UN Veto on Gaza
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism)
The United States vetoed the UN resolution calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Thirteen out of 15 UN Security Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, voted in favour, Britain abstained and US voted against. But, since the five permanent members (P-5) have the veto powers, the United States vetoed it causing the resolution to be un-implementable. This is the third time the US has vetoed the resolutions on humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza: October 18, December 8 in 2023 and now this year, February 20. After the veto, the demand for reform of UN organs has become shriller.
The United States is moving, at the time of writing, an alternative resolution calling for temporary ceasefire linked to the release of hostages held by Hamas since 7 October 2023. On this dark day, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel killing over 1200 people and taking 256 Israelis, including women and children, as hostages. What will happen to this resolution is a matter of time and speculation. Let us focus on the frustrations and desperations by the international community on the controversial veto process in the UN. Let us recall that the veto power has been exercised by all the five members on numerous occasions.
In the recent past, Russia has used the veto 12 times in favour of the Syrian government which is guilty of genocide of over 400,000 of its citizens since 2011. Russia even vetoed a resolution calling for ending the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the civil war. China has vetoed more than once resolutions on Islamic terrorists working against India, to declare them ‘global terrorists.’ Russia has been vetoing any resolution in favour of Ukraine with regard to the ongoing Ukraine war. China is also vetoing any resolution in favour of Muslim Rohingyas as Beijing completely backs the military regime of Myanmar.
There is a contentious historical context of the veto power by P-5 members. The P-5 is now divided broadly into two groups – US, France, United Kingdom on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. However, all of them act like a club and the club will not change the rules which take away their privileges. So has been the case.
The question raised now by many countries is whether it is just, inclusive or equitable to let five countries impose their will on the rest 188 member-countries of the world. In fact, in the context of the veto, it is one country out of five imposing its will on the rest. Is this a fair, prudent and practical way to run international politics? Admittedly, UN Security Council has acted in unity in some cases, like military actions against dictatorial regime of Col. Gaddafi in Libya and sanctions against Iran etc. But in many cases like the ones cited, the one of the P-5 has been able to monopolise the peace process, in fact in most cases, derailing it.
Let us remember that the UN was created after the Second World War in order to prevent succeeding generations ‘from the scourge of war’. The alternative strategy UN adapted to war consists of diplomacy, mediation and peace initiatives. But because of the unequal composition of the UN organs, mainly the UN Security Council, the principal objective of the United Nation has been defeated; hence the call for reforms of its structure.
India, as the biggest democracy and the most populous country in the world is leading the campaign on UN Security Council reform. The principle New Delhi puts forth is ‘equity in global decision making’. This will redress the historical injustices committed on the Global South; “centuries of injustices”. India’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj made a powerful case at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on Security Council Reform on 16 February.
She forcefully put it, “I think we might all broadly agree that the historical injustices perpetrated against the Global South can no longer be ignored. It is time to rectify these disparities by ensuring greater representation for regions like Asia, Latin America and Africa on the Security Council through reform in both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership”.
Furthermore, she elaborated, “Equity demands that every nation, irrespective of its size or power be afforded an equal opportunity to shape global decision-making.” She added that equity entails that the voices of the marginalised and the oppressed be elevated on to the world stage. Including the members of the Global South into the table will lead to more inclusive decision-making. Also, an inclusive Council will foster a broader consensus and legitimacy of its decisions.
Let it be noted that India is not only demanding the expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of the UNSC; New Delhi is also asking for restructuring the decision-making process in the Council, which includes abolition of the veto power. Unless done so, mere expansion of the membership will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it will lead to perpetuation of existing inequities.
There is some wind of reforms blowing from the P-5 countries as well. One hears the talk of embracing the concept of ‘voluntary restraint’. Prof. Jenifer Trahan discusses this concept in her book ‘Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes, Chapter 3 focuses on ‘Initiatives to Voluntarily Restraint Veto Use as to the Face of Atrocity Crimes’. There are six initiatives discussed in the chapter.
She addresses a legal issue here, i.e., whether P-5 countries can legally use the veto in the face of atrocity crimes – which has serious implications on conflicts, and on the lives of all those affected by the conflict. Crucially, she establishes the linkage between the exercise of the veto power and ‘continuing death tolls on the ground’, like it is happening now in Gaza, Ukraine and other ongoing conflicts.
Heeding the arguments and advice of Prof. Trahan, the world must do its utmost to ensure that UN charter’s voting provisions (veto) are never used that facilitates or enables the perpetration of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
The second much-talked about reform is the expanding the membership. The United States, UK and France are apparently open to expansion whereas China and Russia oppose it. The most potential candidate for permanent membership of the UNSC are India, Brazil, Japan and Germany which somewhat operate as G-4. This should happen sooner than later.
To sum up, the United Nations has not been effective in countering conflicts, preventing wars and restraining belligerence by many countries. But, without doubt, United Nations has done commendable and critical developmental as well as humanitarian work. As we scan the multiple development arms of the United Nations, their works across the globe deserve admiration of the international community. So, one is not writing the obituary of UN. On the contrary, if UN did not exist, we had to invent it. More power to United Nations as it resets its structures and functions. — INFA