China has blocked a proposal by the US and India at the UN Security Council (UNSC) to designate Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) deputy chief, Abdul Rauf Azhar as a global terrorist, while all the remaining 14 member states supported the move. He was involved in numerous terror strikes in India.
In June this year also, China had put a hold on similar joint proposal by India and US to list the US-designated terrorist, Abdul Rahman Makki, deputy leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
These are not the isolated cases. Every now and then, it is used by big five in the name of protecting them or their respective allies from the so-called biased and destructive resolutions. As a result, it has become counter-productive. Wars break out, but these are not halted, as super-powers are themselves involved as proxies.
Whether it’s Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, or Armenia, you just see who are or were behind these wars. That’s why Russia has used its veto 121 times, the US 82 times, the UK 29 times, China 18 times, and France 16 times. It’s however, pleasing to note that France and the UK have not used it since 1989.
The United Nations was founded on 24 October, 1945 after WWII by 51 countries to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, and to promote social progress, better living standards and human rights.
A General Assembly (UNGA) of all the member states and Security Council (UNSC) of permanent members and those chosen by UNGA were constituted with veto powers to permanent members of UNSC.
Both Roosevelt and Stalin saw nothing wrong with the veto powers, as they themselves were beneficiaries, but they were also had the powers to destabilise the whole world.
Since it was considered that without them, the UN was doomed to fail in its mission, a compromise was accepted in the form of a veto power for the permanent five members to protect their own interests and interests of their allies. And here a seed of discrimination and inadequacy was sown.
The UN Charter gives the UNSC the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security by convening it at any time whenever the peace is threatened. It’s convened too, but result remains a cypher.
Veto power has corrupted the moral authority of UN to mediate for maintaining the world peace. It has paralysed the UN at a time when the multiple global crises call for an effective organisation that should have its say and control on all the member nations.
Veto power, therefore, needs to be abolished or at least modified, if UN has to remain relevant and faithful to its noble founding principles, and also to stop WWIII, the fear of which always lurks here or there.
But to abolish or modify veto power has a risk of losing interest by the super powers without whose support this organisation would become ineffective, both financially and otherwise. We have seen how US withdrew from the UNESCO and UNHRC in October 2017 and June 2018 respectively. However, I feel that this risk is worth taking.