Should Certain Nations Have the Veto Power at the UN?
Once again we have witnessed the disgraceful use of the veto by Russia and China on a UN Resolution, this time attempting to stop the bloodshed in Syria.
Russian YAK Fighters Sold to Syria
The reason for their veto is simple, self interest. Both countries are significant trading partners with the Assad regime. Russia ships arms into Syria to the tune of $1.1billion and has other investments in the country worth $19.4billion. China on the other hand sells a variety of goods worth $2.2billion to Syria annually. So it is easy to see they do not wish to upset the Assad government by joining in with any UN motion that censures that regime.
The League of Nations
The veto dates back to the original League of Nations formed after the First World War in 1920 when each member state had veto power on any and all resolutions. The system was adopted because nations were desirous of a unanimous vote on issues placed before it. In practice it proved unworkable, but the system was not changed until the United Nations was formed in 1948.
The Yalta Conference - Founding Moment of the UN
At a conference among the Allies held in 1944, which eventually resulted in the formation of the United Nations, the decision was taken to make Britain, Russia, China and the USA permanent members of the UN Security Council, all with veto powers over any decision taken. France was later allowed the same status because it had been defeated by Germany but was still a colonial power. Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, these five powers had a veto right over any and all resolutions made by the Council. As the major world powers, this was as much to protect their own interests as those of others.
Molotov
Russia has made the most frequent use of veto at the UN, mainly through Vyacheslav Molotov who was Russia’s Foreign Minister during part of the Soviet era. Since the end of the Cold War Russia has used its veto power sparingly, but the total is still the highest at 124. Next is the United States with 82, half of which have been used since 1986, often in support of Israel, the most recent used to block a motion against the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. In total, the power of the veto has been used 215 times in the UN to block resolutions.
Security Council Session
At various times over the past few years, the question of veto rights has been the subject of much discussion in the UN. Many countries have put forward arguments that the five nations no longer represent the most stable and responsible countries in the world. Germany, Brazil, India and Japan have all thought they should become members of the Security Council based on their standing in the world. Germany and Japan are among the largest donators to the UN, while Brazil is the largest Latin American country. India, which has the world’s largest economy and second largest population, is along with Brazil, one of the biggest contributors of troops to UN sanctioned peace-keeping missions.
League Monitors on Holiday
After weeks of debate, the Arab League failed to take any measures that adequately protected the people of Syria. In fact, even the presence of League Monitors on the ground did nothing to stop the violence by government forces, and eventually they turned to the UN for a solution to the crisis. The United Nations began drafting a resolution to censure President Assad and call for him to step down in an attempt to stop the violence, but the whole action has of course now been vetoed by Russia and China for their own reasons. Their joint action has led countries like the USA and Britain to deplore the decision stating, “it lets the Syrian people down, and will only encourage President [Bashar] Assad’s brutal regime to increase the killing” in the words of William Hague, Britain’s Foreign Secretary. These words have in fact been born out by shelling of the city of Homs by the Syrian Army in recent days.
The People's Cry Falling on Deaf Ears
It is a sorry state of affairs when the world is forced to stand by and watch the slaughter of innocent people who wish nothing more than to be free of an oppresive regime. But sadly, that is the case, for their is little more that can be done. Some countries may now unilaterally take the step of imposing economic sanctions on Syria and its hierarchy, but the people continue to die at the hands of a regime that will not give up power.
A Tank Destroyed by Protesters in Homs
05/02/2012 at 20:22
On the conflict in Syria, I often simply pull back and only read about what’s happening. Furthermore, I read about both sides of the issue. I know what happened in Iraq, what’s happening in Libya and what will be the eventual result in Syria. I keep close eye on the politics in Lebanon and have seen it the most stable since Hezbollah took the reigns of the country. My views are often skewed I suppose, but I feel it’s better to judge a regime on the basis of how the minorities are treated. If I’m not mistaken, Assad is Allawite (a Shi’ite) in a predominantly Sunni country. Hezbollah is Shi’ite, as is Iran’s governing power headed by Ahmadinejad. Gaddafi was Shi’ite and Sadaam was a ba’athist (concept of pan-Arabism). My understanding of the conflict seems to point to a Western + Sunni cooperation in which non Sunni governments are being overthrown, or at least attempted to. As an Armenian, I must say that it’s the Shi’ite that have been good to us. Today, we face persecutions in Iraq and Israel but live comfortably in Lebanon again for a while and the Armenians in Syria hold a particular love for Assad. Iran’s the closest ally to Armenia after Russia. I fear that the politics isn’t as simple as Russia and China vetoing against the UN resolution for their own gains but the Western powers preparing the resolution for their own gains.
