Evaluating the United Nations Security Council Veto in the Twenty-First Century
1. Introduction
Human beings are by nature, social animals. They band and associate with another sometimes for altruistic reasons, and sometimes for purely selfish motivations. For all our differences, human beings are weaved by one common feature the will to survive. Hence, all human efforts have been directed at enhancing our capacity to survive. As a result, human beings look for and are in pursuit of conditions where war would not threaten their survival. Individually as citizens or collectively as a body of nations, peoples of the world have concentrated on how to maintain international peace and security. Out of these efforts, the creation of international organizations established to prevent war emerged.
The tragedy of the First World War led to creation of the League of Nations which was formed for the purpose of preventing another full-scale war among states. When the League apparently failed to fulfill its mission when the Second World War broke, the quest to maintain international peace and security persisted and gave birth to a new international body of nations governed by democratic principles the United Nations (UN). The UN Charter was signed on June 26, 1945 in the city of San Francisco. The Charter was fashioned precisely to correct what were perceived as the limitations of the Covenant in the League, and while the fundamental principles of the League were not entirely disparate to that of the UN, the new body committed itself not only to prevent aggression by states but also to respond collectively should the threat of an aggression exist that could destabilize international peace and security.
The UN was founded as a voluntary organization of peace-loving states based on the principle of sovereign equality of large and small states for the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN consists of six organs the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the General Assembly (GA), the Economic and Social Council (EC), the Trusteeship Council (TC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the Secretariat. The Security Council was tasked to be responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Under the umbrella of this international institution, the Charter provides that member states maintain their sovereignty and are legally equal.
The UNSC is one among six organs of the United Nations. The Charter provides that the major functions of the UNSC are to deliver (a) pacific settlement of disputes and (b) the enforcement of actions in the event of threats to international peace, breaches of peace treaties, and acts of violence or aggression by state actors. To promote international collective security, the UNSC is empowered with the following a) to investigate situations that threaten international peace b) to recommend procedures leading to peaceful resolution of disputes c) call upon member nations to partially or completely disrupt economic and diplomatic relations d) enforce military action when necessary to keep the peace and e) promote ways to avoid conflict and maintain cooperation.
Fifteen Member seats are offered on the UNSC, five of which are occupied by Permanent Members (hereafter P5) while the other ten occupied by Non-Permanent Members (hereafter NP10). The P5 are the five Great Powers that emerged victorious after the Second World War the Peoples Republic of China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK), and the United States of America (USA). The NP10 are elected by the General Assembly every two years and are not eligible for immediate re-election.
The 15-member UNSC can metaphorically be considered as the worlds Justice League because of its role as an international institution tasked to maintain diplomacy, peace, and security. According to Article 24 of the UN Charter, the Security Council has been delegated by the members of the General Assembly with the primary role of maintaining international peace and security. Essentially, the UNSC is unique because it is empowered not only to establish peacekeeping efforts and international sanctions on nations that violate international laws, it is also authorized by the UN Charter to implement military action directed against a sovereign state. These executive powers undoubtedly make the UNSC the most important organ of the United Nations.
Aside from being the most powerful organ, the UNSC is also the most controversial. Membership in the UNSC is divided into two camps five Permanent Members (hereafter P5) composed of the so-called Great Powers Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, and the United States - and ten Non-Permanent members elected every two years by the General Assembly. Being a body created by the Great Powers, the rules that govern the UNSC were also decided by them. The establishment of the UN and the UNSC is said to have come with an insurance that guaranteed the Great Powers continuing influence in the international arena the veto. The veto is a privilege practiced by the P5 nations that would defeat a resolution despite nine members of the UNSC voting towards its adoption.
Since its inception, the veto has been met with criticism. During the Cold War era, the veto became synonymous to Soviet foreign policy and a reflection of the bipolar world order of that era. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the switch to a unipolar order with the United States as the lone Superpower, the veto has been overwhelmingly used by the US to the extent that critics of the UNSC have equated its decisions as embodiment of US military might. An evaluation of the use of the veto in the twenty-first century must necessarily concentrate on the US.
Despite the growing membership of the UN since 1945, the assignment of permanent seats in the UNSC and the extension of the veto privilege have not changed. To this day, the unchanged voting procedure in the UNSC has been a core issue pertaining reforms in the UN. The veto right granted only to the P5 nations has been accused as anachronistic, undemocratic, and not reflective of the existing geopolitical conditions of the twenty-first century. On the other hand, defenders of the veto insist that this privilege is crucial in maintaining the principle of sovereign equality and the maintenance of international peace and security.
Fast forward to the twenty-first century, the controversy over the veto persists. Criticisms and calls for the elimination or modification of the veto mounted with the failure of the UNSC to prevent the US from unilaterally going to war against Iraq. Some political scientists cite the Iraq crisis as proof that the veto creates a double standard in that it cannot prevent a superpower from launching a full-scale war of aggression absent the backing of the international community. The US and Spain co-authored a resolution that would have sanctioned a war against Iraq. When Russia and France threatened to use the veto to defeat the resolution, the US chose to go to war without the blessing of the UNSC, in violation of the Charter. This prompted critics such as Malaysias Deputy Foreign Minister Hasmy Agam to state that, No country, however powerful, should arbitrarily stand in the path of collective needs as determined by the general membership of the UN.
