The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), is the primary body tasked with maintaining international peace and security. At its core lies the principle of unanimity among the five permanent members (P5): China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This unanimity requirement is where the concept of veto power emerges. Each P5 member holds the right to veto any resolution brought before the Council, effectively preventing its passage.
While intended to foster consensus and prevent unilateral action, the veto power has become a subject of intense debate. Critics argue that it undermines the UN’s effectiveness and allows the P5 to pursue their own geopolitical interests at the expense of the international community.
Veto power emergence
The veto power emerged from the ashes of World War II. The victors, scarred by the global conflict, sought to establish a framework for preventing future devastation. The P5, who bore the brunt of the war effort, were granted veto power as a safeguard against actions they deemed detrimental to their national interests. This ensured their buy-in and financial support for the fledgling UN.
Proponents of the veto argue that it fosters great power consensus, preventing unilateral action and potential escalation. It compels the P5 to engage in diplomacy and seek compromise before resorting to force.
The arguments
Proponents of the veto power highlight its role in maintaining stability within the international system. They argue that it prevents great power conflict. The veto power ensures that no major decision can be taken without the consent of all the P5 members. This, in theory, prevents the UNSC from becoming a tool for one superpower to dominate the others, potentially leading to renewed conflict among major powers.
Also, those in support of veto power said that it promotes compromise and consensus. They are of the opinion that veto power encourages dialogue and negotiation between the P5. Knowing that any resolution can be vetoed, these members are incentivised to find common ground and reach a consensus that is acceptable to all.
Besides, decisions backed by all P5 members are perceived as more legitimate and have a greater chance of being enforced by member states. A lack of consensus could lead to resolutions lacking the necessary support for effective implementation.
Ultimately, the veto power allows P5 members to protect their vital national interests. Without this safeguard, a country could be forced into a course of action that could have detrimental consequences for its security or well-being.
However, opponents of the veto power contend that it undermines the very principles upon which the UN was founded. They argue that the veto power grants the P5 a privileged position within the UN, violating the principle of sovereign equality among member states. Smaller nations feel their voices are not adequately heard, and the UN becomes an instrument of the powerful, rather than a forum for collective action.
Also, they believe the veto power can be used to block resolutions that address critical international issues, such as human rights abuses or humanitarian crises. This can create a sense of impunity for states committing such crimes, knowing they can be shielded by a P5 ally.
More so, they are of the view that the veto power promotes self-interest over collective security. The P5 can use the veto power to advance their own geopolitical agenda, hindering the Council’s ability to act in the best interests of the international community. This can lead to paralysis and inaction in the face of global challenges, they maintained.
To Nigeria and many others, the current P5 structure reflects the power dynamics of the post-World War II era. Critics argue that it fails to represent the realities of the 21st century, where other countries have emerged as major players on the global stage.
Controversial veto use
The history of the UNSC is replete with instances where the veto power has been used in ways perceived as controversial. Some notable examples include: Soviet vetoes during the Cold War. Throughout the Cold War, the Soviet Union (now Russia) used its veto power to block resolutions condemning its actions in Eastern Europe and its intervention in Afghanistan.
Another example is the US vetos on Israel-Palestine conflict. The United States has consistently vetoed resolutions critical of Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, drawing accusations of bias and hindering a peaceful resolution to the conflict to date.
Also, several P5 members have used the veto power to block resolutions on humanitarian interventions, raising concerns about their commitment to the protection of civilians.
In the Syrian civil war, Russia repeatedly used its veto power to block resolutions aimed at condemning Syrian government’s attacks on civilians and urging a ceasefire. This allowed the conflict to escalate, leading to a massive humanitarian crisis.
On its part, China has used its veto power to block action on the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, despite evidence of widespread human rights abuses. This has sent a message that some countries are above international scrutiny.
Call for reforms
The issue of veto reform has been debated for decades. While complete abolition of the veto is unlikely, several proposals aimed to limit its use and promote greater accountability have been put forward.
A Nigerian diplomat, Ambassador Samson Itegboje, said there was a General Assembly resolution that set up the Intergovernmental Negotiation (IGN) process for the reform of the UNSC.
He said: “It is generally agreed that the UNSC is not representative enough. Africa, with 54 member states of the UN has no member in the permanent category of the UNSC. The Council has almost become a lame duck due to politicisation and the unnecessary use of veto for personal and national aggrandisement. There is a need for the UNSC to be fit for purpose in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
A proposed reform would restrict the use of the veto in cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. This would ensure a more robust response to these grave violations of international law.
Also, the P5 could be required to publicly explain their reasons for using a veto. This would increase transparency and hold them accountable for their decisions.
A major reform involving the expansion of the permanent membership of the UNSC to include more countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America would create a more representative body and potentially dilute the power of the P5.
Nigeria feels the UN Security Council membership should be reformed and democratised to reflect today’s economic demographic and political realities, insisting that Africa should be fully represented. Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Amb Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, has continuously emphasised at various times that the global shift to a multipolar state enables strategic partnerships, saying that Nigeria is ready as one of the biggest economies in Africa and the most populous country to take on these global responsibilities of not only that of UNSC representative, but also as a member of G20.
Also speaking, a former Nigerian Ambassador to the United States (US), Joe Keshi, said many things need to be reformed in the UN.
