Why The Veto Must Be Abolished From The United Nations Security Council

By Abdul Muheet Chowdhary

15 September, 2015
Countercurrents.org

The upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is expected to be a historic one. It will be the 70th such session held since the creation of the UN in 1945. Two issues which will determine the fate of the planet will be discussed. The first is the ‘post-2015 agenda’, which is about the global development agenda following the end of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2015. This is about i) the shape and form of the MDG’s successor, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and ii) the strategy to tackle climate change.

The second issue is reforming the UN Security Council (UNSC). This is an issue whose importance cannot be overstated. The UNSC is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, a task it has terribly failed in performing. The plethora of conflict in the world today is evidence enough of this.

Recognising this, efforts began more than twenty years ago to reform the UNSC. In 1993 Samuel Insanally, then President of the UNGA established an ‘open-ended working group’ to consider all aspects of this question. In 2005 his successor Jan Eliasson, currently Deputy Secretary-General of the UN, chose Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) as the method through which this reform would take place. In 2008, the UNGA adopted decision 62/557 by which it decided to immediately hold intergovernmental negotiations on the ‘question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Council’.

However since then things did not move. A major step forward was achieved in July this year when former UNGA President Sam Kutesa circulated a text to Members States that would form the basis of intergovernmental negotiations. This negotiating text outlined the positions of Member States on the five key areas outlined in decision 62/557 in reforming the security council:

Size of an enlarged Security Council and its working methods
Categories of membership
Regional representation
Question of the veto
Relationship between the Council and the General Assembly

This move was opposed by three permanent members of the UNSC - USA, Russia and China. They refused to contribute to the framework document that was used in preparing the negotiating text. One common point in the dissent notes of these countries was that they all opposed any change to the status of the veto.

This is a telling indicator on how vital the veto is to the current inequitable power structure of the UN. It is in fact the single most important of the five areas of reform. Reform in other areas would be rendered ineffective as long as the veto exists. It is therefore vital to understand the nature of the veto, why it is an impediment to international peace and security, how it can be removed and the steps that can be taken in this regard.

Statutory basis of the veto and reasons for its abolition

Technically, the word ‘veto’ does not exist in the Charter of the United Nations. Article 27 (3) of the Charter states that decisions on non-procedural matters shall be ‘made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.’ The key term here is ‘concurring’, which has been translated in common parlance into the veto.

Broadly speaking, there are three main reasons why the veto should be abolished: 1) It is an anachronistic and undemocratic privilege 2) Prevents timely and decisive action 3) Limits negotiations and compromise

Anachronistic and undemocratic privilege

In the submissions of the Member States to the Framework Document that was used to prepare the circulated negotiating text, the words ‘anachronistic’ and ‘undemocratic’ were used to describe the veto. This is an apt description. The word veto means ‘I forbid’ in Latin and was historically a tool of the European monarchy to try and subvert the democratic process where royal assent was required for any bills to become law. For such a mechanism to exist today in a world of mainly democratic nation states is rightly called anachronistic. It is also deeply undemocratic as it violates the principle of sovereign equality among States. It effectively states that the permanent five (P5) members are superior to other States. This is worsened by the fact that at least two of them - France and the UK - are no longer seen as Great Powers.

Prevents timely and decisive action

The veto requires that all P5 members agree on a course of action. Given the nature of international relations and that many of the members are deeply adversarial, expecting such unanimity is foolhardy. The use of the veto, or even the threat of its use, has led to inexcusable delays and conflict being dragged on for far more than necessary. For example the war in Syria, the biggest humanitarian tragedy in the world today, is the result of a deadlock between Russia and China and the rest of the P5.

The veto was also included in the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations. It had an even more onerous structure where both permanent and non-permanent members had the veto on non-procedural issues. This made it utterly moribund and it was powerless to stop the Second World War from taking place. The current proposals to enlarge the membership of the Security Council, without an accompanying abolition of the veto, will result in a similar situation where the UN will fade into irrelevance. The question of the veto is therefore in many ways an existential one for the UN itself.

Limits negotiations and compromise

The use of the veto also puts severe limits to the extent to which the P5 members compromise. Resolving conflicts involves compromise and requires the give-and-take spirit of negotiations. This is however greatly weakened by the veto which brings in a sense of complacency as proposals which are distasteful can simply be vetoed. There is no need to go the extra mile to find creative solutions around seemingly intractable problems. This results in a deadening complacency where the cost of inaction is measured in lives.

During the Cold War there were frequent standoffs between the USSR and the USA where each vetoed the other’s action. This led to many conflicts of the time being dragged on. Presently there are far more conflicts in the world than there were during the Cold War. The rise of China and the prospect of a Cold War-style standoff between it and the USA has the terrifying prospect that the conflicts of today will also be dragged on. This is a nightmarish and apocalyptic scenario which must be avoided at all costs.

The abolition of the veto is therefore absolutely necessary. It will bring in sovereign equality among member states. It will ensure that decisions in the UNSC are negotiated over in far more detail and the opposition of a few - inevitable in such circumstances - does not stop the council from taking decisive action. The divide between the permanent and non-permanent members will also significantly reduce.

The move for abolishing the veto already has the support of a wide number of member states such as the Africa Group, L.69, Malaysia and Ukraine . Also, many countries have opted for the restraint of the use of the veto as an option in the negotiating text. It can be safely hypothesised that this is a pragmatic and not ideal option and given the choice the same member states would prefer the abolition of the veto over its restrained use.

Thus there already exists a large number of states that favour the abolition of the veto. If this number increases, this demand can even be realistically pursued. The times have changed since the foundation of the UN. At that time, smaller countries who were outraged at the prospect of five countries calling the shots in international peace and security were given the choice in stark terms: either the Charter with the veto or no Charter at all.

Today the same existential dilemma no longer threatens the UN. It is without parallel as an international organisation and the P5 members no longer have the power to “pull the plug” on it. Nor can they threaten rising powers such as the G4, L.69 or Africa Group as they could in 1945. Reforming the UNSC as per article 108 of the Charter requires a 2/3rds majority of UNGA members and ratification by 2/3rds of the member states including all P5 nations.

The main requirement for this to take place is for the G4 nations (Germany, Brazil, India and Japan) to support the abolition of the veto wholeheartedly. Currently, their demand is that they be given a seat on the UNSC as permanent members. As seen, without the removal of the veto this would make the Council even more weak and indecisive. Further it would perpetuate an unjust order.

Therefore as leaders of a new world order, the G4 can ally with the African Group and L.69 in leading the move towards reforming the UNSC by abolishing the veto, which means amending article 27 of the UN Charter. The global left and civil society can also play a very powerful role by mobilising public opinion in its favor. This would greatly boost the additional reform measures of the Council and would finally enable it to be a body capable of dealing with the great task of maintaining international peace and security.

Abdul Muheet Chowdhary ([email protected]) is a Legislative Aide to B Vinod Kumar, MP (Lok Sabha) and a former consultant to the United Nations. Views expressed are personal.