Misuse of veto power?
- By Shreya LN and Yamini R V Mohite
What is veto power? Who is the P5? So, P5 refers to the UN Security Council’s five
permanent members namely China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States. Veto power gives the special importance to these countries in passing resolutions
mainly because they are the most prominent nationalities worldwide.
Some delegates stated that “Veto is misused by the members of the P5 for their own national
interests”. We cannot say how far this really might be true but the major control of solving
world issues shouldn’t just lie with what is less than 5% of world population right? Even if
veto power is to be removed, a resolution must be passed. For this resolution to pass, all the
members of the P5 must vote. To be practical, why would any member of the veto vote
themselves out of power? They wouldn’t. The delegate of France stated that- “ Right of
individual veto should be abolished”. Indeed, this is a very strong point to state, but the
reasons of veto powers being used unjustly have a very strong chance of holding true.
In particular, the delegate of the United States said that the UN charter would have definitely
taken into consideration that the P5 may misuse their power, and since the UN is completely
based on peacekeeping and equality, only after much thought would they have provided the
five nationalities in the P5 with their veto power. Though, the delegate of the United States
did use the term “terrorism” in committee, the point made by him does hold importance. As
stated by the delegate of Republic of Korea, “Countries with veto power have used their
power justly”. His reason was that, while voting for resolutions in the UN, these five
nationalities keep in mind the interests of their other fellow countries. They also take the
opinion of other nationalities into consideration before voting.
During an unmoderated caucus, one block suggested the idea of more permanent seats in the UN, but without veto power.
Basically, here veto power had been described in a very short manner. But, there was more
argument about the use or misuse of veto power than required. The Executive Board did give
more importance to the misuse of veto power and this does make sense because – how can
only five countries decide what should be done with world relations?
- (Al Jazeera – UNSC)
- By Shreya LN and Yamini R V Mohite
What is veto power? Who is the P5? So, P5 refers to the UN Security Council’s five
permanent members namely China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United
States. Veto power gives the special importance to these countries in passing resolutions
mainly because they are the most prominent nationalities worldwide.
Some delegates stated that “Veto is misused by the members of the P5 for their own national
interests”. We cannot say how far this really might be true but the major control of solving
world issues shouldn’t just lie with what is less than 5% of world population right? Even if
veto power is to be removed, a resolution must be passed. For this resolution to pass, all the
members of the P5 must vote. To be practical, why would any member of the veto vote
themselves out of power? They wouldn’t. The delegate of France stated that- “ Right of
individual veto should be abolished”. Indeed, this is a very strong point to state, but the
reasons of veto powers being used unjustly have a very strong chance of holding true.
In particular, the delegate of the United States said that the UN charter would have definitely
taken into consideration that the P5 may misuse their power, and since the UN is completely
based on peacekeeping and equality, only after much thought would they have provided the
five nationalities in the P5 with their veto power. Though, the delegate of the United States
did use the term “terrorism” in committee, the point made by him does hold importance. As
stated by the delegate of Republic of Korea, “Countries with veto power have used their
power justly”. His reason was that, while voting for resolutions in the UN, these five
nationalities keep in mind the interests of their other fellow countries. They also take the
opinion of other nationalities into consideration before voting.
During an unmoderated caucus, one block suggested the idea of more permanent seats in the UN, but without veto power.
Basically, here veto power had been described in a very short manner. But, there was more
argument about the use or misuse of veto power than required. The Executive Board did give
more importance to the misuse of veto power and this does make sense because – how can
only five countries decide what should be done with world relations?
- (Al Jazeera – UNSC)
Comments
Post a Comment