Power of that single veto

Galvanized by its military success, Israel also arrogated to itself the right to hit neighbouring countries at will— as the state of war continued with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. 

As the post-war bombing raids and dogfights continued over Middle Eastern skies, an American news magazine ran a cartoon showing US-supplied Israeli Phantom jets buzzing over a refugee camp in Jordan where Palestinians were huddled together expecting the worst.

One of the hapless refugees, trying to figure out the reason for the air raid, looks up at the skies and says: "I am sure the United Nations must have adopted a resolution against Israel today."

Well, that may have been a not-so-valid reason for an Israeli military strike, but even if the UN did adopt a resolution, it certainly wasn't the powerful Security Council where the United States— along with Russia, Britain, France and China— exercises veto powers.

As far as the US is concerned, Israel has always remained a sacred cow in the hallowed precincts of the Security Council — never fit for a political slaughterhouse.

Last week, the US used its veto once again to kill a resolution sponsored by the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) calling for the creation of a UN Observer Force to protect Palestinians, who have been killed by the hundreds, in the Israeli-occupied territories of West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Even though the resolution had the support of a majority of the 15 members in the Security Council, it could not be adopted because of a single veto.

The nine countries voting for the creation of the UN force were: Bangladesh, China, Colombia, Jamaica, Mali, Mauritius, Russia, Singapore and Tunisia.

Predictably, the four Western nations in the Council - namely France, Ireland, Norway and the United Kingdom - chickened out and abstained. The fifteenth member, Ukraine, did not participate in the vote.

The last time the US exercised its veto - in March 1997 - was also on an issue relating to Palestinians. As a result of that US veto, a resolution demanding a halt to the Israeli construction of a new housing settlement in East Jerusalem was never adopted.

At that time, Washington used its veto, not once, but twice in a single month, to defeat two resolutions against Israeli settlements.

Considered one of the biggest anomalies in international politics, the veto was the creation of the founding fathers of the United Nations. Not surprisingly, none of the five countries wielding veto powers has agreed to dispense with this anachronism which is virtually cast in stone.

The veto has only reinforced the Orwellian principle that while all members are created equal in the eyes of the United Nations, some are more equal than the others.

The US has told a UN Working Group on "The Reform of the Security Council" that its continued right to the veto is not negotiable under any circumstances.

Since the creation of the world body 55 years ago, a total of 248 vetoes have been cast in the Security Council: 120 by the former Soviet Union (now Russia), 73 by the US, 32 by Britain, 18 by France and five by China.

The largest number of US vetoes, over 40, was cast on Middle Eastern issues and in favour of Israel.

At the height of the Cold War, both the US and the then Soviet Union cast vetoes against each other's resolutions primarily on ideological grounds.

In August 1948, even Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) was a victim of a veto, this time by the Soviet Union, which killed a resolution depriving us of membership in the United Nations. 

After a seven-year gap, Sri Lanka was admitted to the UN in December 1955, as part of a package deal when 16 countries (backed both by the US and the Soviet Union) gained admission to the world body.

Currently on the table are several proposals to amend the veto powers of the Big Five. One of more reasonable amendments would make the veto effective only if they are cast by two members: a double veto by two countries instead of a single country exercising that power.

But judging by the unyielding stand taken by veto-wielding members, this is just another good try in a lost cause.