IN the wake of the catastrophic Second World War, the United Nations (UN) emerged as a beacon of hope with a noble aspiration: to prevent such a devastating conflict from ever recurring.
Established in 1945, the UN's primary objectives, as outlined in its Charter, were to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation in solving global problems, and be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations.
Over the decades, this intergovernmental organisation has expanded its scope to include humanitarian aid, environmental protection, and the promotion of human rights.
Despite its lofty ideals and significant achievements, the UN, particularly its Security Council, faces criticism for being outdated and unrepresentative of the current geopolitical landscape.
The Security Council, responsible for maintaining international peace and security, is comprised of fifteen members, five of whom – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China – are permanent and possess veto power.
This veto power allows any of these countries to unilaterally block any resolution, regardless of its international support.
The use of, or the threat of, a veto by these permanent members has repeatedly stymied the Council’s ability to address various global crises effectively.
Critics argue that this veto power is fundamentally undemocratic, as it grants disproportionate influence to five nations over the rest, often hindering the collective will of the international community.
- COP26 a washout? Don’t lose hope – here’s why
- Under fire Mnangagwa resorts to Mugabe tactics
- How will energy crunch transition impact transition to renewables?
- COP26 a washout? Don’t lose hope – here’s why
Keep Reading
Furthermore, it fails to reflect the current geopolitical realities where emerging powers and regions, like the African continent, seek a more significant role and representation.
This article argues for the urgent need to reform the United Nations, focusing primarily on the undemocratic nature of the Security Council's veto power.
It will examine the implications of this power, its impact on global governance, and suggest pathways for a more inclusive and representative UN system, arguing that only through such reforms can the UN truly fulfill its original and enduring promise of maintaining global peace and fostering international cooperation.
Historical context of the United Nations
The foundation of the United Nations in 1945 was a seminal moment in global history, marked by the aspiration to forge a peaceful, cooperative international order from the ashes of the Second World War.
The UN's creation was an answer to the failures of the League of Nations, which had been incapable of preventing the outbreak of the war.
Representatives from 50 countries met at the United Nations Conference on International Organisation in San Francisco to draw up the UN Charter, a cornerstone document that laid out the organisation's objectives and principles. The Charter emphasised peacekeeping, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, and providing a platform for dialogue among its member states.
The original goals of the UN were shaped by the global context of the post-World War II era. The devastation wrought by the war had highlighted the need for a robust system to prevent international conflicts, promote collective security, and ensure that the horrors of such a global conflict would not be repeated.
The UN was designed to be a forum where nations could resolve their differences through dialogue and negotiation rather than warfare.
In the years following its establishment, the UN's role evolved with the changing dynamics of international relations.
During the Cold War, the organisation often found itself at the centre of geopolitical tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Despite these challenges, the UN played a crucial role in various areas, including decolonisation, peacekeeping missions, and advocating for human rights.
The end of the Cold War brought new challenges and opportunities for the UN. The organisation expanded its efforts in peacekeeping and conflict resolution, dealing with an increasing number of intrastate conflicts and humanitarian crises.
It also began to play a more significant role in promoting sustainable development and addressing global issues such as climate change and pandemics.
The UN’s agencies, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef), and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco), have made substantial contributions in their respective fields.
However, as the 21st century progressed, it became increasingly clear that the UN's structure, largely unchanged since its inception, was struggling to keep pace with the evolving geopolitical landscape.
New economic and political powers emerged, demanding a more prominent role in international governance. This historical backdrop sets the stage for the current discourse on UN reform, particularly the need to address the outdated power dynamics within the Security Council.
Analysis of the UN Charter
The United Nations Charter, signed on June 26, 1945, and entered into force on October 24, 1945, serves as the foundational treaty of the United Nations, an international organisation dedicated to maintaining global peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, and promoting social progress, better living standards, and human rights.
The Charter, with its 111 articles, codifies the major principles of international relations from sovereign equality of states to the prohibition of the use of force in international conflicts.
Key provisions of the UN Charter
The Charter established six principal organs of the UN: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Of these, the General Assembly and the Security Council are the most prominent.
The General Assembly, a democratic forum, allows each member state one vote. In contrast, the Security Council is responsible for international peace and security, with more substantial powers, including the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the imposition of sanctions, and the authorisation of military action.
Role, powers of the Security Council
The Security Council consists of 15 members, five of which are permanent: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.
These permanent members were the primary victorious powers of World War II and have been granted the significant power of the veto. The remaining ten members are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, with consideration given to equitable geographical representation.
Veto power of the five permanent members
The veto power, as outlined in Article 27 of the UN Charter, means that all substantive resolutions of the Security Council must be approved by at least nine of the 15 members, including all permanent members.
Essentially, this gives each permanent member the power to block any substantive resolution, including those on the intervention in conflicts, imposition of sanctions, and the authorisation of military action.
The impact of the veto power on decision-making within the UN has been profound and often controversial. It has been argued that this power gives disproportionate influence to the five permanent members at the expense of the wider international community.
