This is the promise of the UN charter, and this is what our people expect from the UN, and the reason why they hold it in high esteem. Over the past year, we have seen a record number of armed conflicts around the world and a rapidly diminishing role of the United Nations in ending them. In the Middle East, the UN's role has been further reduced, in contrast to the central position it has taken up over the years. In Ukraine, there are few prospects for a peace process, even though the aggression has now lasted longer than World War One, without even a nominal role for the United Nations. In Sudan, the role of the UN is limited to alleviating the enormous suffering of the civilian population, with no prospect of a political solution and an end to the conflict. We are well aware of the political dynamic in the Security Council, primarily tasked with matters of peace and security, which severely limits the options for UN action. But the conversation must not end there. There are alternatives for action. This assembly in particular has wide authority over matters of peace and security, and it is universal in composition. A glance at its history demonstrates its authority in peacekeeping, conflict termination, and accountability. It is time that we make better use of this authority. The Veto Initiative, which we were proud to spearhead, provides a platform for such action. What is required is the will to spend our political capital here in this room on peace rather than force, by dealing with conflicts, through diplomacy rather than through war. The United Nations must not accept being reduced to a crisis mitigation organization that distributes state contributions to a skyrocketing humanitarian assistance bill. Instead, we need to see a return to the UN doing political work to prevent, contain and end conflict, through the wide range of peace operations available and through a strong interplay between a Secretary-General who is proactive and offers creative solutions backed by the UN membership. President, any successful community must be grounded in the rule of law. And so it is with the international community. Our commitment to the law as the foundation for the conduct of international affairs is grounded both in principle and pragmatism.

Read around it: before · after

It is precisely at such times that we must honestly confront our setbacks, however profound, not with blame, cynicism or blind hope, but with action, sober reflection, clear-eyed realism and pragmatism. That is how we chart these turbulent waters. And that is how we rebuild trust in this institution, the central focus of this 81st session. (BRIEF PAUSE) So how do we build back trust? Trust is not given. It is earned. And we earn trust, I believe, in three ways. First, by being unapologetically realistic about where we are falling behind; Second, by taking a foundational look at the reforms of the Organization to deliver better; and Third, by making our work more inclusive and engaging all relevant stakeholders for effective delivery. Let me elaborate. (BRIEF PAUSE) On my first point, we must be frank about where the challenges lie and what needs to be fixed, even when the necessary changes may prove painful. Consider peace and security. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet when the Council is unable to act, Member States turn to the General Assembly. We saw this as early as 1950 with the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, and we have seen it more recently through the Assembly’s Veto Initiative. These two principal organs of our Organization are complementary, not competing. The Charter provides for an appropriate balance between them. Both chambers must do their respective part. To be fair, the Security Council, when it acts, proves its strength and effectiveness. It helped liberate Kuwait, ended civil war in El Salvador, supported Namibia’s independence, led rebuilding of Cambodia, and stabilized conflict-affected countries through peacekeeping. Yet when the Council is unable to act on important matters, the effectiveness of our Organization as a whole is called into question. In 1945, humanity placed its trust in the Council in good faith, giving it the extraordinary responsibility of maintaining international peace. The Council accepted that responsibility and entered into a compact. It must now hold up its end of the bargain. This is what the people of the world expect. And in their eyes, when the Security Council works, the United Nations works. The promise of 1945 still binds us today. I call on the Security Council to step up, to lead as we need it to lead and to act when we need it to act. Linked to this is the question of Security Council reform. I will support the General Assembly-led Intergovernmental Negotiations in its work to make the Council more representative, transparent and reflective of the geopolitical realities of our time. Ensuring fair representation for underrepresented regions must remain a priority. Nowhere is this more important, right now, than in Africa. After eight decades, the largest region by number of Member States and a key focus of UN Peacekeeping, is underrepresented on the Security Council. Africa needs to be at the table, not on the menu. Africa cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for its rightful place on the Council. Ending Africa’s underrepresentation, now, is a question of fairness, justice and, ultimately, the credibility of this Organization. (BRIEF PAUSE) Turning to development, and particularly the Sustainable Development Goals, we are right to focus on the challenges.

Read around it: before · after

We look forward to your stewardship of this assembly, and we move to restore trust and indeed to carry reforms from proposals to implementation. But reform cannot be selective. We cannot move swiftly to reorganise offices and reporting lines while allowing the most consequential questions of power and representation to remain unresolved. Transformation and development. Peacekeeping and humanitarian aid cannot succeed if member states are unwilling to fund it Let's be very clear no organizational chart can overcome the refusal of states to respect decisions that they find inconvenient. We cannot continue to ask international organisations to do more, while failing to provide them with the resources necessary to fulfil the mandates that we ourselves have agreed. And if member states believe in the institutions that they have created, then we must also be prepared to sustain them. Barbados has consistently met that responsibility, and I give this body the assurance that we will continue to do so. Our commitment to multilateralism, to an international rules based order, must be measured not only by what we ask of these institutions, but by our willingness to support them. So yes, let us improve the machinery, but let us also reform the exercise of power. The Security Council still has 15 members, five of them permanent. And armed with that veto. Africa, with 54 states has no permanent seat. And you've heard speaker after speaker after speaker come to this platform to say that this must change. Small island developing states equally confront threats that now reach squarely into the council's mandate from climate and security and illicit armed arm flows to organised crime and displacement. And yet, despite constituting one quarter of the world's states, we have no assured representation within the councils. This, to my friends, must change. And the world we know has already changed. The council has not changed with it. But reform is not only about who sits at the table, it is about how power is exercised. Barbados is therefore joining 123 other member states in supporting the Franco-mexican initiative on the use of the veto in the cases of mass atrocities. Its principle is fundamental where populations face genocide, crimes against humanity, or large scale war crimes, the veto should not be allowed to paralyse the Security Council when action is most urgently needed. This is why people are losing trust in the United Nations and its council. Mr. president, it's not fair to the majority of member states who still believe in the promise of this body, even as we call for greater equity with the reform of the Security Council.

Read around it: before · after

We cannot simply accept this new order of impunity which some are trying to erect. This is why at the Security Council, France supports reforms aimed at bolstering its effectiveness. We must open up to new members, new regions, first and foremost Africa. But in terms of the substance, the Security Council must be able to take action in the face of mass violations of international law. Who can accept a procedural deadlock when we see barbaric acts being committed? The Franco-Mexican initiative on regulating the veto in the case of mass atrocities being committed is needed more than ever, and I'm delighted that it now has the support of 128 member states. The campaign will continue and we are seeking to secure the commitment of each and every permanent member of the Security Council for this initiative. But it's not enough invoking the law, invoking our values in order to uphold the obligations we all signed up to when we joined the United Nations.

Read around it: before · after