United Nations Mandates Discussion of Security Council Elites' Vetoes

The United Nations adopted a resolution on Tuesday that requires a General Assembly meeting within ten days after one of the five permanent members of the Security Council uses its veto powers.

The Security Council is arguably the most powerful body of the United Nations, tasked with addressing wars and conflict. Five countries – America, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom – wield a no-questions-asked veto power to kill proposed resolutions or other actions, a vestige of World War II. The fact that China and Russia are rogue states has, many critics object, compromised the ability of the Security Council to meaningfully address global conflicts.

Non-permanent Security Council members, notably Liechtenstein and Turkey, have for years complained that the permanent members have too much power. Islamist Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan adopted the slogan “the world is bigger than five” in 2013 to call for an end to permanent member status and for reforms weakening the post-World War II power structure in the international institution and has repeatedly protested the Security Council veto rules during General Assembly speeches.

Demands to change Security Council rules escalated in February, when Russia vetoed a proposed resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine. Ukraine currently holds a rotating seat on the Security Council, which it used at the time to tell Russia to “go straight to Hell.”

Tuesday’s initiative will not affect the permanent members’ ability to veto any action they deem inappropriate, but will force them to listen to comments from other states on the vetoes.

“China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States have the power to veto Security Council resolutions, enshrined in the U.N. Charter – a right accorded to them because of their key roles in establishing the United Nations,” the U.N. explained in a statement announcing the measure. “Following the resolution adopted by consensus, any such use will now trigger a General Assembly meeting, where all UN members can scrutinize and comment on the veto.”

Liechtenstein, a small European country, led the charge to change the rules, repurposing a proposal over two years in the making and gathering 83 sponsors to pass the reform. Liechtenstein’s United Nations ambassador, Christian Wenaweser, reportedly emphasized that the move was not meant to be antagonistic towards Russia in particular or a direct response to Russia’s veto of action on Ukraine, citing how long the proposal had been in motion.

“It is not directed against Russia,” Wenaweser insisted.

The goal of the move, the ambassador said, was not necessarily to contain the permanent members’ powers but for “the membership as a whole [to] be given a voice when the Security Council is unable to act.”

Russia is not among the 83 co-sponsors of the resolution, nor is China. The other three permanent members – America, the United Kingdom, and France – did co-sponsor the move.

A Russian diplomat, First Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Dmitry Polyansky, told the outlet Izvestia that Moscow expressed concern during the process of drafting the measure that prompting meetings to discuss vetoes would “become a means for interference by the General Assembly in the prerogatives of the Security Council.”

“In its current shape, the text is essentially harmless, but we don’t see that it has any particular efficiency – the Security Council’s permanent members openly explain the reasons for using the veto power anyway at the Council,” he elaborated. “As for the calls to deprive Russia of its veto power, it is impossible to do so since it is enshrined in the UN Charter ratified by all countries, so this sort of radical shift is possible only if the Charter is altered.”

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is in Moscow this week to meet with Russian leader Putin regarding his ongoing war against Ukraine.

“During the tête-a-tête meeting, the Secretary-General reiterated the United Nations’ position on Ukraine, and they discussed the proposals for humanitarian assistance and evacuation of civilians from conflict zones, namely in relation to the situation in Mariupol,” the U.N. claimed on Tuesday. “The President [Putin] agreed, in principle, to the involvement of the United Nations and the International Committee for the Red Cross in the evacuation of civilians from the Azovstal plant in Mariupol.”

The Communist Party of China responded to the resolution with similar concerns expressed more aggressively, warning that allowing for a General Assembly discussion on Security Council vetoes would lead to “chaos.”

“That in practice is likely to cause procedural confusion and chaos. At this point it is difficult to determine whether such an arrangement would achieve the intended purpose of the resolution,” Jiang Hua, counsellor at China’s Permanent Mission to the U.N., said this week, according to the South China Morning Post. Jiang claimed that China “understands and agrees with the starting point of this resolution.”

The Morning Post noted that Russia has used the veto power more than any other permanent member, 120 times in 30 years. China has used it only 17 times; America has used it 82 times.

The international human rights group Amnesty International applauded the measure on Tuesday.

“This resolution, and the enormous support from member states, sends an unequivocal message – no longer can members of the Security Council evade accountability for abusing their veto power,” Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said in a statement. “No longer can they simply hold up their hand and block measures that could have saved lives without expecting any recriminations.”

“This initiative is not about sanctioning one country or situation. It is a way of addressing the acute failure of the Security Council to take effective action on various situations as result of the veto,” her statement continued. “Much more needs to be done to address the paralysis, but this resolution is a first step towards increasing the cost of using the veto – and it could not have come soon enough.”

Callamard did not clarify that permanent members can continue to “simply hold up their hand and block measures,” but will have to pay the price of attending a meeting afterward.

Follow Frances Martel on Facebook and Twitter.