The debate around UN reforms has been a listless affair for decades. A diplomat stands at a podium in New York, hands clasped behind his back, and repeats lines about fairness that are met with knowing shrugs. Something different happened on Tuesday when Pakistan’s Permanent Representative Asim Iftikhar Ahmad addressed the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform. Reaffirming Pakistan’s consistent policy, he called the veto itself “anachronistic” and insisted it should be abolished or at least severely restricted. He reminded the Council that misused vetoes have paralysed the body during wars and humanitarian crises and that expanding the number of states holding this privilege would only aggravate the problem.
Pakistan speaks from experience. The country is trapped in one of the oldest unresolved disputes on the UN agenda. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union often supported India diplomatically, including through the use of veto power, which contributed to diplomatic deadlock over proposals such as the plebiscite envisioned as early as 1948.
Similarly, in 1971, Moscow blocked action when the US brought a resolution to push for a ceasefire between Pakistan and India. While the Council remained deadlocked, the conflict ran its course, and millions of civilians were killed in what became Bangladesh.
The effects of inaction continue to reverberate in Kashmir. Indian officials admit that 47,000 people have been killed since 1989, with more than 20,000 of them civilians, while the rights groups say the figure is closer to 70,000.
The veto does not only haunt South Asia. It regularly shields powerful allies from accountability. The US has used its veto dozens of times to block resolutions critical of Israel. Notably, last June, the US was the sole country to veto a ceasefire resolution on Gaza, even as Israeli strikes killed nearly one hundred Palestinians in a single day. In each case, the voice of a single power outweighed the suffering of millions.
Small wonder that Pakistan’s envoy called the veto a privilege, which “runs counter to each one” of the principles of democracy, representation, accountability, effectiveness and transparency.
Some will say that abolishing the veto is idealistic. Yet the numbers undermine that claim. Of the nearly 300 vetoes cast since 1946, Russia and the US account for roughly two-thirds.
This concentration of power in two capitals breeds complacency. It also fuels resentment across the developing world, whose populations now account for the overwhelming majority of the UN’s membership.
Pakistan, hence, proposes increasing the number of elected seats so that a higher number of affirmative votes are needed to adopt a resolution, raising the political cost of deploying a veto and making its use less frequent and more difficult to justify.
The alternative is a world where wars are fueled by indifference and international law is bent around the interests of five governments. In the words of Ambassador Ahmad, “if we want Reform for All, there should be Privilege for None.” *