76th UN General Assembly

69th Plenary Meeting

Strengthening of the UN System [Resolution on standing mandate for GA meeting in case of use of Veto]

26 April 2022

Explanation of Position

Mr. President,

1. As a delegation that has piloted the need for reformed multilateralism, India fully supports any initiative that genuinely furthers the objective of achieving meaningful and comprehensive reform of the key elements of the global multilateral architecture.

2. In the context of the United Nations, this has inter alia implied bringing the structure and composition of the Security Council in line with contemporary geo-political realities, through its comprehensive reforms, across the five clusters of categories of membership, question of veto, regional representation, size of an enlarged security council and improving its working methods and improving the Council’s relationship with GA.

3. Our leaders have repeatedly tasked us with delivering early and comprehensive reform of the Security Council – a task, which over years of text-less, fruitless deliberations in the IGN, remains not only unfulfilled, but blocked by those perpetuating the outdated status quo. In effect a vocal minority of nay-sayers have held the entire process of Security Council reform hostage over the last four decades.

4. The only way to begin 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 from Africa.

5. My delegation has the following FIVE ISSUES of concern on the present initiative:

6. First, this very UNGA had unanimously agreed vide decision 62/557 in 2008 that all five aspects of UNSC reform, including on the question of veto would be decided in a comprehensive manner and therefore no single cluster could be addressed in isolation. When a group of pro-reform member states, including India, had moved a similar such initiative nearly a decade ago, which also called for an improvement in the working methods of the Council, we were accused of promoting a piecemeal approach to UNSC reform.

7. It is therefore ironical that the same set of Member States who argue vociferously against ‘piecemeal reform’ in the IGN, are today themselves supporting a piecemeal initiative, which ignores the root cause of the problem. We therefore hope that other piece meal efforts focusing on aspects of category of membership and working methods of the Council would be treated without any double standards and with a similar yard stick in future.

8. Second, all five permanent Members have used the veto over the last 75 years to achieve their respective political ends. In this regard, let me flag what our African Brothers have repeatedly stated in the IGN: “ The veto as a matter of principle should be abolished. However, as a matter of common justice, it should be extended to new permanent members so long as it continues to exist.” Unquote.

9. The privilege of using the veto has been vested to only five member states. The UNGA can do very little about it as effectively the P-5 have a veto over the veto. As rightly called out by our African brothers, it goes against the concept of sovereign equality of states and only perpetuates the mindset of the Second World War, to the victor belongs the spoils. Either all nations are treated equally in context of voting rights or else the new permanent members must also be given the veto.

10. By bringing veto to the UNGA as a standalone issue, on which the remaining membership has no de facto say and by implying that this issue needs to be addressed first, above all other substantive issues of UNSC reform, is giving disproportionate importance to one issue over all others. This flawed approach is therefore an aberration.

11. Third, the provisions of this resolution also tend to relitigate the provisions of the UN Charter. This resolution entails structural changes in the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council, which will impact the mandates and independence of these two Charter bodies. It will also have an effect on the internal decision-making dynamics of the Council.

12. Fourth, the proponents of the resolution claim that the ‘automaticity’ of the standing mandate is meant to 'empower' the General Assembly. Mr. President, we fail to understand - how can removing the discretion and decision making ability of the PGA and the membership empower the GA? There are already mechanisms in place, which enable the membership of the GA to decide on an “emergency basis” to convene discussions or even take action on issues that reach stalemate in the Security Council. We need not add an “automatic” invocation of another mechanism by rewriting the existing rules.

13. The wider implications of today’s decision bring us to our final and fifth point. A substantive and important resolution such as this, with profound long-term ramifications on the relationship between two major organs of the UN, their mandates, and internal working dynamics, demands much more serious, in-depth, and inclusive deliberation than was allowed by the movers of this text. We regret the lack of inclusivity in the manner this resolution was put forth. We have serious concerns about such ‘take it or leave it’ initiatives which do not make a genuine effort to take into account the perspectives and concerns of the wider membership.

I thank you Mr. President.

************