Is Vanishing the Veto a logical solution?

Vladmir Putin said, “The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent, the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. “

Veto, by definition, means the power or right vested in one branch of a government to cancel or postpone the decisions, enactments, etc., of another branch, especially the right of a president, governor, or other chief executive to reject bills passed by the legislature. Veto power, in the United Nations Security Council refers to the power vested in the permanent members of the UN to veto any substantive resolution.

The existence of this veto power has been regarded as one of the most undemocratic policies of the United Nations. It has come under constant scrutiny, within various critics stating it as the main cause of international war and crimes against humanity. The objection of one country to a motion backed by various member countries may stifle any possible help or reform intended by the motion. Speakers who are in opposition of  the veto argue that the permanent members misuse the power to suit their own national demands and benefits.

One popular concern is that “the UN veto is anachronistic.” Speakers who are in opposition claim that the privilege of veto only made sense in the post cold war scene, and its application now prevents emerging powers from rising. However, the power of veto has been justifiably given to the nuclear powers. As the chart by Statista shows, Russia and the US share 93 per cent of the world's nuclear warheads.

All the five permanent members of the UNSC are legally recognised nuclear powers.  They are the main countries with the abiltiy to initiate full scale nuclear war. In this case, demolishimg the veto power could lead to disagreements in terms of motions, and createdangerous  international tension. The veto has succesfully helped in uniting the permant five, and in turn prevented a country from going rougue.

Reports have also showed that the veto power has wielded success since the cold war, and this has continued in an increasing fashion. For  concerns regardimg the excessive use of the veto, its use has in fact dramatically reduced since the cold war. In the days of the Cold war permanent members of the UN Security Council have used their veto right 240 times. In striking contrast in the first post-Cold war decade only nine draft resolutions were vetoed. It has also been found that the threat of veto, or, ‘pocket veto’, has been an important incentive in times of complicated crisis.

Another common concern is that the veto power is used for pushing the national agendas of the permanent five. However, statistically, the use of vetos are generally seen to uphold international interests.

If the a measure is proposed that any one country rejects, then chances are, that the measure is illogical or has a very slight possibility of being successfully carried out on international grounds. Thus, the veto also makes sure that the un doesn’t make decisions or take actions it cannot effectively carry out.

There have also been allegations of the veto being hypocritical, and not promoting equality and justice among countries. However, in response to this, Bardo Fassbender said  "'according to international law, all the states have the same capacity of being charged with duties and of acquiring rights; equality does not mean equality of duties and rights, but rather equality for capacity of duties and rights.' In this view, the privileges of the permanent members appear as rights freely bestowed on them by the totality of states ratifying the charter. In other words, the states not being permanent members have agreed to their diminished status under the charter. It is exactly the sovereignty and equality of states which is said to enable them to enter into international agreements which may, or may not, provide for different rights and obligations of the parties."

Abolition is not always the solution. Abandoning the veto power 

could lead to more complications than anticipated, and disrupt the working of the United Nations.  Under the leadership of the worlds most powerful nations, the working of the security council has proven to be effective.  Despite some shortcomings in the use or impacts of the veto, as a whole, its existence has more benefits than drawbacks.

(Opinionated Editorial, CNN UNSC)