Quote

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.

There has been talk of lack of consensus, but we all know that this is the veto of foreign powers, the intolerable situation in our 21st century America.

We need a reform of the Security Council. It must be perceived as truly representative by all the 191 member states, to uphold the credibility and legitimacy of the UN as the main political arena.

But I would say if the Security Council is only relevant if it agrees with the United States, then we have come a long way in a direction that I do not like very much.

We've talked to the Europeans about it. It's clear if those negotiations fail, then we are agreed with the Europeans that the next step is to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council.

I have concluded that the U.N. can do a few things well.

Well, the U.N. Security Council resolution 1973 is very clear. It says all necessary measures to be taken to protect civilians and civilian areas. I mean, that to me is very clear.

The U.N. Security Council did not to condemn the Qana massacre, due to the U.S. veto.

The list of U.S. vetoes at the Security Council to protect Israeli aggression and occupation is huge.

I look for the consensus because the consensus drives the policy into new places.