“We want to democratise the UN and democratising the UN means that quite a number of things need to change. For example, the majority of member states are in the General Assembly, yet the General Assembly’s decisions are not bidding, they are just resolutions. People have been advocating that it should be more than that,” the diplomat said.
He, however, said the Western countries are not ready for the reform, stressing that: “The UN is not considering the issue now. The UN right now, has numerous issues it is grappling with.
“There is so much going on in the world, there is the Ukraine war and there is the Gaza war. These are what the world leaders are currently concerned with and not the reform of the UN.”
Also, the P5 themselves are unlikely to agree to any reform that hinders their privileged position within the UN system. Finding consensus on the need for reform will be difficult.
Nigeria’s bid for UN permanent seat
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and a major economic power, has long aspired for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). This ambition reflects Nigeria’s desire for a stronger voice in global affairs and a belief that it deserves a place at the decision-making table on issues of international peace and security.
Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs disclosed that Nigeria’s 4-Ds foreign policy agenda is targeted towards getting a permanent seat at the UNSC.
Speaking in Abuja at the Annual Association of Retired Career Ambassadors of Nigeria (ARCAN) Foreign Policy Lecture, he said: “4-Ds require working for Nigeria’s permanent membership of the UNSC, G20 and all other relevant groupings where democratic norms, size of population and size of the economy ought to be the yardstick for membership.
“Nigeria’s agitation for a permanent UNSC seat is historic; President Bola Ahmed Tinubu unequivocally demanded membership of the G20 during its 80th summit in India, AU admittance notwithstanding, the 4-Ds Tinubu Doctrine is at work.”
Again, in May 2024, he called for an urgent reform of the UNSC during an engagement forum in the United States of America.
The minister said the UNSC, a key world governing organ, needs to be democratised to include Nigeria.
“Nigeria needs to be in that Security Council as a permanent member. We need to develop for we have been fighting terrorism for the last 15 years successfully with homegrown solutions. We have a Multinational Joint Task Force that has successfully degraded Boko Haram in the northeastern Lake Chad region. So, we are here to partner with America,” Tuggar said.
For Nigeria, securing a permanent seat on the UNSC is more than just about prestige. It represents a chance to shape global discourse on critical issues and contribute to a more peaceful and just world order.
According to Ambassador Itegboje, Africa is asking for two seats in the permanent category of the UNSC in accordance with the Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration.
However, Nigeria’s path to a permanent seat is fraught with challenges, raising questions about the effectiveness of the current UNSC structure and the fit between Nigeria’s aspirations and its domestic realities.
Nigeria’s call for a permanent seat rests on several key arguments. Nigeria, as the African continent’s leader in population and economy, believes it can effectively represent African interests on the council.
Also, Nigeria has a long and distinguished history of participation in UN peacekeeping missions, consistently contributing troops and resources to conflict zones around the world. This commitment to international security strengthens Nigeria’s claim for a greater role in the UNSC.
Besides, Nigeria is Africa’s largest economy and a significant player in the global oil market. Its economic clout positions Nigeria as a key stakeholder in international discussions on trade, development, and resource management.
Furthermore, Nigeria has transitioned from military rule to a functioning democracy, albeit with ongoing challenges. This democratic experience, coupled with its regional influence, makes Nigeria a potential advocate for good governance and human rights on the world stage.
“By the size, reach, and contributions of Nigeria to peacekeeping for the realisation of world peace, by virtue of the fact that Nigeria is the only permanent member of African Union Peace and Security Council, and by the reason of Nigeria being almost the permanent Chair of UN Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations aka C34, by virtue of being Africa’s biggest democracy and Africa’s biggest economy, we deserve to take one of the seats,” Ambassador Itegboje said.
On his part, United States Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, speaking during a visit to Nigeria in January 2024, acknowledged the need to have an African country in the UNSC, saying the continent is important to the world.
“Africa has shaped our past; it is shaping the present; it will shape our future. The United States is committed to strengthening genuine partnerships on the continent, to work to solve shared challenges, and also to deliver on the promise and the fundamental aspirations of our people.
“Nigeria, as Africa’s largest country, largest economy, largest democracy, is essential to that effort. And we are doing a lot of work together already to drive in a positive direction. We’re driving climate action, as partners in the Global Methane coalition. We’re pushing for permanent representation for African voices at the UN Security Council, in other international organisations that need to reflect the realities of today,” he said.
Despite its compelling arguments, Nigeria’s bid faces significant hurdles. Critics point to Nigeria’s internal struggles with corruption, poverty, ethnic tensions, and persistent insecurity issues. They argue that a nation grappling with these issues lacks the necessary stability and good governance to be a responsible member of the UNSC.
Experts said for the Nigerian government to achieve its goal, it must demonstrate a sustained commitment to good governance, human rights and tackling corruption. Building strong democratic institutions and fostering respect for the rule of law are essential for enhancing its credibility on the international stage.
Also, they posited that Nigeria needs to work closely with other African nations to reach a unified position on UNSC reform. Collaboration with regional partners can strengthen Africa’s collective voice in these negotiations.
Nigeria must actively engage with the P5 and other key players to understand their concerns and build bridges towards a solution, the experts added.
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
