The UN Veto
The United Nations was formed in 1945, never before nor sadly after was the need felt so much for a strong governing body to save the world from another world war. The League of Nations had failed, World War 2 had devastated the world and countries were prepared to do anything to get this body up and running. The three victors of WW2, USA, UK and USSR blackmailed the other countries into giving them a veto in this new body. check out http://www.un.int/mexico/discur97/veto-eng.htm a nice article about Mexico's fight against the veto. Since the security council is seen as the governing body of the UN, this veto power gave them supreme rights in the UN (How China and and France snuck into this cabal will be an interesting study of world politics, China was beaten up by Japan and France had lost the war).
I understand the need for a Security Council over the General Assembly. The League of Nations had failed because there were too many cooks stirring the broth, a smaller body can make a quick decision to avert a disaster. The idea was, atleast 20 countries would always have their representatives at the UN to be at hand to avert a crisis (though in todays age of video conferencing this requirement seems superflous). Anyways, we have a Security Council which takes decisions for the UN, decisions which ultimately need to be validated by the General Assembly.
The Veto though is a slap on the equality of countries. It gives the power to the 5 permanent members of the security council to block any resolution in the security council, thereby giving them supreme power in the UN. What is the basis for the veto; Strength (I say anybody with a nuclear bomb is powerful enough), Money (Germany and Japan are in the top 3 largest economies of the world), Stability (India is the the largest stable democracy), Diversity( India is one of the most diverse countries in the world), Resources (who can fight against the OPEC when it comes to oil), Population (India). What then may I ask is the reason for giving certain countries the right to impose their will on others, nothing other than the notion that these countries came up at the right end of the stick after WW2. Is the UN implying that 5 countries are more mature, have greater responsibility towards the world, have the capability to make important decisions for everybody, impartial, respected by everybody in the world and strong enough to make everybody listen for ever and ever till the end of time? I hope not. I dont understand how all the other countires can just bend over and submit to this injustice.
Lets take a look at the countries having the Veto power.
America: Has used the Veto the most in recent times (since 1984), the only country to use nuclear weapons on innocent people(not once but twice) and also one of the few countries to go to war without UN authorization
Russia: A ghost of the former USSR, still has disputes with other former Soviet republics, a bankrupt economy, fledgling democracy.
China: Non democratic, history of human rights violations, no free speech, currency pegged to the dollar.
France: Destroyed in WW2, nothing to differentiate it from any other country in the world.
Britian: Nothing to differentiate it from any other country.
What if we replaced the present set of veto members with Germany, Australia, Japan,India, Brazil and Egypt or say one vote for each major world organization, 1 for NATO, 1 for EU, 1 for SAARC, 1 for OPEC etc. I am sure anybody can come up with half a dozen objections similar to the ones I have given, hence my contention that since there is no logical reason as to why one country should have the veto versus another, either the veto should be rotated or removed altogether. Justify the veto power before bestowing it.
Here are some uses the veto power has been put to, or should we say abuses of the veto power. If this was the precedence, can we continue to trust the present countries to not abuse it further. Were these vetos used for the good of the world or was there some personal animosity or gain which was the actual reason.
Blocking the memberships of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Japan, Bangladesh and many more countries (is the UN a brotherhood of the 5)
Veto has been used whenever there has been a complaint by a country against the veto powers, Nicaragua against USA, Panama against USA, (caesars wife is above complaint)
Veto has been used when ever a resolution was entered that might go against a veto powered country, even at the cost of other member countries (sacrifice the weak for the strong)
complete list: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
The veto has always been used to protect the intrests of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, all other countries have had to align themselves with these 5 countries to protect their intrests, the world has been more polarised then united by this veto power. What is the use of being a member of the UN, if what ever you say can be over ruled by a select few, do the other member countries subjugate their interests in deference to the few. This power states that the interests of these 5 countries are more important than the good of the world.
