Why US Doesn't Want New UNSC Permanent Members to Have Veto Power

The US has reiterated its support to India, Germany and Japan for permanent membership in the UN Security Council. It has also extended support for permanent membership for two seats from Africa. However, at the same time, the US does not want veto power to be extended to any new permanent member. What is the logic behind this? ETV Bharat finds out.

New Delhi: In what can be seen as a bid to leave her legacy before her term in the UN is likely to come to an end when a new administration takes over in Washington next year, the US’ Permanent Representative to the world body Linda Thomas-Greenfield has voiced her country’s support for permanent membership of India, Germany, Japan and two seats from Africa in the UN Security Council (UNSC).

“For years, countries have been calling for a more inclusive and a more representative Council; one that reflects the demographics of today’s world, and better responds to the challenges that we face today,” Thomas-Greenfield said while addressing the Council on Foreign Relations on the Future of Multilateralism and UN Reform earlier this week.

“It’s why, two years ago, (US) President (Joe) Biden announced that the United States supports expanding the Security Council to provide permanent representation for countries from Africa, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean,” she said. “That in addition to the countries we’ve long supported for permanent seats: India, Japan, and Germany, we would support Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.”

She further said that the US supports creating two permanent seats for Africa on the Council.

“From Kenya’s contributions to the Multinational Security Support Mission in Haiti, to Gabon’s support to protect our planet, we have seen how African leadership not only benefits the lives of Africans, but people across the globe,” Thomas-Greenfield said. “So now, it’s time for African leadership to have a permanent place on the Security Council too.”

However, during a moderated conversation with senior journalist Elisa Labott later, Thomas-Greenfield said that though the US supports new permanent members in the UNSC to reflect today’s world, it was against extending the veto power to such members.

As of now, the original five permanent members (P5) of the UNSC – the US, the UK, France, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) and China – enjoy the veto power.

What is veto power?

The word “veto” comes from the Latin for “I forbid”. The concept of a veto originated with the Roman offices of consul and tribune of the plebs or tribune of the people. There were two consuls every year; either consul could block military or civil action by the other. The tribunes had the power to unilaterally block any action by a Roman magistrate or the decrees passed by the Roman Senate.

In today’s world, in the most typical case, a president or monarch vetoes a bill to stop it from becoming law. In many countries, veto powers are established in the country’s constitution. Veto powers are also found at other levels of government, such as in state, provincial or local government, and in international bodies. Some vetoes can be overcome, often by a supermajority vote: in the US, a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate can override a presidential veto.

However, at the UNSC, a veto by any of the five permanent members is absolute and cannot be overridden. Every permanent member has used this power at some point. A permanent member that wants to disagree with a resolution, but not to veto it, can abstain. The first country to use the latter power was the Soviet Union in 1946, after its amendments to a resolution regarding the withdrawal of British troops from Lebanon and Syria were rejected.

So, why were the original five permanent members of the UN given the veto power?

The idea of the UN and the concept of veto power emerged from the ashes of World War II. The formation of the UN was led by the Allied Powers, who had emerged victorious from the war. These countries, particularly the US, UK, the Soviet Union, and China (later joined by France), played a central role in defeating the Axis powers and were considered the major global powers at the time.

The League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, failed in part because it lacked the enforcement power and unity among its members to prevent the rise of fascism and aggression that led to World War II. Its decisions were often ignored, and it did not have a mechanism to ensure the compliance of the major powers. The founders of the UN wanted to avoid this problem and created a system that could more effectively maintain international peace and security.

To ensure that the major powers would participate in and commit to the UN, they were granted veto power in the Security Council. The veto was seen as a necessary mechanism to avoid the withdrawal or non-participation of these nations, which had happened with the US and the League of Nations.

One of the principal reasons for giving the veto to the P5 was to prevent conflicts between these powerful nations. The UN was founded on the idea that lasting peace could only be secured if the world’s major powers cooperated. If any one of these nations could be forced into accepting a UNSC decision against their vital interests, it would likely result in them leaving the organisation or even sparking a major conflict.

The veto ensures that no significant action is taken by the UN that could threaten the core interests of any of the P5 nations. It is, in essence, a safeguard to maintain unity among these powerful countries. By giving each of them the ability to veto decisions, the UN ensures that the major powers will remain engaged in the organization and its decision-making process rather than turning away or undermining the system.

Why has the veto power of the P5 come in for criticism?

Critics argue that the veto power undermines the democratic principles of the UN by granting disproportionate power to five nations. This has led to calls for reform, particularly from countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Asia-Pacific region that feel marginalised.

The P5 have used the veto to block resolutions that might have otherwise been supported by a broad majority of the international community. For example, Russia has frequently used its veto to block actions on Syria, while the US has used its veto to block resolutions criticising Israel. This has sometimes paralysed the Security Council in responding to international crises.

Over the years, there have been numerous calls for reforming the veto system. For example, the Group of Four (G4), comprising India, Japan, Germany and Brazil advocate for expanding the UNSC to include more permanent members and even limiting or abolishing the veto power to make the Council more representative and democratic. However, any such reform would require the approval of the P5, making meaningful change difficult to achieve.

Why is the US against granting veto power to any new permanent member of the UNSC?

During the moderated conversation, Labott pointed out to Thomas-Greenfield that permanent membership in the UNSC comes with a lot of perks – in other words, the veto power.

In reply, Thomas-Greenfield said: “So we’ve been very, very clear that we do not support expansion of the veto. And, you know, I’ve had a number of discussions with my African colleagues who put this kind of take-it-or-leave-it position on the table, we get two seats and we get the veto. And the reason we want the veto is because you have it, but the reason we hate the veto is because it makes the Council dysfunctional.”

The US Permanent Representative reasoned that if the veto power makes the UNSC dysfunctional in the view of potential new permanent members, then why should it be expanded?

“Well, and I think we all know that the veto is so destructive, especially when it comes to Russia and China using their veto power. So why retain it? Why do – why don’t we just have permanent members and nobody has a veto?” Labott asked.

Thomas-Greenfield admitted that none of the permanent members want to give up their veto power, including the US.

She then explained: “I’m being honest about that. We don’t want to give up our veto power, and we do think if we expand that veto power across the board, it will make the Council more dysfunctional.”

When Labott asked if new permanent members do not get veto power then what is the power of membership, Thomas Greenfield replied: “Well, one is that they can permanently engage on issues of significance to them, and actually help the Council to do its work. The veto power is not all-encompassing. I was just checking before coming here – we’ve passed over 180 resolutions in the past four years. So the – and these resolutions are passed with countries engaging with us to ensure that their priorities, their values are in those resolutions. So the Council works despite the veto power.”

It remains to be seen whether there will be discrimination in a reformed UNSC with new permanent members not having veto power and the original five permanent members continuing to have veto power.