To what extent has the veto privilege adhered to the democratic principles upon which the UN was founded This is the central question guiding this research paper. The research attempted to answer this question by evaluating how the US exercise of the veto conforms to or contradicts the normative assumptions on equality upon which the UN itself was founded. To this end, the literature review devoted to providing an overview of the structure, function, and voting procedure of the UNSC as well as identifying the fundamental democratic principles and assumptions that served as the basis of the foundation of the UN in 1945. This was followed by a review of veto practice during the twenty-first century and an assessment of how it reflects or violates these principles.
Research Questions
This study intended to evaluate how the veto, particularly that wielded by the United States, adheres to or violates the democratic principles enshrined in the UN Charter in the twenty-first century. This paper was guided by the following research questions
Is the practice of the veto in the UNSC from 2000 until present consistent with the United Nations principle of sovereign equality of nations
Should the veto be eliminated, limited, or modified
Research Objectives
In line with the problems stated, the study proceeded with the following objectives in mind
Define the democratic principles that govern the UNSC.
Enumerate the instances where veto power was exhibited by the US within the time frame 2000-2010.
Assess whether the veto power upholds or contradicts the principle of sovereign equality of nations.
Make recommendations as to the future and direction of the veto and the voting procedure of the UNSC can better contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security.
2. Literature Survey
To better conduct an evaluation of whether or not the veto has been used in conformity with democratic principles in the UNSC during the twenty-first century, a review was undertaken to discuss (a) the founding democratic principles which serve as its basis and (b) extant literature that have assessed the fairness of the UNSC veto.
The Founding Principles of the UN Security Council
The promotion and maintenance of international peace and security are founded on certain democratic principles. When the five Great Powers created the UN, they did so with the solemn vow that,
the peoples of the United Nations are determined ... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
In Article 2 of the Charter, it was affirmed that The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Simply put, the creation of the UN was premised on the aspiration that each country, large and small, would be treated equally. Whether this promise has translated into actual practice has been the subject of enormous debate. It has been suggested that power politics define and pollute the concept of the principle of sovereign equality in the UN. As the UN is essentially the brainchild and creation of the Great Powers, they decide on the rules of the game, and everyone must follow. At the heart of the equality debate is the very contentious issue of the right to veto afforded only to the P5 nations.
Voting in the UNSC adheres to concept of the Great Power unanimity. To adopt a resolution, Article 27 of the UN Charter provides that the passage of a resolution requires nine votes in favor out of fifteen possible votes of the UNSC. However, these nine votes require the concurring votes of the permanent members. Thus, a veto occurs whenever the Council fails to approve a resolution because of a negative vote cast by one or more of the P5 members despite nine or more members of the Council voting in favor of its adoption. The veto is a crucial advantage wielded by the P5 nations over the non-permanent members of the UNSC elected by the General Assembly. Any P5 nation may veto any draft resolution proposed in the UNSC with no explanations needed. The only check against the veto is when all the non-permanent members of the UNSC vote unanimously in favor of the resolution. However, this scenario is considered as practically impossible because P5 nations use the divide-and-rule logic to break unanimity among the non-permanent bloc.
Veto and the principle of sovereign equality
Many books and policy papers have been written to evaluate the veto power of the UNSC. This paper differs from existing literature in scope, emphasis and theoretical model. Most of the literature pertaining to the veto is usually coupled with an analysis of the UNSCs membership and representation while this study only analyzed actual veto behavior of the P5 nations. Most of the studies that have assessed the use of the veto have also done so from a constitutional perspective. This study analyzed the vetos conformity using a model based on the established democratic principles provided for in the UN Charter. Studies on voting behavior among P5 countries have also been conducted to evaluate veto use in different periods since 1946. This paper focuses on the use of the veto for the year 2000 until 2010.
Existing literature helped in providing a direction for this paper. Assessing the veto necessarily takes into consideration power politics. According to Hans Kochler, President of the International Progress Organization, the veto privilege invalidates the normative democratic processes because it perpetrates the hegemonial power of the P5 members, particular the United States. In his policy paper, Kochler asserts that the veto principle is main contributor to the crisis of legitimacy suffered by the UN because it creates an imbalance of power relations. Kochler analyzed significant case studies and documents of the UN to prove his hypotheses and concluded that the imbalance of power existing is aggravated today because it encourages unilateral action by the lone superpower in the world.
Opinions of diplomats and UN prominent officials have largely focused on the need for reform on the basis that the veto was no longer reflective of modern-day geopolitical realities. Calls to eliminate the veto privilege was heralded by then Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali who expressed in his book An Agenda for Peace, Was it not time to restructure the Security Councils composition and revise its anachronistic procedures so that matters of right would take precedence over matters of might Concern was also expressed by the Former Secretary General Kofi Annan because the veto power has been used to pursue national interests instead of global human cooperative security
What has been most worrying, in my view, has been the inability of States to reconcile national interests when skilful and visionary diplomacy would make unity possible. National interest is a permanent feature of international relations and of the life and work of the Security Council. But as the world has changed in profound ways since the end of the cold war, I believe our conceptions of national interest have failed to follow suit, and it must change (Annan, 1999).
