Round The World
New Delhi, 23 February
2024
UN Veto on Gaza
CALL FOR REFORMS
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn for
Democratic Socialism)
The United States vetoed the UN resolution calling for
immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Thirteen out of 15 UN Security
Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, voted in favour, Britain
abstained and US voted against. But, since the five permanent members (P-5)
have the veto powers, the United States vetoed it causing the resolution to be
un-implementable. This is the third time the US has vetoed the resolutions on humanitarian
ceasefire in Gaza: October 18, December 8 in 2023 and now this year, February
20. After the veto, the demand for reform of UN organs has become shriller.
The United States is moving, at the time of writing, an
alternative resolution calling for temporary ceasefire linked to the release of
hostages held by Hamas since 7 October 2023.
On this dark day, Hamas launched a terrorist attack on Israel killing
over 1200 people and taking 256 Israelis, including women and children, as
hostages. What will happen to this resolution is a matter of time and
speculation. Let us focus on the frustrations and desperations by the
international community on the controversial veto process in the UN. Let us
recall that the veto power has been exercised by all the five members on
numerous occasions.
In the recent past, Russia has used the veto 12 times in
favour of the Syrian government which is guilty of genocide of over 400,000 of
its citizens since 2011. Russia even vetoed a resolution calling for ending the
use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime in the civil war. China has vetoed
more than once resolutions on Islamic terrorists working against India, to
declare them ‘global terrorists.’ Russia has been vetoing any resolution in
favour of Ukraine with regard to the ongoing Ukraine war. China is also vetoing
any resolution in favour of Muslim Rohingyas as Beijing completely backs the
military regime of Myanmar.
There is a contentious historical context of the veto power
by P-5 members. The P-5 is now divided broadly into two groups – US, France,
United Kingdom on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. However, all
of them act like a club and the club will not change the rules which take away
their privileges. So has been the case.
The question raised now by many countries is whether it is
just, inclusive or equitable to let five countries impose their will on the
rest 188 member-countries of the world. In fact, in the context of the veto, it
is one country out of five imposing its will on the rest. Is this a fair,
prudent and practical way to run international politics? Admittedly, UN
Security Council has acted in unity in some cases, like military actions
against dictatorial regime of Col. Gaddafi in Libya and sanctions against Iran
etc. But in many cases like the ones cited, the one of the P-5 has been able to
monopolise the peace process, in fact in most cases, derailing it.
Let us remember that the UN was created after the Second
World War in order to prevent succeeding generations ‘from the scourge of war’.
The alternative strategy UN adapted to war consists of diplomacy, mediation and
peace initiatives. But because of the unequal composition of the UN organs,
mainly the UN Security Council, the principal objective of the United Nation
has been defeated; hence the call for reforms of its structure.
India, as the biggest democracy and the most populous
country in the world is leading the campaign on UN Security Council reform. The
principle New Delhi puts forth is ‘equity in global decision making’. This will
redress the historical injustices committed on the Global South; “centuries of
injustices”. India’s Permanent Representative at the United Nations Ambassador
Ruchira Kamboj made a powerful case at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations on
Security Council Reform on 16 February.
She forcefully put it, “I think we might all broadly agree
that the historical injustices perpetrated against the Global South can no
longer be ignored. It is time to rectify these disparities by ensuring greater
representation for regions like Asia, Latin America and Africa on the Security
Council through reform in both permanent and non-permanent categories of
membership”.
Furthermore, she elaborated, “Equity demands that every
nation, irrespective of its size or power be afforded an equal opportunity to
shape global decision-making.” She added that equity entails that the voices of
the marginalised and the oppressed be elevated on to the world stage. Including
the members of the Global South into the table will lead to more inclusive
decision-making. Also, an inclusive Council will foster a broader consensus and
legitimacy of its decisions.
Let it be noted that India is not only demanding the
expansion of both permanent and non-permanent categories of membership of the
UNSC; New Delhi is also asking for restructuring the decision-making process in
the Council, which includes abolition of the veto power. Unless done so, mere
expansion of the membership will not solve the problem; on the contrary, it
will lead to perpetuation of existing inequities.
There is some wind of reforms blowing from the P-5
countries as well. One hears the talk of embracing the concept of ‘voluntary restraint’.
Prof. Jenifer Trahan discusses this concept in her book ‘Existing Legal Limits
to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes, Chapter 3
focuses on ‘Initiatives to Voluntarily Restraint Veto Use as to the Face of
Atrocity Crimes’. There are six initiatives discussed in the chapter.
She addresses a legal issue here, i.e., whether P-5
countries can legally use the veto in the face of atrocity crimes – which has
serious implications on conflicts, and on the lives of all those affected by
the conflict. Crucially, she establishes the linkage between the exercise of
the veto power and ‘continuing death tolls on the ground’, like it is happening
now in Gaza, Ukraine and other ongoing conflicts.
Heeding the arguments and advice of Prof. Trahan, the world
must do its utmost to ensure that UN charter’s voting provisions (veto) are
never used that facilitates or enables the perpetration of genocide, war crimes
or crimes against humanity.
The second much-talked about reform is the expanding the
membership. The United States, UK and France are apparently open to expansion
whereas China and Russia oppose it. The most potential candidate for permanent
membership of the UNSC are India, Brazil, Japan and Germany which somewhat
operate as G-4. This should happen sooner than later.
To sum up, the United Nations has not been effective in
countering conflicts, preventing wars and restraining belligerence by many
countries. But, without doubt, United Nations has done commendable and critical
developmental as well as humanitarian work. As we scan the multiple development
arms of the United Nations, their works across the globe deserve admiration of
the international community. So, one is not writing the obituary of UN. On the
contrary, if UN did not exist, we had to invent it. More power to United
Nations as it resets its structures and functions.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|