Three questions: 1. Whatever happened to this proposed resolution of Ukraine and Georgia in 2019, and how much grief would have been avoided if it had been acted upon? "The international community has witnessed on numerous occasions the detrimental effect that the abuse of the “veto” right by permanent members of the Security Council may have on the maintenance of international peace and security. Thus, we advocate phasing out of the “veto” right and strongly support all initiatives aimed at limiting the misuse and abuse of the “veto” right, and appreciate that some relevant approaches have been mentioned in the document entitled “Revised elements of commonality and issues for further consideration”, in particular in its section III (Issues for further consideration), part 5 (The question of veto). At the same time, as mentioned on numerous occasions by a number of Member States during the intergovernmental negotiations, the “veto” right should also be restricted when a permanent member is involved in a conflict or a situation under consideration and, therefore, cannot exercise its voting rights impartially, owing to a conflict of interest. It is our common strong position that the issue of limiting in the aforementioned relevant situations the ability of a party to a conflict to exercise its “veto” right has to be considered in the course of the intergovernmental negotiations and implemented as an integral part of the Security Council reform. Therefore, we request that this approach be duly reflected as one of the options in section III (Issues for further consideration), part 5 (The question of veto). (Signed) Kaha Imnadze Ambassador Permanent Representative of Georgia (Signed) Volodymyr Yelchenko Ambassador Permanent Representative of Ukraine 2. Who voted against it? While they didn't cast ballots, countries aggressively outlined their stances during the 74th session’s plenary debates: The Permanent Five (P5) Veto Holders: Russia and China strongly opposed any reform that would eliminate, dilute, or restrict their veto power, arguing it preserves geopolitical balance. The United States maintained a highly conservative stance, stating it would only support "modest expansions" that do not alter or diminish the veto power. France and the United Kingdom reiterated their support for a voluntary restriction. They continued backing the French-Mexican Initiative, which asks permanent members to voluntarily pledge not to use the veto in cases of mass atrocities. 3, What was needed for it to become a resolution that would voted on and adopted? Substantive changes to the veto power require a formal amendment to the UN Charter. Under Article 108 of the Charter, any amendment requires: A two-thirds majority vote of the entire General Assembly membership (129 out of 193 countries).Subsequent ratification by two-thirds of the member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, and China).Because the permanent members have signalled they will use their power to block any amendment that dilutes their veto, countries participating in the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) have never brought a concrete veto-reform text to a formal vote. Doing so without prior total consensus would be a dead-end political exercise. Conclusion The people of the world need to step in here, and demand the reform requested by Ukraine in 2019 and so many others before and after. Vote for veto reform HERE