A country with a weapon will always use it in its own interests, be it Saudi Arabia with huge oil reserves or India with skilled man power or USA with technology, by giving a few countries a special veto power we are giving them an extra weapon they can use against other countries. I will not blame the USA for using the veto, it will do it in its own best interests, If I had the veto I would use it for my best interests. My contention is that when the world is concerned every country is equal, everybody should be given an equal right. In our elections we dont say that the members of a certain race have veto votes or extra votes, the world has to be a democracy., A macrocsm of the microcsm we defend as the ideal governance.
Why does Britian feel that India shoudnt be given the veto power, similarly why does China feel that Japan shoudnt be given the veto, woudnt that feeling be mutual. I am sure Japan feels threatned that China has a veto, Germany that Britian and France have veto. Would the US feel secure if Mexico had a veto in the UN and it didnt. The basic fear is a country can use the veto to favour itself or bring about harm to the world. How can countries feel secure in the UN when one country can stop the wheel of justice. The veto is just a ruse by the 5 countries to maintain their hegemony over other countries, Britian clinging on to its past, USA trying to further its present, China establishing its future, Russia using it to survive and France playing self important.
I am for equality of all countries, I will not trust any country to hold the reins of earth for eternity, it was a mistake to give some countries the veto power and we should now correct it by abolishing this veto system. It does come at a critical juncture when India, Japan, Brazil and Germany are applying for permanent membership of the Security council, I want to ask these countries, you want the veto because you feel you are being trampled upon, you want a greater say in world politics and you dont want to be held hostage by the present 5, infact you feel threatned by them, doesnt the same feeling hold good for other countries which will be left out, wont they feel insecure too.
I do not belive in the status quo, I do not support the present system saying its worked so far, the system has failed, out and loud I say the system has failed, its just we dont want to know about it. I am sure the world would have been a better place if equality had been maintained, if USA and USSR didnt meddle maybe the India Pakisthan issues could have been resolved long ago. Polarising the world will only create problems.
Its my opinion that the veto system in the security council should be abolished, or every country should be given a veto. The General Assembly should be the ultimate power and the security council should only be used as a group to take quick decisions which will need to be later ratified by the General Assembly.
I understand the need for a Security Council over the General Assembly. The League of Nations had failed because there were too many cooks stirring the broth, a smaller body can make a quick decision to avert a disaster. The idea was, atleast 20 countries would always have their representatives at the UN to be at hand to avert a crisis (though in todays age of video conferencing this requirement seems superflous). Anyways, we have a Security Council which takes decisions for the UN, decisions which ultimately need to be validated by the General Assembly.
The Veto though is a slap on the equality of countries. It gives the power to the 5 permanent members of the security council to block any resolution in the security council, thereby giving them supreme power in the UN. What is the basis for the veto; Strength (I say anybody with a nuclear bomb is powerful enough), Money (Germany and Japan are in the top 3 largest economies of the world), Stability (India is the the largest stable democracy), Diversity( India is one of the most diverse countries in the world), Resources (who can fight against the OPEC when it comes to oil), Population (India). What then may I ask is the reason for giving certain countries the right to impose their will on others, nothing other than the notion that these countries came up at the right end of the stick after WW2. Is the UN implying that 5 countries are more mature, have greater responsibility towards the world, have the capability to make important decisions for everybody, impartial, respected by everybody in the world and strong enough to make everybody listen for ever and ever till the end of time? I hope not. I dont understand how all the other countires can just bend over and submit to this injustice.
Lets take a look at the countries having the Veto power.
America: Has used the Veto the most in recent times (since 1984), the only country to use nuclear weapons on innocent people(not once but twice) and also one of the few countries to go to war without UN authorization
Russia: A ghost of the former USSR, still has disputes with other former Soviet republics, a bankrupt economy, fledgling democracy.
China: Non democratic, history of human rights violations, no free speech, currency pegged to the dollar.
France: Destroyed in WW2, nothing to differentiate it from any other country in the world.
Britian: Nothing to differentiate it from any other country.
