Distinguished Co-Chairs,

Germany fully aligns itself with the statement delivered by Brazil on behalf of the G4. Allow me to add a few additional points in my national capacity.

First, and here I would like to echo some of the statements that have been made this morning and many others in previous sessions on the same topic:

We understand concerns about creating different categories of permanent membership: one without veto rights and one with. We agree: no reform should create a second class of permanent members. In principle, new permanent members should carry the same responsibilities and the same obligations as the current members.

At the same time, this issue must be handled with realism. And this topic should not be used as a pretext to block the urgently needed reform of the Security Council.

We, therefore, have proposed in the past an interim arrangement, mentioned by my colleague from Brazil. New permanent members should not exercise the veto-right until a decision on the matter has been taken during a review, which should take place fifteen years after the successful reform.

Second, co-Chairs, we remain convinced:

Any discussion of veto rights must be part of a broader reform package, a package that improves both the Council’s representativeness and its ability to act.

This being said, a discussion on how to limit the use of the veto could help build wider consensus around such a comprehensive package. Limitation of the veto right can contribute to safeguarding the Council’s effectiveness once new permanent members are added to the Security Council.

At the same time, we believe it is instructive to look at the reality in the Security Council as it is today. Only two out of five permanent members have not exercised their veto-power since 1989. This shows, we believe, that permanent membership, current and future, does not necessarily require regular use of veto power.

Third, on veto restraint:

Germany strongly supports the French-Mexican initiative on veto restraint in cases of mass atrocity. We also support the ACT Group’s Code of Conduct. These initiatives promote restraint, responsibility, and accountability in the face of crimes against humanity.

Finally, we kindly remind:

There is already an important restriction of the veto right in the Charter. According to Art. 27 (3), a party to a dispute should abstain from voting under certain circumstances. We are in favor of considering steps to clarify the application of this provision.

Chairs, in conclusion,

The goal must be to strengthen the Council’s credibility and effectiveness.

In this context, yes, the veto question is important, and yes, it needs to be addressed – but asking to clarify it first would mean putting the carriage before the horse. What we need now is movement toward a consolidated model, based on the many inputs of Member States in the past two years, and this is where we believe we must move forward now.

Thank you.