veto powers in UN Security Council

S

swatiraohnlu

Swati Rao
Every member state of UN is represented in the General Assembly where it holds a single vote. This forum holds debates on any matter within the scope of the Charter and passes decisions by a simple majority or exceptionally a two thirds majority of members present and voting.This body includes 5 permanent members or the P5 ; the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and Russia. In addition, 10 seats on the Security Council are held by non-permanent member states that are elected for a term of 2 years. Although decisions of the Security Council are made by the affirmative vote of 9 of the 15 members, the P5 hold the power of veto over any such decision. Whether the power of veto has been abused, and whether the United Nations has become redundant in terms of international security and thus the veto power is rendered immaterial?
 
* The UN veto is anachronistic. The world no longer needs the Security Council veto. The P5 were given this privilege for two reasons that have no application in the post Cold War world. Firstly, the Allied powers, with the addition of China, tried to bind themselves to the UN Security Council, which was designed to prevent events like World War II repeating themselves. Secondly, the P5 held unrivaled strategic might through their possession of nuclear weapon technology or imminent nuclear capacity. However, to examine the status quo, the UN is no longer in danger of collapse. Considering the state of international politics and the symbolic meaning of the UN, the P5 can no longer abandon the UN or the cause of global peace simply because the veto power is taken away.

* The UN Security Council Veto is unreflective of geopolitical realities The global power balance has shifted dramatically since 1945, making the nations' participation in global cooperation for security more crucial. Nuclear proliferation has accelerated in the past decade, such that inter alia India, Pakistan, North Korea, Egypt, Iraq and Iran are developing inter-continental ballistic capacity, which is incentive for the P5 and other nations to continue to support the Security Council under any circumstances.
 
* The UN Security Council veto perpetuates differences and animosity A P-5 country typically vetoes a resolution in the United Nations because they or their allies have a strong national or cultural interest in doing so. These interests often contrast sharply with the interests of other countries. And the veto, given the fact that it unilaterally stops things from happening, brings these contrasts to the surface in an often bitter, angering, and antagonizing way. It, therefore, makes a direct connection between antagonism and the differences between countries. This is unhealthy in the international system.

* UN veto perpetuates unfortunate geopolitical games The UN veto system was established, in part, to ensure that the United Nations fits within the broader geopolitical game and that it is tolerated within that game. It, therefore, perpetuates an unfortunate geopolitics of self-interested states instead of assuming a higher, fairer role of global governance with the objective of securing common global interests.
 
* Abolishing veto would enable more global action in the UN If the veto was abolished, more measures would make it through the general assembly and security council that reflect the will of the general assembly. More would get done in the world, the UN would better fulfill its mission, and it would subsequently achieve greater credibility in the international system, furthering its ability to get things done.

* Veto power undermines the moral stature of the UN Morality in the international system is defined in large part by equality. Because the UN SC veto undermines the notion of soveregn equality, it undermines the moral foundation and authority of the UN itself. This damages its credibility in the international system, and thus impairs its long-term functionality.

* Argument: UN veto causes perceptions of the UN as a tool of the West

* Security Council veto undermines UN's "soft power" legitimacy. The United Nations exercises "soft power" better than "hard power". It gives legitimacy to the actions taken by states, or it takes away from that legitimacy by passing resolutions that, for example, condemn certain actions. This is a highly important function in shaping the international system into a more desirable form. Yet, the veto undermines this function by enabling veto-holders to veto UN resolution that seek to legitimize or de-legitimize actions taken in the international system.
 
s

* Veto power is frequently hijacked by national agendas In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto power has been utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological demands and petty national interests. China prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the engagement of those countries with Taiwan. The veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of collective security.

* The United States unjustly protects Israel with UN veto The United States has protected Israel from international condemnation in the UN SC dozens of times. The condemnation has surrounding such things as Israel's alleged oppression of Palestinians or abuses and international law violations in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are too many instances in which Israeli abuses and violations of international law were fairly clear. US defenses of Israel in these instances, therefore, constitute a abusive and unprincipled attempt to protect an ally. This all exposes how the UN SC veto opens the door to abuse.

* The "hidden" threat of the UN veto is a major concern The threat of the use of the veto is as powerful in preventing resolutions being passed as the actual veto itself. Veto-wielding countries often notify promoters of a resolution that they will veto it, subsequently causing those promoters to back down and to never actually bring legislation to the floor of the general assembly.

* "Uniting for Peace" Resolutions to bypass UN vetoes are only symbolic The problem with General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolutions is that they don't circumvent the reality that the security council is still responsible for the implementation of measures. Therefore, if a "Uniting for Peace" measure was designed to take any action, it would almost certainly fail to be implemented by the security council due to blockage by the vetoing member.

* UN veto is being abused to stymie country admissions to UN Country admission into the UN and into the Security Council is a sensitive topic for some countries, and can often involve deeply rooted prejudices. But, admission should not be held ransom to these prejudices in the form of the veto.
 
s

* Veto power is frequently hijacked by national agendas In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto power has been utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological demands and petty national interests. China prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the engagement of those countries with Taiwan. The veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of collective security.

