Assignment

Objective & Introduction:
The purpose of the current summary is to critically examine the pros and cons of the �Veto� in the Security Council of the United Nations. The conclusions reached will reflect a synthesis of the opposing arguments that have been advanced.

The veto power was granted to the Five permanent members of the Security Council during UN Charter negotiations. Chapter three of Article 27 in the Charter provides that decisions on non-procedural matters require 9 votes including the concurring votes of the P-5. Today, the veto is an issue of contention in the United Nations where little consensus has been reached.

It is easy to say �To the winners go the spoils� and dismiss the existence of the veto power as such, but it is harder to come to a balanced understanding of the issue at hand.

Pros
The fact is that there are many compelling reasons for the need of a veto power in the United Nations Security Council. There are four main perspectives which must be taken to understand the importance of the veto.

1. Taken from the position of the framers of the UN Charter, the primary responsibility of the United Nations was to ensure Peace and Security. Because the Security Council was the key body entrusted with this task, and the P-5 was granted stewardship of this body, there is a need to preserve the power and status of the P-5 for the sake of the organization�s existence.

2. From the perspective of the major powers, the veto power addresses the need to preclude the initiation of enforcement against one of the major powers or over the objection of one of the major powers. In this way, the UN avoids the possibility of turning localized conflicts into global conflicts involving one of the major powers.

3. The general membership of the UN also has a vested interest the veto. The members of the Security Council, permanent and elected, value their position as representatives of all member states. As such, it is important to recognize that the veto serves as an added incentive to reach consensus.

4. The veto power may also serve as a mechanism for UN viability. Without a veto, major powers may find themselves pressed to accept the will of Coalitions based on voting majorities and instead opt to remove themselves from the organization. The veto helps to avoid that.

Cons
On the other hand, there are clear positions against the veto power.

1. One of the central tenets of the UN charter is the principle of sovereign equality. The notion of granting special privileges and/or status to a few countries (to the exclusion of the rest), subverts the notion of sovereign equality.

2. The granting of the veto was closely tied to the power of the nations to which the privilege was bestowed. If this is accepted, then clearly, the current situation is anachronistic given the drastic changes in the geo-political landscape.

3. The veto power threatens the effectiveness of today�s UN. The veto, or the threat thereof, prevents the UN from taking necessary fast and decisive actions to respond to urgent needs. In the case of the Kosovo crisis, for instance, the UN was forced to relinquish its position of primacy in that situation to NATO.

Reconciling the Facts with Reality
It is clear that during the early years of the UN, up until the end of the Cold War even, there existed a need to balance powers, ideologies, influence, etc. to maintain the existence of the UN and avoid another world war. Today, with some of these pressures relieved, there is an increased demand on the part of member states to revisit the imbalanced power dynamic created over 50 years ago. Despite the claims set forth by the charter�s framers and a striking few of UN member states, it is clear that the current veto privilege is anachronistic and may even be detrimental to the development of the UN.

The discussion of reform deals closely with this particular issue and perhaps is the key to reconciling the interests of the majority of nations with the interests of the P-5. As the current geo-political landscape does not match the original arguments for veto powers, then one of two things must happen: Either the UN must re-work the justifications for the veto power, or the veto power must be eliminated. In either case, something will have to change or the integrity and legitimacy of the Security Council might be compromised, thereby compromising the UN system at large.

Many member states have already expressed their criticism of the veto arguing that it is responsible for much of the Security Council's undemocratic and ineffective procedures. Not surprisingly, those enjoying the power of the veto do not want to give it up, making the task at hand � ensuring peace and security � that much more difficult.