06/02/2012 at 00:38
Hi Tamar,
Welcome back. I can understand your point, however, considering we have a minority group in what boils down to a dictatorship without free elections, and Assad was not voted in as President, it is not right that people should live in this manner. All the countries that have undergone revolution over the past year have been against leaders of the same ilk, none of whom had any intention of relinquishing power. Assad too wishes to maintain his hold on power, and therefore sends the army out on to the streets to kill his own people. Much of the problems in the arab world are compounded by ‘tribal’ differences which is the reason for the current bombings in Iraq for example. Sunni against Shi’ite and vice versa. I cannot agree with your assessment that the UN resolution was prepared by the West for their own gains. It was the Arab League that brought the motion before the Security Council after their own efforts to stem the violence failed. The western nations had nothing to do with this, but are also interested in stopping the violence meted out by the Assad regime on their own people. It pains me to realise from your statement that the Armenian people are still persecuted in some countries, but I am happy they have at least found some nations where they can live in peace.
06/02/2012 at 05:00
I should probably ask a key question before really commenting on much: Have you ever been to the Middle East for more than a week or two and really gotten to know the people? The US is the bane of the Middle East. Lebanese and Syrian jokes often include such things as: “Please keep Condolisa Rice in America or expect another war!” or “We’re making enough shoes to throw at every American president who thinks he’s doing us a favour by killing us”… They laugh about it, but know it’s true. The moment the West expresses any interest in the Middle East, war breaks out. The people aren’t against Assad, as they weren’t against Sadaam or Kadaffi. Every regime will have its dissenters, but if you know Middle Eastern politics, you will also know that votes are bought and the people scream for those who pride the money and against those who don’t buy them. I was there during the Lebanese elections and saw that even in my own family. Assad himself didn’t want to be president and that’s a well known fact. But now that he is, damn if he’s gonna be disgraced thus. Even I would fight to keep my seat if this was the type of heat I was receiving. If you think you’re stubborn, you’ve never met an Arab
Syrians, especially, are notorious for their stubborn nature. The West always has something to gain from everything they do and anyone who believes it’s for the people is beyond naive. Furthermore, it’s a known fact that if Assad is toppled, the minorities in Syria are placed in danger. Assad’s good to his people and has been making amendments. Actually, he’s known to be 100x better than his father was and has the respect of most in his country. The political game being played in Syria is worrisome as it is between the major powers and has nothing to do with the Assad or Syria alone. It’s a face-off between France, Turkey, Russia, China and the US and in the end, there will be no victor but someone who has nothing to do with Syria’s innocent people. Politics has no black or white, even if media portrays it so. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel has the most to gain out of all this actually
06/02/2012 at 11:56
Hi Tamar,
I have been to the Middle East several times and always found the arabs to be good people. However I cannot agree with your assessment that the ‘The Arab Spring’ has been the result of interference from western nations, particularly America. The motion for censure of Assad was put before the UN by the Arab League and had nothing whatsoever to do with any western powers, although for obvious reasons they did back the motion as any righteous person would. I fail to understand how you could believe that. If America and the western nations are so hated by the arabs, why would they allow these nations to incite violence against their governments if they are happy with them? Assad may be a good man, but then why is he having his forces shell and bombard the city of Homs at this very moment? If the Syrian people make jokes about the Americans, why would they allow themselves to be manipulated by them in this fashion? All questions that need to be answered if your hypothesis is correct. All people, no matter where they live, have the right to be governed by officials voted in by the people, and not some family or minority group that takes power and does as it pleases. The rhetoric from Assad about the trouble being caused by outside interference is nothing more than a smokescreen. No ruler has the right to kill his own people in the fashion that is now taking place there. The recent increase in attacks on the people, i.e. shelling by tanks and morters, are a direct result of the Russia/China veto, and will have been seen by the regime as a licence to kill. I fail to see how it will serve the people of Syria if the world turns it back on this problem and allows Assad to continue the slaughter. It is a very sad state of affairs, and one that I hope quickly finds a solution before more innocent lives are lost.
Roy.
05/02/2012 at 19:51
Hi Roy. Great comments in another post that is full of insight. International Relations and Foreign Policy is not (and never will be) my strong suit! But you have cut through lots of the chaff and have a clear minded grasp of these events. Keep posting. A J
06/02/2012 at 00:15
Thanks Andreas. I’ll do my best.
Roy.