09 Mar 2016
Thank you Madam Chair for convening the third thematic session on the key issue of the question of the veto.
The Security Council’s use of the veto is closely linked to the issue of accountability and effectiveness.
Small states such as Singapore look to the Security Council to live up to its global responsibility to maintain peace and security.
However, too often in the past, the veto has been used to prevent action to address genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, at the cost of many innocent lives.
The IGN process offers us a good opportunity to discuss the veto, notably whether there is a case to perpetuate its use in a reformed Council, or even in the existing Council.
Needless to say, my delegation sees no compelling reason to maintain or continue the use of the veto.
Our views on this issue are clearly reflected in the Framework Document. Hence, I will not repeat them now. However, I would to like to make three brief observations/suggestions.
First, based on the inputs provided in the framework document, there is strong and wide support for the abolition of the veto, particularly in the present Council. The L69 (input d.2), the Africa group (input d.3), a good number of Caribbean countries (input d.30) among others, have stated as much in their respective inputs.
The only holdouts appear to be those that currently have the privilege. However, the onus is on them to convince the wider membership why they still see the need for veto, particularly when it is often used to impede (& not facilitate) Council action on mass atrocities.
If we can agree to the abolition of the veto in the current Council, it will greatly facilitate consensus on this question in a reformed Council.
Second, even if we are unable to achieve this ideal, we note that there is a groundswell of support and movement in favour of limiting the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities.
92 countries, including Singapore, have supported the French/Mexican initiative calling on the P5 to voluntarily and collectively pledge not to use the veto in case of recognized mass atrocities. An even greater number, 110 countries, including my own delegation, and 8 members of the Security Council, including 2 permanent members, have also supported the ACT’s initiative on a code of conduct on Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.
What this means is that, more than half the UN membership view the veto as an impediment to a more effective and accountable council and are keen to correct this.
We need to discuss how we can institutionalise and operationalise the two mentioned initiatives in the work of the IGN and ensure that if, and only if, we were to perpetuate the use of the veto in a reformed council, there will be clear limitations on its use, such that it will not be inadvertently used in future to prevent the council from fulfilling its core mandate of maintaining international peace and security.
Finally, if all else fails, we think there is merit in discussing how we can make it a requirement for those that use the veto to block Council action aimed at preventing mass atrocity crimes to produce alternative proposals that will end such atrocities or to explain to all UN member states why they are prepared to see such flagrant crimes continue in the face of international opprobrium.
Such a requirement will serve to make the Council more accountable to the wider UN membership and the international community for its action (or rather inaction), particularly as we all have agreed to work to leave no one is left behind in the 2030 Agenda on sustainable development.
Madam Chair,
We hope that the above three observations will contribute to our deliberations on how we can take the work of the IGN forward. Our delegation will be happy to work with you to further consolidate and streamline the areas of convergence in any future iterations of the framework document. Thank you.