The conflict resolution efforts of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have come under intense scrutiny, particularly concerning the veto power wielded by its five permanent members. This power, which allows any of the permanent members—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—to block substantive resolutions, has been criticized for undermining global peace and exacerbation of humanitarian crises.
According to Oxfam International's recent report titled "Vetoing Humanity," the situation is dire. Over the past decade, the number of people requiring humanitarian assistance has surged by 150%. Despite being entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, the P5 has often exercised their vetoes to prioritize national interests over global humanitarian concerns. The report highlights numerous instances of vetoes on substantive resolutions aimed at addressing some of the world’s most severe conflicts, including those involving Palestine, Syria, and Ukraine.
The report points out the disturbing trend among the P5 nations: one or more of these countries have vetoed resolutions related to 30 out of 454 proposals presented for some of the world’s longest-lasting conflicts since 2014. Notably, eight out of twelve resolutions concerning Palestine and Israel were vetoed, as were fifteen out of fifty-three proposals on Syria. The Russian government has also utilized its veto power to reject nine-month extensions of cross-border assistance to war-torn Syria, leaving millions without access to basic necessities such as food, clean water, or medical aid.
Oxfam's report criticizes the erratic behavior of these nations at the UNSC, stating, “The erratic and self-interested behavior of UNSC members has contributed to an explosion of humanitarian needs.” The report argues for significant reforms, including the abolition of veto power for resolutions involving war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the enhancement of UNSC membership to diversify representation.
This issue has prompted calls from various advocacy groups for fundamental changes to global governance structures. Oxfam proposes making humanitarian funding mandatory for UNSC members and urges stronger restrictions on arms transfers to nations where there is high risk of violations against international humanitarian law. The call to action reflects not only the urgency of addressing the violations inherent within the use of veto power but also emphasizes the need for international organizations to evolve to meet this century’s reality.
Interestingly, the report sheds light on the contrasting nature of the P5's commitments, where military aid drastically outweighs humanitarian assistance. For example, it noted how the United States provided three times more funding for military purposes compared to humanitarian efforts—$18.8 billion versus $6 billion—illustratively emphasizing the discrepancy between defense and humanitarian priorities.
This pattern raises questions about whether the UNSC can remain effective without major reform of its power structures. The lack of action to avert conflict by the P5, coupled with their willingness to profit from wars by selling arms to involved parties, raises serious ethical concerns. This situation demands re-examination of the vetos granted to these five nations and their impact on global stability.
Internationally, there is significant dissatisfaction with the current power dynamics at the UNSC. Most resolutions passed relate to only half of the protracted crises, leading to claims of bias and neglect of other pressing conflicts. The continuous vetoes serve as not just barriers to timely intervention but reinforce the perception of the UNSC as ineffectual when it matters most. The Council's ability to facilitate peace is severely hampered when member states strategically exercise veto power for their geopolitical interests.
This has sparked conversations around the need for reshaping the UNSC to align more with contemporary global realities. The disenfranchisement of various nations from the decision-making process echoes the historical under-representation of certain regions, which critics argue contributes to the Council's inefficacy.
To address these concerns, Oxfam advocates for the restructuring of pen-holding privileges—where the P5 lead negotiations on specific crises—to include underrepresented nations, ensuring broader perspectives are considered. This move could serve to dilute the influence of any single nation and promote more balanced discussions.
It remains to be seen whether these urgent appeals for reform will resonate within the corridors of power at the United Nations. With the Summit of the Future on the horizon, world leaders face increased pressure to address these pressing issues. Altering the structure of the UNSC is no small feat, but it is clear from Oxfam's report and the sentiments shared by many international organizations and experts alike, significant change is not just necessary but overdue if the goal remains to achieve sustainable global peace and security.
