Menu Menu

How the veto power dominated UN ceasefire discussions

The controversial veto by the United States on a resolution calling for humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip has left many angered and confused. It poses the question of how one country managed to overturn 14 others.

On October 18th, the United Nations Security Council brought forth a resolution that aimed to condemn the actions of Hamas while calling for a pause so humanitarian aid could be provided to the civilians of Gaza.

However, a veto by the United States caused the resolution to see its end that same day.

The US’s decision created a cascade of mixed emotions which spread throughout different corners of the world – many confused by the sheer influence of one country’s vote on the geopolitical stage.


Deliberations in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict

The past few weeks saw turmoil in the Middle East after Hamas launched an attack on Israel on October 7th. Since then, there have been strikes from both sides with the death toll increasing day by day.

The staggering effect of the war on the Gaza Strip has left many stranded and the region’s fuel supply running low; forcing the United Nations Agency Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to halt any efforts to provide aid.

A Brazil-led draft resolution was presented with the main purpose of calling for ‘humanitarian pauses’ so that aid could be given to those in Gaza, and for the violence against citizens to be condemned.

The US’ following choice to veto largely hinged on the fact that the resolution did not mention Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas. The UK agreed with the US stance and said that they would be working to ensure that the crisis was averted.

Days later, on October 25th another meeting between the council saw more resolutions presented. This time, a proposal by the United States was vetoed by China and Russia. China justified its decision by saying that the US was attempting to change the narrative of the war through its supposed resolution.

Though many ideas have been proposed, none have yet succeeded in progressing to a plan of action. Deliberating countries lie on a spectrum where some are concerned that drafts did not include Israel’s right to defend itself while others debate on whether a humanitarian ‘pause’ or ‘ceasefire’ should be prioritized.

The Security Council

The United Nations Security Council is primarily made up of fifteen nations, of which five are permanent members: the United Kingdom, the United States, France, China, and Russia, otherwise known as the P5. The other ten are usually rotated around and each non-permanent member gets one vote.

However, any permanent member has the power to veto any resolution placed forth by the council, disapproving it. All decisions eventually confirmed by the fifteen nations are legally binding for all 193 member states of the United Nations by default.

The disproportionate power held by the permanent members has long caused controversy due to the hold they have over the international community. Many speculate that the power of the veto has long been abused by these members.

There have also been alleged instances wherein the P5 have used the veto for their own geopolitical interests, despite the larger effect on other nations.


The veto issue

In matters concerning Israel, the US has employed its veto power several times to preserve its relationship with the Middle Eastern nation. The recent ‘pause’ was called on by the Security Council with 12 countries in favor, the US against it, and Russia and the UK abstaining.

The US Ambassador justified the nation’s choice by stating that it needed to ‘let that diplomacy play out’. In the context of the conflicts in Israel-Palestine, the US lone-vetoed resolutions the most, in favor of protecting Israel. In fact, it has vetoed as many as 34 related resolutions.

However, the US isn’t the nation abusing its power the most – rather, it’s Russia. As of early last year, Russia and the USSR have vetoed 121 times. On the note of the Ukraine-Russia war, President Zelensky stated that Russia’s presence in the P5 prevents it from being expelled from the United Nations as a whole.

In contrast, France and the UK have not used their veto power since 1989 with the latter’s former President, Francois Hollande, calling in 2013 for the veto to by regulated by all member nations.

In a statement, France asserted that the ‘veto should not and cannot be a privilege’.


Implications for other countries

The primary flaw lies within the fact that a majority resolution can be thrown by a single country with its own specific motivations. The UN then falls in line, as it doesn’t have the power to respond to crises and conflicts without a consensus.

Moreover, the power can be used by countries to avoid being held responsible for their actions, even if those actions break international law such as in the case of Russia. This weakens the rule of law and makes international institutions difficult to trust.

Most importantly, when the P5 uses its veto power, it can make other countries feel that they are being treated unfairly and that the UN is not working for them. This creates division and makes it harder for the UN to respond in times of global strife.

With the Israel-Hamas war only getting worse, it remains to be seen whether the UNSC will eventually prioritize innocent human lives over its political alliances.

Accessibility