UN / VETO
Download
There is no media available to download.
Share
STORY: UN / VETO
TRT: 03:08
SOURCE: UNIFEED-UNTV
RESTRICTIONS: NONE
LANGUAGE: FRENCH / SPANISH / ENGLISH / NATS
DATELINE: 25 SEPTEMBER 2014, NEW YORK CITY / RECENT
FILE – RECENT, NEW YORK CITY
1. Wide shot, exterior, United Nations headquarters
25 SEPTEMBER 2014, NEW YORK CITY
2. Wide shot, conference room
3. Med shot, speakers at the podium
4. SOUNDBITE (French) Laurent Fabius, Minister of Foreign affairs of France:
“When mass atrocities are committed, we cannot stay paralyzed at the Security Council, like it has been the case in some circumstances with the consequences that everyone knows. It is a question of humanity; it’s a question of defending the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.”
5. Med shot, delegates
6. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Jose Antonio Meade Kuribreña Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mexico:
“The establishment of veto – something that Mexico has questioned for the last 70 years – has been an obstacle for the evolution of the concept of human rights.”
7. Med shot, delegates
8. SOUNDBITE (English) Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
“They [Security Council members] have a clear and urgent responsibility towards the women, men and children who are threatened by war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The power to exercise the veto is – like all powers – a power to be exercised responsibly. A commitment not to use a veto when quick and decisive action is needed to avert or hold gross human rights violations, war crimes or other international crimes would have a powerful, preventive effect.”
9. Med shot, delegates
10. Samantha Power, Permanent Representative of the United States to the United Nations:
“In Syria, the Assad regime has committed widespread and systematic violations against his own people. Yet, four vetoes – as other have said – by members of this Council, in the face of some of the worst horrors in modern history, stood in the way of holding those responsible for those atrocities accountable. We can ask ourselves today whether some 200,000 lives would have been lost in Syria if the Security Council had been able to come together. We can even ask ourselves whether ISIL – the monstrous terrorist movement that the international community is uniting against now – whether ISIL would have gained the foothold it has if the Security Council had been able to come together.”
11. Med shot, delegates
12. Alexander A. Pankin, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations:
“The use of veto – or the threat to use it, or the danger of it to be used – has repeatedly safeguarded the UN, the whole United Nations, against doubtful undertakings. And I can bring you examples, including the aggression in Yugoslavia in 1999, war in Iraq in 2003, or pushing Syria towards collapse in recent years, which was labelled by some as a veto by my country of very noble actions which could have been taken by the UN. We don’t know what would have happened in Syria if the resolutions were passed. It was not the issue of recognizing whether atrocities were committed or not, the issue was about using the force and maybe Syria would have been in a much worse position than today.”
13. Wide shot, conference room
The Foreign Ministers of France and Mexico chaired a high-level meeting on the need to limit the use of veto in situations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
Speaking at the United Nations (UN) Headquarters today (25 Sep), French Minister Laurent Fabius said that “when some mass atrocities are committed, we cannot stay paralyzed at the Security Council.” He noted that it has happened before “with the consequences that everyone knows.”
He said that the responsibility of the Security Council to act in such cases is “a question of humanity; it’s a question of defending the fundamental principles of the UN Charter.”
Mexican Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade Kuribreña said that the establishment of veto “has been an obstacle for the evolution of the concept of human rights” at the international level.
Kuribreña, who co-chaired the meeting, stressed that the Mexican and French proposal would not imply the modification of the UN Charter. Instead, he said that it would be the Permanent Members of the Security Council those who “voluntarily and collectively would restrict the use of the veto, so it could not be involved in the case of mass genocide, in the case of mass atrocities.”
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein recalled the responsibility of Council members to protect citizens against gross human rights violations.
Al Hussein stressed that the right to use the veto is “a power to be exercised responsibly. A commitment not to use a veto when quick and decisive action is needed to avert or hold gross human rights violations, war crimes or other international crimes would have a powerful, preventive effect.”
US Ambassador Samantha Power recalled the recent use of veto on the proposed use of force in Syria.
She noted that the Syrian government had committed “widespread and systematic violations against his own people. Yet, four vetoes – as other have said – by members of this Council, in the face of some of the worst horrors in modern history, stood in the way of holding those responsible for those atrocities accountable.”
She asked what would have happened if the proposal had not have been vetoed.
“We can ask ourselves today whether some 200,000 lives would have been lost in Syria if the Security Council had been able to come together. We can even ask ourselves whether ISIL – the monstrous terrorist movement that the international community is uniting against now – whether ISIL would have gained the foothold it has if the Security Council had been able to come together.”
Russian Deputy Ambassador Alexander A. Panki stressed that the right to use veto by the Permanent Members of the Council is one of the “main pillars” of the UN Charter which is an “indispensable element of the system of checks and balances.”
He recalled that such a use or “threat to use it” has “repeatedly safeguarded the UN – the whole United Nations – against doubtful undertakings.”
Panki noted the lack of consensus on a military intervention in former Yugoslavia in 1999 or in Iraq in 2003, or in “pushing Syria towards collapse in recent years.”
He said that “we don’t know what would have happened in Syria if the resolutions were passed. It was not the issue of recognizing whether atrocities were committed or not, the issue was about using the force and maybe Syria would have been in a much worse position than today.”