Debating Security Council 2024 Report, General Assembly Highlights Overactive Use of Veto, Inappropriate Conflict Wording, Need for In-Depth Critical Analyses
The General Assembly today considered the annual report of the Security Council for the period covering 1 January to 31 December 2024, with delegates assessing its functionality and also highlighting various aspects of the organ’s operations that require improvement, particularly those bordering on its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security.
Presenting the report (document A/79/2), Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett (Guyana), Council President for June, said today’s meeting highlights the significance of the relationship between the two main organs of the United Nations and gives Member States an opportunity to share their views on the report and Council’s work.
During the reporting period, the Council held 305 formal meetings, comprising 285 public meetings and 20 private sessions. It also convened 124 closed consultations and 2 informal interactive dialogues. This was in addition to 77 unscheduled formal meetings and 53 unscheduled closed consultations, at the request of Member States, in response to developments on the ground. The Council considered 45 items throughout the year, of which 23 addressed country-specific or regional situations, while 22 focused on thematic and other issues. Thematic and cross-cutting issues that remained high on the Council’s agenda included women, peace and security; protection of civilians in armed conflict; peacebuilding; general issues relating to sanctions; and children and armed conflict.
The Council also remained seized of the threat posed by terrorism and received briefings from the Chairs of the related 1267, 1373 and 1540 Committees. In terms of outcomes, she noted, 46 resolutions were adopted during the reporting period, along with 7 presidential statements and 43 press statements, a 27 per cent increase in press statements issued by the Council, compared to 2023. To foster dialogue and engagement in the Council's work, Council members conducted wrap-in and wrap-up sessions at the beginning and end of their presidencies and open briefings with the UN press corps and civil society organizations. The presidencies of the Council and Assembly also maintained monthly meetings as regular gatherings with troop-contributing countries were held. These initiatives, she said, helped increase transparency and accountability, as shown in the increase in public meetings held in 2024, compared to 2023.
Welcoming the “timely adoption” of the Council’s annual report, Assembly President Philémon Yang (Cameroon) stated that the data it provides sheds light on when and how the 15-member organ can act and where it is unable to do so. Highlighting as positive the Council’s unanimous mandates renewal this year of numerous peacekeeping operations and special political missions, he underscored the existence of other concerning developments, which include its 2024 vetoing of seven draft resolutions, an increase of two from the previous year. He expressed hope for a continuation of the “encouraging trend of enhanced cooperation and coordination between the General Assembly and the Security Council”, as exemplified by the practice of convening an informal consultation early in the year.
Further, he detailed other cooperation frameworks between principal organs, including his monthly meetings with the incoming president of the Security Council; trilateral meetings among the Presidents of the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Economic and Social Council to discuss matters of common concern; and an earlier joint informal interactive dialogue on the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review, which he convened. Adding that “one idea runs through all these efforts”, he said “a simple truth that has been clear to me throughout my presidency: people living through conflict, poverty and crisis do not care about institutional divisions within the United Nations”. Therefore, because these people expect all parts of the organization to work together and respond to their needs, the 193-member body “must act as one united organization” and “take real, meaningful steps that improve lives, together”, he said.
When the floor opened for debate, some delegates expressed their overall thoughts on certain concerning aspects of the report, particularly on content and structure.
Morocco’s delegate expressed her country’s “firm rejection of the singling out of two parties on the paragraph of Moroccan Sahara”. There should be no selective reading of events, she noted, as the paragraph uses biased language and does not reflect the collective position of the Security Council or a sincere effort to arrive at a mutually acceptable political resolution to the regional difference. Recalling that, since 2018, all Council resolutions mention the four parties to the political process — namely, Morocco, Algeria, Mauritania and POLISARIO, she said none of those documents limit the framework to the two parties. This development undermines the credibility of the Council and raises the question of accuracy conveyed by the report.
