THE currently used veto power– by the US Administration vis-à-vis the UN tabled resolution on the Gaza war ceasefire — has been globally criticized. By all means, this US action sets a very dangerous precedence as it halts a peaceful and humanitarian effort which intrinsically paralyses the entire edifice of the UNSC’s governance and justice system. A rarely used diplomatic tool–Article 99 found in Chapter XV of the UN Charter—albeit dormant for decades, justifiably allows the UN Secretary General to raise to the Security Council’s attention “any issue that may aggravate existing threats to the maintenance of international peace and security.” With this unilateral US action, the notion of UNSC reform has become an urgent global need.
Amid rising humanitarian crisis in Gaza and growing concerns that the ongoing Israel’s Gaza war could spread to nearby countries, the UN Chief António Guterres took the rare step to invoke a UN Charter provision (on 6 Dec) to press the Security Council to call for a humanitarian ceasefire of Israel-Hamas war. As for the Gaza humanitarian crisis, the United Nations says about 80% of the population has been displaced, facing shortage of food, fuel, water and medicine, along with the threat of disease.
“International humanitarian law includes the duty to protect civilians,” Guterres said. Historically, four times, (in Congo, 1960, in East Pakistan, 1971, in Iran, 1979 and in Lebanon in 1989), the successive UN Secretary Generals invoked article 99. Because of the misuse of the veto power, the effectiveness of Article 99 in influencing Security Council actions is crucially failed. Of the 5 permanent and 10 non-permanent UNSC members, barring the US and the UK, 13 votes were counted in favour of the Resolution. To succeed, a resolution technically needs at least nine votes in favour, albeit no vetoes by the UNSC’s P5 members—US, Russia, China, UK and France.
The US blanket cover for Israel’s war crimes in Gaza: According to the Washington Post, the United States drew criticism from rights and aids groups for blocking a UN Security Council draft resolution that called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, as well as the unconditional release of all hostages, on Friday. The resolution had near-unanimous support from member states. The State Department is selling $107 million of tank supplies to Israel and subverting congressional approval to do so. Washington defended its veto, and attacked the resolution’s sponsors, criticizing them for rushing it through and leaving the call for an unconditional ceasefire unchanged. According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW), the US risks “complicity in war crimes” by continuing to provide Israel with weapons and “diplomatic cover” as it commits “atrocities” in Gaza. Washington’s defence notion upholds no justice per se.
Legal imperialism via veto power: For many policy managers, the concept of veto power in the UN Charter—enshrined in the UN Charter by Winston Churchill— still seems an amorphous, undemocratic and inequitable notion. The proponents of this concept regard it as a promoter of international security and stability, and most profoundly discern it a critical safety valve against the domination of any superpower in global affairs. Whereas the opponents of this concept say that it is an instrument of powerful against the weak nations. Therefore, the UN is still unable to take any action against Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine. Over the years, the US has numerously used its veto power in Israel’s favour.
Arguably, the use of the veto power must be aligned to the norms of international law and human rights. King Martin Luther (jr) once said. ‘’injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’’. It is generally observed that the P5 can veto and neutralise any legislations that are agreed upon by most of the UN members. Here, the question arises, can the veto power be limited to protect the rule of law? To ensure justice and rule of law, the reform of the UNSC and the limitation of the veto power are the only viable alternatives.
The growing urge for UNSC reform: The voices are constantly echoing that the UN –established immediately after World War II–can no longer respond to today’s demands. Ii is alleged, that the P5 UNSC members have been exploiting this privilege for a long time. This urge for the UNSC reform has been intensified more exclusively after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move that has completely foiled the UN justice and peace system.
There is growing global backlash against US’ Israel policy. ‘’World leaders, international rights groups and United Nations officials have criticised the United States for vetoing a UN resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza and failing to halt the war that has killed more than 17,400 Palestinians and about 1,100 people in Israel since October 7.’’ A restraint doctrine urges that veto power must be substantially limited. Pragmatically arguing, least two permanent members should use the veto power to reject a draft resolution. That said, the UNSC reform must reject any geopolitical expediencies of the international establishment—terminating the fundamental rights of the Kashmiri and Palestinian communities.
On 17 November, UNGA concluded its annual debate on Security Council reform, with several Member States stressing that the unfair and outdated rules and processes from the last century are not relevant in today’s world. ‘’The growing use of the veto by some permanent members has paralysed the Council in recent years and undermined its credibility and that of the entire Organization,’’ stressed El Salvador’s speaker in the UNSC. It is suggested that the use of veto power must be suspended in war crimes. And in my candid view, inter-governmentalism—propelling the norms of multilateralism, not supranationalism promoting the tool of unilateralism –must be the UNSC pivot. Thanks to the waning UNSC system, the future of humanity is under great danger, and hence the urgency of the UNSC reform –for a just and peaceful world order.
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law. He deals with the strategic and nuclear issues.
Email: [email protected]
views expressed are writer’s own.
