The veto as a grave for the United Nations
By: Beatrice E. Rangel - 19/09/2023
Share:
On January 1, 1942, the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China and 22 other nations opposed to Germany, Japan and Italy, established a coalition in which the members pledged to work towards the establishment of a system of inclusive and effective international security. United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt suggested the name United Nations. And it stayed like that forever.
In the deliberations for its creation, it was insisted on creating an international organization in which all the nations of the world would be represented and whose main objectives would be to avoid wars; prevent conflicts and promote development.
When the design of the institutional architecture began, most liberal democracies favored the establishment of a governing body capable of protecting peace; avoid military interventions and settle conflicts before they turn into wars. And these objectives served as an argument for the creation of the right to veto for the permanent members of the Security Council.
If we were to judge these premises based on empirical evidence, we would reach the conclusion that those who thus justified the enthronement of the right to veto were all deferred in geopolitics. Because to begin with, the greatest beneficiaries of these policies were precisely those who had and still have the power to foment wars and carry out successful military interventions. And once these types of policies have been executed, the best way to evade the action of the international community is through the veto. This was demonstrated in the use of this resource. Since the creation of the United Nations, Russia has used the veto 120 times in 78 years. The United States, for its part, has used the veto 82 times. In summary, the United States and Russia have been the most recurrent users of the veto.
From the point of view of protecting peace, the right to veto has not been able to prevent 285 armed conflicts, including the Korean War; The vietnam war; the Iran-Iraq War; the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, the invasion of Iraq by the United States, and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In terms of resources allocated, casualties and economic impact, these combined wars compete with the destruction of World War II.
Not to mention military invasions since these have been the order of the day since 1945, with more than 300 in the last 75 years. In this century the Second Congo War; the ethnic cleansing carried out in Rwanda; the Syrian civil war; the Darfur conflict; The current conflict in Sudan and the Yemen War promise to surpass the destruction of World War II.
In short, the idea that giving voting power to five nations was going to establish a stability device that would prevent the destruction of peace and the appearance of conflicts has proven to be wrong. The evidence proves this and tells us that the time has come to make the Security Council make its decisions by qualified majority as occurs in any democracy. Because the veto system has not only been useless for the purposes of the UN but has created a paralysis in the organization that prevents it from acting efficiently. And that is why, according to opinion polls by accredited firms, 60% of the citizens of 70 countries in the world think that the United Nations should be abolished.
«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».