Since the P5 nations are the only members who wield the veto, the application of the principles enshrined in the Charter were meant to safeguard the common interests only of the industrialized world, and not the nations belonging to the middle or small power strata. Failure to adopt collective security measures are blamed on why until now Israel cannot be compelled to abide by the peace resolutions that had been lodged against it by the UNSC its illegal occupation and annexation of Arab territories. The selectiveness of the application of the Charter, as in the case of Israel, has been perpetuated because of the veto the US has consistently utilized in its defense. Conversely, Defenders of the veto insist that while the practice may appear undemocratic, the power inequalities manifested in the UNSC have held the UN together and contributed to its legitimacy. Moreover, the fact that a third World War has not come to pass is evidence that the power politics present in the UNSC have led to the materialization of its goals.
Policy analysts Jan Wouters and Tom Ruys did a documentary analysis on the concept and nature of veto power of the UNSC. They also presented and reviewed several controversial uses of the veto privilege by powerful States. The study found that the veto was obsolete in a sense that no longer reflected existing modern geopolitical realities. Further, it also concluded that the veto was used and abused in order to ensure that the UN was maintained as an organization where the most powerful control the agenda. The study also found that the most undemocratic use of the veto resided in the fact that permanent members invoke it to shield their Allies from international condemnation or sanction.
Based on these conflicting assessments of the UNSC veto privilege, the study wanted to evaluated whether or not the use of the veto in the UNSC promotes democratic principles enshrined in the UN Charter.
3. Testable Hypotheses
Description of Research Areas
In order to evaluate how the use of the veto privilege reflects or violates genuine democratic principles of the UN Charter, the study focused on the following research areas
Frequency of veto use in the UNSC from 2000-2010.
Circumstances and explanations made in relation to the use of the veto.
Evaluation of whether or not the use of the veto during the 21st century valued the principle of sovereign equality by promoting (a) balance of powers (b) respect for world public opinion and (c) collective security aspirations.
Testable Claims
The independent variable (IV) for this study is the exercise of the veto privilege. The dependent variable (DV) under consideration is the principle of sovereign equality measured in terms of how the veto is used to promotes three factors (a) balance of powers (b) respect for world public opinion and (c) emphasis on collective security aims.
In this study, the first factor, balance of power, was observed by evaluating the veto behavior of the P5 nations in the UNSC during the twenty-first century, from 2000 until 2010. The veto being a power tool would indicate the distribution of power in the UNSC. The second factor, world public opinion, was measured using an analysis of the degree to which the veto contradicted the positions of other members of the UNSC as well as the degree to which it coincided with the General Assembly on similar agenda. The third factor, collective security, was measured by analyzing the motives of the veto, as gleaned from the transcripts and press releases of the outcome of the voting of the vetoed resolution.
Hypotheses
The study posited that the veto privilege afforded to permanent members of the UNSC, particularly, the United States of America, is used to circumvent the principle of sovereign equality.
An alternative hypothesis was also posed that
The veto privilege in the UNSC does not violate the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter.
4. Findings and Analysis
This paper wanted to evaluate whether or not the veto right in the UNSC adheres to the democratic principles provided in the UN Charter. In order to test how the veto power in the UNSC upholds or violates the democratic principles which provide basis for the founding of the international community, the study used statistical data taken from the United Nations website. This data was analyzed in order to measure the use of the veto among the P5 members, particularly the United States, in the UNSC.
Earlier, this study hypothesized that the use of the veto privilege by the United States contradicts the principles of sovereign equality because it fails to (a) encourage a balance of power among nations (b) uphold and respect world opinion and (c) promote collective security interests. To test this hypothesis, the veto powers actual usage was measured and analyzed using data taken from the United Nations Documentation site. This data was triangulated with historical information from press releases and the full text of vetoed resolutions from 2000 to 2010.
US overpowers decision-making process in the UNSC
A tabulation of the usage of the veto power among the P5 members of the UNSC reveals that the United States has been the greatest user of the veto privilege during the twenty-first century. Besides China and Russia, which have used their vetoes sparingly, the US is noticeably the only P5 member that has been able to dominate the decision-making processes of the UNSC through its vetoing privilege. A graphical representation is presented in Figure 1 to illustrate this assertion.
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the United States has exercised its veto privilege ten times twice every year in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Russia used its veto in 2004 and vetoed alongside China in 2007 and 2009. Although the frequency of veto usage has declined comparatively to the post-Cold War years, the dominance of the US in the exercise of the veto reflects its status as the lone superpower.
Figure 1. Veto Use of P5 Members in the UN Security Council 2000-2010
Source United Nations Documentation, 1995-2010
While the frequency of veto usage of the US itself may not be significantly large, the fact that it claims 62 percent of the total veto application from 2000 to 2010 suggests that it is the only Great Power which has used its veto to negate majority opinion in the UNSC to defeat security resolutions related to peace-building and international security. During a 10-year period, neither the UK nor France used its veto privilege. Both countries have stopped exercising the veto since 1989. The distribution of vetoes for this period remains US 10, China 2, and Russia 4. This places the distribution of veto usage in the twenty-first century at US 62 percent, China - 13 percent, Russia 25 percent.
Russias first veto in the 21st century was used in 2004 to reject a draft resolution concerning the situation in Cyprus (Res. 209). The resolution called for the approval of UN mandate to legitimize a new UN operation in the country and start an arms embargo. In its post-vote statement, the Russian representative argued that no resolution directed at a new UN mandate should wait until the result of the Cyprus referendum in 2004 was final.
In 2007, both China and Russia vetoed the draft resolution presented by the US and the UK concerning the situation in Myanmar (Res. 213). The resolution intended to call for the cessation of military attacks launched by the government against civilians and the initiation of a political dialogue that would lead to the countrys democratic transition. China claimed that the regional group Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should maintain the leading role in any such effort.
