David Cunningham
Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine has once again highlighted the massive flaw at the centre of the United Nations Security Council; the undemocratic veto power awarded to its five permanent Members.
On the 24th February Russia invaded Ukraine, an attack that has seen condemnation from the International Community, with scores of sanctions being brought against Russia in attempt to curb the conflict, crushing their economy. The Rouble has crashed in value, and Russia’s stock market is yet to open as of the writing of this article.
Yet on the 25th February the United Nations Security Council rejected a draft resolution that had called for an end to Russia’s attack on Ukraine after it was vetoed by Russia; a permanent Member of the U.N. Security Council.
In fact, the U.N. has been unable to enforce any real consequences against Russia; all of the aforementioned sanctions being made independent of the U.N. Indeed, it’s a certainty at this point that any draft resolution brought forward to the Security Council that targets Russia’s actions in Ukraine will be vetoed.
In this article I will explore the United Nations Security Council and the criticisms brought against its decision making system, specifically the ‘veto power’ awarded to it’s five permanent Members (also known as the Permanent Five), and the implications this has for the United Nations as a whole, specifically in reducing its decision making process to ‘Vetocracy’. I will then reflect on the opportunity to meet with professionals within the United Nations as part of my degree, to learn more about the function and working environment of this organisation.
What is ‘Vetocracy’?
‘Vetocracy’ describes a political system or government that cannot function, because no one party can gain enough power to make a decision. The term was coined by Francis Fukuyama to refer to the stifling political situation in the USA which leads to a lack of true cooperation between parties, instead being reduced to a ‘rule by veto’.
The League of Nations; The Original ‘Vetocracy’
Created after the First World War, The League of Nations was the antecedent to the United Nations, designed as an international organisation that would “promote international co-operation…to achieve international peace and security”.
The League operated by Unanimous Vote. Effectively, every Member Nation was given veto power over proposed resolutions. Both the the Council of the League of Nations, (comparable to the present-day United Nations Security Council), and the League’s Member Assembly were beholden to this rule.
Under this system, a single ’no’ vote could kill any resolution.
All Members Nations had equal voting rights in the League, however the veto power meant meaningful resolutions scarcely passed through the Assembly or the Council, especially in the latter years of the League. Thus, the League was unable to prevent actions such as Italy’s annexation of Ethiopia in 1936, or Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938, and ultimately failed to prevent the Second World War.
Formation of the United Nations Security Council
To avoid the ‘Vetocracy’ of the League, it was decided during the formation of the United Nations, that decisions presented to the General Assembly would instead be made by ‘majority vote’, as outlined in Article 18 of the United Nations Charter.
One of the six major organs outlined in the United Nations Charter, The United Nations Security Council is tasked with maintaining peace and security. With voluntary membership separate from the General Assembly, the Security Council is comprised of five permanent Members: The United Kingdom, The United States, France, The People’s Republic of China (originally the Republic of China), and the Russian Federation (originally the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and ten ‘temporary’ Members who are elected every two years.
The U.N. Security Council is given the power to launch investigations into a crisis/issue, appoint envoys, and dispatch special missions to engage in diplomacy. In severe cases, the Security Council can enforce economic sanctions, blockades, travel bans, and even ‘collective military action’, however it should always aim to solve crisis via peaceful means first.
The Permanent Five
Similar to the General Assembly, The U.N. Security Council also operates by majority vote, however the power to veto any resolution was bestowed upon the Permanent Five. Without the consensus of all five permanent Members (Great Power Unanimity), no resolution can be passed through the Security Council.
The rationale behind this decision was to protect the national interests and sovereignty of the five permanent Members, who at the time of the United Nations founding, were the victorious powers of the Second World War (with the exception of the Republic of China).
In reality, the Permanent Five often use their veto power to protect their own national interests, defend their own foreign policy decisions, and promote their own national issues, giving them a disproportionate focus in the Security Council.
The first veto was cast in 1946 by what was then the USSR. Since then, Russia/USSR has vetoed a total of 120 resolutions, followed by the United States with 82, United Kingdom with 29, China (both ROC/PRC Combined) with 16, and finally France with 16.
Oftentimes, draft resolutions aren’t event brought forward to the Security Council, due to the likelihood of a veto from one of the Permanent Five. Draft resolutions are usually brought forward only when their is a reasonable chance that said resolution will be adopted, though resolutions doomed to fail have been proposed in the past as a form of protest, or to highlight the issues in the resolution, such as the recent resolution on ending the Ukraine Crisis.
