CAIPHUS KGOSANA | The UN has run its course. It must adapt or die

On Friday Russia vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution that would have demanded it immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraws all troops. As Vladimir Putin’s army invaded the neighbouring country and began a chilling bombardment operation that has killed hundreds of civilians, it’s important to remind ourselves how the big nations gave themselves the power to block resolutions and disregard the UN when contemplating unilateral action.

On April 19 1946 the League of Nations officially ceased to exist.

Formed in 1920 at the Paris Treaty marking the end of World War 1, the league had as its raison d’être the elimination of all forms of aggression by nation states and the prevention of wars. By 1945, when the Nazis were finally defeated and Adolf Hitler committed suicide in a bunker, it was evident it had dismally failed in its mission.

Its successor, the UN, was originally formed on better footing. For starters, the US, which refused to join the League of Nations, became an active participant in its birth. It was at the US’s insistence that the new global affairs body would be headquartered in New York. To this day Americans remain the UN’s biggest funder.

Having learnt from the failures of the past, the founders of the UN chose to empower its Security Council. Unlike the council of the League of Nations, whose main function was “settling international disputes”, the UN Security Council’s primary responsibility, adopted from its founding charter, became “maintenance of international peace and security”. It could also deploy international peacekeeping missions.

It’s important to remind ourselves how the big nations gave themselves the power to block resolutions and disregard the UN when contemplating unilateral action.

Perhaps wanting to appease the strongest nations and keep them in the tent, the UN was thus designed in a way that guaranteed enormous power to the five permanent members of the Security Council — the US, Russia, China, Britain and France. Drafters extended a special voting power, the right to veto, to the five permanent members, meaning if any of them cast a negative vote in the council, a resolution or decision would not be approved.

Over the course of its existence the veto has proven to be the UN’s Achilles heel. Permanent members have abused this instrument to shut down any debates they don’t like and defeat resolutions that are not in their strategic interests.

In a 2005 academic paper titled “Security Council Reform: A new vote for a new century”, Jan Wouters and Tom Ruys, of the Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels, listed troubling instances where the big five used the veto power to shield themselves from condemnation.

Here are some that immediately caught my eye:

• On February 6 1976 France vetoed a resolution concerning a dispute between it and the Comoros about the island of Mayotte
• On September 12 1983 the Soviet Union vetoed a resolution concerning the shooting down by Soviet forces of a South Korean commercial airliner
• On April 21 1986 the US vetoed a resolution condemning US air attacks against Libya
• On December 22 1989 the US vetoed a resolution censuring US military activities in Panama

There are hundreds of other instances. China continuously uses the power of the veto to block Security Council resolutions on Myanmar and North Korea.

There is an urgent need to reform the United Nations because in its current format it is a poor forum for multilateralism.

There is an urgent need to reform the UN because in its current format it is a poor forum for multilateralism. This is no longer 1945; countries of the Global South, many of which were mere colonial outposts and protectorates 70 years ago, are today independent states with their own identities and strategic needs. SA, Brazil, India and Nigeria have been demanding reforms to the UN so they can also get seats at the big table.

These reforms, including a complete relook at the powerful veto, are long overdue. The big five have an inordinate amount of power that must be curtailed if the UN is to be effective. For starters, the veto is grossly unfair and must be abolished. If the permanent Security Council members insist on keeping it, they must be forced to concede that on issues directly affecting them, a permanent member has to recuse themself when voting takes place. They must also agree to expand the Security Council to include more permanent members, especially influential countries of the South which deserve an equal say in the global world order. Their voices cannot be confined to the General Assembly or rotational membership of the Security Council where, without the right to veto, they are just observers.

Unless the UN reforms substantially, it will continuously be hamstrung by its five permanent members, who abuse it for their own selfish interests. The UN must adapt to the geopolitical realities of today or die like the League of Nations.