The mandate of the United Nations at its founding was to maintain international peace and security. However, over the years, the UN Security Council’s use of veto power has been a significant hurdle in achieving effective peace initiatives.
The UN Security Council includes five permanent member states (P5): China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States which possess the power of veto, allowing them to unilaterally block any resolution, irrespective of its broad support by the other Council members or the international community at large. This ability grants them disproportionate control over global peace initiatives and significantly hampers the UN’s ability to take swift and decisive action.
The veto power has continually derailed the Council’s crucial role in addressing conflicts, thereby thwarting the effectiveness of the UN. Just two give two examples of how the use, many say abuse, of the veto has undermined peace efforts in the Middle East: Syria and Israel/Palestine.
The Syrian conflict, which started in 2011, has been marred by unprecedented human rights violations and a devastating humanitarian crisis. In numerous instances, Russia and China, utilised their veto power to prevent the international community from taking unified action, enabling the conflict to escalate and prolong.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict highlights the extent to which the veto power impedes the UN’s ability to genuinely address ongoing disputes. The repeated use of the veto by the United States in favour of Israel has prevented resolutions from being adopted, ultimately hindering progress towards peace and perpetuating the cycle of violence in the region.
Last Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the Security Council failed to adopt a Brazil-led draft resolution that would have called for humanitarian pauses in the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict to allow full access for aid to the Gaza strip after the U.S. vetoed the text.
The Brazil-led resolution would have firmly condemned all violence and hostilities against civilians and all acts of terrorism, and unequivocally and condemned the attack by Hamas on October 7.
The resolution would have also called for humanitarian pauses to allow full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian access for United Nations humanitarian agencies and their implementing partners, and encouraged the establishment of humanitarian corridors and other initiatives for the delivery of humanitarian aid to civilians.
It would have also called for the rescission of the order by Israel for civilians and UN staff to evacuate all areas in Gaza north of the Wadi Gaza and relocate to the southern part of the strip.
In the long history of the abuse of its veto, none has had a more devastating consequence than the United States’ use of its power to support Israel.
The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 marked a significant turning point in the Middle East. The US, recognising Israel as a strategic ally in the region, has consistently supported its interests, often employing its veto power to shield Israel from potential UN resolutions that could have advanced the cause of peace and justice in the region.
Given the military strength of Israel, especially about any such Palestinian ability, the pretext of using the power to protect Israeli security wears thin. Over the years, the US has used its veto power to shield Israel from resolutions critical of its policies, particularly those related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
These resolutions often address issues such as settlements, human rights violations, and the status of Jerusalem. The US argues that such resolutions are one-sided and fail to acknowledge the complexities of the conflict.
However, the consistent use of the US veto power to support Israel has drawn criticism from around the world because most of these resolutions are carried overwhelmingly at the General Assembly where global opinion finds expression.
This practice of vetoing any resolution critical of Israel undermines the UN’s credibility and hampers efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In effect, the US veto has been the main reason why Israel has succeeded in perpetuating the suffering of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.
The US’s use of its veto power in support of Israel has sparked reactions from other member states. Some countries, particularly those in the Arab and Muslim world, have expressed frustration and disappointment with what they perceive as biased decision-making.
The veto power empowers certain nations to shield themselves and their allies from international scrutiny, undermining the principles of justice and accountability. This impunity results in prolonged conflicts, human rights abuses, and a lack of consequences for perpetrators. This has led to calls for reforming the Security Council and revisiting the veto power system.
The call for the reform of the UN system, especially of the Security Council and the veto stems from the well-grounded perception that the system has almost made the UN redundant as an instrument for peace, which is its primary mandate.
It has to be acknowledged that the former Soviet Union and its successor state, the Russian Federation, have used the veto on even more occasions to protect their interests and those of its clients, but this “equalisation” in international relations discussions tends to obscure the real issues and in many cases have prolonged conflicts and human suffering. It is obvious now that without reforming the UN and its Security Council, it can never fulfil the aspiration of its founding.
The calls for reform are anchored because the veto power undermines the democratic principles upon which the United Nations was founded. Critics claim that it perpetuates power imbalances and hampers the Council’s ability to take timely and decisive action. Various proposals have been put forward to reform the UNSC and limit the use of veto power.
One suggestion is to expand the Council’s membership to include more countries, particularly from underrepresented regions such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia. This would enhance the Council’s legitimacy and reflect the changing global power dynamics.
Another proposal is to restrict the use of veto power in certain situations, such as cases involving mass atrocities or humanitarian crises. Advocates argue that this would prevent the abuse of veto power and allow for more effective responses to urgent global challenges.
Today, in the face of the human suffering going on in Gaza, which is part of decades of conflict cemented by the US veto of resolutions condemning Israel, the call for reform of the UNSC and the veto are more strident; they are also not mere debates.
Reform is necessary to ensure that there is real justice, as a prelude to peace not only in the Middle East but around the world. The problem, of course, is the chicken and egg conundrum. Any reform requires the support and approval of the current permanent members, which can be difficult to obtain due to their vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
However, that is no reason to give up. Citizens around the world are making their voices heard about atrocities going on in the world at a time when the world possesses the means to ensure the well-being of all of its inhabitants. It is the vested interests of the major powers, especially the West, which have created huge pockets of conflict around the globe.
At the core of many of these conflicts are injustices carried over from centuries and decades of exploitation. The United Nations is unable to right many wrongs because of the abuse of the veto. The matter of its reform, however intractable it appears to be, can no longer be delayed or deferred.
By Nana Kwasi Gyan-Apenteng
Email: kgapenteng@gmail.com
