Wenyi Lai
Oct. 1, 2000
At the 1945 San Francisco conference the great powers insisted that their special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security should be recognized in the voting procedures of the Security Council. According to Article 27 of the UN Charter, ˇ§Decision of the Security Council ˇKshall be made ˇKincluding the concurring votes of the permanent members.ˇ¨ Thus, the Big 5 assess veto power in any issue.
In the UNˇ¦s history, there are 3 types of vetoˇ¦s use.
1. Membership applications: Due to the tension of Cold War, two groups use veto to block to each other. Between 1946 and 1997, 59 vetoes were cast to block admission of member states. For example, 51 of the Soviet vetoes were used to deny approval of UN membership application.
2. Election of Secretary-General: Due to the importance and of this post, between 1946 and 1997, 53 vetoes were used to prevent nominations for the office of Secretary-General. For example, Chinaˇ¦s veto in 1981 denied a third term as Secretary-General to Kurt Waldheim.
3. Security issues: The ˇ§Security Councilˇ¨ is supposed to deal with security issue. But the Security issues are always complicated. The Big 5 use veto to hamper the issue that harm their own interests. It is not easy for the Security Council to proceed effective movement. For example, in 1999, China used veto to reject the continuing deployment of UNPREDEP in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Here is my opinion about the veto.
Why we need veto?
1. To avoid world war: A decision to use force in the name of the United Nations over the objection of a state controlling large military forces could be the means of turning localized conflict into world war.
2. For the Big 5 to control the UN: To The founders of the UN won the WW II. They thought they deserve to lead the world. To encourage other countries to join, they announced that the UN is a democratic unit and every member has equal rights. In the other hand, the Big 5 used veto to guarantee their absolute power on decision-making.
3. Balance of power: Without the veto system, the Soviet might have left the UN. The veto system at least had the Big 5 to negotiate together. It also improved the balance of power.
I argue that the veto should be abolished. Here are the reasons:
1. The veto can not avoid wars: The UN is a unit for countries to negotiate. The power to trigger a war is not controlled by the SC. Although the General Assembly resolutions disapproving Soviet intervention in Hungary and Afghanistan, U.S. intervention in Nicaragua, Grenada, and Panama, the Big 5 still did what they want without the consent of the Security Council.
2. Because of the threat of veto, the SC always avoided the sensitive security issue. The veto delayed the timing for SC to take effective movement to cease the fire.
3. The veto may be crucial to UN viability as a world organization. But it also harmed the legitimacy of a world organization. Simply speaking, it is not fair.