Intervention by Minister Gabriela Martinic

March 9

Madam Chair,

Allowed me in first place to thank you for convening this meeting to exchange different points of view about “The question of the veto”.

Likewise, and given that my Delegation fully subscribes the intervention made by the distinguished Deputy Permanent Representative of Italy, Ambassador Inigo Lambertini, on behalf of “Uniting for Consensus”, I will be very brief.

Since the negotiations of the Conference of San Francisco in 1945, and with greater emphasis in the first General Assembly in October 1946 and in the Second General Assembly in September 1947, Argentina set a very strong position against the veto.

On the occasion of the Conference of San Francisco, the Ambassador Miguel Angel Cárcano, Argentinian Ambassador in London, made statements in which he detailed the Argentinian interpretation of the question of veto. He explained that the Security Council had been conceived in such a way that it was given to the “five victorious powers the responsibility of maintaining peace, requesting them to always act in mutual agreement, efficiently and promptly”. This way, he pointed out “the disputed veto right becomes a requirement of unanimity”.

Nevertheless, as history demonstrated, that promise and original formula of San Francisco, privileges for responsibility, never came true.

Against that realization, in the two first General Assemblies, the Argentinian Permanent Representative at that time, Ambassador José Arce, harshly criticized the use of the veto by the five Permanent Members, arguing that such privilege was a violation of the principle of sovereign equality between States and implied in fact that only one State had the right to nullify the will of the rest of the Members of the Organization.

In Arce’s interpretation, the inclusion of veto in the Charter was a serious mistake and it should have been of restrictive use; its only goal was to avoid that the United Nations would put pressure on the big Powers, for fear that such behavior would compromise peace.

In that moment and later, veto was used as a way to block the admission of new Members to the United Nations. Arce`s critics referred, in particular, to this issue and to the use by the Permanent Members of this tool in the context of the Cold War, putting at risk in a significant way, the universal vocation of the United Nations.

The Argentine position against the veto was continuously reiterated in every opportunity when this issue was considered, particularly since the beginning of the negotiating process for the Security Council reform twenty years ago. 

More recently, Argentina has adhered to the “Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes”, since its objective coincide with the Argentinian foreign policy in the field of human rights and responsibility to protect, as well as the national position regarding the responsibility of the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. 

Argentina especially appreciates this initiative by Liechtenstein and the ACT Group in the understanding that it will contribute to the defense of the purposes and principles of the Charter and to the consolidation of the work of the Security Council in the prevention of the above mentioned crimes.

In light of the above, the arguments that support Argentina’s position on the question of the veto question are clear. And since the elimination of the veto is not feasible at this moment, we cannot accept formulas that tend to perpetuate or extend it to new Members.

Thank you