* The United States unjustly protects Israel with UN veto The United States has protected Israel from international condemnation in the UN SC dozens of times. The condemnation has surrounding such things as Israel's alleged oppression of Palestinians or abuses and international law violations in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. There are too many instances in which Israeli abuses and violations of international law were fairly clear. US defenses of Israel in these instances, therefore, constitute a abusive and unprincipled attempt to protect an ally. This all exposes how the UN SC veto opens the door to abuse.

* The "hidden" threat of the UN veto is a major concern The threat of the use of the veto is as powerful in preventing resolutions being passed as the actual veto itself. Veto-wielding countries often notify promoters of a resolution that they will veto it, subsequently causing those promoters to back down and to never actually bring legislation to the floor of the general assembly.

* "Uniting for Peace" Resolutions to bypass UN vetoes are only symbolic The problem with General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolutions is that they don't circumvent the reality that the security council is still responsible for the implementation of measures. Therefore, if a "Uniting for Peace" measure was designed to take any action, it would almost certainly fail to be implemented by the security council due to blockage by the vetoing member.

* UN veto is being abused to stymie country admissions to UN Country admission into the UN and into the Security Council is a sensitive topic for some countries, and can often involve deeply rooted prejudices. But, admission should not be held ransom to these prejudices in the form of the veto.
 
* The veto power operates to the detriment of international arms control agreements. The web of treaties that concern the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are enforced directly or indirectly by the Security Council. Where the treaty provisions do not identify the Council, the constant presence of the leading nuclear powers in the form of the P5, and the responsibility of the body for peace and security ensures that it is the de facto policeman of non-proliferation. The Council is crippled by the veto from fulfilling perhaps its most vital function. Two pertinent examples include the continued assembly of a nuclear arsenal by North Korea in violation of its obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Chinese interests precluded adequate enforcement action by the Council. Iraq had breached every Council measure pertaining to arms limitation to the extent that the UN inspectorate was withdrawn from Baghdad. The absence of an effective response can be attributed to Russian support for Iraq.
 
* Extending UN SC veto to more countries would reduce UN effectiveness While one way to "level the playing field" is to offer the veto to more countries that "deserve" it according to their geopolitical standing, the problem is that this risks increasing the instances in which the veto is used, and in which resolutions are blocked by the national agendas of countries. It is better to "level the playing field", therefore, by moving in the other direction by banning the veto.
* Extension of UN SC veto power to other countries will be resisted by current veto holders. Current veto holders enjoy their privileged position and are unlikely to go along with the extension of this privilege to other countries, as it dilutes their own veto power.
* Expanding UN SC veto would increase unilateral military actions With the likelihood of more vetoes being leveled in the UN SC, particularly in regard to the use of military force, it is likely that more countries will take unilateral military action in the face of a veto. This will decrease the legitimacy of the United Nations Security Council, decrease international legal checks on military action, and shift the world back into a more anarchic geopolitical maze.
* Australia doesn't deserve a UN SC veto Australia simply does not have the geopolitical power to warrant this. Therefore, any plan that would see an expansion of the UN SC permanent membership and veto power to Australia would be a step backwards not forwards. Abolishing the veto is a better course of action.
 
* UN SC veto need not be abolished, but extended to more countries. The veto simply needs to be extended to more countries and in a manner that is more reflective of the geopolitical distribution of power today, as opposed to post-WWII when the current veto-powers were originally distributed.
* Germany should receive UN Security Council veto power Germany is the strongest power in Europe economically and in terms of its population and territory. And, it is no longer necessary to constrain it out of fears of a WWII relapse. If it were offered veto powers, this would help alleviate some of the geopolitical imbalances associated with it today.
* Voluntary limitations of UN SC veto to only enforcement would not work
* Abolishing UN SC veto won't solve broader problems in UN SC
* UN reform will not solve problem of states acting in self interest The UN is generally an ineffectual body in the sense that states are keen on acting in their self-interest, whether or not the Security Council gives any blessings or condemnations. Therefore, the veto is somewhat irrelevant to the actions that states will take.
* The General Assembly should be able to overrule a UN SC veto Instead of abolishing the veto altogether, one solution would be to minimize its power by offering the general assembly the ability to overrule the veto through a supermajority, 2/3 vote. This is the system set in place in many countries, including the United States, where the Senate is empowered to overrule a presidential veto by 2/3 majority vote.
 
Breaches of Security Council must be expected and made subject to rectification. The legality of the NATO action in both Yugoslavia and Kosovo is currently scheduled for consideration by another organ of the UN, the International Court of Justice. Following the conflict NATO and Russia sought and achieved Security Council endorsement of the campaign. The Council then authorised the deployment of a peacekeeping force in order to police Kosovo. The Security Council thus proved to be a unifying force.
 
The UN needs to have a very subjective check out the issues and reach to settlement democratically. One nation should not have the ability to prevent any modifications. That is not the equal rights the UN attempts so desperately to acquire in the world! I'm so amazed concerning this how people can protect the veto powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top