Veto power vs global peace and security

Md. Habibur Rahman :

The United Nations’ veto power mechanism mostly harms non-permanent member states and other non-holders of nuclear arsenal states. As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the United States, the Russian Federation, China, the United Kingdom, and France use their unassailable authority to defend their own national interests, political symmetry, and diplomatic gains. Some critics argue that the Russian Federation and the United States are the prime backbone of the UN because of their financial, military, and material resources for the UN. The veto power system has been developed since 1946 among the five permanent members of the UN. This is not only an undemocratic system but also an unpopular formula for all in terms of strategic and peaceful initiatives.
In order to guarantee global peace and security, the United Nations (UN) was founded in 1945. It supports the use of arbitration, talks, mediation, and conciliation to resolve international disputes and other kinds of hostilities and crises. The Security Council has sole discretion to make decisions about international peace and security in six of the UN’s bodies.
There are currently fifteen member states, comprised of ten non-permanent member states and five permanent member states of the UN Security Council. The General Assembly essentially elects the 10 non-permanent members to two-year terms. The states that are currently non permanent members are, in order, Albania (2023), Brazil (2023), Gabon (2023), Ghana (2023), India (2022), Ireland (2022), Kenya (2022), Mexico (2022), Norway (2022), and United Arab Emirates (2023). Moreover, Bangladesh was also a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for two terms, respectively, 1979-1980 and 2000-2001. Some members of the UN led by Brazil, Japan, and India are trying to hold the position of permanent member states of UN Security Council. But they are confronting the strong blocks of the current permanent members of the UN Security Council.
The UN Charter and its member nations serve as the organisation’s theoretical and legal framework. The United Nations Security Council’s membership, responsibilities, authority, and operating procedures are outlined in Articles 23 to 32 of the UN Charter. If one observes the politics and activities of the UN Security Council members over the years, one can see how the Charter has been constructed to dominate the other non-permanent member states. For instance, Article 24 specifies that the Security Council is the only entity with the authority to uphold international peace and security. On the other hand, the judgments and resolutions of the UN Security Council cannot be disputed. Furthermore, nuclear-armed nations like Israel and North Korea don’t always abide by the judgments and resolutions of the UN over the years.
According to Article 25, the United Nations’ members concur to accept and implement the Security Council’s decisions in accordance with the current Charter. The responsibility, however, falls on non-permanent member states in the current world.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council used their veto power for personal gain and national interests. Between 1946 and 2016, the US utilised its veto power at least 83 (eighty-three) times, including four times for cases involving the ICC and 79 times in relation to the Israeli and Palestinian conflicts. Between 1946 and 2016, the Russian Federation applied 133 (one hundred thirty-three) times for its diplomatic and economic interests. On the other hand, from 1946 to 2016, China had the opportunity to utilise its veto power at least 40 (forty) times for issues involving Taiwan, Myanmar, Syria, Yugoslavia, and Guatemala. However, from 1946 to 2016, the UK employed it 32 (thirty-two) times for the Suez Canal Crisis and the Rhodesian Crisis. Last but not least, from 1946 to 2016, France exercised its veto authority at least 18 (eighteen) times in regards to the Suez Canal crisis and the Rhodesian crisis. The credibility and effectiveness of the UN veto system have faced serious criticism among scholars and peace-loving people due to the above-mentioned factors.
The following conflicts and crises were not effectively handled by the UN: the atrocities committed during the Apartheid era in South Africa; the civil wars in Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Liberia, and Congo; the Russia-Ukraine conflicts of 2014 and 2022; the Israel-Palestine conflicts; the Kashmir Conflict; the civil wars in Syria and Libya; the Tamil issues in Sri Lanka (2009); the Georgia Conflict; the Kuwait War; the Iraqi War; the Cuban missile crisis.
The promises and performances of the United Nations are not protected by its core member states as veto power has been used for the political and ideological interests of permanent member states. Global peace and security have been at risk worldwide due to protracted conflicts and small-scale skirmishes across the globe. On the other hand, it does not play a strong role in combating arm races, promoting political stability in developing countries, assisting dictators and their regimes, and waging forceful aggression against weak states. Moreover, it did not play a neutral role in protecting human rights violations, crimes against humanity, ideological differences, and other religious issues.
However, the UN’s functions vary depending on the situation, with climate change, health management, and disease control. Furthermore, it is still applicable because, despite the full participation of powerful states and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, there wasn’t any Third World War.
Global international peace and security are objectives of the United Nations (UN). But unlike the previous two world wars, a third world war did not immediately threaten the planet. But it has also caused financial devastation that has cost many lives. To maintain a balance of veto power in the UN, all non-member states have the annual opportunity to speak during the General Assembly meeting in September every year. On the other hand, if the General Assembly wants to adopt the Uniting for Peace policy, the Security Council shouldn’t oppose it. To make the UN a dynamic and successful institution for promoting world peace and security, it should also take on a neutral role. The philosophy of collective security will prevail to address the global conflict and security dilemma.
Do UN Security Council members require a veto system based on proportional representation? It’s a valid and time-consuming factor to make the UN a neutral and international institution. On the other hand, this veto power system is contradictory to Article 2 of the UN Charter. It cites (Article 2) that all member states are equal. The veto power system is one of the major hindrances to ensuring global peace and security for all.
However, the UN’s veto authority should be revised in order to make it a neutral institution with proportional representation for all member states, either geographical proportion or cultural affiliation. Last but not least, may there be peace on earth and liberals stand up and recognise that regardless of gender, colour, religion, caste, and geographic distinctions, all people count and are in the same boat.

(Md. Habibur Rahman is a poet, writer, and researcher).