The United Nations Security Council. File
| Photo Credit: AP

Is it realistically possible to imagine an UNSC where veto would be “regulated” as the French proposal suggested?

Amitabh Mattoo: What Emmanuel Macron (President of France) articulated in the UNGA on September 22 is not entirely new. What we are seeing is really a renewed push behind what used to be called the French-Mexican initiative, first launched in 2015, under which permanent members of the SC would voluntarily refrain from using the veto in situations involving genocide, crimes against humanity, and large-scale war crimes. It’s not an attempt to abolish the veto or amend the UN charter. It’s essentially an exercise in self-restraint by the P5 (permanent members of the UNSC: U.S., U.K., France, China and Russia). What gives the initiative fresh significance is not just Mr. Macron’s speech, but the political momentum behind it. France and Mexico both announced this week that 128 states now support the declaration, with 21 joining in the last four months. And the significant part is that the U.K., another P5 country, has now joined France in accepting the principle.

So for the first time, two of the five permanent members have committed themselves to this form of voluntary restraint.

Also read | Expanding permanent category with veto critical to real reform of UNSC: India

But I think we should also distinguish between three different questions which are often conflated — the use of the veto, accountability for the use of the veto, and the much larger question of reform of the Security Council. Mr. Macron’s initiative addresses only the first. It says in effect, even if the veto remains, surely there must be circumstances of exceptional human suffering in which a permanent member agrees not to exercise it. It is, as I said, a modest incremental proposition institutionally, but potentially significant normatively in terms of what we want the world to be like. It seeks to change the political behaviour of the five permanent countries without undertaking what seems to be the almost impossible task of rewriting the charter. So, it’s a modest proposal and it has got some momentum, but whether it translates into reality, we’ll have to wait and see.

Does the current situation in UNGA indicate that the P5 is now divided between the France-U.K. and Russia-U.S.-China factions on the use of veto?

Swaran Singh: Clearly, the U.K. and France are not the heavyweights among the P5. Therefore, I think it is easier for France and the U.K. to make that principled position saying that the P5, which wield veto power, should be able to better regulate or manage how fundamentally the power is utilised; to make sure that the UNSC is able to take action and that it does not get paralysed. In fact, the contradiction of 2013 itself was driven by the fact that in the civil war in Syria, Chinese and Russian vetoes were making it impossible for the UNSC to pass any resolution condemning Syria. After the August 2013 chemical weapons attack in Ghouta in September, the then French President Francois Hollande had in his speech proposed a ‘code of good conduct’ for the UNSC. This is where, for the first time, a kind of proposition was made that the P5 could voluntarily restrain the use of veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity or larger war crimes. I think the attempt was to skirt amending the UN Charter and still make it much more contemporaneous. None of the P5 are talking of eliminating veto power that they have. There are multiple versions among the five as to how they wish to reform the UN Security Council.

Also read | We must reform the Security Council: UN chief Guterres in final UNGA address

As an ideal, we believe that we live in a world of sovereign equality, but in reality, because of the way power is distributed, it is impossible for any international organisation to survive — not just become effective — but even survive if they happen to take a decision against any of the major powers. Incidentally, veto is not a word mentioned in the UN Charter and it was created through a separate mechanism. But the premise is that any international organisation must not take a decision against the fundamental interests of any major power if they wish to survive.

While doubts persist about the veto, the question is will veto continue to be extended to new members of the UNSC whenever they are inducted?

Amitabh Mattoo: Apart from Mr. Macron’s or the France-Mexican initiative, there have been incremental reforms which fall short of trying to amend the UN Charter. There was an earlier Liechtenstein initiative, which was adopted by the UNGA in 2022, which took a different route. It did not prevent a permanent member from exercising the veto. Instead, whenever a veto was cast, the General Assembly would be convened within 10 working days to debate the issue. In other words, a veto will no longer be allowed to simply terminate the conversation. The permanent member concerned would have to explain and defend its action on the floor of the UNGA. That was one initiative which was passed by the UNGA. A third initiative, also similar to the French-Mexican initiative, is the ‘ACT code of conduct’ or the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency Initiative. This goes beyond the P5 and asks members of the Security Council, including the non-permanent members, not to vote against credible action designed to prevent or halt genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Again, its strength is moral and political rather than legally coercive.

Also read | India presents detailed model on behalf of G4 nations for UNSC reform that displays flexibility on veto

So I would resist the debate as being simply ‘retain or abolish the veto’. We now have several overlapping approaches —abolition, extension of the veto to new permanent members in the name of equality, voluntary restraint in case of mass atrocities, political accountability after a veto is exercised, and the final question of broader structural reform of the Security Council itself. So my own analytical conclusion would be that Mr. Macron’s proposal matters precisely because it is pragmatic; reformist rather than revolutionary. Formal abolition of the veto would ultimately require charter amendment and the consent of the very permanent members whose privilege is being removed.

Can you please explain the issue of accountability in the debate on veto?

Amitabh Mattoo: Short of an amendment of the UN Security Council; an amendment of the veto provisions; or the larger restructuring of the UN Security Council, I think there is great merit in the ‘Liechtenstein initiative’, whereby the debate would continue within the UNGA. It would not prevent or terminate the conversation from happening in the floor of the UNGA, where the permanent member which has exercised the veto would have to clearly demonstrate to the members of the UN what the reasons were behind the exercise of the veto, especially when it has vetoed an action designed to prevent or halt genocide or crimes against humanity.

Also read | UNSC reform would border on failure if only non-permanent category expanded: India

Calling upon the permanent member to explain and defend its actions would not necessarily prevent anything when there is real national self-interest at stake, but at least it will make the permanent members, one of the P5 countries which has exercised the veto, become a little more cautious in the use of its power because it would know that it would need to justify and become accountable for its action.

