Colombia has always expressed its opposition to the veto, and we voted against it in San Francisco, because we believed that it would introduce an anti democratic element into the decision making process and that it did not reflect the principle of the sovereign equality of States.

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

Time limits should be established on the right to the veto, which, by its nature, should not be perpetual.

On the issue of the veto, we believe that this proposal mirrors our support for its use to be voluntarily limited.

We all know the inhibiting effect that the veto, or even the threat of its use, can have on Council deliberations.

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.

A. Veto

The amendment was rejected by 20 votes to 27, with 6 abstentions. The voting was as follows

The resolution, as amended, was rejected by 15 votes to 9, with 1 abstention.

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 motion was rejected, by a recorded vote of 77 to 70 with 23 abstentions.

The motion was rejected, by a recorded vote of 70 to 64, with 26 abstentions.

The motion was rejected, by a recorded vote of 75 to 65, with 28 abstentions.

The resolution, as revised, was rejected by 14 votes to 8, with 3 abstentions.

We remain concerned that Council action on some issues has not been possible because of the use of a single veto or a silent veto.

(a) Defining the scope of the veto and modification of the use of the veto

The amendment was rejected by 36 votes to 5, with 11 abstentions.

The amendment was rejected by 26 votes to 13, with 14 abstentions.

The motion was rejected by 13 to 2, with 7 abstentions.

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

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

The motion was rejected by 75 votes to 65, with 28 abstentions.

The amendment was rejected by 27 votes to 20, with 6 abstentions.

The voting was as follows

The voting was as follows

(c) Affirmation of the need to restrict the use of the veto power in the Security Council to make it exercisable within narrower limits, and establishment of the necessary rules for that purpose, including rules restricting its exercise to resolutions adopted under Chapter VII, and subject to clear conditions

Should the veto be extended to new permanent members or eliminated?

The voting was as follows

The voting was as follows

The voting was as follows

Moreover, Uruguay has always questioned the existence of the right of veto.

The motion was rejected by 12 votes to 7, with 5 abstentions.

The Hamas Veto

There is now a wide consensus that the use of the veto should be curtailed with a view to its eventual abolition.

The amendment was rejected by 25 votes to 21, with 7 abstentions. The voting was as follows

No delegation had a veto over the Committee s work.

In line with the need for effective decision making, it is our preference to limit the use of the veto in general, and we certainly oppose extension of the veto to new permanent members.

The Committee rejected amendment 1, by a recorded vote of 111 to 39, with 13 abstentions.

The Committee rejected amendment 2, by a recorded vote of 119 to 23, with 19 abstentions.

The Committee rejected amendment 3, by a recorded vote of 106 to 36, with 21 abstentions.

The Committee rejected amendment 4, by a recorded vote of 116 to 23 with 21 abstentions.

The proposed amendments were rejected, by a recorded vote of 157 to 2, with 2 abstentions.

(iii) The operational activities segment would be held from 8 to 12 July 2005

Limiting the Security Council Veto

(a) Restraint on the use of the veto