Originally published on the CGS blog on October 1, 2013.
Following a dramatic month of bluster and diplomatic turmoil, the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution demanding the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. But it still has done nothing to halt the traumatic civil war that has so far killed over 100,000 and displaced over 7 million Syrians.
During the lead up to the agreement, US Ambassador Samantha Power complained, “The Security Council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the Security Council we have.” Her words are too true. Since 2011, Russia and China have vetoed three different Security Council resolutions condemning the Syrian regime’s violence or promoting a solution. This year Russia has blocked at least three statements calling for humanitarian access to besieged cities and four resolutions or statements condemning or expressing concern over the use of chemical weapons. Prior to the current resolution, the Security Council could not even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval over the use of chemical weapons.
I had hoped that President Obama would use his General Assembly speech to begin a dialogue with the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (P5) encouraging them to agree not to use their veto power to block action in response to genocide and mass atrocities that would otherwise pass by a majority. He came close, but I believe civil society has much more work to do to create the political cover for any P5 leader to initiate a public conversation on what we call the Responsibility Not to Veto (RN2V).
A few readers have asked me for some more background information and history on this concept. So here goes:
History:
The RN2V concept was first discussed at high level at a roundtable in 2001 by French Minister of Foreign Affairs Hubert Védrine. He suggested that the P5 should agree not to apply their veto power to block humanitarian action where their own national interests were not involved. The Canadian-sponsored International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty then issued a report later that year affirming this recommendation.
Limiting the use of the veto has been discussed and proposed periodically ever since: by the Kofi Annan’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change in 2004; by former U.S. Secretaries of State and Defense Madeline Albright and William Cohen in the Genocide Prevention Task Force in 2008, and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the General Assembly in 2009.
In 2010, GlobalSolutions.org coined the phrase “Responsibility Not to Veto” and published a white paper, The Responsibility Not To Veto: A Way Forwardlaying out a detailed history, rationale and recommendations on how to move forward on limiting the veto in mass atrocity situations. In 2011, a more scholarly article by former GlobalSolutions.org staffer Ariela Blätter and George Washington University’s Paul Williams was published in the Global Responsibility to Protect journal.
Though RN2V has made some headway within P5 states and the UN Secretariat, it has not made any discernible progress with the Security Council. Even senior figures in the Obama administration who are self-proclaimed supporters of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine have made no public mention of RN2V.
The Small States (S5) Setback:
Most recently, in 2012 the a group of small states (Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland) called the S5 drafted a resolution that called on the P5 to reassess their use of the veto: by requiring them to explain why a veto is employed or even considered; and by refraining from employing a veto when Council actions are intended to prevent mass atrocities. Passage seemed very likely until the P5 interfered.
According to an August 2013 FES report, the P5 took action behind closed doors to prevent member states from voting for the proposal. China put pressure on many African nations. While the debate over Syria was underway, the Western P3 (The U.S., the UK and France) pressured Patricia O’Brien, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel to require a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly for passage. Even this higher bar was not enough to tilt enough member states against the proposal until the Uniting for Consensus group tactically reversed their support, taking along enough member states to prevent a successful vote.
The U.S., Israel and RN2V
Within the U.S., there could be opposition to any discussion of limiting the use of the veto because of how it protects Israel. However, the kinds of mass atrocities that such a proposition would address-helicopter gunships and artillery firing unarmed civilians, chemical weapons, genocide-are not the kinds of crimes against humanity a reasonable observer would anticipate Israel committing. Crimes of this horrendous magnitude are the ones that the Security Council should consider when deliberating limiting the use of the veto. One suggestion to address this concern is to include in any informal agreement on the veto a clear description of the crimes, similar to the elements of crimes, which was written into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court at the U.S.’s insistence.
Of course, the Responsibility Not to Veto will only be implemented when enough opinion leaders and activists insist upon it. That’s where you come in – So speak up and take action.
