The Security Council and the problem of the Veto Power

It has been a long time since I wrote something on this platform. This time I will not continue with the reflections on the SDGs and how they affect our daily life. Now that we are coming out of a pandemic and we all are affected by the war in Ukraine, some issues that were many years hidden or simply unimportant are now coming to light and gaining relevance. It is why now I believe is time to talk about them and start thinking on how to solve them.

I want to start referring to the Veto power at hart of the United Nations’ Security Council, how it helped to consolidate the organization and how it can contribute to its demise. In 1945 the 5 winning countries had to agree on the basis for an international organization to ensure peace and prosperity for all and when the last talks were about to end, the main agreement was on the veto power of the 5 victorious, it has contributed to the existence of the organization that at least the last 20 years has failed to uphold its main purpose of preserving PEACE.

Why would be important to change this veto power? Would it be important to change its dynamic? Will it help the United Nations? Will it help the world? All these questions and more came up to me when I saw how Russia started the invasion of its neighbor almost a month ago. This is not the only war being held in the planet but sure the most renown, and most people in this world of ours doesn’t even know about the ones being fought.

The UN helps the refugees and tries to minimize the “collateral damage” but doesn’t preserve peace as it should. Why? Well, the short and most popular answer is the “political cost”. As any other country or organization in the world it needs funding.

 That is why it is of the outmost importance to democratize this organization and start or deepen the debate about the obsolete veto power of the 5 victorious of WWII, the first shakedown of the system came with the independence movement in the 1960 and onwards, the organization welcomed new countries, and with the participation of more countries the governance of the organization became more complex, procedures were set in place but the core rules remained the same. The iron all came down but there was no significant change, even more new countries emerged but still no change. Terrible wars started in the 21st century but nothing changed, The United States vetoed the sanctions for attacking Iraq or start the Afghan campaign and now Russia vetoed the sanctions too.

 Today we are at the brink of a nuclear war, but I don’t see the UN acting to stop the war and bring peace again. Why? Russia vetoed the sanctions proposed at the Security Council at the beginning of the invasion and again, why? Well just because it can. When countries like Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, or Ethiopia will be able to veto a sanction or when the United Sates or Russia will have to accept the sanctions imposed by other countries at the Security Council? As I mentioned before, the “political cost” translated in funding could be one answer.

 We have grand SDGs, but we still have second class countries meaning second class people at the most important international security forum. Only if we all start to talk about this and the rest of the countries unite and demand an equal treatment, with determination and conviction, a change might be possible

 I just have one last concern; how can we talk about rights and have the largest international organization and its agencies protecting the rights of the endangered and victims when at its core there is this a clear impingement of rights? The clear start is on the debate, make it central to give the same rights at the council to every country and maybe we can have a United Nations Organization that really preserves peace.

 I know this is a very complex subject and has more to it than what I rase today, please let me know what are your impressions and if you have actual relevant material, please share it so we can have a richer debate.