The Elephant in the Room: Why the Reluctance to Vote on Intervention?

No matter the circumstances, any state wishing to initiate the use of force against another must receive authorization by the United Nations in order for the action to enjoy full legality and legitimacy under international law. Officially, at least. Blatant violations and devious subversions abound from all sides since the inauguration of the UN Charter in 1945. Yet the majority of world leaders still advocate for the supranational organization and rhetorically adhere to its mandates.

Why states maintain their rhetorical support for the United Nations is a topic for another time. More relevant to current affairs has been the Obama administration's reluctance to submit a resolution to the United Nations Security Council--the highest body at the UN, composed of the United States, England, France, China, and Russia, plus a smattering of non-permanent members--citing the "inevitability" of a veto from Russia and China. Russia has indeed asked that the resolution introduced by UK Prime Minister David Cameron be tabled until UN inspectors conclude their report in the next week, but that does seem an entirely justifiable demand.

Still, Russia and China's veto of a resolution placing punitive sanctions on the Syrian regime in 2012 earned much justifiable condemnation from around the world. A resolution allowing the use of force on the Syrian military, though unpopular among those peoples whose soldiers would get in harms way, would receive at least widespread acquiescence from world leaders willing to let others take care of Assad's murderous regime; so why not force a veto and rally world opinion against those who would defend the use of chemical weapons? Though this particular case may not be enough, it would lend itself to the growing consensus on the need to reform the Security Council for the 21st Century. The contemporary geopolitical stage is vastly evolved from that of 1945; why not drop the unilateral veto and make Council membership more representative of today's Great Powers?


Which brings us to the elephant in the room: the United States and its allies on the UNSC do not want reform. The perceived risks of introducing new actors and restricting veto powers outweigh the benefit of making the body more responsive to international opinion. Who has been the biggest user of the unilateral veto powers since the USSR stopped trolling the Council in the 1960s? The United States.

No matter how much it hurts the Council's legitimacy to have its most powerful member exercising its veto in its own interest, the capability is far too politically advantageous for the president of the United States to accept relinquishing. The domestic furor generated by accepting limitations on that capability would similarly be politically devastating, correct though the decision may be, particularly in utterly nutty state of today's political discourse. If today's Republicans refuse to sign on to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea for rabid fear of the death knell to American sovereignty--despite desperate urging by every single past US Secretary of State--they are not about to allow a real, if justifiable, reduction of American sovereignty.

Vetoes in the UNSC by country

Worst of all? The US vetoes over the last several decades have almost universally been in support of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and war crimes. Though certainly not the sudden atrocity of using chemical weapons against civilians (woops), the ongoing occupation and expanding seizure of Palestinian lands with intent to annex is in blatant violation of international law and human decency--even America's European allies have condemned its uncritical support for the illegalities still perpetrated by the Israeli government.

So long as any administration in power in the United States perceives so much political risk at allowing reform to move ahead, the process will receive little more than lip-service that frustrates our non-member allies and poisons the institution's legitimacy. Intervention in Syria may go to a vote, but the United States will stifle any talk of reform.