Reform of UN Decision-Making Structures

Even when there is accurate and reliable information that genocide may occur, action to prevent genocide must be approved by the United Nations Security Council, in which five countries (China, France, Great Britain, Russia and the United States) hold veto power. To dispatch observers or troops under Chapter VI or VII of the Charter requires the consent of each one of these countries, and any of them can block action for any reason.

The potential problems associated with the veto were vividly illustrated when Serbian forces began a campaign of murder, mass rape and dislocation against Albanian Kosovars in the spring of 1998. Because of Russia's historical ties with the Serbs, it threatened to veto any UN military action to stop the violence, forcing NATO to intervene without Security Council approval. The delay in action led to a greater loss of life and the almost total ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, and forced NATO to take action which many claim was illegal under international law because it was not sanctioned by the Security Council.

While NATO did take action, there are many regions of the world, particularly in Africa, where regional organizations are neither willing nor able to intervene to prevent or stop genocide. It is essential that the veto power not be used to block action to prevent or stop genocide and that alternate channels for action be established.

One way in which this could be accomplished is through use of the Uniting for Peace Resolution. Under this resolution, adopted by the General Assembly in November 1950, the Assembly may take action if the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity of its permanent members, fails to act in a case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. The Assembly is empowered to consider the matter immediately and make recommendations to Members for collective measures, including, in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression, the use of armed force when necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Another option would be to eliminate the veto altogether, or to restrict its use in situations of potential or actual genocide or other mass murder of civilians. Many believe that widespread democratic reform of the United Nations decision-making structures, such as reform of the General Assembly voting procedures or Security Council membership, should occur concurrently to reform of the veto to ensure that a small group of Security Council members cannot block action that is otherwise widely supported and to ensure that the people of the world are more accurately represented in the United Nations.

 

 
But the hard fact remains that the decision-making system in the world body is too flawed to deal with the awesome gamut of our planet's problems in the coming decades.  It is neither morally right or politically sensible to leave veto power in the Security Council in the hands of the five nuclear powers.  It is plainly absurd to have decisions made on the basis of one nation, one vote in the General Assembly, thus giving countries with minute populations and minuscule contributions to the UN budget the same influence in decision-making as the bigger countries that have to pay the bills.  Moreover, a central global decision-making body that can pass only non-binding recommendations is not what the world needs for the 21st century.

Richard Hudson