The leaders of the five countries with veto power on the UN Security Council

OPINIONPoliticsNovember 10, 2023

Five countries have veto power on the UN Security Council, to the detriment of us all

Guest writer

The leaders of the five countries with veto power on the UN Security Council

A UN Security Council resolution for a ‘humanitarian pause’ in Gaza was vetoed by the US last month. Mira Karunanidhi argues it’s yet another example of a broken system.

The United Nations was created during the post-World War II era to replace the failed League of Nations and, in the opening words of the UN charter, to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. The charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council, the most powerful organ. Its primary mandate is to maintain international peace and security.

The Security Council is the most powerful UN body for the following reasons:

(i) All UN member states are obligated to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council;

(ii) Only the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member states are obligated to implement; and

(iii) Each of the five permanent members (the P5) of the Security Council has veto power over any matter voted upon by the Security Council.

The veto power held by the P5 is the most significant distinction between permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. The Security Council is comprised of representatives from 15 countries. The P5 are the United States, United Kingdom, China, Russia and France. The 10 non-permanent members are each elected by the General Assembly, which comprises all 193 UN member states, for a two-year term. The five regional groups within the UN – African, Asian, Eastern European, Latin American and Caribbean, and Western European and Others Group (WEOG) – each have their allocation of seats. This process aims to ensure equitable geographical representation and gives various regions a voice in the Council’s decision-making.

But the P5 all must agree to endorse any resolution for it to pass and any one country can vote against or “veto” a resolution to prevent it from passing. Consequently, the power of the veto often prevents the council from being effective in the face of large international crises and mass atrocities.

Israel and Palestine

On October 7, 2023, amid soaring Israeli-Palestinian tensions, Palestinian armed group, Hamas, entered Israel and killed and captured hundreds of Israeli forces and civilians. Israel declared a state of war and began striking Gaza, including residential buildings, schools and hospitals where Israel claimed Hamas militants were operating from. Since then, thousands of Palestinians have been killed, injured and displaced in airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. Millions of Palestinians have been cut off from food, water, medicine, electricity and fuel. All major UN agencies have called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and an unconditional release of hostages.

The recent atrocities are the culmination of the enduring conflict between Israel and Palestine. However, the role the UN has played in this conflict dates back to 1947 when the UN voted for Palestine to be divided into two separate Jewish and Arab states. More recently, the UN has been actively involved in seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict, however it has instead highlighted the limitations and challenges the United Nations Security Council faces, emphasising the need for reform.

Fire and smoke rise above buildings in Gaza City during an Israeli air strike on October 8 (Photo: IBRAHIM HAMS/AFP via Getty Images)

On October 18, 2023, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a “humanitarian pause” to deliver lifesaving aid to people in Gaza. Twelve of the council’s 15 members voted in favour of the resolution proposed by Brazil, the US voted against, and Russia and the UK abstained. Since a vote “against” from any of the P5 prevents any resolution from being passed, the Security Council’s response to the crisis was marred by the use of the veto power by the US.

The US is one of Israel’s closest allies and has used its veto powers on several occasions to block any resolution that did not protect Israel’s interests. Most of these resolutions called for peace in the decades-long Israel-Palestine conflict.

By failing to pass a resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire, the Security Council is failing unequivocally in its primary duty of maintaining international peace and security. The UN was created for the very purpose of saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war, but it has failed the thousands of Palestinian and Israeli children who have lived through nothing but conflict their entire lives.

The need for reform

Since its establishment in 1945, the composition of the Security Council has remained virtually unchanged. However, the council is arguably no longer fit for purpose and no longer reflects the drastic changes to the geopolitical landscape that have occurred since the post-World War era. The calls for reform from the international community have increased since the war in Ukraine, as draft resolutions calling for Moscow to stop its attack on Ukraine were barred by the Russian veto. These calls should similarly increase now in the face of the mass atrocities occurring in Israel and Palestine.

The influence the P5 holds within the UN institution is disproportionate and the veto powers conferred upon them merely serve to benefit and protect the P5’s national interests. It is inherently counterproductive to maintaining international peace and security and has ultimately resulted in a decline in the Security Council’s legitimacy.

Abolishing the veto entirely would be beneficial for the entire international community. However, the UN charter grants the P5 veto over any charter amendments, meaning they would have to approve of any amendments to their own veto power. Given the difficulty of implementing such reform, an alternative is that the P5 should not be entitled to utilise their veto powers in the face of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity.

