---

SUMMARY of the Article “Vetoing Peace” by Maleeha Lodhi, Dawn [Published on December 18th, 2023]

---

The UN General Assembly’s recent session witnessed the aftermath of Israel’s war on Gaza, causing a humanitarian catastrophe. The GA, with over three-quarters of member states, adopted a resolution for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, isolating the US and Israel after the US exercised a veto in the Security Council to block a similar resolution. This marked the second instance of the US vetoing a ceasefire, obstructing efforts to end the Gaza hostilities. The article underscores the impact of the veto on international peace, highlighting its controversial nature and its role in the UN’s paralysis during conflicts. The historical context of the Security Council’s structure and veto power is explored, originating from arrangements made over 75 years ago after World War II. The privileged position of the P5 (permanent members) is questioned, and calls for reform, especially regarding the veto, have intensified. The article delves into the ongoing negotiations for SC reform, with a focus on the disagreement over the veto, primarily between the G4 and the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) countries. The UFC argues that adding more permanent members with veto powers would exacerbate dysfunction, while reform discussions present varied proposals to limit veto use. Despite efforts to make veto-holders accountable, such as the GA’s resolution requiring P5 to justify their use of veto, the US and Russia continue to wield the veto, resulting in dire consequences, as observed in Gaza.

Easy/Short SUMMARY:

The recent UN General Assembly session highlighted the aftermath of Israel’s Gaza war, with the GA adopting a ceasefire resolution, isolating the US and Israel due to a Security Council veto. The article explores the historical context of the Security Council’s structure and the controversial veto power, emphasizing its impact on international peace. Calls for SC reform, especially regarding the veto, face disagreement between the G4 and the UFC countries. The UFC argues against adding more veto-powered permanent members, while various proposals aim to limit veto use. Efforts for accountability, like the GA’s resolution, have not deterred frequent veto use by the US and Russia, leading to severe consequences, notably in Gaza.

SOLUTIONS of The Problem:

1. Comprehensive SC Reform:

• Intensify efforts for comprehensive SC reform addressing categories of membership, the question of the veto, and the size of an expanded Council.

2. Representative and Accountable Council:

• Seek reform reflecting 21st-century realities and democratic principles to make the Council more representative and accountable.

3. Limit Veto Use in Specific Contexts:

• Consider proposals to limit the use of the veto in specific contexts, such as situations of mass atrocities or humanitarian cases.

4. Voluntary Restraint on Veto:

• Encourage voluntary restraint on the use of veto, as proposed by France in 2013.

5. Explanation and Justification of Veto:

• Strengthen the GA’s resolution requiring the P5 to explain and justify their use of the veto, holding them accountable.

IMPORTANT Facts and Figures Given in the Article:

• UN General Assembly Resolution (December 12):
• Called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza.
• Adopted by over three-quarters of member states.
• Resulted in the isolation of the US and Israel in the world body.

• US Veto in the Security Council:

• Second instance of the US vetoing a ceasefire resolution on Gaza.

• Obstructed efforts to end hostilities in Gaza.

• Security Council Structure and Veto Power:

• Originated over 75 years ago after World War II.
• Veto power bestowed on the P5 as a compromise for their support of the UN.

• Structure questioned for ineffectiveness and lack of representation.

• Efforts for SC Reform:

• Intergovernmental negotiations process initiated in 2009.

• Focus on five interlinked issues, including categories of membership and the question of the veto.

• Uniting for Peace Resolution (1950 – Resolution 377):

• Allows the GA to consider and make recommendations on peace and security matters if the Security Council fails to act.

• Invoked in GA sessions on Gaza in October and December 2023.

• Principal Disagreement in Reform Discussions:

• Between the G4 (Germany, Japan, India, Brazil) and the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) countries.
• Mainly revolves around permanent seats and veto power.