Figure 2. Comparative Veto Use of the P5 Members in the UNSC
EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 s
The US used its veto privilege overwhelmingly on the issue of the Middle East and with respect to the Palestine question. Nine out of its ten vetoes from 2000 to 2010 had been to thwart draft resolutions seeking to address the continuing atrocities of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The only outlier veto was in 2002 concerning the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Res. 712). The veto defeated what would have been a renewal of UN peacekeeping mission deployed in Bosnia and the proposal to provide immunity for UN peacekeepers from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In 2001, the US struck down a resolution that called for Israel forces to withdraw from territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority (Res. 1199). It similarly used its veto privilege to reject a draft resolution that would have established a UN observer force to give protection to Palestinian civilians affected by the conflict. In 2002, the US invoked its veto to defeat a draft resolution condemning Israels acts that led to the killing of several UN personnel and the destruction of the warehouse of the World Food Programme in Palestine (Res. 1385). In 2003, the US vetoed a resolution that questioned Israels proposal to remove Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (Res. 891). In another resolution that called for Israel to stop building a security wall in the West Bank, the US used its veto privilege (Res. 980). In 2004, the US invoked its veto right to defeat a resolution that called for Israel to halt all its military operations in the northern Gaza area and to withdraw its forces deployed in the area (Res. 783). In another resolution (Res. 240), the US vetoed a draft resolution that condemned the murder of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin. In 2006, the US vetoed a resolution that demanded the unconditional release of an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians, the release of Palestinian officials detained by Israel, and the immediate withdrawal of Israel from northern Gaza (Res. 508). In another resolution (Res. 878), the US used its veto to defeat what would have been official condemnation of the Israeli military operations in Gaza, the Israeli forces immediate withdrawal from the region, and the cessation of hostilities from both sides of the conflict.
US veto ignored world opinion
The US veto violates democratic principles of equality because important resolutions were unilaterally rejected by the US despite overwhelming support for passage from other permanent and non-permanent UNSC members. An analysis of the actual votes divided into yes abstentionvetoed is undertaken to determine how the veto prevails over popular sentiment from other members of the UNSC (Table 2).
Table 2.
Voting Percentages on Resolutions Vetoed by the United States from 2000-2010
YearResolution No.YesAbstainVeton ()n ()n ()2001119912 (80)2 (13)1 (7)2709 (60)4 (27)1 (7)200271213 (87)1 (7)1 (7)138512 (80)2 (13)1 (7) 200389111 (73)3 (21)1 (7)98010 (67)4 (27)1 (7)200478311 (73)3 (21)1 (7)24011 (73)3 (21)1 (7)200650810 (67)4 (27)1 (7)87810 (67)4 (27)1 (7)
From 2001 to 2006, the US used all 10 vetoes to contradict world opinion and popular sentiment even from among the other P5 members. In 2001, the US used its veto despite 80 of the UNSC supporting the passage of Resolution 1199. In 2002, the US overrode the sentiment of 13 (87) members in enforcing Resolution 712. In all instances that the US has vetoed to defeat resolutions concerning the Palestinian question, permanent and non-permanent members of the UNSC, with the exception of the UK which has constantly abstained on every single proposal, voted with a great majority. However, because of the US veto, the draft resolutions were struck down.
Even among the P5 clique in the UNSC, other members diverged with the US position on the Palestine question. Since 2003, France voted alongside China and Russia opposite the US vote, while the UK noticeably abstained on every resolution tabled in relation to the Middle East and the Palestine question that was vetoed by the US.
US veto does not promote collective security interests
To evaluate the motive and interests behind the veto of the United States, an analysis of the subjects vetoed on and the US explanation for such veto was undertaken. Results suggest that the veto power has been used by the US to advance its national interests and those of its allies in place of collective security interests. To evaluate this claim, graphical summaries, press releases, and full text of vetoed draft resolutions were summarized and interpreted.
The US has noticeably used its veto to influence the Middle East Peace Process. It has used its veto power on 100 percent of all Middle East resolutions while the other P5 members Russia, France, and China consistently opposing its position. UK consistently abstained from voting. Russia and China have declined to use their veto because of concerns that the veto should not be used in interfering with the internal affairs of States and that the role of the Security Council should not be expanded. This study intended to explore patterns in the veto behavior of the United States by evaluating its explanations behind vetoed resolutions. All the vetoed resolutions made by the US were identified in order to uncover motives, inclinations, and principles invoked. The most salient observation that could be made in relation to the veto behavior of the United States is its insistent and consistent defense of a political ally, Israel, using a policy of political protectionism.. In defending its use of the veto, the US consistently invoked democratic principles such as balance, even-handedness, and due process.
