They should have a right of veto.

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

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

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

First, Switzerland is opposed to granting the right of veto to new permanent members.

Chile supports the addition of new permanent members, but without the right of veto.

We must also do away with the right of veto, which often paralyses the Council.

First, the two permanent seats to be allocated to Africa must include the right of the veto.

We believe that the question of limiting the right of veto should be reconsidered in the coming months.

As we understand it, Africa is seeking this right the right of veto on behalf of the entire African region, not for one or two States.

That position has not changed, and Africa clearly reiterated its principled opposition to the right of the veto at Ezulwini.

With respect to sensitive issues, including the right of the veto, the draft resolution includes unambiguous and therefore appropriate provisions.

I believe that that historical injustice must be redressed by allocating a permanent seat, along with the right of veto, to Africa.

For my delegation, the choice is straightforward either we abolish the right of veto or we grant it to new permanent members.

The Hamas Veto

Uruguay cannot support any reform of the Security Council that would envisage increasing the number of Member States having the right of veto.

Let us be very clear Chile supports the inclusion of new permanent members, but without the right of veto, either now or later.

(b) Accord the new permanent members the same prerogatives and privileges as those of the current permanent members, including the right of veto

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

It also resolves to accord new permanent members the same prerogatives and privileges as the current permanent members, including the right of the veto.

However, for the Council to be both effective and legitimate, the veto right should not, under any circumstances, be extended to new permanent members.

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.

The African Union's desire for full rights, however, appears to be qualitatively different from the right of veto as currently held by five permanent members.

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?

Limiting the Security Council Veto

However, for the Council to be both effective and legitimate, the right of veto should not be extended to the new permanent members under any circumstance.

Later, at Ezulwini, Africa reiterated its opposition to the right of the veto, while at the same time deciding that, so long as the current permanent members had that right, Africa should have it as well.

Introducing new veto rights, even if circumscribed as in the current group of four draft, would in our view not be a step in the right direction.

At the same time, Africa believes that, so long as the current permanent members possess the right of the veto, it would be unfair, unreasonable and unacceptable for new permanent members to be deprived of that right.

The right to veto was the price demanded by China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the US for joining the UN. No one believes that a formal Charter amendment to abolish or limit this right is remotely likely.

2. Expresses the hope that the Palestinian people will soon be exercising their right to self determination, which is not subject to any veto, in the current peace process

For my country, the needed reform of the Security Council does not involve an increase in its membership or, even less, an expansion of the right of the 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.

The question of the use of the veto

Instead, a veto free culture should be promoted.

(a) Restraint on the use of the veto

Like other countries of the Non Aligned Movement, African States have always considered the veto as an anachronistic, unfair and completely unjustified right, and have therefore demanded its outright abolition.

Africa should hold not less than two permanent seats, with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership, including the right of veto, as well as five non permanent seats.

It is for that reason and on this position we will not compromise that we believe that the right of the veto is a key and intrinsic factor of permanent membership.

As we have stated repeatedly, we firmly oppose the right of veto, which undermines one of the basic pillars of public international law the principle of the sovereign equality of States.

We reaffirm the Russian Federation's unwavering position that any dilution of the status of the five current permanent members first and foremost, of the right of the veto is categorically unacceptable.

The situation recalled what had happened during apartheid, when the United States, the United Kingdom and France exercised their right of veto to prevent economic sanctions being taken against South Africa.

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

In our view, the veto can rarely be justified.

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.