Veto Brings Responsibility, Not Privilege, Says India at UN
New York, October 27: India has made its stance clear on the veto at the United Nations Security Council, criticising the existence of a 'de facto veto' and asserting that the veto should remind members of their responsibilities rather than confer a personal right.
In a General Assembly debate on Monday focused on the veto powers of the five permanent members, India's Permanent Representative to the UN, P. Harish, said the issue is a key concern in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reform. He warned that some countries have used indirect vetoes, which have halted progress.
"Within the IGN process, the invocation of 'consensus' is being used as a de facto veto, a hidden one," he said.
India's position is that the privilege of the veto should never become an instrument for advancing narrow political agendas.
Harish described how 'Uniting for Consensus', a small group of countries led by Italy and including Pakistan, had used procedural tactics to block the IGN from adopting a draft as the basis for talks.
He said the 2008 General Assembly decision, which serves as the basic decision for the IGN, is clear: its central principle is 'maximum political acceptance', not 'consensus'.
Despite 17 rounds of negotiations, he said, "we have no outcome to show." The reason, according to him, is a 'practical veto' that has no foundation in the decision that created the IGN.
For broader reform to begin, he called for text-based negotiations to start soon, with a clear timeline and defined goals.
Harish further pointed to secret vetoes that are not recognised in the UN Charter but are still allowed for non-permanent members in certain significant matters.
"The veto is not just what is used openly. There is also a de facto veto that every member of the Security Council has, whether elected or not, which can be used against presidential statements, press statements and sanctions committee decisions," he said.
The reason, he explained, is that under an "unwritten rule of consensus", any one member can block a proposal, and often does not have to give a reason. He noted that China had repeatedly stopped efforts in closed sanctions committee meetings to designate Pakistan-based terrorists, including Lashkar-e-Taiba's Zakir-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Shahid Mahmood, and Jaish-e-Mohammed's Sajid Mir and Masood Azhar.
Arguing for comprehensive reform, Harish said that the questions surrounding the Council's credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness will not be answered by handling the veto alone. The reforms, he said, must also include expanding the Council and adding new permanent members.
"These questions will be answered by a Council that is truly fit for purpose, with a composition that reflects present-day realities and not the outcomes of a war eight decades ago," he said.
Harish added that India has adopted a 'principle-based approach', under which any country that becomes a permanent member through reform should also hold veto power.
"We reiterate that as long as the veto provision exists, all permanent members of a reformed Council should have this right," he said, calling it the demand of fairness and justice.
He also rejected the idea of creating new 'second-class' categories of Council members, such as long-term members or permanent members without the veto. This, he said, would make the reform debate even harder and deepen the inequality reform aims to fix.
Harish was also doubtful about the proposal that countries using the veto in the Council should appear before the General Assembly to explain their action. The aim was to bring about change and ensure accountability, he said, but the frequent use of the veto since the system was introduced has told a "completely opposite story".