Case 1 Res. 270 (March 27, 2001)
If passed, this draft resolution would have called for the immediate cessation of hostilities from both Israel and Palestine, and the return to the arrangements and positions before September 2000. The resolution also called for Israel and Palestine to resume negotiations under the Middle East Peace Process. Moreover, it expressed grave concern over the expansion of settlements and called for stoppage of all closure activities of Palestine territories. To ensure the protection and safety of Palestinian civilians caught in the crossfire, the resolution wanted to establish a UN observer force. Highlighting its veto, the US argued that the language in the draft resolution isolates politically one of the parties to the conflict, through an attempt to throw the weight of the Council behind the other party. The US wanted all acts of terror lodged against Israel mentioned and the parties responsible for such atrocities named in the draft, notably Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Case 2 Res. 1199 (December 14, 2001)
This resolution demanded for an immediate cessation of hostilities, provocation, and acts of violence on both parties and an immediate return to the positions agreed upon before September 2000. The resolution condemned all acts of terror committed and extrajudicial executions committed by both parties, particularly those that have claimed the lives of innocent civilians. After it used its veto privilege to defeat the resolution, the US explained that the calls issued in the resolution had a non-realistic approach by ignoring the basic need to have the agreement of both parties. It also accused the resolution of being unbalanced and unwise and pointed out that the Palestinian Authority had not expressly condemned terrorism and all acts of violence in the Arabic language.
Case 3 Res. 1385 (December 12, 2002)
The resolution was a response to the killing of several UN employees by Israeli occupying forces. It condemned the recent killing of an international staff member stationed in the Jenin refugee camp. It also condemned how Israeli occupying forces deliberately destroyed a warehouse of the UN World Food Programme in Beit Lahiya. The US considered the draft unbalanced and biased against Israel. The US opined that the resolution should have focused on concern for the safety of UN personnel, resources, and facilities, but the draft appeared more intent in condemning the occupation than in assuring the safety of United Nations personnel.
Case 4 Res. 891 (September 12, 2003)
If passed, the resolution would have demanded the immediate cessation of acts of terrorism, violence, provocation, destruction of property, and incitement on both parties of the Israeli conflict. It also called for Israel to cease the threat of removal or exile against Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. In its explanation of the veto, the US emphasized that it does not support proposals for the removal or exile of Yasser Arafat, but opposed the language of the draft resolution. The US found that the draft failed to include a robust recommendation of acts of terrorism or call for the dismantling of the infrastructure which supported terrorist operations.
Case 5 Res. 980 (October 10, 2003)
This resolution condemned and declared as illegal the construction of a security wall by Israel in occupied Palestinian territories since this is violative of the 1949 armistice line. The draft called for Israel to stop the construction of such facilities. The US vetoed the resolution on the ground that the resolution was unbalanced and prejudicial against Israel. Moreover, the US felt that the resolution failed to address the threat of terrorism and neglected to recognize and mention Israels motive behind such a move, that the country has faced numerous terrorist threats and other security problems for many years.
Case 6 Res. 240 (March 25, 2004)
If passed, this resolution would have condemned the extrajudicial execution of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin along with 6 other Palestinian leaders. The resolution also condemned all terrorist attacks directed against civilians and demanded for their immediate stoppage. The US rejected the draft because the text of the resolution was silent about the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas, because it did not reflect the realities of the conflict in the Middle East, and because it would not further the goals of peace and security in the region.
Case 7 Res. 783 (May 10, 2004)
This draft resolution was a response to Israeli military actions on the Jabaliya refugee camp. If passed, this would have called on Israel to immediately stop all military operations in the northern Gaza region and guarantee the safety and security of all UN medical and humanitarian aid workers and personnel stationed in the area. The US vetoed the resolution, expressing that the account of the Jabaliya incident in the resolution was lopsided and unbalanced. The US further opined that the wording was extremely prejudicial against Israel and created a double standard. The US explained that the resolution condemned Israeli actions but was silent on the deaths of 2 Israeli children hit by Palestinian rockets or the over 450 Qassam rockets launched against Israel by Palestine for the last two years. The US explained that the draft should have mentioned the failure of Palestine to meet its peace-building commitments and Israels legitimate right to defend itself.
Case 8 Res. 508 (July 13, 2006)
If passed, this resolution would have called on Israel to cease all military operations in the Gaza Strip as well as the release of all detained Palestinians. It also called on the Palestinian Authority to immediately release an abducted Israeli soldier and put an end to all violence. Explaining its veto, the US said that the draft was unbalanced and prejudicial against Israel because it placed demands on one side of the Middle East conflict but not the other. Further, the US indicated that should the resolution be adopted, tensions would be exacerbated, the credibility of the UNSC would be undermined, and plans for the adoption of a two-State solution derailed.
Case 9 Res. 878 (November 11, 2006)
This resolution was made in response to human casualties of the Israeli attack on Beit Hanoun. If passed, it would have requested the Secretary-General to form and authorize a fact-finding mission to investigate the circumstances of the attack. Explaining its veto use, the US opined that the draft resolution was politically motivated and failed display an even-handed characterization of the events in Gaza. The US also indicated that the Israeli authorities have already admitted committing a mistake and promised a speedy and objective investigation. The US took particular notice and mention that the language used in the draft was biased against Israel.
4. 1 Analysis Model
The study used a theoretical model to analyze whether or not veto usage violates the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the Charter. Pronouncements from representatives indict the veto as an obsolete privilege and its perpetuation of an exclusive club to dominate the global peace agenda. What exactly is the principle of sovereign equality and how is it manifested While the ideals of democracy and the exercise of democratic principles and procedures are always invoked in various treaties and international agreements, theories of international relations have made several assumptions on how the practice of equality is conditioned and limited by several factors. The UN Charter provides that all nations, large and small, should be governed by a principle of sovereign equality. Realist thinkers in international politics point out a separate definition for equality among nations, given the obvious inequalities that exist among them in terms of economic power, military might, and geographical size.