This has led to situations where resolutions that have broad international support are vetoed, often for reasons more related to the national interests of the vetoing power than the common good. Examples include vetoes on interventions in Syria, resolutions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and actions concerning the behaviour of specific countries such as North Korea or Iran.
The use of the veto has been criticised for paralysing the Security Council's ability to act effectively. This is particularly evident in situations of mass atrocities or human rights violations where urgent action is needed.
Critics argue that the veto power is outdated, reflecting the post-World War II power structure, which is no longer representative of contemporary global realities.
In conclusion, while the UN Charter laid a solid foundation for international cooperation and conflict resolution, the structure and powers of the Security Council, particularly the veto power of its permanent members, have led to significant challenges in the organisation's decision-making processes.
This calls into question the democratic nature and efficacy of the Council and fuels the argument for reform.
The veto power
The veto power in the United Nations Security Council, granted exclusively to the five permanent members (P5) - the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China — is one of the most contentious elements of the UN system.
This power enables any one of these countries to prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution, regardless of the level of international support for it.
This system, established in the UN Charter to ensure the involvement of major powers in global peace and security decisions, has become a point of significant criticism due to its perceived undemocratic nature and failure to reflect the current international dynamics.
Examination of the veto system
The veto system was originally intended to avoid the mistakes of the League of Nations, ensuring that the major powers remained engaged in the UN and its decisions.
It was thought that their involvement was crucial for the effectiveness of any action taken by the Security Council. However, over time, this system has often been used by the P5 to protect their own national interests or those of their allies, rather than to safeguard global peace and security.
This use of the veto can be seen as a form of power politics reminiscent of the Cold War era rather than a mechanism of contemporary international cooperation.
Case studies
Syria conflict: Perhaps one of the most glaring examples of the use of the veto power is in the case of the Syrian civil war. Since the conflict began in 2011, Russia, backed occasionally by China, has used its veto power numerous times to block resolutions that would have imposed sanctions on the Syrian government, referred the situation to the International Criminal Court, or condemned the government’s actions.
Israel-Palestine conflict: The United States has frequently used its veto power to block resolutions condemning Israel's actions in Palestinian territories, including settlements and military operations.
This use of the veto has been criticised for hindering the peace process and preventing the resolution of a long-standing conflict.
Since October 7, 2023, the United Nations (UN) has faced significant criticism for its handling of the crisis in Gaza. Despite its foundational principles of promoting peace and security, the UN has struggled to effectively address the escalating conflict and humanitarian issues in the region.
The UN's inefficiency in Gaza primarily stems from its inability to foster meaningful dialogue between conflicting parties. The long-standing issues in Gaza require a nuanced approach, considering the complexities of regional politics, historical grievances, and socio-economic factors.
However, the UN's efforts have often been stymied by bureaucratic inertia and the veto power of permanent Security Council members, which has led to a deadlock in decisive actions. Furthermore, the UN's humanitarian efforts in Gaza have been inadequate.
The residents of Gaza continue to face severe shortages of essential resources like food, clean water, and medical supplies. Although the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has been active, its efforts have been hampered by funding shortages and political constraints, leading to a situation where basic human rights and needs are not adequately met.
Moreover, the UN's failure to effectively monitor and report human rights violations in Gaza has been a significant shortfall. Reports of disproportionate use of force and civilian casualties have not been adequately addressed, undermining the UN's role as a guardian of international human rights.
Rwanda Genocide (1994): In the case of the Rwandan Genocide, the use of veto power, or the threat thereof, by some permanent members resulted in the UN’s failure to take decisive action to prevent or stop the genocide. This has been cited as a tragic example of the veto power’s potential to hinder necessary intervention in mass atrocity situations.
Criticism of the Veto Power
The main criticism of the veto power is that it is fundamentally undemocratic. It gives disproportionate power to five countries, effectively allowing them to override the will of the international community, as represented by the majority of the Security Council or the General Assembly.
This situation is seen as increasingly anachronistic in a world where power has become more diffuse and where other countries and regions seek a greater role in international decision-making.
Moreover, the veto power is criticised for its failure to represent contemporary global realities. The current permanent members were chosen based on their status in 1945.
Since then, the world has witnessed the rise of new powers, especially in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and a significant shift in the global economic and political landscape. The veto power does not account for these changes, leading to an imbalance in global governance.
The veto power in its current form is seen as a major impediment to effective and democratic global governance. It has often been used to protect national interests rather than to support the greater good of international peace and security. This has led to calls for reform, with proposals including the expansion of the Security Council to include new permanent members without veto power, or the limitation or abolition of the veto in cases of mass atrocities. Such reforms are seen as necessary for the UN to remain relevant and effective in addressing the challenges of the 21st century.
Mavengere has a Bachelor of Pharmacy from James Cook University (2014) and a Doctor of Podiatric Medicine from the University of Western Australia (2018). Currently, he is a lecturer in School of Pharmacy at the University of Western Australia.