What if we replaced the present set of veto members with Germany, Australia, Japan,India, Brazil and Egypt or say one vote for each major world organization, 1 for NATO, 1 for EU, 1 for SAARC, 1 for OPEC etc. I am sure anybody can come up with half a dozen objections similar to the ones I have given, hence my contention that since there is no logical reason as to why one country should have the veto versus another, either the veto should be rotated or removed altogether. Justify the veto power before bestowing it.
Here are some uses the veto power has been put to, or should we say abuses of the veto power. If this was the precedence, can we continue to trust the present countries to not abuse it further. Were these vetos used for the good of the world or was there some personal animosity or gain which was the actual reason.
Blocking the memberships of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Australia, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Japan, Bangladesh and many more countries (is the UN a brotherhood of the 5)
Veto has been used whenever there has been a complaint by a country against the veto powers, Nicaragua against USA, Panama against USA, (caesars wife is above complaint)
Veto has been used when ever a resolution was entered that might go against a veto powered country, even at the cost of other member countries (sacrifice the weak for the strong)
complete list: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm
The veto has always been used to protect the intrests of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, all other countries have had to align themselves with these 5 countries to protect their intrests, the world has been more polarised then united by this veto power. What is the use of being a member of the UN, if what ever you say can be over ruled by a select few, do the other member countries subjugate their interests in deference to the few. This power states that the interests of these 5 countries are more important than the good of the world.
A country with a weapon will always use it in its own interests, be it Saudi Arabia with huge oil reserves or India with skilled man power or USA with technology, by giving a few countries a special veto power we are giving them an extra weapon they can use against other countries. I will not blame the USA for using the veto, it will do it in its own best interests, If I had the veto I would use it for my best interests. My contention is that when the world is concerned every country is equal, everybody should be given an equal right. In our elections we dont say that the members of a certain race have veto votes or extra votes, the world has to be a democracy., A macrocsm of the microcsm we defend as the ideal governance.
Why does Britian feel that India shoudnt be given the veto power, similarly why does China feel that Japan shoudnt be given the veto, woudnt that feeling be mutual. I am sure Japan feels threatned that China has a veto, Germany that Britian and France have veto. Would the US feel secure if Mexico had a veto in the UN and it didnt. The basic fear is a country can use the veto to favour itself or bring about harm to the world. How can countries feel secure in the UN when one country can stop the wheel of justice. The veto is just a ruse by the 5 countries to maintain their hegemony over other countries, Britian clinging on to its past, USA trying to further its present, China establishing its future, Russia using it to survive and France playing self important.
I am for equality of all countries, I will not trust any country to hold the reins of earth for eternity, it was a mistake to give some countries the veto power and we should now correct it by abolishing this veto system. It does come at a critical juncture when India, Japan, Brazil and Germany are applying for permanent membership of the Security council, I want to ask these countries, you want the veto because you feel you are being trampled upon, you want a greater say in world politics and you dont want to be held hostage by the present 5, infact you feel threatned by them, doesnt the same feeling hold good for other countries which will be left out, wont they feel insecure too.
I do not belive in the status quo, I do not support the present system saying its worked so far, the system has failed, out and loud I say the system has failed, its just we dont want to know about it. I am sure the world would have been a better place if equality had been maintained, if USA and USSR didnt meddle maybe the India Pakisthan issues could have been resolved long ago. Polarising the world will only create problems.
Its my opinion that the veto system in the security council should be abolished, or every country should be given a veto. The General Assembly should be the ultimate power and the security council should only be used as a group to take quick decisions which will need to be later ratified by the General Assembly.
posted by adarsh adarsh at 9:27 PM
1 Comments:
Hi Adarsh,
You have a point, though I'd say that veto power is required to help the UN reach decisions. Without veto, I'm sure the UN would debate contentious issues till the end of time!
The more important issue of course is which countries should have the veto power and there I'm in full agreement with you. The question has come up now, with several countries (India included) staking claim to similar powers.
Post a Comment
<< Home