Opening speech: - Beyond permanency itself, the veto power is probably the UN Charter’s most

significant distinction between permanent and non-permanent members. India’s position on veto
remains consistent and clear. India believes in the equal opportunity for all. Delegates you will agree
with me that equity demands that every nation irrespective of its size or power be offered an equal
opportunity and I stress the word here opportunity to shape global decision making. More than ever
before in human history we share a common destiny we can master it only if we face it together. Over
the past 79 @aaA years all 5 permanent members, all 5 permanent members have used the veto
to achieve their respective political end. Our question therefore is how much longer, how much longer
will the will of 5 members continue to overwrite the collective voice of 188 member states, this must
change. Co-chairs I think we might all broadly agree that the historical injustices perpetrated against
the global south can no longer be ignored and it is time, it is time to rectify these disparities by
ensuring greater representation for regions like Asia Africa and Latin America in the permanent
members of the security council. The veto as a matter of principle should be abolished however as
matter of common justice it should be extended to new permanent members so long as it continues to
exist. This privilege of using the veto has been vested to only 5 members this goes against the very
concept sovereign equality of state and only perpetuates the mindset of the 2 nd world war “To `the
victor belongs the spoils”. The exercise of veto is driven by political consideration and not by moral
obligation. As long as it exists the member state or member states who can exercise the veto will do so
irrespective of the moral pressure as we have seen in the recent past. India remains steadfast in our
commitment to support any initiatives that genuinely furthers the objective of achieving meaningful
and comprehensive reform of the key elements of the global multilateral architecture.

Subtopics:
I. Change of global powers since 1945: - For India, the distribution of power and moral
authority in the world has shifted substantially since 1945. The veto which is privileged
only to the great power club comprising of the 5 permanent members of the security
council who often violate the very rules and standards to which they hold all other
countries accountable and the group that claim to centrality being the victors of World
War II is outdated. Therefore, India advocates in the Increase of both permanent and non-
permanent members of the security council to approximately 26 members. This is to
ensure diversity and greater representation of regions like Asia Africa and Latin America
in shaping global decision making. India believes the new permanent members should be
India itself followed by Brazil, Japan and Germany who all are a part of the G4 nation
and two nations from the African union. India Also insist that all new permanent members
posses a veto. At the same time, it believes that all permanent Security council member
both new and old should commit to using it only in exceptional circumstances and avoid
blocking enforcement action in response to grievous acts such as genocide, crimes against
humanity, and war crimes.

II. Misuse of veto power in the past: - The veto in the past 75 years has been recorded 293
times. Russia has the highest number of veto cast with 133 followed by the US with 83
vetoes out of which 79 in the interest of Israel in the Interest of Israel/Palestine conflict.
Followed by China and UK at 40 and 39 each and France with 18 veto cast. The exercise
of veto is driven by political consideration and not by moral obligation. As long as it
exists the member state or member states who can exercise the veto will do so
irrespective of the moral pressure as we have seen in the recent past. Example of this is
 the security council assembly held on 25 February 2022 in which Russia vetoed
against the resolution regarding the Russia Ukraine war even though The charter
provides (article 27 (3)) that in SC votes under chapter VI [the pacific settlement
of disputes] “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting” – legally, then, Russia
should not be voting on resolutions relating to its invasion of Ukraine. Yet it has
done so repeatedly wielding its veto with callous disregard for human life. This is
one of the many examples of the 5 permanent members using veto for their
respective political ends.

holding the five permanent Council members accountable for their use of veto.
In accordance with Article 24 (3) of the Charter of the United Nations, to submit a special
report on the use of the veto in question, to the Assembly at least 72 hours before the relevant
discussion is to take place.

III. Threat of hidden vetoes by permanent members: - The threat of the use of the veto
and the “hidden veto” has been particularly problematic in the context of Security
Council responses to international humanitarian crisis. For example, when the
Security Council considered acting in response to the developing Rwandan crisis
and eventual genocide, both France and the US threatened the use of the veto.
Moreover, both countries used their influence through the “hidden veto” to
influence the definition of the crisis to avoid the use of the term “genocide.
Regarding the conflict and unfolding humanitarian crisis in Kosovo, it was Russia
and China that threatened the use of the veto when the Security Council began
deliberating what actions to take. Russia committed itself to vetoing any possible
enforcement action against its ally, Serbia, and China was unwilling to extend the
limits of the Charter on the use of force, thus impelling NATO to take unilateral
action with a bombing campaign in Kosovo which was not authorised by the
Security Council.