01/10/00
International Organizations and Their Management:
The United Nations System
Patricia Fernandes Da Silva
Assignment # 3
The power of the veto held by the permanent five (P5) members of the Security Council (SC), -Unites States, France, Russia, China and United Kingdom- has been a controversial subject of discussion since the creation of the United Nations (UN).
Regardless of whether members of the P5 actually use the veto, most agree that the simple threat of the veto weakens the decisions made by the SC.
The veto was introduced at
the 1945 San Francisco Conference. The
members of the P5, as winners of WWII, felt that they had a responsibility to
maintain international peace and security.
Initially, the Soviet Union demanded a comprehensive and unlimited veto
power in the SC. Eventually they agreed
that the veto should be a means to guaranty the agreement of the P5 in all
substantive matters and to preclude the initiation of enforcement action
directly against any member of the P5.
The Soviet Union settled for a veto power in all non-procedural matters
only. Since 1946, of a total of 247
vetoes, 59 vetoes have been used to block the admission of countries to the UN
and 43 have been used to prevent nomination for the office of Secretary
General. Please see the table below for
vetoing trends from 1990 to the present (Fig1).
Many members of the United
Nations argue that current use of the veto is absolute. If nothing else it guaranties the power of
few in an organization that should be an example of democracy. The initial objective of the veto for the
Security Council may have been justified.
The World was divided in such a way that the veto assured equilibrium to
safeguard the interests of all nations.
Today such need no longer exists; the cold war has ended and most of the
old threats for the P5 ended with it.
Furthermore, some of the countries in the P5 no longer hold the power
that they did at the time of the creation of the UN, making their veto power
frivolous.
Unfortunately, today the veto
is used by the P5 to guaranty their economic and political interests rather
than to guaranty international peace and security of all nation members. For example, China vetoed peacekeeping
initiatives in Macedonia.
Fig.1
|
Date of Distribution |
Date of Vote |
SC Meeting No. |
Vetoing Member State |
Text No. |
Subject |
|
1999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 25, 1999 |
Feb 25 , 1999 |
3982 |
China |
on the extension of UN Peacekeeping in Macedonia |
|
|
1998 |
no vetoes |
|
|
|
|
|
1997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 21, 1997 |
Mar 21, 1997 |
3756 |
USA |
on the Occupied Arab Territories |
|
|
Mar 7, 1997 |
Mar 7, 1997 |
3746 |
USA |
on the Occupied Arab Territories |
|
|
Jan 9, 1997 |
Jan 10, 1997 |
3730 |
China |
on Guatemala |
|
|
1996 |
no vetoes |
|
|
|
|
|
1995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 17, 1995 |
May 17, 1995 |
3538 |
USA |
on the Occupied Arab Territories |
|
|
1994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2, 1994 |
Dec 2, 1994 |
3475 |
Russian Federation |
on Bosnia and Herzegovina |
|
|
1993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 29, 1993 |
May 11, 1993 |
3211 |
Russian Federation |
on Cyprus (finances) |
|
|
1992 |
no vetoes |
|
|
|
|
|
1991 |
no vetoes |
|
|
|
|
|
1990 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 31, 1990 |
May 31, 1990 |
2926 |
USA |
on the Occupied Arab Territories |
|
|
Jan 16, 1990 |
Jan 17, 1990 |
2905 |
USA |
on the Violation of Diplomatic Immunities in Panama |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since
1946 the Security Council has used the veto 247 times. See table attached, Fig.2
