Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva at a UNGA Meeting on the Use of the Veto
Mr. President,
In April 2022, about two and a half years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 76/262 to review the practice of using the veto right in the Security Council. At that time, the sponsors of this initiative solemnly and eloquently presented it as an effective measure to limit the rights of the permanent members of the Security Council and a mechanism to enhance its accountability to the international community. They also discussed strengthening the role of the General Assembly in realms of the Security Council's exclusive prerogatives.
Let me quote some statistics. Since the adoption of this ambitious resolution, the veto was used 17 times in the Council. This is almost three times as many as during the analogous period of two and a half years prior to the introduction of the practice of convening plenary meetings on this issue (between December 2019 and April 2022 the veto was cast six times). None of the subsequent 17 plenary meetings of the General Assembly had any practical effect on the issue at hand. At the same time, organizing these meetings cost approximately US$1 million out of the regular UN budget. Comment, as the expression goes, is superfluous, especially in light of the UN liquidity crisis and an acute shortage of funding for humanitarian aid in all the world's hot spots.
In their desire to tout themselves amid the complicated international situation, the sponsors of the initiative set themselves an artificial and unrealistic goal only to fail it. At the same time, they stubbornly ignore the intense, and often round-the-clock work of the Security Council members to reach compromises on the pressing issues on the agenda.
This year alone, there were two cases of using the veto right (both times by the US delegation) but at the same time the Council has adopted 36 resolutions, seven Presidential statements, numerous other statements and press communiques. Each of these decisions was achieved under extremely difficult conditions of acute geopolitical contradictions, despite the great sensitivity of the issues, and under enormous public pressure. The current and recent former non-permanent members of the Council can attest to this. The latest example is the Presidential statement, adopted on Russia's initiative, on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. In this statement, we managed – despite all the difficulties – to agree on common approaches to its role and activities in modern times.
Given that the practice of discussing the veto right has no “added value” any longer, I would like to remind you of the reasons that may lead to the use of the veto. In most cases, the reason is the unlikelihood of swiftly reaching a compromise when a half-backed draft resolution is placed on the Council table in a time crunch, with this draft being originally conceived as a way to force an opponent’s hand. In a number of cases, the reason for a veto was a flagrant misuse of that right by a permanent member with the view to protecting the interests of their allies. For example, in the two above-mentioned cases, the veto was used because the USA was trying to provide international cover for Israel's operation in Gaza, which claimed the lives of more than 70,000 civilians. And where were our Liechtenstein colleagues at that time? Those who claim that they are impartial when criticizing the work of the Security Council?
And now let us turn to Russia and China vetoing the US draft resolution on Gaza in March last year. This decision enabled the Council, just three days later, to adopt a concise draft resolution submitted by the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council. At the core of that draft resolution was a direct demand for an immediate ceasefire for Ramadan, which was meant to bring about a lasting ceasefire. Accordingly, it was the only correct decision, and it reflected the will of the overwhelming majority of the international community.
This situation is the best response to those who criticize the very existence of the veto right for the five permanent members. It is also the strongest proof of the futility of the mechanistic approach by the initiators of today's discussion. After all, none of them even mentioned this qualitative distinction.
Mr. President,
We have repeatedly stated, both at the Security Council and during intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, that the veto power of its permanent members is the cornerstone of the entire UN architecture. Without the veto, the UN itself would not have come into being, and at the current stage the Council itself would morph into a body rubber-stamping imposed and dubious decisions, which would be hardly possible to implement. Without veto, the UN would instantly lose its credibility and any leverage over international politics.
Of course, the veto is the most extreme measure to be used only when other options have been exhausted. Russia has never concealed the reasons behind its use of this right. We are prepared to explain our vetoes in the future too, including at the General Assembly. However, the practice of repeatedly reading out statements that are already publicly available is unlikely to enhance the effectiveness of the body nor facilitate its revitalization. In this context, in our view, we need to thoughtfully assess whether this practice is actually compatible with the efforts under the UN80 initiative, and with resolution 79/318.
Let us not forget that the veto is an inalienable right and an integral part of the mechanisms enshrined in Article 27 of the UN Charter. The use of the veto is in no way a violation. What is to be criticized is not the veto itself, but the unwillingness of certain Council members to listen to others, take account of their opinions, and reach compromises and balanced decisions.
Colleagues,
We strongly urge you: instead holding meaningless discussions on the veto right, let us reflect on the need for a clear division of labor between the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, so that neither body encroaches on the prerogatives of the other, and both act strictly in keeping with the UN Charter. This would benefit both the UN and the entire system of international relations, which is currently undergoing a complex transformation on the path to genuine multilateralism.
Thank you.