MCQs from the Article:

1. What was the outcome of the UN General Assembly resolution on Gaza’s ceasefire?
   A. Isolation of the US and Israel
   B. Overwhelming support from member states
   C. Both A and B
   D. Veto by the P5

2. When did the US exercise a veto in the Security Council to block a ceasefire resolution on Gaza?
   A. October 12
   B. Not mentioned in the article
   C. December 18
   D. December 12

3. What does the Uniting for Peace resolution (1950 – Resolution 377) allow the General Assembly to do?
   A. Impose sanctions
   B. Conduct peacekeeping operations
   C. Consider and make recommendations on peace and security matters
   D. Veto resolutions

4. What is the principal disagreement in discussions about Security Council reform?
   A. Categories of membership
   B. The size of an expanded Council
   C. The question of the veto
   D. All of the above

5. What did France propose in 2013 regarding the use of the veto?
   A. Complete abolition of the veto
   B. Voluntary restraint on the use of veto
   C. Mandatory use of the veto in humanitarian cases
   D. A deferred veto system

VOCABULARY:

1. Genocidal (adjective) (جرائم کے لئے): Relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large group of people from a particular ethnic group or nation.
2. Paralysis (noun) (شلیلت): The state of being unable to move or act.
3. Anachronistic (adjective) (غیر موزون): Belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.
4. Elusive (adjective) (پرے ہونے والا): Difficult to find, catch, or achieve.
5. Dysfunction (noun) (نقص): Abnormal or impaired functioning.
6. Accountability (noun) (جواب دہی): The fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility.
7. Comprehensive (adjective) (جامع): Including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects.
8. Humanitarian (adjective) (انسانیتی): Concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.
9. Atrocities (noun) (ظلم و ستم): Extremely wicked or cruel acts, typically involving physical violence or injury.
10. Convened (verb) (بلانا): Called (a meeting or assembly) to meet.
11. Denudes (verb) (ننگا کرنا): Make (something) bare; deprive of its covering.
12. Shaper (noun) (شکل دینے والا): A person or thing that shapes something.
13. Mount (verb) (برآمد ہونا): Increase; grow.
14. Insulate (verb) (الگ کرنا): Protect (something) by interposing material that prevents the loss of heat or the intrusion of sound.
15. Ostensibly (adverb) (جس کی ظاہری حالت): Apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.
16. Discord (noun) (اختلاف): Disagreement between people.
17. Clashing (adjective) (ٹکرانا): To make a loud clash.
18. Dissuaded (verb) (منع کرنا): Persuade (someone) not to take a particular course of action.
19. Wield (verb) (استعمال کرنا): Hold and use (a weapon or tool).
20. Dire (adjective) (ناگوار): Extremely serious or urgent.

📢 Attention Please!
We appreciate your commitment to acquiring knowledge through our summaries. Please be reminded not to remove the attribution label affixed to this article. It is crucial to acknowledge the source and the effort invested in creating this summary. We discourage any unauthorized distribution without proper credit. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 🔍

⚡ Explore More Summaries, Solutions, and Vocabulary Meanings!
💡 Join our WhatsApp Channel for timely and comprehensive summaries of the latest articles, along with well-crafted solutions and helpful vocabulary meanings. Click the link below to join now:
🔗 Dawn Article Summaries WhatsApp Channel
WhatsApp Channel Link
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y

---

dawn.com
Vetoing peace
BY Maleeha Lodhi

---

THE UN General Assembly convened again on Dec 12 when Israel’s war on Gaza had already claimed 18,000 Palestinian lives and caused a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions. The GA adopted a resolution calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire by an overwhelming majority — over three-quarters of member states, leaving the US and Israel isolated in the world body. This followed on the heels of the veto exercised by the US in the Security Council (SC) to block a similar ceasefire resolution.

It was the second time the US vetoed a ceasefire that could have brought an end to hostilities in Gaza and to Israel’s genocidal military campaign. In October, the US did the same, which was also followed by an extraordinary GA session requested by Arab and OIC countries. Then too, the GA voted by a decisive majority to demand a humanitarian truce. Both GA resolutions were a clear reflection of world opinion. They were also designed to mount diplomatic pressure on Washington to relent on its opposition to a ceasefire and blind support for Israel. But that didn’t happen. As GA resolutions are non-binding and cannot override a veto, they could do nothing to stop the war. This meant Israel’s brutal bombardment continued to lay waste to Gaza and claim more lives.

