Posted By David Bosco Share

With Russia and China just having vetoed a draft resolution on Syria, it's worth looking back at some key moments in the history of the veto power, drawn from my book on the Council:  

Summer 1944: At talks in Washington, veto power agreed in principle by the United States, U.K., and Soviet Union.

February 1945: At the Yalta summit, details of the veto power are finalized. Veto may be used on "substantive" resolutions, but not procedural ones.

June 1945: UN Charter signed in San Francisco. The veto power remains intact despite fierce resistance from some states. A U.S. senator attending the conference writes in his diary: "This veto bizness is making it very difficult to maintain any semblance of a fiction of 'sovereign equality' among the nations here at Frisco."

February 1946: First use of the veto, by the Soviet Union. The early and frequent resort to the veto power stuns many observers. A few years later, Soviet ambassador Andrei Vishinsky defends frequent use of veto power. "The veto, they say, has been applied 50 times! [It] may well be applied 150 times in such conditions because it is a means of self-defence against the pressure, the dictation which the states that believe themselves to be strongest and mightiest..are trying to exercise against other states in international affairs."

November 1950: In the context of the Korean war, the United States attempts to circumvent the Soviet veto by working through the General Assembly. This "Uniting for Peace" approach was later quietly dropped by the U.S. as the General Assembly became a less friendly political environment, although other states have periodically attempted to use it.

Fall 1956: British and French veto Security Council action during the Suez crisis. This was the first use of the veto power by the British.

August 1968: Soviet Union vetoes Council condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. American ambassador thunders, "Your veto...may stifle the legal votes of this Council, but it cannot suffocate the soul of a proud people..."

March 1970: United States uses its veto power (with the British) for the first time, on a resolution regarding Rhodesia.

August 1972: The People's Republic of China, which finally took over the UN seat from Taiwan the previous year, uses its first-ever veto, to oppose the admission of Bangladesh. In general, China shows itself to be reluctant to use the veto except on regional issues, a pattern of restraint that continues to the present.

September 1972: U.S. again uses the veto, on a resolution relating to the Middle East. U.S. Secretary of States describes the use of the veto as "good medicine." During this period, the U.S. develops the practice--still very much alive--of using the veto to squelch Council criticism of Israel.

October 1983: U.S. vetoes Council condemnation of the Grenada invasion.

Early 1987: Then UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar scolds the P5 for their frequent use of the veto power. The veto power, he says, "is not something given to them generously by the membership of the United Nations. The veto power implies that they have to work in order to reach agreement for the peaceful solution of international problems."

With the end of the Cold War, the veto power has been employed much less frequently. There were  no vetoes at all in 1991, 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000 or 2005. Since 2005, however, there's been at least one veto every year--all by Russia, China, or the United States (Britain and France have become extremely reluctant to deploy the veto). Today's Syria vote is another data point suggesting that a practice that once appeared to be fading away is likely here to stay.

 

MARTY MARTEL

10:50 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Veto is the dictatorial power grabbed by five Brahmins

Five Brahmins of UN Security Council bestowed upon themselves the veto power to push the world in the direction they think is right when they agreed to form United Nations in 1945 while creating the façade of General Assembly to give UN a sham democratic look.

Five Brahmins of UN Security Council bestowed upon themselves the veto power to push the world in the direction they think is right when they agreed to form United Nations in 1945 while creating the façade of General Assembly to give UN a sham democratic look.

Veto power also allows even a one Brahmin to stop other four from imposing their agenda. It also gives five Brahmins a negotiating tool to get exclusive economic benefits for themselves unlike those poor general assembly members.

 

GRANT

9:18 PM ET

February 4, 2012

China using its veto power

China using its veto power (twice now) on Syria suggests it's moving past regional concerns. If they just wanted the resolutions killed they could have just let the Russians do it, instead they took the step of joining Russia's veto.

 

DAVID BOSCO

8:54 AM ET

February 5, 2012

Agreed, though I think

Agreed, though I think there's no way they would have vetoed on their own. Russia and China have a strong interest in banding together on these issues so that neither appears isolated.

 

GRANT

1:27 PM ET

February 5, 2012

Given Russia's history and

Given Russia's history and interests in Syria I would have expected it to veto the resolution anyway, but obviously it's politically easier with China joining in.

 

DELTA22

7:16 PM ET

February 5, 2012

-

What exactly is Russia's interest in Syria besides that of an arms customer? I can't imagine that's really enough to warrant vetoing a condemnation of the regime.

 

GRANT

7:46 PM ET

February 5, 2012

I can think up multiple

I can think up multiple reasons.

Russia considers Syria to be a useful state with similar views on American power in the Middle East.

Russia has a naval base in Syria and doesn't want to risk losing it if Assad's government falls from power.

Russia doesn't want to risk being alienated from a new Syrian government, especially in light of Iran's relations with the U.S post-1979 and the new damage to American-Egyptian ties from the arrests of NGO workers.

Syria is a useful producer of oil, something that makes it very important for that reason alone.

Russia doesn't want Saudi Arabia growing more important over this.

Russia doesn't want the disturbingly growing opposition to Putin to become encouraged by any more successes in the Middle East.

Russia is worried at the possibility of continued fighting and instability so close to Russia.

Russia is apparently upset over Qaddafi's fall*.

Russia doesn't want to be seen encouraging the concept of Responsibility to Protect in any way.

I'm sure a Russia-watcher can think of many more reasons but those are more than enough to convince Russia to use its veto.

*Personally I still have to question whether Russia and China really didn't realize how it would turn out.

 

COMETLINEAR

3:13 PM ET

February 6, 2012

Good observation Grant

I believe that China regards Russia as a more important ally than the US. If only for geographic reasons.

Incidentally, this vote marks the lowest point in US/China relations in a long time. No?

Still, I have no doubt the US and China will continue to do business, as both countries (US and China) are making money hand over fist right now, manufacturing consumer electronics.

 

COMETLINEAR

3:15 PM ET

February 6, 2012

Reasons

Personally I believe this is more about Russia's desire for a bipolar world.

Russia has a history of supporting states like Syria, largely to counter America's influence with Israel.

 

FUNKEDUP143

7:50 AM ET

February 6, 2012

The SC

I dont see anyone considering the idea that the SC apparatus is somewhat outdated. I wonder if we revised it whether the revised more inclusive gravitas of the SC might better serve the world.

 

AMERICAN_FOREIGNER

5:15 PM ET

February 6, 2012

security council reform

here's an idea. increase the number of permanent members of the security council to include germany, japan, brazil, turkey, and india. then, change the veto rule so that a resolution can only be vetoed if 3 or more permanent members votes to veto it. problem solved!

 

David Bosco reports on the new world order for The Multilateralist.

Read More