A Quote by Jose Maria Aznar

We saw there was no consensus in the U.N. Security Council. It was impossible, due to the threatened veto by some. — © Jose Maria Aznar
We saw there was no consensus in the U.N. Security Council. It was impossible, due to the threatened veto by some.
The U.N. Security Council did not to condemn the Qana massacre, due to the U.S. veto.
It is clear that there would nothing a U.N. Security Council resolution that condemned Syria because Syria is Russia's ally, and Russia has a veto in the U.N. Security Council.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent, the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
The [UN Security Council] P5 ought to be dissuaded from using their veto power, which can paralyze the United Nations. The country blocking action ought to have to explain its decision and propose an alternative solution. It has been suggested that a veto only becomes effective if the vetoing state has the support of two or three other permanent members.
The abuse of the veto power has become so predictable that frequently resolutions are not even tabled because of the certainty of a veto against their adoption. Necessary discussion is thereby suppressed. Concerted action by the Security Council, the General Assembly and other United Nations agencies is necessary to prevent major human rights violations, stop ongoing breaches and provide remedies to victims.
The unfair composition of the Security Council is largely acknowledged. The principal defects are the anachronistic privileges of the five permanent members of the Council and the Council's insufficient representativeness.
In order for the U.N. to be effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective.
When one's greatest 'world stage' ambition is a non-voting seat on the U.N. Security Council five years down the road, one would not want to say anything to hurt the feelings of the veto holders in Moscow or Beijing. We get it. But let's at least be honest about all this, please. Enough of the 'Canada is back' slogans already.
It's basic due diligence to make sure that whenever a foreign entity acquires a controlling interest in a U.S. company that national security isn't threatened.
I think there are some instances where U.S. security is threatened by rogue regimes, by foreign dictators, and there are some instances where liberating nations helps to restore our security.
The United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms.
The work of the CSSF and Prosperity Fund is guided by the National Security Council. As chair of the National Security Council Sub-Committee that oversees both funds, I am working to ensure that they are accountable and measurable against their intended objectives.
The U.S. - the idea that the U.S. has introduced and imposed principles of international law, that's hardly even a joke. The United States has even gone so far as to veto Security Council resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. That was in the 1980s under Reagan.
In the era of Khruschev the Soviet Union had publicly declared itself a supporter of the Indian stand on Kashmir. In 1962 a Russian veto had defeated a Security Council resolution on the plebiscite issue. By 1965, and after the fall of the Kruschev regime, Russian attitudes were significantly modified.
There's a sense that we've obtained from various quarters in the Security Council that the notion of an international tribunal is not really practical. Certainly Indonesia is not convinced, and we get a sense that the rest of the Security Council will need to be convinced about the recommendations.
From now on, nothing is impossible for Israel, which is a normal country like any other. We won't wait another half a century to sit on the Security Council.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!