Global Policy Forum

Mr. President,

I wish to thank you and the Bureau for preparing the revised version of CRP. 10, which like all the other working papers prepared by you has been extremely useful for organizing the work of this Group.

I am taking the floor to refer to the right of veto, and to make a suggestion.

Mr. President,

There has been extensive discussion in this Working Group of proposals for limiting or restricting the exercise of the right of veto, but very little about eliminating it. Elimination of the veto is a desire of the vast majority of the members of this Organization, but we are faced with a total refusal on the part of the current permanent members to allow their rights embodied in the Charter to be questioned.

My delegation believes that, without prejudice to continued discussion of a limitation of that right, for example to matters coming under Chapter VII of the Charter, we need to look to the long term, with a certain vision of the future, and to begin to take as of now the measures which will, at some point in history, enable it to be definitively eliminated.

What we should like to propose is that our Group should reflect, perhaps during the next session of the General Assembly, on the possibility of setting a time limit on the veto as a right. My delegations preliminary thinking is that that limit might be the year 2030.

What leads us to make this proposal?

In the first place, we should recall that the veto by, reason of its eminently antidemocratic nature, is something exceptional. As we know, its origin lies in that great tragedy of this century, the Second World War. The victorious Powers wanted to ensure a certain order, and to prevent such a war from occurring again. In the year 2030, eighty-five years will have elapsed since the end of that conflict, which was the effective cause of the veto.

Eighty-five years is a longer period than that which separates us from the First World War, already very remote. To perpetuate an institutional arrangement for more than 85 years would be equivalent to us having to continue to pay today for offences that occurred during the Napoleonic wars, or at least during the Franco-Prussian War of the last century.

Eighty-five years is several generations of human beings, and it seems to us unjust that the last generation, which has not even been born, should have to continue to be bound by an exceptional and today unjustified creation of such remote ancestry.

In other words, Mr. President, we believe that there should be a time limit on the veto. In that it is an exceptional privilege, almost contrary to the nature of things, it cannot be for ever; at some point an end has to be put to it, and the time to begin working on doing so is now.

With the ending of the Second World War there came the cold war, but that too is now at an end. True, the post-cold-war world is a world that is still full of uncertainty, but we cannot accept that, on the pretext of these new uncertainties, the old actors should perpetuate themselves in their privileges.

We sincerely do not believe that any of the current P-5 can assert that its right is eternal. If they think so, it would be good for then to say so here, so that we can all take due note.

If they think that thirty years more of privilege is not enough, lot then may so. What is important is f or us to get from then a statement as to the time limit an their privilege. This is the civilized way of starting to put an end to something exceptional.

Just as in national societies there have to be mechanisms for constitutional change, we believe that in this house as well there has to be such a mechanism, in that it is not acceptable, any more than it is at the national level, f or there to be untouchable institutions which cannot be reformed. If the P-5 take refuge behind the immovable legality of 52 years ago and afford no outlet for the general call by the rest of the members of the Organization, they will be creating the conditions f or the security system of our organization to be overturned, through loss of political legitimacy. That would be a lamentable outcome for the international peace and security, which the current holders of the right of veto say it is their objective to preserve.

We believe that our proposal for thinking about thirty years needs to be taken seriously. The present rights of the current P-5 would be legitimized for that period, rights which even now, an the whole world knows, are increasingly being called in question. They would thus obtain now recognition of their dusty and out-of-date credentials.

We understand that at the national level it is difficult for the P-5 to accept reductions in their rights; and hence in the national power each of them possesses. Nevertheless, difficult decisions, acts of renunciation like the one we are suggesting here, are more easily effected in advance, as we are proposing, and history is full of examples of visionary leaders who were ahead of their time in taking decisions that were to have an impact far beyond their lifetimes.

What is clear is that if we do not make a start now, we shall never be able to eliminate the veto. Proposals for its immediate elimination, praiseworthy though they may be, do not seem to us to be workable. This is something that will have to be done in the long term. The P-5 will never accept their privilege coming to an end from one day to the next. Obviously, this can only take place slowly, and a great deal of patience will be needed.

Mr. President,

What I have been saying, in a somewhat disorganized manner, is neither an act of faith nor a dogma. We have not gone into this idea in any great depth, and I believe that doing so is a job for us all. We are not committed to the figure of thirty years. It could be more, it could be less. What is of interest to us is the concept, and that we should all be clear in our minds that one day the veto must come to an and. And on this point it is vital that we should have the good will and the understanding of the P-5. Sooner or later they will have to recognize that the privilege of the veto is not for all time, and that we need to begin resolving this problem right away, slowly and in a civilized manner.

Thank you.