An unequal treaty

Pakistan has reiterated its opposition to creating more permanent members on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The latest articulation of Pakistan’s position was made at the UN General Assembly session on November 7, 2016 on the council’s reforms. In the words of Pakistan’s permanent representative to the world body, increase in permanent members of the UNSC will be “the antithesis of principles enshrined in the UN Charter.”

In contrast, for years India has been vying to become a permanent member of the UNSC. This means that in principle New Delhi does not oppose the UNSC expansion and by implication the veto power exercised by the council’s permanent members (P-5). India will reject increase in UNSC strength only in the event that the country is not a beneficiary of such a move.

Country-specific benefits aside, is UNSC expansion called for? The expansion of the UNSC can be looked upon in two ways. One, whether veto power should be done away with altogether; and two, while the veto power may be retained, should more countries be added to the list of permanent members?

Nothing in the UN system has invited more criticism than the veto – a negative vote cast by any of the P-5 on a motion in the UNSC to the effect of killing it. Interestingly, in the entire UN Charter, there is no mention of the word ‘veto’. The power is derived from Article 27 (3), which states: ‘Decisions of the UNSC shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, out of total strength of 15, including the concurring votes of the permanent members’.

Thus the UNSC to arrive at a decision must get the nod of P-5, any of which can obstruct decision-making by simply opposing or vetoing a draft resolution. In other words, unanimity of big powers is necessary to arrive at any decision in the Security Council.

As they are used, vetoes are of two types: actual veto and potential or hidden veto. The potential veto is used mainly in informal meetings where one of the P-5 frankly tells others of its standpoint on the issue at hand with a view to changing theirs. The result is that even before the council formally takes up a matter, in many cases its fate has already been sealed. For instance, it was the erstwhile Soviet Union’s threat to use veto that had prevented the council from discussing Moscow’s 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.

Its advocates maintain that if any of them disagree on a matter of crucial importance for international peace and security, the use of force against any of them will precipitate a major war. Not only will this defeat the very purpose of the UN, but will also be disastrous for the world at large.

However, this is not a sound argument. The main threat to global peace and security stems from not small but big powers – the members of the veto club. What the veto principle implies is that that a decision against a permanent member shall be taken only with its own consent. This is ridiculous, as no country will ever consent to action against itself.

The veto principle is also at variance with the fundamentals of the UN Charter. Article 2 of the charter states that the fundamental principle on which the world body is based is the sovereign equality of all its members. Obviously, the veto principle is incompatible with the sovereign equality principle, as the former makes all other members subservient to the will of the P-5. The veto power thus makes the UN Charter an unequal treaty – an arrangement in which the rights and obligations of the parties do not mutually commensurate, with some signatories having more rights than the rest. Increase in the number of permanent members will only make the UN Charter more unequal.

Under Article 24, in discharging its obligations to maintain global peace and security, the UNSC is to act in accordance with UN principles and purposes. The same article requires that the council act on behalf of UN members, which means that its actions should broadly represent the will of UN members. However, the veto principle makes the council representative only of the will of the P-5.

The veto principle is also undemocratic. In democracy, at least in theory, everyone has an equal voice. The rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, the educated and the uneducated have an equal number of votes. This principle of equality finds its full expression in the UNGA, where votes of all states count equally. However, the equality principle breaks down in the UNSC, where votes of some powers weigh more than those of others.

The exercise of the veto principle begets a system of clientage. The lesser powers may be attacked by a bigger power and no action can be taken against the belligerent if it happens to be one of the P-5 or a protégée of any of them. That Israel continues to oppress and suppress the Palestinians and always gets away with that is because it is shielded by a veto wielding USA.

A lot is being said about reforming the UN to make it more effective, more democratic and more representative of the will of the international community. One of the suggestions is to expand the UNSC by inducting more permanent members, such as Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil. The present composition of the UNSC, it goes without saying, reflects the post World War-II reality, while much has changed over the past seven decades, with new powers having emerged on the regional and global arenas.

Regardless of the qualifications of any of the candidates to join the veto club, improvement in the UN system lies not in increasing the permanent members of the council but in doing away with the veto power. The only advantage of expansion of the veto club will be to the new members or their protégés, as they will be shielded from action even if they commit the worst human right violations or pose a most serious threat to international peace. Imagine India getting a permanent seat on the UNSC. The Kashmir issue will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

By and large, the world will derive little benefit from UNSC expansion. The problem, however, is that to abolish the veto power, the UN Charter will have to be amended, and no amendment to the charter can be made without the consent of the P-5. Is there a way out of this catch-22?

The writer is a graduate from a Western European university.

Email: hussainhzaidi@gmail.com