The United Nations has always been criticized for its usage of veto power in the Security Council, and the policies in place which allow for vetoes on account of one powerful country disagreeing with a possible extremely beneficial policy. Currently, the Security Council is debating on how best to solve this issue, whether it be by abolishing veto power, reforming it, or leaving it alone.
One of the main concerns put forth by countries is that when the Security Council an “veto vetoes,” the entire process becomes redundant and will slow down the Security Council to an even more ineffective standard. Some reforms proposed are changing the permanent member seats around. While the Security Council is acknowledging the possible redundancy of the Security Council vetoing its own vetoes, a general consensus that looking at the issue is not a bad idea.
Some countries argue that veto power should be specifically reformed in order to help out in situations such as humanitarian crises. The logic behind this is that aiding humanitarian issues should not be delayed or held up in any way, and this would also reduce the redundancy of veto power.
Delegates such as France however argue that humanitarian crises can be too broad of a topic, and that situations such as the Syrian war was not deemed as a humanitarian crisis until 2 years in, which would be far too late to deal with the issue. To which it was rebutted that a humanitarian crisis could easily be defined.
The delegate of the USA argues that the situation could be resolved if the reform for veto powers happened solely in major issues such as genocide and major disasters to lower the selection of complications in reforming veto power.
While it is unclear what will happen if veto power is reformed, or how these reforms will take place, nobody can argue that it is a good thing that the UNSC is taking a look at this heavily criticized issue.
One of the main concerns put forth by countries is that when the Security Council an “veto vetoes,” the entire process becomes redundant and will slow down the Security Council to an even more ineffective standard. Some reforms proposed are changing the permanent member seats around. While the Security Council is acknowledging the possible redundancy of the Security Council vetoing its own vetoes, a general consensus that looking at the issue is not a bad idea.
Some countries argue that veto power should be specifically reformed in order to help out in situations such as humanitarian crises. The logic behind this is that aiding humanitarian issues should not be delayed or held up in any way, and this would also reduce the redundancy of veto power.
Delegates such as France however argue that humanitarian crises can be too broad of a topic, and that situations such as the Syrian war was not deemed as a humanitarian crisis until 2 years in, which would be far too late to deal with the issue. To which it was rebutted that a humanitarian crisis could easily be defined.
The delegate of the USA argues that the situation could be resolved if the reform for veto powers happened solely in major issues such as genocide and major disasters to lower the selection of complications in reforming veto power.
While it is unclear what will happen if veto power is reformed, or how these reforms will take place, nobody can argue that it is a good thing that the UNSC is taking a look at this heavily criticized issue.