Is the French proposal transparent or honest about the framing of certain conflicts that are going on such as the Israeli campaign in the Gaza Strip?

Swaran Singh: I think words such as honesty and justice are most misused in international relations. There is no doubt that all the UN members, whether they are in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, come to the world’s largest platform with their own interpretations, with their own understanding of each of these conflicts that you just listed. So in that sense, there is this important difficulty of word versus the spirit of various international law regimes or the Charter of the United Nations.

Listen to the conversation

UN chief Antonio Guterres on Tuesday (September 22, 2026) delivered a powerful clarion call to global leaders to reform the UN Security Council to ensure that it reflects today’s world and has the legitimacy to deal with current geopolitical challenges.

This is the final high-level UN General Assembly week for Secretary General Guterres, whose second five-year tenure as head of the United Nations ends in December 2026.

“We must also reform the Security Council so that it reflects today’s world with the legitimacy and effectiveness that today’s challenges demand,” Mr. Guterres told world leaders in his address to the opening of the General Debate at the 81st session of the General Assembly.

Mr. Guterres, delivering his last address to the high-level UNGA debate as UN Chief, said the Security Council was designed in the aftermath of World War II. “But the world has fundamentally changed since then. A change that is far from reflected in the Security Council.”

He said the “most stunning example” of this is Africa.

“When the UN was founded, most of Africa was still under colonial rule. Today, Africa still has no permanent seat on the Council. A 21st-century Security Council without permanent African representation is unjust and indefensible. This must change,” he said, to applause from the leaders in the UNGA hall.

After ending his nearly 35-minute and final address, Mr. Guterres received a standing ovation from world leaders, Foreign Ministers, Ambassadors and diplomats and senior UN officials as he exited the podium.

“…Our institutions and systems of global governance continue to reflect the power realities and interests of a largely bygone age. That is the defining challenge before us. At the very moment when humanity faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, our mechanisms for collective action are under growing strain,” he said.

The call by Mr. Guterres to reform the 15-nation body was among the strongest by him as the powerful UN organ remains deeply divided and polarised, failing to stop conflicts and fulfil its responsibilities of maintaining international peace and security.

With sharp divisions among its five permanent, veto-wielding members — China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. — the Council has remained ineffective as conflicts rage from Gaza to Russia.

India has been at the forefront of years-long efforts to reform the Security Council, including expansion in both its permanent and non-permanent categories, saying the 15-nation Council, founded in 1945, is not fit for purpose in the 21st Century and does not reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.

Delhi has consistently underscored that it rightly deserves a permanent seat at the horse-shoe table. India is vying for a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council for the 2028–29 term, elections for which will be held in June next year.

As he addressed world leaders gathered in the iconic UNGA hall, Guterres voiced concern over deepened geopolitical divides, intensified inequalities and frayed trust.

Mr. Guterres said that at a time when new centres of economic, political and technological influence have emerged, and humans are increasingly handing over power to machines, “our institutions and systems of global governance continue to reflect the power realities and interests of a largely bygone age.”

“That is the defining challenge before us. At the very moment when humanity faces an unprecedented convergence of threats, our mechanisms for collective action are under growing strain,” he said.

Interview | The Security Council is paralysed, but the UN is not broken, says Guterres

Mr. Guterres emphasised that “we are clearly moving towards a multipolar world. And that movement is irreversible,” but cautioned that there are different ways that multipolarity can take shape.

“One possibility is a world of fragmentation and transactionalism. A world of rising tensions and deepening mistrust. Of fractured markets and weakened institutions. Of shrinking cooperation and zero-sum calculations. In many respects, that is the trajectory we are on today,” he said.

He also showed the international community the possibility of another path that goes towards networked multipolarity.

“A world built on interdependence – and sustained by a dense web of economic, political, social and technological connections. A world in which multiple centres of influence coexist within a common framework of international law and shared rules,” he said.

Mr. Guterres said such a world could help avoid hegemonic tendencies and what he described as the “Great Fracture: The division of the world into two rival blocs with separate economic, technological and security systems.” “A networked world recognises that no power can solve today’s challenges alone. Of course, competition will remain a permanent feature of international relations. But competition does not mean confrontation,” he said.

Noting that healthy competition can drive innovation, strengthen resilience, and expand opportunity, Mr. Guterres said building such a future begins with a recognition, especially by superpowers that their power isn’t so super.

“Their power has limits. The events of recent years have made that unmistakably clear. Military power alone cannot secure peace. Economic power alone cannot command stability. And technological power alone cannot guarantee security.

“A networked multipolar world can create the conditions for more balanced and representative global problem-solving. But it requires a multilateral system centred in the UN that is balanced and representative. Strong, effective institutions that reflect the realities and the progressively changing relative weight of countries and economies in today’s world – not the power arrangements of 80 years ago,” he said. PTI YAS RD RD

Published – September 22, 2026 08:19 pm IST

The diplomatic move has been under consideration since June 2025, when the IAEA board found Iran officially in noncompliance with its nonproliferation obligations because of Tehran’s lack of cooperation in the investigation. File.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations Parvathaneni Harish speaks at United Nations Security Council. File
| Photo Credit: ANI

A file image of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant.
| Photo Credit: AFP

IMO Secretary-General Mr. Arsenio Dominguez to UN Security Council.
| Photo Credit: International Maritime Organization

Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi. File photo credit: The Hindu

Members of the Security Council vote on a Russian sponsored resolution at United Nations headquarters on March 11, 2026.
| Photo Credit: AP

Permanent Representative of Slovenia to the United Nations Samuel Zbogar speaks during a press conference in Damascus, Syria, December 4, 2025.
| Photo Credit: Reuters