The concept of sovereignty is the primary defining idea that has guided the establishment of modern international law. The implication of the principle of sovereign equality is the absolute and perfect legal equality of all states. To ensure that no states dictate to another and impose its will upon the community of nations, Lassa Oppenheim opines that the principle of sovereign equality is intimately connected with democracy ...excluding a policy of personal aggrandizement and insatiable territorial expansion, which in the past has been the case of many wars.
However, the concept of legal and theoretical equality operates within the recognized inequality of political competence among states. Disparities in economic and military power divide the world into great, middle, and small powers. Hurell and Woods conceptualized that the achievement of the principle of sovereign equality in a stratified world is possible only when national power is limited and conditioned by several factors, such as balance of power, world public opinion, and collective security.
The study defined the constructs of the principle of sovereign equality according to the positivist and realist point of view of international relations. In order to determine the extent to which the veto power promotes or violates the principle of sovereign equality provided in the UN Charter, a model is proposed that evaluates the exercise of the veto against three limiting factors to national power balance of power, world opinion, and cooperative and collective security.
For an international system to be truly democratic, this study posits that full equality denotes the absence of domination of one powerful state over the other and the rule of law and the absence of arbitrariness in the application of the UN Charter. Recognizing that the principle of sovereign equality inevitably works against the backdrop of the political and material inequality of nations, the study posits that sovereign equality can be measured only inasmuch as the processes at work in the international organizations are successful in limiting national power of states. As Hurell and Woods conceptualized, sovereign equality is manifested when the process promotes the balance of powers among nations, respects world public opinion, and promotes cooperate and collective security.
This study analyzed the effect of veto power with respect to these factors. First, balance of power is defined as as a state of dynamic equilibrium characterizing relations among nations. In a state system, balance of power is present when different states group together in order to prevent a single nation or group of nations...strong enough to dominate others because its power is balanced by that of a rival group. World public opinion limits national power by exerting moral pressure on powerful nations if they attempt to overpower decision-making or dictate its wishes upon other less powerful nations. Collective security is hinged on the concept that narrow national interests of nations in an international system are limited and that states must aspire to the pursuit of collective aims rather than selfish geopolitical interests.
A summary on how the study endeavored to measure the use of the veto within the framework of the principle of sovereign equality is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of the Variables
Principle of sovereign equality (Variable)AnalysisBalance of powerBased on veto usage, did the US dominate the decision-making process at the UNSC during the twenty-first centuryWorld public opinionTo what extent did the veto cast contradict the opinion of the UNSC members and the General Assembly Collectivecooperative securityDid the veto reflect the vetoing countrys pursuit of collective security aims
4.2 Findings
The central question posed in the study is revisited Is the exercise of the veto in the UNSC reflective of the principle of sovereign equality as provided in the UN Charter
Balance of power
With the veto acting as de facto exercise of political and military might, the UNSC clearly displays an imbalance of power relations in the twenty-first century with the US overwhelming the decision-making process as the greatest user of the veto privilege. The finding that the US overpowered all the other P5 nations from 2000 until present in the exercise of the veto is significant. The use of the veto power is comparable to the weight a nation exercises not only on the decision-making procedures in the UN organs, but on other diplomatic forums as well. A direct relationship exists between the veto and the impact of the vetoing permanent members foreign policy on the judgments of the UNSC. The veto is not only the right to say No, but the threat or opportunity of casting a veto automatically blocks any attempt of a non-permanent member in opposing the foreign policy agenda of the permanent member. In this manner, the hidden or closet veto acts as a bargaining chip for the US to block or at the very least, to influence whatever compromise decisions can be made on the floor of the UNSC. Defendants of the veto argue that that the reduction of the veto usage since the Cold War years is reflective of how powers now are evened out. This argument does not hold ground for a number of reasons. The decline of the veto use by Russia since the collapse of the USSR merely tipped the balance of powers in favor of the US, thereby strengthening a unipolar, hence, a US-driven UNSC. Furthermore, the weight of a permanent members position because of the veto extends beyond the UN itself. This is because decisions formalized in the UNSC are part and parcel of larger deals or trade-offs that could include trade issues, military relations, and foreign aid. With the reality of unparalleled US economic and military power, it is clearly in a dominant position to influence voting outcomes in the UNSC. Brown University economists Tamura and Kuneida presented empirical basis that the US engages in vote-buying behavior through foreign aid dollars in order to achieve positive political outcomes. Their study concluded that the voting behavior of non-permanent members in the UNSC are directly associated with the degree of foreign aid dollars distributed by the US. Moreover, studies that analyzed formal bargaining power in the UNSC come to the common conclusion that veto players distribute the gains equally among themselves and that non-permanent members are virtually powerless. Clearly, the veto use in the twenty-first century illustrates the imbalance of power caused by the dominance of the so-called remaining superpower in the decision-making processes of the UNSC and the distribution of the gains of such a veto among the other P5 nations.