Expressing his delegation’s displeasure with the usage of “conflict in Ukraine” in the report, Ukraine’s speaker urged for the use of accurate and appropriate terminology. Because Moscow has been recognized by General Assembly resolutions as an aggressor and instigator “we don’t believe that concealing this fact by using” inaccurate terminology contributes to the credibility of the document, he said, encouraging Council members to explore new ways to improve their preparation of the annual report. Moreover, the sooner Russian Federation aggression and war crimes are ended, the sooner the Council can restore its effectiveness in fulfilling its primary responsibility, he said.
Cuba’s representative agreed that the document maintains a descriptive character, limiting itself to listing meetings and resolutions without providing a critical analysis of the causes and implications of decisions taken by the Council. “It is inconceivable that, in the context of Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people”, the report has again omitted an analysis of Israel’s violations of Council resolutions, including resolution 2334 (2016) and others. As the UN’s eightieth anniversary approaches, his delegation addresses the value of multilateralism in the face of continued violations of the UN Charter and international law; interference in the internal affairs of States; imposition of unilateral coercive measures for political purposes; and aggressive military doctrines of domination, expansionism and supremacism “which alarmingly undermine international peace and security”, he added.
The representative of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group, said the report should discuss instances where the Council has been unable to act despite an obvious need and mandate to do so. It should also include statements of explanation by the permanent members who exercise the veto and statistics on the number of times the veto has been exercised in the past. It should also highlight information on the Council’s closed consultations and discussions held under “any other business”.
Mexico’s delegate said the report must go beyond facts and figures and provide a substantive analysis of trends shaping the Council's dynamics. It must identify areas in which agreements were not reached and evaluate constraints that have impacted its performance in recent years, he said, adding that, during the consultation held in January, his delegation suggested including an analysis on sanctions regimes’ effectiveness in supporting peace processes. He further noted that the peace and security architecture of the United Nations and the Council itself is passing through a critical stage, with growing politicization and geopolitical tensions preventing the Council from acting effectively in the face of pressing crises, such as those in Haiti, Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza.
Echoing this view, Thailand’s representative said the Council’s annual report should be more substantive in providing greater insight into its deliberations and decisions and also promoting transparency and accountability to the broader UN membership. Describing as concerning growing divisions within the Council, he noted that only 65 per cent of resolutions were adopted unanimously in 2024 — a decline from 70 per cent in the previous year. He therefore urged the 15-nation body to uphold its unity and effectiveness, which are critical for fulfilling its primary mandate of maintaining international peace and security.
Addressing these concerns, the delegate of the Russian Federation said his delegation, which introduced the document this year, paid special attention to other members’ opinions and is pleased that the introductory part of the report was concluded by early February — showing that the Council can “expeditiously and collectively resolve issues it has”. However, he noted comments by some Members of the “un-consensus” wording in the report’s introductory portion. The document is a “general product by the Council”, he said, was prepared after several rounds of bilateral and multilateral consultations to achieve consensus, and considered all comments received, showing “maximum flexibility”. Therefore, those with new considerations after 10 February should be more organized and not introduce confusion.
Other delegates voiced their positions on the actual activities of the Council with respect to its foundational role of safeguarding world peace and stability.
“The fundamental question before us is clear. What kind of Security Council do we need for the complex contemporary world we live in?”, asked Mozambique’s delegate, noting that the debate on the Council’s report provides for an examination of what the Council did over the past year, how it conducted its deliberations and on whose behalf it acted. Agreeing with this assessment, Indonesia’s speaker said: “The continued paralysis of the Council on grave situations is a fundamental cause for concern.” The report must therefore identify and analyse challenges for the Council in reaching common grounds.
Concerned about the use of the veto, Portugal’s speaker said its repeated engagement to block Council action in the face of massive human suffering “risks undermining not only the Council’s legitimacy, but also the trust that Member States and global citizens place in the multilateral system.” He called for increased accountability on veto use and wider adherence to the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Group’s code of conduct, as well as the French-Mexican initiative — both of which aim to ensure that the veto is not used in situations involving atrocity crimes.