Today I ask is it time to bring in simple majority voting to the UNSC? Surely no democratic nation could object to that? Only a nation with bad intentions would try to oppose such a fair and democratic move.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stands as a cornerstone of international peace and security, tasked with maintaining stability and resolving conflicts worldwide. Yet, the structure of the Security Council, particularly the veto power held by its five permanent members (P5) – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – has long been a subject of debate and contention. The veto power, granted under the UN Charter, allows any of the P5 members to block any substantive resolution, regardless of the level of international support. This privilege, intended to prevent the Council from taking action, contrary to the interests of these powerful nations, often results in deadlock and undermines the Council’s effectiveness. Therefore, removing the veto power from the permanent members of the UNSC presents a compelling case for enhancing the Council’s legitimacy, accountability, and ability to fulfill its mandate.
One of the primary arguments in favor of abolishing the veto power is the imperative to democratise global governance. The current structure of the Security Council reflects the geopolitical realities of a post-World War II era, where the P5 were the major powers.
However, the global landscape has evolved significantly since then, with emerging powers such as Brazil, India, Germany, and Japan playing increasingly influential roles in international affairs. These countries, along with others, are not represented as permanent members of the UNSC and thus lack the ability to veto resolutions, despite their growing economic, political, and military significance. Removing the veto power would rectify this imbalance and promote a more equitable distribution of decision-making authority within the Council, reflecting the diversity of the international community.
Furthermore, the veto power has been frequently abused by the P5 members to pursue their narrow national interests at the expense of broader global concerns. This selective exercise of veto power has obstructed the Council’s ability to respond effectively to humanitarian crises, human rights violations, and threats to international peace and security. For instance, the United States has exercised its veto to shield Israel from condemnation for its actions in the occupied Palestinian territories no less than 45 times. Such actions undermine the credibility and legitimacy of the Security Council, eroding public trust in the effectiveness of multilateral diplomacy. By eliminating the veto power, the UNSC would be better positioned to act decisively in addressing global challenges without being hamstrung by the narrow interests of a few powerful states. Indeed, I suggest that the abomination that is happening today in Gaza could have been stopped back in early October with a Security Council using qualified voting.
Moreover, the veto power perpetuates a hierarchical system of international relations that privileges the P5 members over other states.This hierarchical structure undermines the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter and perpetuates a sense of injustice and resentment among smaller and less powerful nations. Removing the veto power would signal a commitment to a more inclusive and participatory approach to global governance, where all member states have an equal voice and share responsibility for upholding international peace and security. It would also encourage greater cooperation and consensus-building among member states, fostering a more cooperative and collaborative international environment.
Critics of abolishing the veto power argue that it could lead to the marginalisation of the P5 members and diminish their willingness to engage constructively in UN affairs. However, removing the veto power does not diminish the role or influence of the P5 within the Security Council. These countries would retain their permanent membership and the privileges associated with it, including the ability to initiate resolutions, hold the presidency of the Council, and participate in decision-making processes. What it does change is the unilateral ability of any single member to block substantive action, thus necessitating greater engagement, compromise, and negotiation among all members to reach consensus. I ask again why would any democratic law abiding nation oppose that?
In conclusion, removing the veto power from the permanent members of the UN Security Council, represents a critical step towards revitalising and democratising global governance. By promoting equality, accountability, and effectiveness within the Security Council, it would enhance the Council’s legitimacy and ability to address the complex challenges facing the international community. While the road to reform may be fraught with political obstacles and resistance from entrenched interests, the imperative to strengthen the multilateral system and uphold the principles of the United Nations makes the case for abolishing the veto power an urgent and compelling one.
What do you think?
Really good post, thanks. It is clear that the UN needs reformed to reflect the massive changes in the balance of political and economic power since 1945. In the long term, if it doesn’t reform then the organisation might split into UN1 & UN2 (say). The former colonial powers, UK & France, no longer warrant a permanent place on the UNSC – let alone a veto – the same might also be said of Russia. That leaves the US and China, the largest and 2nd largest economies and military powers (maybe Russia still 2nd largest). However – surrendering their veto would be a massive blow to the prestige of the UK and France, and they will never give it up voluntarily and unilaterally. The same probably applies to the other 3 also. Turkeys ? Christmas ?
One of the effects of Scotland regaining its independence would create a question, as to whether it is appropriate for England/Wales/Northen Ireland (rUK) to remain as a permanent member of the Security Council – with (or without) veto powers?
It was one of the issues I raised in ongoing correspondence with the UN as part of the Declaration of a Sovereign Scot initiative, correspondence now also copied to 18 UN Members.
Scottish indepemdence has a real part to play in this debate.
Purely for information on topic – these are extracts from a letter to the UN (and now copied wider as above) – issued in 2021 – so prior to but anticipating how the terms of the Scotland Act would negate a Referendum:
Extracts:
There is widespread evidence, both past, current, and to be anticipated, that the current UK Government will resist (at best) and strongly oppose and reject (at worst) any attempt to resolve the question of whether the Sovereign people of Scotland can use normal democratic means of addressing the issue of Scotland regaining its independence, whether at elections or by way of referenda. It is important to note that potential denial of democratic means of resolving the issue affects both sides of the debate. I am wholly aware that the United Nations will not seek to interfere in issues such as these, which are seen as issues to be addressed as domestic matters, however it leaves open to question two serious matters.
Question 1: If the UK, as one member of the Security Council is seen to consistently act in a manner which is contrary to the UN Charter, quoted above, is it of sufficient importance to engage the interest of the other 4 members, or indeed of the wider community within the overall membership of the United Nations?
Question 2: Arises from the geo-political aspect. Earlier this year “The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons” came into force, at a time in contrast when the UK Government announced its intention to increase its number of nuclear warheads. Scotland was chosen, and remains, the location for the naval base where such nuclear warheads are stationed. One of the reasons that influences the UK Government in its opposition to Scottish independence is that there is considerable opposition within Scotland to that position, and that on gaining its independence it can be strongly suggested that there would be a request for the immediate withdrawal of all such warheads from Scotland – am I wrong in thinking this is a matter for United Nations interest?
Ends.
A veto isn’t democracy its a dictatorship.
Hi Roddy,
I agree entirely, but an agreement would have to be made first with the “BIG” 5 that this proposal cannot be vetoed and that a majority of 1 is enough to carry the motion.
I doubt the USA and UK warmongers will agree to this, especially UK as this would be seen as a further erosion of whats left of its world status after the navy disasters in the last couple of months.
saor alba gu brath
*NOT MY PARLIAMENT
The point is well made.
Favouring the winners in 1945 is about dominance not negotiated democracy. It was inevitable eighty years ago but is antiquated, unreflective of new realities and a tool of ongoing imperialist pretensions.
Time for change.