The Permanent Five coincidently are the only five nations officially recognised as ‘Nuclear Weapons States’ in accordance with the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (though it should be noted other nations are known to possess nuclear weapons, and are not signatories of this treaty.) The Permanent Five also routinely rank in the top ten nations with the highest military expenditure.
Reforming the United Nations Security Council
The U.N. Security Council has seen little change since its inception in 1945. Not even the charter itself has been amended to reflect the fall of the Soviet Union or the replacement of the Republic of China (ROC) with the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The United Nations Charter ostensibly puts great emphasis on the equality of all participating states, yet in the case of the Security Council, has elevated five above all others to decide which security resolutions are important, and which they are immune from.
There have been numerous calls for a reformation of the U.N. Security Council and its voting structure, though without any real power to challenge or override a veto by a permanent Member, no real progress has been made. Such a reformation would require the Permanent Five to willingly give up their positions of privilege within the Security Council. Proposals to abolish veto power completely have been labeled ‘radical’ and met with skepticism, and such proposals would be challenging to implement.
Many nations have instead proposed expanding the number of permanent Members with veto power. Brazil, India, Japan, and Germany have formed the ‘G4’; a group of nations advocating for permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council, as well as the addition of 6 temporary seats to bring the total number of Members to 25.
This proposal risks further compounding the issues of ‘vetocracy’, the same issues that plagued the decision making capability of the League of Nations; an additional 4 permanent Members means an additional 4 opportunities to veto any resolution put forward. The G4 nations have agreed to forego their ‘veto power’ for 15 years, which would negate this issue for the short term, though this is obviously only a temporary fix. This proposed expansion of permanent Members also still lacks representation from Africa and the Middle East. It should also be noted that additional permanent Members would diminish the power of the current five permanent Members, which presents yet another obstacle in passing such a resolution.
France has proposed a ‘voluntary restraint mechanism’, which would see the Permanent Five voluntarily abdicate the use of their veto power in cases of ‘genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes on a large scale’. Currently only the United Kingdom has backed this proposal. It remains to be seen how binding an agreement like this would be. It would require nations to agree on what constitutes a genocide/war crime, which could be leveraged as an excuse to use the veto.
Any major changes to the U.N. Security Council would ultimately require amending the U.N. Charter. There is a precedent for this: Article 23 was amended in 1965 to expand the Security Council from 11 to 15 Members, and accordingly Article 27 was amended to increase the amount of votes necessary to pass a resolution from 7 to 9. The last amendment to the Charter was made in 1973.
The current system of the U.N. Security Council reflects a power structure that hasn’t existed since the end of the Second World War. If the United Nations Security Council is to meet its goal of maintaining peace and security, this dynamic will have to change. The Permanent Five Members have remained unchanged since 1945. The geopolitical landscape over last 77 years has not. The current permanent Members are not representative of today’s world, and given their extraordinary power over the decisions and resolutions of the Security Council, it is time proposals for its reformation were considered.
Reflection on Study Trip Opportunity
The criticisms in this article should not detract from the successes of the United Nations. Even the League of Nations, though it ultimately failed to prevent the Second World War, had its successes in its earlier years, and proved that Supranational Organisations of that scale could work in principle.
The United Nations is an invaluable resource for championing peace and security, which is why it is critical that the failures identified with the Security Council are addressed.
In my current job role, I have had the opportunity to help deliver international trade missions for local Scottish businesses to nations around the world. Indeed, these experiences are what sparked my interest in international relations, as I witnessed first hand the positive impact even our relatively small missions could have; fostering international relations across the local community and beyond.
Ultimately, I would like to build upon my experiences working internationally with different organisations and connecting global business communities, and explore ways to make meaningful connections between wider international communities.
The opportunity to speak with, and learn from, professionals within an organisation like the United Nations would be invaluable in developing the next steps in my career. Specifically in exploring the paths those working with the U.N. had taken, and what experiences they found valuable. Although we often hear of the well publicised developments within the United Nations, learning about the intricacies of the U.N., it’s different programs, and what occurs on a daily basis for its employees would provide a unique insight into the realities of working within such a supranational organisation, which could further inform the choices I make in my career going forward.