World Public Opinion
The findings also suggest that the veto contradicted democratic principles because it has been unilaterally exercised by the US to ignore world opinion. On every single instance that the US has vetoed a resolution beginning 2001, neither the P5, the non-permanent members, nor the General Assembly supported its position. China, Russia, and even France have opposed the US on the Palestine question while the UK chose to remain mum on every vetoed resolution. Meanwhile, voting coincidence with the US on Middle East issues in the General Assembly was also low. From 35.2 in 1995, the figure dropped to 11.9 in 2000 to 11.3 in 2007. While there has been a considerable reduction in the use of the veto since the Cold War period, this does not sufficiently point to a more active adherence to democratic procedure. Defenders of the veto privilege claims that the Soviet collapse has led to a new era of cooperation among the P5 nations, leading ultimately to the reduction of veto usage. In place of the Soviet vote however, changes in post-Cold War power relations left the US with greater national and geopolitical interests than any of the P5 nations, hence the greater need for the veto. The decline of the veto is not itself synonymous to more democratic procedures and increase in consensus among nations. Egypts Ambassador to the United Nations Nabil Elaraby explains that the P5 nations use the veto as a form of coercion by threatening the veto during in-door consultations prior to voting, the P5 get their way. This hidden or closet veto is used by a permanent member to defeat any attempt to table a resolution by threatening the use of the veto before it is even introduced to the body. The occurrence of this closet or hidden veto is beyond the scope of this paper. Furthermore, another cause of the veto decline is that during deliberations prior to the submission of the draft resolution, UNSC members may already be aware of whether they could muster enough votes to adopt a particular resolution. With the imminent threat of the veto, rather than waste their votes, non-permanent members may opt to just abstain or vote in the negative.
Collective Security
That the US has consistently used its veto to shield Israel from sanctions and reprimand is a clear violation of the principle of fair play and equality. This is somewhat unsurprising, given the fact that when the veto was originally conceptualized to ensure that the P5 would be secured their perpetual seats in influencing global policy. Moreover, the veto not only intended to protect the national interests of the great powers but also to protect at all costs geographical spheres of influence from interventions on the part of the organization. Essentially, the view is powerful instrument of national politics and the pursuit of selfish national aims. By using the veto, the geopolitical interests and foreign policy objectives which permanent members regard as vital to national power are secured from possible collective action or punishment from states able to surface a majority in the UNSC. The US constant protectionist policy toward the Israel with regard to the Palestine question exemplifies the proxy veto, a possibility that was not substantially considered by the members when they ratified the UN Charter. The debate remained mum on the possibility that a permanent member may abuse its veto right to consistently negating any resolution it may view adversarial to its geopolitical interests. The proxy veto creates significant problems because it essentially absolves any state from the executive powers of the UNSC.
Exacerbating the problem is that it is in itself not illegal, because the State casting the veto, not being a party to the dispute or conflict, cannot be legally prevented from invoking it. This veto invalidates the principle that states are equal juridical entities which must accept the consensual decisions of the UNSC pertaining punishment or sanctions for violations of international law or abuses of state power. The US policy of political protectionism in favor of Israel and against the opinion of the majority not only undermines democratic procedures and methods but discredits the legitimacy of the UN.
This protectionist policy has been informally referred to as the Negroponte Doctrine, named after former Ambassador John Negroponte, US Permanent Representative to the UN during the George W. Bush presidency. Under the Negroponte Doctrine, Gruenberg suggests that the US justifies its consistent veto of Middle East resolutions concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict under the following conditions
A robust condemnation of acts of terrorism and all forms of incitement to terrorism
An explicit condemnation of ... organizations responsible for acts of terrorism
Call for dismantling the infrastructure, which supports these terror operations, wherever located, in compliance with UNSC Resolution 1373
Call upon all parties to make a commitment to pursue a negotiated settlement
A recognition that the issue of Israeli withdrawal ... is connected to an improvement in the security situation through reciprocal steps by the Palestinians and Israelis, as called for by the Quartet. (Gruenberg 2009 18)
This declared US policy alters the dynamics of the UNSC that is supposed to be governed by normative democratic principles. While from the point of view of Israel, it has been protected from what it claims as endemic anti-Israel bias present in the UN, majority of the members of the UNSC and the General Assembly oppose the position of the US on the Middle East question. The doctrine presents a clear double standard in that the decisions of the UNSC do not apply to US allies but acts of aggression directed against opponents of US foreign policy such as Iraq can be made without the backing of the UN.
The US has consistently made policy pronouncements in favor of Israel despite being an arbiter of the Middle East Peace Process. Its support for the country is vast. Before Iraq became the largest beneficiary of US foreign aid in 2003, Israel ranked first since 1976 until 2002. Former President George W. Bush declared US foreign aid to Israel as a commitment to ensure that Israel retains a qualitative military edge. The US has also actively sold arms and weapons for the use of the Israel Defense Forces when it waged war against Hezbollah in 2006. Stressing the consistency of the US position for Israel, Bush added that in the event of an attack, his country would could to the aid of Israel militarily, and that Israel can always count on America to stand at its side. That the veto power could be unleashed in order to eternally safeguard a permanent members geopolitical ally renders the entire process unfair and undemocratic.
5. Policy Implications
This study intended to evaluate the use of the veto in the UN Security Council during the 21st century. Guided by the framework of the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter, the veto was examined whether or not it has contributed to the principles of balance of powers, respect for consensus or world public opinion, and pursuit of collective and cooperative security. After an evaluation of how the veto has been utilized in the decision-making process of the UNSC from 2000 to 2001, several findings have revealed that the use of the veto has contradicted the principle of sovereign equality on the ground that it has
Contributed to an imbalance in power relations heavily leaning toward the dominance of the US in global peace and security issues
Contravened international sentiment and the world public opinion by voting against the UNSC majority and the General Assembly especially on the Middle East question
Abused the veto power and undermined cooperative security by casting it as a proxy veto to consistently shield Israel from consensual decisions of the UNSC.
