Should Veto power be withdrawn?

The News, Sun, October,3, 2004.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema



Invariably the critics of UN system focus on the dismal performance of the UN Security Council. One of the major reasons advanced for Security Council’s inability to maintain international peace and security revolves around the misuse of veto power by the permanent members of the Security Council. It is forcefully argued that the prevailing Cold war atmosphere since 1945 not only radically influenced the leaders of both Communist and Capitalist world but also prevented effectively the proper use of the veto power.

The current debate is mostly focused on permanent membership along with its veto powers. Until recently three out of five existing veto wielding powers were in the western world and the other two were part of the Communist world. With departure of the Cold War and disintegration of the Soviet Union now the situation is even more lopsided. Now four out of five veto wielding powers are part of Europe and the western world.  

It was not surprising that during the days of the well entrenched bipolarity the veto power was mostly used to enhance one’s own bloc’s interest’s rather demonstrating sincere wish for global peace and security. While there are many suggestions that have been advanced by various quarters to reform the Security Council in general and veto power in particular, three suggestions directly dealing with veto power needs to be commented upon.

First suggestion is that the number of permanent members be increased implying that there would be more veto wielding powers. Many candidates are already advancing theirs claims including those whose record of non-observance of Security Council’s resolution is extremely impressive (such as India and Israel). Both India and Israel are very sensitive when reminded of their non-compliance of UN resolutions. In fact both have repeatedly demonstrated a certain level of arrogance towards this world body. It must be stressed here that Israel is much more disrespectful than India. However this does not mean that deserving candidates are not available. Undoubtedly Japan and Germany are just two of many countries that could be easily considered.

The permanent membership of the Security Council needs to be allocated to those states that have consistently contributed towards the maintenance of international peace and security. However this does not mean that other criterion should be ignored.  Both the monetary contributions along with the ability to influence others members of international community also need to be taken into consideration.

Given the above-mentioned criterion, China, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and United States qualify. To inject geographical balance it may not be all that out of order to consider South Africa and Brazil/Argentina. Among these states the US is the most powerful but its record in the Security Council is not all that impressive. If we take the post-Cold War developments, then the US record is even more depressing.  The US does not have an enviable record when it comes to bypassing or subverting important UN resolutions.

The second most important suggestion in these regards is introducing a mechanism of rotating veto. This implies that veto power is given to various deserving powers for a period of four years and after the expiry of their tenure then the veto is given to another set of states. This also means that veto powers must only be given to those states that are already elected members of the Security Council. Initially all the fifteen members should be elected by the entire membership of the United Nations. Then out of 15 members three are further elected for investing veto powers in them. After the lapse of four years another set of three states are invested with veto power. Alternatively the veto power must only be given to the President of the Council who could only exercise the power for a month. Suggestions relating to increasing the number of members of the Security Council need also to be subjected to serious considerations.

Perhaps the third suggestion that nobody should be invested with veto power is more practicable and suitable in the light of existing circumstances. Indeed the veto power itself contradicts the very essence of democratic pursuits. Why should anybody be accorded a privileged position when under the operative international system all states are, at least theoretically, supposed to be equal? Some consider that that the exercise of veto powers robs the Security Council of its democratic legitimacy.

One interesting aspect of the debate is that many countries that are seeking the democratisation of the Security Council are themselves not practicing democracy in their countries. Equally intriguing is the resistance of those countries that are enjoying privileged positions in the Council are opposing democratisation of the Council whereas they are insisting and pressurizing many other countries especially the developing nations to opt for democratised systems in their respective countries.

It is not too far fetched to assume that the moves for reforms, which either reduce the number of permanent members’, or curtails their privileged position or even attempts to overwhelm them with additional memberships is likely to be opposed by them. However one cannot over rule the possibility that if no reforms are introduced that the belief in the System would gradually erode. Many members will loose faith in the system. Already the American behaviour over the case of Iraq has disillusioned many states.

Since the world of post Second World War no longer exists and new developments of far reaching significance have taken place, the demand to reform the UN is likely to continue. However it needs to be stressed here that it would not be all that easy to secure the desired reforms particularly that of the Security Council. The difficulty would revolve around two issues, the veto power and who should be the new permanent members. It is indeed difficult to visualise that the existing permanent members would be willing to shed the privilege of veto power. The reforms are heavily dependent upon the unanimity of view of permanent members as any one of them could easily veto even the reform package. While they do support the reform but their attitudes towards reform is generally passive, although China and France are relatively more positive and forthcoming than the others.

The demand to make UN Security Council more democratic and representative continues to increase with the passage of time. ‘In General Assembly session of 2000, representatives of 169 member states stressed the importance of Security Council reform’. Not only the developing nations were very sensitive about the non-democratic and non-representative character of the UN Security Council but they also wanted to see more transparency in its working. For obvious reasons they were extremely keen to see that the voice of the developing nations was given adequate hearings. It was even suggested that some form of rotation is employed in order to assure that even the smallest of state would have an opportunity to serve on it.

In 1995 many speakers in the UN General Assembly stressed on the need for reforms a well as equitable geographic representation in debates over the Security Council’s reforms. However the main focal points around which the debates revolved included the need for reforms especially in view of the increased membership, enlargement and democratization of the Council, equitable geographical representative character of the Council, review of criterion for permanent membership and the veto power, transparency and accountability of the Council etc. It was also highlighted that these reforms must ensure that the efficiency of the Council is not affected.