‘Quo vadis,’ UN?
FLASHBACK. Before the current United Nations was the League of Nations founded in 1919 immediately after World War 1 (WW1) to prevent wars in the future. (The Senate did not approve US membership. Trump would have loved the League of Nations because the United States did not have to exercise any global responsibilities.)
But the League failed to prevent WW2. So, it was replaced by the United Nations in 1946.
UN Charter on the veto power
As history books mention now, to the victorious allies of WW2 (the United Kingdom, the US, France, the Soviet Union and China) was accorded the veto power in order to secure their signature to the UN Charter.
Simply explained, the veto at the UN Security Council is the power of the five permanent members (P5) to veto any substantive draft resolution regardless of the level of international support for the resolution.
The veto applies only to votes that come from the UN Security Council. The UN General Assembly is unaffected. That means the P5 cannot and should not prevent the UN General Assembly from taking any and all actions necessary to restore international peace and security in instances when the Security Council failed to exercise its primary responsibility for maintaining peace.
It sees the General Assembly as possessing the final responsibility for matters of international peace and security by the UN Charter. To that end, various official and semiofficial UN reports make explicit reference to the “Uniting for Peace” resolution as providing the mechanism for the General Assembly to overrule any Security Council vote.
Veto power: pros and cons
Expectedly, the veto power became controversial. Supporters regard it as a promoter of international stability, a check against military intervention and a critical safeguard against US domination. Critics, on the other hand, say veto is the most undemocratic element of the UN as well as the main cause of inaction on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide as it effectively prevents UN action against the permanent members and their allies.
The concern about the veto is best exemplified by the Security Council failure to act on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Due to inaction, efforts to address the veto focus on the importance of preventing and intervening in mass atrocity situations, considering that global peace and security is the primary responsibility of the Security Council.
The concept of ‘lawfare’
“Lawfare” is the abuse of legal avenues as an alternative method of warfare.
In international law, the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law allows only states to be involved in war. At this point in time, however, non-state actors like the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas are actively campaigning in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, whose defense methods are not enough to defend themselves.
This leads to the question of whether Israel should halt its ongoing Gaza offensive. Despite the 153 votes in the UN General Assembly calling for a ceasefire and allowing humanitarian aid for Gaza residents, hopes to end the Israel-Hamas war look faint despite intense diplomacy.
Toward the end of January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled on a moral definition of what are the limits of justifiable warfare for the community of nations. It stopped short of calling for a ceasefire but, in a breathtaking ruling, ordered Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide.
There are situations where the future road must be drawn fresh and this seems to be gaining support with two-state solution allowing both Palestine and Israel to have their territories. “The world needs more nuanced and tolerant values toward accepting a rainbow of values rather than purely extremist views.”
Nations are pushing for peace. The coming months will reveal whether the world will be engulfed in war and suffering.
Who knows? The 153 UN General Assembly votes could also translate to reformation of the meaning of the P5 vote in the Security Council.
Reinventing the veto power
In the course of time, a number of possible reforms to the Security Council that could affect the veto was floated and these include: limiting the use of the veto to final national security issues; requiring agreement from multiple states before exercising the veto; abolishing the veto vote entirely; and embarking on the transition stipulated in Art. 106 of the UN Charter, which requires the consensus principle in place.
Among the latest that could be worked on is the Lichtenstein-led measure that seeks to hold the five vetowielding countries in the Security Council accountable when they exercise the veto right. The measure would require the UN General Assembly to meet when one of the P5 uses its veto to block the adoption of a draft council resolution.
For many, the Lichtenstein-led measure is a meaningful step to empower the General Assembly and strengthen the multilateralism that would lead to transparency and responsibility of all permanent members of the Security Council if required to justify their vote.
By coincidence, another reform proposal of the veto power came from the Polytechnic National University of
Ukraine professionals Lesia Dorosh and Olha Ivasechko when reforms of the Security Council regained new traction following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Their suggestion revolves around the need to convince the five permanent members to limit themselves in using the tool that allows them to influence the entire international system. For one, the veto right should be restricted only in cases of extreme necessity. In other words, only when a permanent member is not involved in the conflict but abuses the use of the veto to achieve its strategic interests despite a large number of victims in such a conflict.
Pursuit of peace as an urgent mandate
Our march to the years ahead has been marred by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity with the eruption of a more serious chapter in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, a situation that we have yet to intelligently understand to embrace a final solution. How do we fathom the environmental bombings and deaths of unarmed civilian population in an “asymmetric warfare” participated in by non-state actors? TV coverage has shown us areas in Israel and Palestine leveled by bombs. Attacks and responses from both sides have been unprecedented in scale and effect.
It makes no sense to keep using terms like “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine.” Israel’s right to exist must be guaranteed but so must Palestinians’ human rights, among others.
The song “One Day” is most appropriate these days. Part of the lyrics of the song says: “All my life I’ve been waiting for; I’ve been praying for; for the people to say, that we don’t want to fight no more, there will be no more wars, and our children can play.”
As we continue witnessing senseless violence like in Ukraine and Gaza, we need to hope for a world where there will be no more wars. Concrete actions are needed.
In all this, UN?