The Double-Edged Sword of UN Veto Power
Nouzab Fareed is a consultant specialised in corporate restructuring, business strategy, and governance. He has a Masters of Arts in economics and an MBA. He is a past president of Fiji Institute of Chartered Accountants and past vice president of Fiji Chamber of Commerce. He is on X (@
Nouzab) and LinkedIn.
Last week, Russia and China used their veto power to block a US backed resolution on ceasefire in Gaza conflict.
The reason cited by the media was, the US resolution was not a comprehensive resolution on the subject. Prior to this, US has used veto three times to block Gaza ceasefire resolutions raised by other members.
In December 2023, the veto was used by the US in order to prevent a ceasefire in Gaza when the total civilian casualties have reach 20,000. At the time of writing this, the number killed in Gaza exceeded 32,500.
The recent criticism of UN veto power centres around the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
The US States vetoed several draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire, sparking outrage from many member states.
The veto prevented the Security Council from taking a unified stance, even in humanitarian crises while the repeated use by a single country can erode trust in the UN’s ability to act impartially.
Critics also claim vetoes are often used to shield allies or avoid scrutiny of a country’s own actions.
Is it a tool to maintain the political agenda of the permanent members? Is it relevant to modern day politics as it was designed 75 years ago? Is it a roadblock to peace and a symbol of geopolitical manoeuvring rather than collective security?
What is the veto power?
The veto power at the UN Security Council allows any of its five permanent members namely China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, to block the adoption of a substantive resolution.
This means they can prevent any decision that would take real action, like authorising the use of force or imposing sanctions.
Only the five permanent members (P5) of the UN Security Council, go the power of veto.
These countries were considered the major world powers following World War II, and their co-operation was deemed essential for maintaining international peace and security.
The veto power can be applied only for substantive resolutions. These are decisions that have legal weight and can lead to concrete actions. It doesn’t apply to procedural votes, such as setting the agenda for a meeting, are not subject to veto. The first ever veto was used by the Soviet Union (USSR, now Russia) in February 1946 on a draft resolution concerning the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria.
The USSR disapproved of the resolution and exercised its veto power to block it. The use of the veto power has been controversial throughout the UN’s history.
Critics argue that it gives the P5 too much power and hinders the Security Council’s ability to take decisive action in international crises.
The good and the bad
The existence of five permanent members with veto power in the UN Security Council is a complex issue with both advantages and disadvantages.
The veto power ensures that all major powers have a say in significant decisions regarding international security.
This can help prevent unilateral actions by any single country and encourage co-operation among the P5 while the veto can act as a brake on hasty or ill-considered resolutions.
By requiring consensus from the major powers, the Council can avoid decisions that might lead to unintended consequences or escalate conflicts.
The P5 have a vested interest in maintaining a stable global order. The veto power can incentivise them to work together to find solutions to international problems, promoting stability and preventing major power conflict.
The same veto power can also obstruct the UN’s ability to take decisive action in response to crises.
If a P5 member disagrees with a resolution, even if the vast majority of the Council supports it, no action can be taken.
This can be seen as a roadblock to addressing human rights abuses or stopping aggression.
Critics argue that the veto power gives the P5 disproportionate influence in the UN.
Smaller countries feel their voices are not heard, and the system reflects the power dynamics of a bygone era.
Sometimes, the veto power can be used by P5 members to advance their own national interests, even if it contradicts the broader goals of maintaining peace and security. This can lead to a sense of hypocrisy and a lack of accountability.
There is ongoing debate about the future of the veto power. Some advocate for reforming the system, perhaps by limiting veto use or requiring justification for its use. Others argue that the current system, despite its flaws, remains essential for maintaining international stability.
The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in 2005 that the veto has an important place in the architecture of the United Nations designed to protect the power and rights of sovereign States.
But that precious institutional reserve power must be used responsibly, with restraint and a steadfast resolve to promote the purposes of the organisation.
Statistics
As of March 2024, the veto power in the UN Security Council has been used a significant number of times since its inception in 1946. The veto power has been exercised around 270 times throughout history.
The Soviet Union/Russia holds the dubious honour of having used the veto the most, with a total exceeding 125 times whereas France and the United Kingdom have used the veto the least in the postCold War era, with France using it around 16 times.
In terms of overall use, except the above two, the US has used it 85 times, UK 29 times and China 19 times. A unique point is that the US has used veto more than 43 times in relation to Israel.
There are some situations where the veto power in the UN Security Council has been used, with arguments for and against considered as the best use, even though there are no perfect answers.
The US vetoed a resolution condemning NATO airstrikes in Kosovo in 1999.
This action arguably prevented wider escalation and pressured Serbia to withdraw from the region. This is still considered one of the best use of veto in the history, however, critics argue it gave a green light to humanitarian intervention without UN authorisation. In 2003, the US vetoed a resolution condemning the invasion of Iraq. This action undermined the UN’s authority and legitimacy, and critics argue it fuelled instability in the region.
To date, this is considered one of the worst example for using veto power. This honour may change with the ongoing Gaza whereas veto has been used extensively. Both the US and the Soviet Union used vetoes extensively during the Cold War to block actions they saw as against their interests.
This arguably hampered the UN’s ability to address global issues but also prevented a direct superpower confrontation.
Way forward
The reform of the United Nations Security Council’s veto power has been a long-standing and contentious issue, with various proposals and recommendations put forth over the years.
While the veto power serves an important purpose in protecting the interests of the permanent members, its use has often been criticised as obstructing the UN’s ability to effectively address conflicts and humanitarian crises. Some of the proposed reforms include restricting the use, requiring explanation/justification, a collective veto and even expanding the number of permanent membership.
Any reform of the veto power would likely face significant political challenges and require the agreement of the current permanent members, who may be reluctant to relinquish their privileged status.
Ultimately, any reform efforts should strike a balance between preserving the legitimate interests of the permanent members and ensuring the UN’s capacity to respond to crises and uphold its core values and principles.