UN veto powers might undermine its very own aims and objectives
THE purpose of this opinion piece is to shed light on the structure of the United Nations (UN) and how the organisation ensures its resolutions on the promotion of global social justice are implemented, monitored and evaluated.
Based in New York, the UN is an international organisation on which a number of nation states are represented on the basis that they voluntarily agreed to subscribe to the principles and protocols.
The establishment of the UN was, among other things, a response to human-on-human suffering, particularly after World Wars I and II.
The desire among member states at the time was to have an internationally-recognised body whose primary responsibility would be to promote global peace and stability.
The major weakness of the UN, since its establishment, was to give some member states unequal status both in the General Assembly and on the Security Council.
The UN Charter, in particular, gives veto powers to five member states, namely the USA, Russian Federation, UK, France and China.
Resolutions passed by the UN’s General Assembly may not be implemented if any of these states
do not support them.
Some member states are already criticising the UN on the grounds that its operations no longer reflect the values and principles of democracy.
&RQIOLFW DURXQG WKH ZRUOG
Conflict is inherent in society, with almost all continents experiencing one form or another.
Where conflict is restricted to a nation state, each one uses its own law enforcement agencies to restore peace, order and stability.
Global conflict, on the other hand, may involve two or more independent nation states, and border issues.
These are normally cases requiring intervention from either the UN’s General Assembly or the Security Council.
To this end, South Africa, under apartheid, was a constant subject of debate at the UN, to abandon its policy on racial discrimination.
With the support of the international community and the UN, South Africa was in the end, with great strain, enabled to develop from being a raciallypolarised society into a non-racial and non-sexist society.
5XVVLD DQG 8NUDLQH
The neutral position UN member South Africa took in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is commendable.
In this conflict, South Africa supports dialogue and negotiation as a means of resolving the struggle between the warring parties.
Individuals and nation states that continue to criticise South Africa for her stance in the conflict may be doing so on the basis of failure to understand and appreciate South Africa’s experiences in dealing with human conflict.
Dialogue and negotiations that led to joint talks at CODESA (Congress of Democratic South Africa) before 1994 were the most difficult processes to navigate.
Different race groups had never before thought they would one day find themselves deliberate jointly on what kind of South Africa they would prefer.