UN reform calls for strong resolution

The heavy use of the veto power by Russia and the US has actually discredited the Security Council, as the threat to use it often tones down draft resolutions. For example, in the run-up to the Iraq war in March 2003, France and Russia indicated they would not support a new resolution sanctioning war.

Consequently, the US, the UK and Spain withdrew their draft resolution, and the US and its allies went to war without specific UN support.

The US regularly exercises its veto to shield the Israeli Government from international criticism, or any attempts to restrain the behaviour of Israel’s military.

The UN and its affiliated bodies have done significant and useful humanitarian, economical and social development work, and have also acted adequately on natural and human-made disasters. But, if a nation’s security and basic rights are humiliated, the UN is unable to maintain peace and stability.

Unfortunately, as far as peace and security are concerned, the veto has served only served the interest of the superpowers since the UN’s creation.

According to the Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, and adopted by the International Law Commission of the United Nations in 1950, planning, preparing, initiating or waging a war of aggression - or in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances - is a war crime punishable under international law.

Furthermore, the UN Charter requires that:

All the members of United Nations shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.

Of the five permanent Security Council members, the US especially is the most vocal on the control of dangerous weapons, not hesitating to take aggression against any nation found to be developing nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.

In the name of demolishing Saddam Hussein’s WMDs, the US and its partners sidestepped the Security Council and attacked Iraq.

Weapons inspectors were searching for WMDs in Iraq, and most nations were against any hostile action at the time, including a military attack on Iraq. A minority in the Security Council was also trying to pass a resolution to have Saddam Hussein disclose and destroy his WMD sites.

As events unfolded, this was clearly not what the US and its partners wanted. Their agenda was to topple Saddam Hussein and control Iraq, and to achieve this, the US could not wait for the Security Council resolutions, which might never have passed due to other veto-bearers.