Entry details

Curzon
Author

Curzon

Date

January 10th, 2006

Tags

Comments

15 Comments so far.
Add yours.

How often is the UN Veto used?

There are five members of the UN Security Council: the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China. The People’s Republic of China took the Republic of China’s seat in the UN by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971. In 1991, the Russian Federation acquired the seat originally held by the Soviet Union, including the Soviet Union’s former representation in the Security Council.

How many times have these parties used the veto?

The USSR was the most active of the members, vetoing 118 security council resolutions. Since the fall of the Soviet regime, Russia has only vetoed 2 resolutions. The US comes in second place with 76 vetos, followed by Great Britain with 32 and France with 18. China comes in last with just five vetos, one of which was issued when the seat was held by Taiwan.

Comments to this entry

IJ
January 10, 2006
9:22 am
Most wars in the 21st century will be the result of competing national demands for scarce resources, suggests the book 'Resource Wars'. Definitely the theme for an international seminar series on warfare, wherever and whenever it is held.

Energy hungry nations surely won't be deterred by a UNSC veto.

However on past use of the veto, a "history":http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/geoff/UNresolutions.htm was prepared three years ago.
Gaijin Biker
January 10, 2006
1:34 pm
I wonder how many of the US vetoes were of resolutions against Israel?
East Asia Watch
January 10, 2006
5:36 pm
China’s sparing use of UN veto

Curzon of Coming Anarchy did some research and found that China has used its permanent member veto power in the security council fewer times than any other member:
The People's Republic of China took the Republic of China's seat in the UN by UN G...
NeonCat
January 10, 2006
6:48 pm
Another question to ponder as the 21st century progresses, should there be new permanent members of the UN Security Council with veto powers? This may be a bone of contention, especially where Japan and India are concerned. Would the Five want to keep the veto in the family, or would the US, Britain and Russia want to include them to balance China?
Another question, should the UN Charter be revised to allow vetos to be overturned? I sincerely doubt the US (I do not claim to know enough about the other 4's govts') would allow such a change, as it would be seen as the kind of threat to US soverignty that the John Birch Society, for one, is always claiming.
Jing
January 10, 2006
10:15 pm
The addition of another member would not change the balance of power in the security council at all. Remember, all of the present veto holders can essentially block any resolution they wish and you cannot veto a veto. What it would do is give the new member more prestige as well as influence at the same time making decision making even more difficult since with each additional potential veto wielding member inducted, it is more difficult to reach a concensus.

My assumption is that the security council will remain a privileged club for the time being and no permanent member is particularly enthusiastic about including more. Case in point, for all the noise the U.S. made about the Indian and Japanese attempts to gain entry into the U.N. security council, the U.S. ultimately moved to join China in killing them.
Curzon
January 10, 2006
11:59 pm
Sorry Jing, the US did not join in with China to block Japan joining the UNSC; and the US never confirmed support for any of the other three members (India, Germany, and Brazil), although it did make positive noises about India.
IJ
January 11, 2006
11:46 am
_Energy hungry nations surely won't be deterred by a UNSC veto_

Neither will "energy abundant nations":http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/549bvymv.asp?pg=1:

"Putin keeps prices to favored allies below market levels; Chavez makes cheap oil available to Cuba; Middle Eastern countries, with the possible exception of Kuwait, refuse to allow Western oil companies to invest capital and expertise to develop new reserves although the host countries would benefit from such development; China pumps $1.2 billion into Sinopec, a listed company, to cover its losses. These are the acts of power-maximizers, not profit-maximizers.

"None of [the steps] being proposed by. . . the E.U. energy commissioner will soon reduce the risk created by dependence on suppliers who are more than mere profit-maximizing sellers."
Jing
January 11, 2006
11:27 pm
It didn't Curzon? Sure looked likes it from "here.":http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/08/03/us_and_china_unite_to_block_g4_plan/

p.s. aren't you being terribly redundant Curzon? If you'll read more carefully what I wrote,

"case in point, for all the noise the U.S. made about the Indian and Japanese attempts to gain entry into the U.N. security council..."

you'll see that I never once mentioned any "confirmed" support. In fact, the term you choose to use, "noises", is what I originally wrote.
Curzon
January 12, 2006
12:21 am
Did you read the article you included in the comment? The US opposed all four joining the UNSC.

Japan has since broken off from the alliance with Brazil, Germany, and India because of their new proposal to join the UNSC at any costs, i.e. vastly expand the UNSC.
Jing
January 12, 2006
1:36 am
Pure semantics Curzon; the whole impetus behind the G4 plan was for Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan to leverage their collective bargaining power as "one" in order to prevent them from each getting shot down individually in turn as has happened before. That China and the US moved to block all at once amounts to the same as blocking them all individually. Face the music, even if Japan pursues an independant path in an attempt to enter the security council, it is almost certainly going to be denied again.
NeonCat
January 12, 2006
6:33 am
Brazil, Germany, India and Japan... the Axis of Not Nearly as Evil as They Once Were...
IJ
January 12, 2006
11:18 am
_None of [the steps] being proposed by. . . the E.U. energy commissioner will soon reduce the risk created by dependence on suppliers who are more than mere profit-maximizing sellers_

Update: "EU Observer":http://euobserver.com/?aid=20663&rk=1

"[The EU energy commissioner] indicated member states are "united" in thinking the EU needs a common energy policy on the model of the common foreign and security policy."

"The European Commission will "steer" the EU toward this goal at the Austrian presidency's first summit in March, he added, warning that Europe faces "a major crisis in energy" in the next 20 years unless something is done."

"The EU imports about 50 percent of its gas and 75 percent of oil, with the world facing fierce competition for resources as global consumption soars."

Echoes in the EU of crisis, what crisis?
Curzon
January 12, 2006
3:43 pm
"To reassert...":http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C01%5C11%5Cstory_11-1-2006_pg4_13
IJ
January 14, 2006
8:47 am
Energy may play a big role in UNSC vetoes in the future.

The history of the veto shows that members of the UNSC can protect their friends against UN sanctions. China may now be about to step up its rare use of this political tool, favouring oil suppliers Sudan and Iran.
Eddie
January 15, 2006
12:01 pm
It will be highly interesting to see how China and Russia respond to the African Union desiring to pass on the failing Darfur mission to the United Nations.