P5 Members’ Response on the Usage of Veto Power in UNSC
by AURELIA WIBAWA | 14 August 2021, 16:24 WIB | XINHUA | UNSC
JAKARTA, Aug. 14 (Xinhua) – A known regulation, permanent members of the UNSC have veto powers in determining the passing of resolutions made. In combating the Sino-Indian Border Dispute, permanent members of the Russian Federation, the United States, China, France, and the United Kingdom are present. With the status of the discussion where resolutions are still ongoing, and clashing points of view were seen, how significant is the usage of Veto power permanent members have in passing a future resolution is noted.
The P5 members have different standpoints in proposals of solutions towards the issue. China and Russia both lean on improving previous agreements and what we can work from there with minimal usage of third-party involvement except Russia. On the other hand, the rest of the members seem to take more extensive measures of creating new rules and a new mediator on the issue. All members have to agree on a resolution, yet the veto power some delegates have questions concerning will countries have an internal dispute over the resolution at the end.
During the press conference, Russia stated that the veto power shouldn’t be a concern as long as the other delegates have mutual respect over China and India as the main subjects of the territorial dispute. Following up, the delegate of the U.S also expressed his opinion on their veto power. “The U.S would only veto the resolution if, for example, a P5 member intervenes too much on the issue, especially on the regards of a third party. It will be unfair for both sides if, for example, one of the P5 members is mediating a supposed bilateral issue,” he stated. The statement not only showed the U.S delegate’s point of view towards their veto power, but it also showed his concerns over the mediator issue in the Sino-Indian border dispute.
With explanations from permanent members of the UN Security Council, it could be concluded that veto power will only be used for desperate measures. However, both members definitely have an incompatible point of view on the “desperate” measure. With their strong opposing statements, the council’s future resolution is still blurry.