In This New Year, we Can Have an Actual Uniting of the Nations of the World, or We Can Have a Five-Nation Veto, but We Cannot Have Both
Welcome to 2025, the 80th anniversary of the United Nations. What a great idea that was, at the close of World War Two, an organization that finally heard the voices of all 193 current members.
Finally, a majority vote (97) would be able to shake off the bonds of colonialism, slavery, and the various misdeeds of major powers. Along with the soon-to-be-announced Marshall Plan to rebuild a shattered world at war, a light shown through the darkness of unbridled power, a promise of peace through compromise.
Except for a detail or two
It seems the winners of that military contest demanded a larger-than-normal seat at the table. The Security Council has five permanent members—the United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, any one of whom can veto a resolution. It also has ten elected members, who serve two-year, nonconsecutive terms and serve as frosting on an undemocratic cake, and may as well remain at home.
Worldly-wise, we have polished the silver at this great humanitarian club, but 188 of you are not members, except in name. Oh yeah, we have banquets and committees and staff accommodation up to your eyeballs, 35,000 in a magnificent structure on the Hudson River in New York City. But five members rule the roost.
The UN Charter outlines the membership rules:
Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states that accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
Ah, there’s that ‘judgement of the organization’ thing again.
The admission of any such state to membership in the United Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
There goes both baby and bathwater
So, no irritant to the CIA (America’s Gestapo, according to President Harry Truman), or nation disfavored by China, France, Russia, or the United Kingdom, is likely to be found among members with a chance in hell of getting a fair hearing, because of the damn veto.
Since 16 February 1946—when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) cast the first veto on a draft resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria (S/PV.23)—the veto has been recorded 293 times. We surely know how useful that has been to both nations some 78 years later, with both nations in ruins.
Vetoes by the numbers
As of November 2024, Russia/Soviet Union has used its veto 129 times, the United States 87 times (49 times to protect Israel), the United Kingdom 29 times, China 19 times and France 16 times.
On 26 April 2022, the General Assembly adopted a resolution mandating a debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council. The Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution that calls for the General Assembly to meet whenever a veto is cast in the Security Council. The President of the General Assembly will convene a formal meeting to hold a debate on the vetoed subject within ten working days and, on an exceptional basis, the member or members who have cast a veto will be given precedence in the speakers’ list.
That’s huge, perhaps even transforming.
The vote was the culmination of an initiative led by Liechtenstein and a core group of eighty-three members who co-sponsored the resolution from every UN regional group. Surprisingly, that included three permanent members: France, the UK and the US. Although there have been veto initiatives in the past, this is the first time a UN body has taken action to modify the use of the veto.
So, maybe now we’re getting someplace
With three of the five having agreed to give up their veto, perhaps China and Russia will give it some thought. In my view, China would be most likely in this scenario, thereby isolating Russia. China’s had serious disagreements with Russia lately, primarily on issues that affect Ukraine. Other nations might then bring the pressure of sanctions, which would be a very big stick to wave at an already financially sanctioned Russia.
There is hope in the possibility that the United Nations might finally become the political and societal force in the world it was designed to be. Should that happen, it’s my view that a new headquarters is appropriate, most agreeably in Geneva, Switzerland.
That would be a very Happy New Year for the world at large.
You all have stayed with me for a long tie now, and I appreciate it a lot…it’s what keeps me writing. But I need to expand my audience. If you feel it’s worth while, please share with 4 or 5 friends you think would not be offended. Just hit the SHARE button. Thanks so much.