UNSC won’t reform, so we need a new world body

In 1945, 51 States met in San Francisco and created the United Nations (UN), replacing the League of Nations, which in the 1930s proved unable to stop several acts of aggression that ultimately led to the catastrophic World War II. The expectation was that the UN would deliver peace, with its empowered Security Council, an organ authorised to adopt economic sanctions and, if necessary, use of force to restore and maintain international peace and security. Five powerful States of the time – the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China – were given permanent membership (P-5) in the UN Security Council, and the right to veto any action by that very body.

The Security Council could indeed intervene and make peace in several conflicts over the next decades. But these were only in situations where the interests of the P-5 States were not at stake or at odds with the action proposed. However, the P-5 also committed plenty of their own acts of aggression and used the right of veto to cover up their responsibility or face consequences for these acts.

Recall that back in 1945, many of the founding members of the UN -- Australia, Poland, most Latin American countries – were unhappy with the veto provision and regarded it as a temporary measure to be tested in the first 10 years of the UN’s existence. They insisted on including in the UN Charter a specific text for a Review Conference to happen no later than in 1955 (Art. 109) to be able to get rid of the veto, seen by them as unfair and dangerous.

In February 2022, a brutal military aggression by Russia against Ukraine, coupled with shocking evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity and with explicit threats to use nuclear weapons, led Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an address to the Security Council on March 5, 2022, to equate the right to veto with the ‘right to die’. He called upon UN member-States to consider creating a new organisation without the veto.

Ukraine is only the latest, and certainly not the last, victim of repeated failures of the Security Council to prevent conflicts and atrocities. Russia has (often together with China) used the veto nearly a dozen times to stop the UN from condemning and investigating crimes, including the use of chemical weapons, committed by the Syrian regime since 2011. Vetoes on draft resolutions on Sudan (Darfur), Myanmar, Yemen, Gaza, South Sudan, and elsewhere, allowed mass crimes, destruction and enormous human suffering to continue. Millions of people have died and will continue to die because at any moment, a P-5 member may feel offended, overproud, selfish or dis-interested and raise a hand against a collective decision.

The abuses of the veto produce not only a paralysis of the UN’s peace role, they destroy the core of the international legal fabric. It damages the whole UN system, which otherwise could be well-structured and made capable of undertaking extensive life-saving efforts.

An attempt to reduce the abuse of the veto was made by France and Mexico in 2015 by drafting a Political Declaration on Suspension of Veto in Cases of Mass Atrocity. Like-minded states formed the group ‘Accountability, Coherence, Transparency’ (ACT) and developed a Code of Conduct, urging the P-5 to refrain from using veto in the case of mass atrocities, signed by 122 States.

In March 2022, the UN General Assembly (GA) adopted the ‘Veto Initiative’, proposed by Liechtenstein and more than 80 other member-States. Now, every veto triggers a special emergency session, where the GA can demand explanation from the veto-imposing member(s), and even adopt the text from the vetoed resolution and make it part of its mandate. The expectation is that these emergency sessions will increase the reputational cost to the veto-wielder.

All efforts listed above to prevent abuse of the veto are admirable. However, they do not annul possible abuse of the veto in the future. The only way to get rid of the veto once and forever is through amendment of the UN Charter. However, such amendment is possible only if all of the P-5 ratify it.

The P-5 have ratified amendments a couple of times in the past, allowing, for example, to increase the non-permanent membership of the Security Council and the ECOSOC. However, even these mild changes were adopted very reluctantly. Will they ratify an amendment that eliminates their right of veto? Impossible, especially in the current atmosphere of rising geopolitical tensions.

The only remaining option, therefore, is to create a new world organisation to replace the United Nations. It may sound radical and unrealistic, but it is much more realistic than to expect the current P-5 States to agree to abandon their veto privilege.

Two arguments are usually given against the creation of a new organisation. The first is that the UN still does good work on many issues other than peace and security; for example, on climate change, humanitarian assistance, protection of refugees, education, health, prevention of diseases, etc. The counter to that is that there is absolutely no reason why a new organisation cannot mobilise global efforts and continue the very good work currently done by the UN. It would be a great chance for all other organs and agencies to rethink, change, innovate, improve and benefit from this ‘San Francisco moment’. There is a need to reform other parts of the UN system, not just the Security Council, and there isn’t likely to be a better time for it than now.

The second argument is more serious: What if major powers such as China and Russia refuse to join the new organisation? That may be expected but it won’t be a big deal. The UN came into existence in 1945 with just 51 initial members, the rest joined later and gradually. Imagine China facing the choice whether to join 170+ states in the new organisation and participate fully in it and benefit from all opportunities and programmes or to remain isolated, along with Russia, Belarus, Syria and a few others, outside the new organisation. I think I can guess correctly what Beijing will do.

(The writer is Vice Dean and Executive Director, Centre for the Study of United Nations, O P Jindal Global University, Sonepat)