Council members — to seize today’s debate as an opportunity to bridge divisions and seek impactful solutions by involving the Assembly more.
The representative of the United States affirmed that the veto initiative affords each Member State that has vetoed a resolution an opportunity to explain its position to the full Assembly, while also giving all Member States an opportunity to express their views. Recalling that, in 2022, his delegation prepared its first draft of a special report on the use of the veto, he welcomed that the Council has consistently followed a practice of submitting these special reports — no matter which member cast the veto.
The representative of Liechtenstein, speaking for a group of States committed to implementation of the veto initiative, said that measure has begun to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the Council and the Assembly over the past two years. It has strengthened the Council’s accountability to the wider UN membership, a significant share of which has addressed every veto cast on issues concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mali, the Middle East and Ukraine. “The veto is no longer the end of the conversation,” he observed, adding: “As we move forward, we must also ensure that a veto is not the end of UN action.”
Echoing that, Denmark’s representative — also speaking for Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden — noted the continuing importance of the veto initiative against the backdrop of five vetoes cast in the first months of 2024. “The frequent use — and misuse — of the veto is preventing the Council from effectively fulfilling its vital mandate of maintaining international peace and security,” he said. He nevertheless commended the important role played by the Council’s elected members who, under difficult circumstances and increasing division, have delivered concrete results — such as the Gaza ceasefire resolution.
The representative of Estonia, also speaking for Latvia and Lithuania, noted that the veto initiative has repeatedly served its purpose given that use of the veto power has spiked to unprecedented levels. Over the past year, the Assembly had to step up nine times after Council decisions were impeded by certain Member States exercising their veto power — three times more than the year before. “This worrying trend not only undermines the credibility of the United Nations, but also perpetuates injustice and instability around the world,” he stated.
The representative of South Africa said that, when the Council is deadlocked, bringing the matter to the Assembly should aim to break the impasse — not perpetuate divisions. “We should also recognize that the more frequent use of the veto, as we have seen recently, signals an increasing lack of unity in the Council,” he added. If the Council does not act on behalf of the broader membership, the Assembly must not reinforce these failures.
Pushing back on many of those sentiments, the representative of the Russian Federation stressed that the veto right is a cornerstone of United Nations architecture. Without it, the Council would become an organ that rubber stamps dubious decisions. Use of the veto does not violate anything, and he said that, in the two years since the adoption of the veto-initiative resolution, the Assembly has not been able to prove its added value. Some Member States are using these meetings to “pat themselves on the back” for their achievements, he added.
Providing a tangible example of the impact of Council inaction, however, the representative of Lebanon stressed that, with each impending Council vote on Gaza, “the eyes of the world have been drawn to this building”. Unfortunately, “this building is not delivering”, he observed. “People often ask — and rightly so — what is the relevance of the United Nations? And one must admit that it is not always an easy task to provide them with a satisfactory answer,” he stated.
Echoing that urgency, the representative of the United Arab Emirates noted that use of the veto has prevented both calls for ceasefires to take effect and Palestine’s request for UN membership. There must be clear standards for its use, which must be restricted in the face of atrocity crimes against unarmed civilians.
In a related vein, Egypt’s representative stressed that — due to six vetoes over six months — “the Israeli war machine has continued to sow destruction as part of a genocide within the Gaza Strip, in plain sight of the entire world”. The veto disrupts the Council’s work, with catastrophic consequences — particularly in the Middle East.
Similarly, the representative of Bangladesh said that the veto should not be used in the context of important decisions such as membership, also recalling the blocking of Palestine’s entry as a Member State. Similarly, it should not be used to shield those who violate the Charter of the United Nations, as the undemocratic nature of the veto runs against the very principles of the Organization.
Ukraine’s representative, for his part, spotlighted the Russian Federation’s deliberate immobilization of the Council as part of its aggression against his country. He recalled that almost every draft resolution the Council attempted to adopt in response — beginning in 2014 — was blocked due to Moscow’s abuse of the veto, underscoring that its use should be restricted when a permanent Council member is directly involved in a conflict under consideration.
Use of the veto is indefensible in light of the high human costs being paid in Gaza and Ukraine, stressed Mexico’s representative. When mass atrocities are being committed, the veto’s use is a grave breach of the Charter’s principles that leaves entire populations defenseless. In that context, she affirmed that the Mexico-France initiative — a push to suspend veto powers in cases of mass atrocity — is as relevant today as it was nine years ago.
Echoing that sentiment, the representative of France said that such initiative would not require amending the Charter for it to be implemented and would apply to current permanent Council members. She also pointed out that this initiative is supported by 106 States. Stressing that the veto is not a privilege — but a responsibility — she recalled that her delegation has only used the veto 18 times since 1945, and has not cast one for more than 30 years.
Similarly, the representative of the United Kingdom noted that his delegation has not exercised its right to veto since 1989 and remains committed to never voting against a credible draft resolution that seeks to prevent or end a mass atrocity. London is a proud signatory of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct regarding Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and he encouraged all Member States — including other permanent Council members — to support this initiative.
Noting that the veto’s role in preventing armed confrontations between major military powers may be exaggerated in the nuclear age, Kenya’s representative said that Member States, then, can more easily embrace the France-Mexico proposal to prevent the veto from obstructing resolutions that aim to address and halt genocides, war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also proposed a “constructive veto” system, in which any veto should be accompanied by an alternative proposal that is agreed to by at least one other permanent member, or a majority of elected members, to make use of the veto more judicious.
Also voicing support for the France-Mexico initiative, the representative of Singapore expressed regret that use of the veto has continued unabated on draft resolutions that have received support from an overwhelming majority of Council members. “We cannot tolerate war because it affects all of us as a community of nations,” stressed Guatemala’s representative, demanding that the Council —particularly its permanent members — fulfil their obligations to avoid serious humanitarian crises, underdevelopment and the spilling of civilian blood.
While welcoming the veto initiative, the representative of Brazil noted that it does not tackle a root cause of the problem — the Council’s anachronistic composition. “We will continue to witness the erosion of the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the Security Council as long as developing countries remain sidelined and whole regions — such as Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa — are not represented among the permanent members,” he affirmed.
The Council has obviously been politicized, observed Nigeria’s representative, calling for a comprehensive reform of the UN system towards a fairer world based on universalism, equality and regional balance. This must include a transformed and expanded structure to ensure full participation by Africa and others that remain marginalized in Council decisions.
The representative of India similarly attributed the Council’s dysfunctionality to the “binary nature” of its composition, which does not reflect contemporary realities and ensures the Council takes decisions in a vintage “cold war” mode. Unless this is changed, diplomacy and dialogue will not get a real chance to find solutions to present challenges.
Stressing practical action, Costa Rica’s representative called on Member States to consider each use of the veto as an opportunity for collective action. The Assembly must be assertive; for example, it could establish a global monitoring body to impartially support peace efforts and strengthen the UN human-rights system. She also urged a shift away from the use of binding and non-binding resolutions, with the focus instead being on their efficacy — regardless of legal status.