In the present circumstances of a unipolar world, we do not see the need to exercise the veto in this United Nations body.

That is a central feature of the proposal that would not be mitigated by the suggested moratorium on the exercise of the veto power.

In fact, how can we imagine a more efficient Council with more than double the number of countries that can exercise the right of veto?

The usual double standard and the exercise or threat of a veto by one of its permanent members had brought the Council to a standstill on the issue.

Moreover, it proposes a clear time frame to review the effectiveness of the reformed Council, including the issue of exercise of the veto by the new permanent members.

Our preference is to limit the use of veto and to promote a veto free culture.

They should have a right of veto.

Instead, a veto free culture should be promoted.

(a) Restraint on the use of the veto

The Hamas Veto

It was also suggested that if a veto is used, an explanation of the reasons for the veto should be given to the Assembly.

Limiting the Security Council Veto

And although the total elimination of the right of veto may seem somewhat unrealistic and remote, we do not reject serious consideration of intermediate formulas, such as restricting its exercise to matters falling under Chapter VII.

There should be no extension of the right of veto, and the use of the veto should be limited.

The Governor has the power to veto a budget bill, following which the bill is returned to the Legislature, which can either override the Governor's veto by a special majority or reconsider the bill.

A small minority cannot be allowed to veto the establishment of the Council.

Until the final objective of the elimination of the veto is achieved, as a first step it is necessary to limit the veto to actions taken under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Third, this exercise I call savoring, and this is a beautiful exercise.

Other delegations stated that the elimination of the veto was not a realistic proposition.

The question of the use of the veto

First, it should no longer be possible for the current permanent members to exercise their right of veto when the Council is called upon to act on cases of genocide, large scale massacres, ethnic cleansing, or other grave breaches of international humanitarian law.

(f) The question of the use of the veto.

In our view, the veto can rarely be justified.

Collective action to prevent and respond to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must, therefore, not be made impossible by a veto or threat of veto by one of the permanent members of the Council.

We ask for at least two permanent members with a veto and five non permanent seats.

We recognize that the complete elimination of the right of veto is perhaps a bit unrealistic or unlikely, but we do not reject giving serious consideration to interim formulas, such as, for example, restricting its exercise only to matters under Chapter VII, excluding cases of genocide or crimes against humanity.

As a matter of principle, and in keeping with its historical position of rejecting the veto, Chile makes a specific reservation with regard to the granting of the right of veto to the new permanent members, whether immediately or subject to a suspension or moratorium.

Realizing Ahtisaari s proposal will depend on EU solidarity and persistence, coupled with strong American support, to manage the vicissitudes of UN debate, lobby skeptical non permanent Security Council members, such as Indonesia and South Africa, and persuade Russia to abstain rather than exercise its veto.

But our critics say that the AU is not really committed to the veto at all that it does not really want the veto, but something entirely different.

My third point relates to the use of the veto.

The third message is the claim to the veto power.

Let me briefly deal with the matter of the veto.

We have often reaffirmed that the veto should be eliminated.

This isn't a second class exercise.

Contingency planning is a demanding exercise.

We have also consistently advocated limiting the use of the veto.

Moreover, we must do away with the right of the veto.

Should the veto be extended to new permanent members or eliminated?

The veto has never allowed the consensus or majority sovereign expression of the Security Council it has served only as a way in which to block the popular will so as to protect the interests of the Power exercising the veto.

In fact, veto power should be given only to the General Assembly, to be exercised by a majority vote.

(c) Affirmation of the need to restrict the use of the veto power in the Security Council to make it exercisable within narrower limits, and establishment of the necessary rules for that purpose, including rules restricting its exercise to resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, and subject to clear conditions

The proposed language concerning the veto power has already found broad acceptance.

The use of the veto power should be limited and eventually eliminated.

First, we have since 1945 opposed any extension of the veto right.

Our support is without prejudice to our historical position on the veto.