The veto then has stood between war and peace. This has brought veto power into sharper public focus and reignited the debate about why the world’s premier body responsible for maintenance of international peace and security fails to fulfil its obligations when expected to act. The veto enables the five permanent members of the Security Council who possess it to take unilateral actions to prevent resolutions they deem to be against their interests as well as protect their allies. This results in the Council’s paralysis. Failure to take action in times of war, crisis and mass atrocities denudes the Council of legitimacy and the UN too of credibility. The veto is arguably the UN Charter’s most anachronistic and controversial provision that makes the P5 unaccountable.

The Security Council’s paralysis denudes it of legitimacy and the UN of credibilit

The Security Council structure along with veto power were the product of the historical arrangement reached over 75 years ago by the victors of World War II. Veto power was bestowed on permanent members as a compromise to elicit agreement by the major powers on the establishment of the UN and their cooperation with it. Ostensibly designed to ensure ‘peaceful relations’ between big powers it also aimed to insulate them from a decision against any of them. This was regarded by the wider membership as a ‘necessary price’ to pay for big powers’ support for the world body.

The P5’s privileged position was nonetheless questioned even at the UN’s inception but much more so in subsequent years as frustration grew with the Council’s ineffectiveness in the face of conflicts and international crises. Calls for reform also became louder with changing global realities as the Council was seen to reflect the power relations of a bygone era.

The first significant effort by the GA to respond to the Council’s paralysis came in 1950 with the adoption of the Uniting for Peace resolution (377), which provided that the GA could consider and make recommendations on a matter relating to the maintenance of peace and security if the Security Council failed to act. The two GA sessions on Gaza in October and December 2023 were convened by invoking this resolution.

Growing calls for SC reform led to the creation in 2009 of the intergovernmental negotiations process. Talks have been going on for over two decades in informal GA sessions with the aim of achieving comprehensive SC reform that addresses five interlinked issues, including categories of membership, question of veto and size of an expanded Council. There is general agreement among countries on reform to reflect 21st-century realities and democratic principles to make the Council more representative and accountable. But consensus has been elusive on how to accomplish this — with no solution in sight. The question of the veto continues to be a source of intense contention.

The principal disagreement, mainly responsible for lack of progress in negotiations, is between countries that aspire for permanent seats for themselves and others who oppose this and propose enlarging the Council by adding more elected, non-permanent members. This has put the so-called G4 — Germany, Japan, India and Brazil — at odds with the Uniting for Consensus countries led by Italy and including Pakistan, Argentina, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Canada and other like-minded states. The UFC argues that the Council’s frequent deadlock and paralysis is due to discord and clashing interests of the P5, which prevents it from playing the role expected of it and enjoined by the Charter. Adding more permanent members with veto powers will only compound this dysfunction, not end it. UFC members also regard the veto as contrary to the democratic principle of the sovereign equality of states.

Reform discussions on the veto have seen a confusing array of proposals ranging from adding more permanent members with veto, without veto; with deferred veto or committed to voluntary restraint; a veto exercised in a national capacity or on behalf of a region; an unconditional veto and one subject to periodic review.

Given the impasse in these negotiations some countries have meanwhile offered proposals to limit the use of veto in specific contexts. In 2013, France proposed voluntary restraint on the use of veto; a French-Mexican proposal urges voluntary suspension of the veto in situations of mass atrocities. A European proposal suggested restricting the veto in humanitarian cases. These have remained unimplemented proposals. An important move to make veto-holders accountable came last year with the GA’s adoption of a resolution, which requires the P5 to explain and justify their use of veto. Thisprovides for the GA to be convened within 10 days after a veto to debate the situation. The first such debate was held in April this year.

While these efforts are important, they have not dissuaded the two countries — US and Russia — who have used the veto most frequently over the decades from continuing to do so. The grave consequences of this are being witnessed today in the killing fields of Gaza, where peace has been vetoed.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, December 18th, 2023