The Problem With the UN Veto Power | NowThis World

The permanent 5 members of the UN Security Council have a unique power. It's their right to veto. But how has it's implementation failed to address humanitarian crises around the world?

Though even the United Nation's fiercest critics admit the UN has done a lot of good around the world, the United Nations has also been accused of being complicit in corruption, tangled in bureaucracy, and increasingly reactive rather than proactive in addressing the world's crises.

It's also been accused of failing to act to prevent genocides in places including Rwanda in 1994, Bosnia in 1995, and Darfur, Sudan in the early 2000s.

Some have even called the United Nations Security Council permanent 5 void of power and totally powerless.

But there are certain countries in the UN (United States, United Kingdom, Russia, France, China) that get to exercise real power. We're talking about the UN Security Council's Permanent 5 members or P5. They all have what's known as the right to veto.

And while some permanent members, like France and the UK, are more open to expansion, Russia, China and the U.S. have been more cautious or directly opposed.

It would take a whole lot of support to modify the UN Charter, and to get all five P5 members to agree at the same time to restrict their own power.

But despite of all its flaws, experts generally agree: the UN creates a vital space for diplomacy, mediation, and maintaining international peace.

It has indisputably helped save lives, lifted people out of poverty and starvation and maintained global order.

So we're going to break down what is veto power, how the P5 got this power.

Connect with NowThis

Connect with Judah:

Connect with Alex:

Connect with Versha:

NowThis World is dedicated to bringing you topical explainers about the world around you. Each week we’ll be exploring current stories in international news, by examining the facts, providing historical context, and outlining the key players involved. We’ll also highlight powerful countries, ideologies, influential leaders, and ongoing global conflicts that are shaping the current landscape of the international community across the globe today.

[paragjyotideka]

adding more countries and still having veto will be even more useless, its like 9 countries: "Yes", one country: "Veto". case closed. we need democracy in UNSC.

[isaacbakan]

But honestly, every country has personal agendas. You can't give just 5 countries so much power whatever countries they are and not expect personal agendas to get in the way of overall peace.

[samwilkinson]

France and uk: let's put more people to the security council.

US, China and Russia: VETO!

[subab]

An institution having veto policy is promoting democracy? Democracy must be a joke.

[nankdug]

UN: Let's vote on


US: Veto! Veto! Veto!

[matthewmckenna]

When it comes to real issues facing us today. The United Nations is as spineless as it's predecessor. And it's a joke since Saudi Arabia. Is on the Human Rights panel.

[FireflyDivision]

VETO power basically gives you a special status which allows you to violate international law.

[ser-hanga]

"The strong do what they will and weak suffer what they must"

[Craznar]

Veto should have a limited number of uses per year - say each gets 5 vetoes a year.

Allowing them to prioritise their use would open up things to some level of compromise.

[infiniteTime]

Get rid of the Veto power altogether. Let all the countries of the world have one vote on matters. No country's vote should matter more than others.

[hakimimastor]

Just few days ago, 94 years old Malaysian prime.minister said on UN General meeting "World power that have veto is a shame to democracy"

[yuchenggu]

It is not the UN that gives the P5 power. It is the P5 that gives the UN power.

[KnightRaymund]

The UN is very limited in its power. But even if it's partially just symbolic, I think an organization like it that brings all countries of the world together is very important. The Security Council... is fairly toothless thanks to the veto.

[caleblovell]

The problem with the thinking in this video is that it starts by imagining how to make the UN work better for the world. But the reality is the that the UN exists as an extension of existing powers, not as a source of power in itself. Suggesting that we take away veto power from the biggest countries is idiotic. The veto power exists to keep the most powerful countries engaged and at the discussion table with the rest of the world. Take it away, or give it to a bunch of secondary powers, and the body no longer represents reality. What incentive would the US, China, or Russia have to play nice and engage if you created a forum that gave them the same power as somewhere like Brazil? The world doesn't work like that. No matter how much we might imagine a better, more fair world with a global, united body in control, that's not the world we live in. Any attempt to make the UN like that fantasy world would be an immediate failure, because the big players would just disengage. Don't get me wrong, it would be great for humanity if the great powers stopped using their veto powers to shield human rights abusers from consequences for their actions. But to blame the UN or the veto power itself is blaming the symptom, not the problem. Of course powers are going to veto the condemnation of their allies. That's how politics and power have worked for all of world history. Changing the UN system would not fix that problem. It would merely break the system, and eliminate one of the best forums we have for world diplomacy in the world today. Blame the selfish, immoral acts of the great powers, not their right to veto in a voluntary global body.

[anonuser]

Alternatives to Permanent seat:
1. Double veto -- Two veto required to count as a single veto.
2. Semi Permanent seat instead of permanent seat.
3. Expansion of the permanent seats to G4 nations.
4. Abolition of permanent seats altogether.

[rathinasabapathy]

There should be a more democratic form of Voting without veto and even if there is veto, it should be there as a partial power shared by the p5 where atleast 3/5 of its members need to vote for veto in order to veto any decision .

[kishore]

India and Japan deserve a seat in UN ...

[kiruschka]

"no representation in South/Latin America and Africa..."
This is the problem.
The nations who are in the security council shouldn't represent their countries, neighbours or closest friends.
They should represent all humans and prevent war etc.

[blackdevil]

I think you forgot to put another suggested solution for veto power;
that veto requires at least 2 votes from its permanent members for it to be exercised.

[Yummy_]

What a joke, UN is never about justice, it's just that countries have insane military power need a place to negotiate in order to prevent wars between the superpowers. China was not a permenant member before, and UN sended army to fight with China in Korean war and vietnamese war. Chinese sacrificed many soilders but eventually drove them off. And China spent a lot of time/money and energy and china finally built nuclear weapon by itself. Since then the UN recognized China as a super power. The thing is: Power gives you Permenant seat and not vice versa. If any of the military superpower decided to leave UN, then UN is nothing but an empty shell. China used blood and death and finally got the permenant seat. You want to get the permenant seat just because you have huge population? Or you are democratic? Its laughable. Power IS justice. As a country that suffered from foreign aggression and invasion for the last century, no one knows that better than the Chinese do. Remember, NO PAIN, NO GAIN.