The supremacy of five nations should not be preserved above all other members of the General Assembly, as it fundamentally contradicts the rule of law and is undemocratic. Similarly, a single member state’s interests should not be entitled to override the collective will of the international community. The veto powers granted to the P5 contribute to the Council’s inability to take decisive action on critical international issues. The P5’s repeated use of the veto has led many member states to question the effectiveness and relevance of the Security Council in addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

Reforming the United Nations Security Council is not a simple task. It involves complex negotiations and considerations of each member’s national interests. However, the necessity of such reform is clear. The current structure, marred by the persistent use of veto powers and an outdated composition, undermines the very principles of the United Nations – peace, security and equality among nations. The Security Council must evolve to meet the demands of our rapidly changing world and regain the trust and confidence of the international community. The path to reform may be long and challenging, but it is a journey that must be undertaken for the sake of true global peace and security.

Actual footage. Image: Archi Banal

PoliticsNovember 9, 2023

Revealed: the secret coalition talk fragments

Toby Manhire

Editor-at-large

Actual footage. Image: Archi Banal

We have not been able to confirm the veracity of these documents – because we made them up.

As Christopher Luxon seeks to reach three-way comity with David Seymour and Winston Peters, coalition talks proceed in the shadows.

Early discussions and points of principle, however, have been unearthed by Spinoff investigator Lambshank, who searched the bins of dimly lit meeting rooms, downtown bars and the Green Parrot cafe, turning up a range of demands crawled on napkins, coasters and orange peel; draft commitments inked on pages torn from copies of Kia Ora magazine, Turf Digest and Atlas Shrugged.

Only historians will be able to judge whether these fragments are authentic or fabricated, and while that judgment may be “obviously fabricated”, it would very likely come with a note, “but that’s not a problem because nature abhors a vacuum, good luck to you.”

‘If you regularly enjoy The Spinoff, and want it to continue, become a member today.’

Toby Manhire
— Editor-at-large

Below, then, the recovered fragments. It is impossible to know which of the leaders of the National, Act and NZ First parties wrote which.

The Parties will action strong and stable deliverables.

The Parties acknowledge that the Statesman Peters did ghost the Cuck Seymour, and then he did do it again.

The Parties will deplatform the woke extremists.

The Parties concur that Guy Fawkes themed jokes are invariably funny, good and historically interesting, actually.

The Parties commit to leverage externalities with a view to circling back to learnings on strength and stability going forward.

The Parties will repudiate government interference in media and tar and feather Jack Tame.

The Parties will reject any suggestion that [text missing] is the Camilla of the governing marriage.

The Parties agree that concepts like “clown”, “untrustworthy” and [indecipherable] are as mutable and fleeting as the clouds, if necessary.

The Parties undertake to upseek cascaded optionality and programmatic specificity in the big rocks (“strong” and “stable”).

The Parties concede that tweets by the right honourable leader of New Zealand First are willfully misrepresented by a gaslighting media who insist on interpreting meaning from words.

The Parties love the coq.

The Parties agree that the prime minister of Canada is Pierre Trudeau and the prime minister of Mexico is not manual labour.

The Parties undertake to make backbenchers delete their psycho old social accounts.

The Parties will co-execute directionality by drilling down to stability and strength .

The Parties require, with the greatest of respect, that no signatory shall be Cinderella-ised, marginalised or demonised by those demonstrably lacking in intellectual fortitude, Sunshine.

The Parties welcome the ongoing support and counsel to the Act Party of Kate Sheppard, Hone Heke and Nelson Mandela.

The Parties accept that [indecipherable] more rodeos than others.

The Parties will pursue competencies to pivot, fail forward and sunset discordant outcomes (“weakness” and “instability”).

The Parties conclude that David Seymour is a ~~cuck~~ young buck as and [indecipherable] stallion [indecipherable] glue factory.

The Parties insist that [missing text] more bottom lines than a 100-year-old elephant.

The Parties recognise that I got bills I gotta pay So I’ma gon’ work, work, work every day.

The Parties note that the Bad Boys of Brexit remain the baddest of all Brexit boys.

The Parties observe that the leader of Act is not and has never been a chihuahua.

The Parties will operationalise strong and stable touchpoints in accordance with stakeholders across a variance of geographies in the governing space.