The findings made on this paper point to the need for a more democratic alternative to the Great Power unanimity rule in the UNSC. Three possibilities emerge on how the UNSC can better perform its true mandate and uphold the principles in the UN Charter elimination of the veto, modification of the voting system, or the limitation of the veto use. These have different policy implications.
Eliminating the veto. An obvious proposal is to abolish the veto altogether. However, this recommendation is not practical nor is it feasible given the power politics that is pervasive in international relations. Any proposal to eliminate the veto would be futile and would never materialize since the founding motive for the establishment of the UNSC, and by extension, the UN, is dominance through the veto. Policy analysts also point out that the vetos abolition would only exacerbate global security tensions and put the world more at risk of war. The policy creates the scenario that should majority of the permanent members vote action against a superpower, retaliation would result.
Modification of the voting system. Another popular reform proposal to democratize the decision-making process of the UNSC is the weighted voting system in place of the one nation-one vote rule. This system is said to cure the lack of representativeness in the votes of member states that differ in terms of economic power, military power, and demographics. There have been different models present in the weighted voting model, but the general idea is that the weight of the votes of members of the UNSC will be based on three criteria, namely the population, the contributions to the budget of the UN, and membership status. These proposals do not call for abrogation of the veto, but merely intends to level the playing field and accommodate middle and small players in global decision-making. This has been the primary ground for those who advocate the inclusion of India, Japan, and Germany to the permanent membership in the UNSC. While the idea of weighted voting is theoretically attractive, the standard for determining the weighted vote per member state is complicated and is expected to be very difficult. It is however, feasible, because the proposal does not preclude the abolition of the veto held by the P5 nations.
Restricting the use of the veto. Another proposal is the restriction or the limitation of the veto use among P5 members by confining its use to specific issues only and prohibiting its use on matters that are deemed crucial to international peace and security.
The need for UNSC reform is long overdue. The principles of power politics manifest itself now as it has since the inception of the UN Charter. Given the massive changes in the membership of the UN, the development of states, and the dynamic nature of the state system, the actual distribution of power is constantly changing however, the balance of power in the UNSC reflects the power distribution of an era long gone.
6. Concluding Comments
Clearly, the dominant P5 nation that has overpowered the judgments rendered in the powerful UN Security Council has been the US. The study took into consideration that the number of vetoes has declined since the post-Cold War period. However, the overwhelming dominance of the US veto cast to defeat peace resolutions that would have contributed to the end of the Middle East conflict indicates significantly that the balance of powers is largely tipped toward US military and economic might. This is apparent also because of the noticeable decline of veto use by Russia, the erstwhile dominant veto user 20 years ago.
The study also found that the US veto was done almost completely without the support of majority of the member states of the UNSC and even with the GA. On all occasions, between 2000 and 2010, no P5 member has sided with the US on its negative vote regarding the Palestine question. Russia and China opposed the US on 100 percent of its vetoes. France followed the direction of voting by Russia and China while the UK has chosen to abstain on every single veto. Despite an almost 80 percent concurrence of the permanent and non-permanent members of the UNSC to chastise Israel and call for both parties of the conflict to cease acts of violence and terrorism, the US contravened world public opinion and protected Israel from sanction and reprimand. The abuse of the proxy veto by the US in defense of Israel undermines the principle of consensus and cooperative security because it was applied consistently to protect US geopolitical interests. Israel, a staunch military ally and top benefactor of US foreign aid, has escaped sanction and reprimand for alleged violations of international law because of the US proxy veto.
Any move to reform the UNSC and the veto however inevitably touches the sensitive issue of power. In the realm on international relations, deciding on political action absent the consideration of the power element is illusory. Decisions not based on power puts the world at risk of another war. Hence, an acceptable democratic alternative that is acceptable to the sensitivities of the Major Powers and consistent with the equality aspirations of the smaller member states must be conceptualized.
Appendix 1 Data Description
Database
The data used for this study was taken from the United Nations Documentation Website. Data is available at (httpwww.un.orgDeptsdhlresguidescact.htm). This website contains a tabulation and in-depth description of vetoed resolutions made by members of the UN Security Council since 1946 until 2010. Aside from tallying vetoes, voting behavior was also tabulated into yes, no, and abstain. Links toward the member-States explanation of the veto are also provided to explore the raison dtre behind invoking such privilege.
Description
The data used were the following
Veto incidence of P5 members from 2000 to 2010.
Percentage of veto relative to affirmative and abstention votes among members of the UNSC.
Particular description of resolutions vetoed including explanations of vetoing States behind such veto.
Using simple descriptive statistics, the frequency of veto use among P5 members were computed and graphed. Percentages were used to determine the voting behavior (yesabstain) of all members of the UNSC relative to the veto used by a P5 member. This was used to determine the coincidence of a negative vote by a P5 member to that of the other members of the UNSC.
Appendix 2 Methodology
This evaluative-quantitative analysis required statistical data as well as other pertinent documents related to veto use, foreign policies of a P5 member, and other materials. The study used the UN Documentation Database to gather the primary data crucial to answering the central question of this study. Policy papers, studies, and books on international relations and theories helped support the findings made by the study.
Data gathered was analyzed using descriptive statistics specifically frequency and percentages. Results were compared and triangulated with other documentary sources such as press releases of the UNSC and figures from General Assembly voting.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment