French Chicanery at the United Nations

With the 70th anniversary of the United Nations celebrated this fall, France has made a big splash by proposing limiting the right of veto exercised by the permanent members of the UN Security Council, i.e. by Russia, China, United Kingdom, the United States and France. But these ostensibly good intentions of preventing crimes against humanity appear to be an attempt to pave the way for a UNSC blessing of unrestricted enforcement through military force.

With the 70th anniversary of the United Nations celebrated this fall, France has made a big splash by proposing limiting the right of veto exercised by the permanent members of the UN Security Council, i.e. by Russia, China, United Kingdom, the United States and France. But these ostensibly good intentions of preventing crimes against humanity appear to be an attempt to pave the way for a UNSC blessing of unrestricted enforcement through military force.

A debate is gaining momentum over the voluntary waiving of the right to a veto by the five permanent members of the UNSC in situations when mass crimes are being committed. This idea was suggested by France's President François Holland at the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2013 to his UNSC counterparts using the context of Syria, when he implied that they should elaborate a code of good conduct and jointly renounce their veto powers in the event of a mass crime. Soon French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius supplied some details: the five UNSC permanent members should agree on the voluntary regulation of veto powers, which can allegedly be done without any amendments to be made to the UN Charter. According to Paris, in a situation when they must take a decision on a committed mass crime, the UN permanent members may agree to refrain from their veto powers if at least 50 UN member states – only about a quarter of total membership – call upon the Secretary General to determine the nature of the crime. Once he delivers his opinion, the code of conduct would immediately apply.

To better understand the aims and the target group, Mr. Fabius stated that "the UNSC members should not exercise privileges in emergencies when urgent steps are needed to prevent or suppress mass and serious crimes against humanity. This is a matter of responsibility for saving UNSC proceedings from paralysis and settling the conflict."

Among other things, Paris apparently intends to restrain the veto powers of Russia and China who in 2011-2014 jointly blocked four unilateral UNSC draft resolutions on Syria, and thus it would help the West push through its decisions in future.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov placed under doubt the entire debate over revising the veto powers by saying that "it seems unimaginable to document the voluntary waiver of veto powers in situations related with gross violations of international humanitarian law and military crimes." China followed suit.

The Origins of Veto Powers

REUTERS/Shannon Stapleton
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius speaks
at a session of the UN Security Council on
September 19, 2014

The founding fathers of the United Nations did their best to make use of the negative but extremely instructive experience of the League of Nations, which failed to fulfill its historic mission in the 1930s of preventing the tragic developments that brought about World War II. However, much time and political will at the highest level were required to overcome the inertia of the previous mistakes and trite schemes.

To this end, of special significance for the establishment of the UN was the Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR, the U.S.A., Great Britain and China that took place on October 19-30, 1943 and resulted in the Declaration on General Security. The document underlined that the four governments recognized the need for the expedient establishment of a comprehensive international body for maintaining international peace and security based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all large and small peace-loving states.

Notably, the gathering also considered the allies’ attitudes to the French Committee for National Liberation headed by Charles de Gaulle, since the U.S. and British approaches were based on their document Basic Scheme for Administration of Liberated France [1] and could be boiled down to a de facto occupation regime and severe limitations on the Committee's activities.

The Soviet delegation could not but oppose this idea. Following questions and remarks, the Anglo-American document was transferred to the European Advisory Commission, the body for joint decisions of the allies set up by the Moscow Conference.

As prescribed by the 1943 Moscow Declaration, on August 21, 1944, Dumbarton Oaks near Washington became the venue for negotiators from the USSR, the U.S.A. and Great Britain and then from the U.S.A., Great Britain and China.

It was no secret France was hardly the first to make decisions on establishing the United Nations Organizations.

The Security Council voting process happened to be the most contentious issue when the UN Charter was elaborated. Soviet diplomats saw their key task in providing the emerging organization with a modus operandi, which would make sure that it would serve the cause of peace so that no country or group of countries could use it in their interests to the detriment of other members. The body was supposed to become a means for cooperation between states, primarily those that could do much for maintaining peace, i.e. the great powers. At the Dumbarton Oaks gathering, it was the United States that suggested empowering the UNSC decisions only if agreed upon by all permanent members. And it was the United States that initiated the right of veto resultant from the consensus requirement.

However, up until the Yalta Conference of allied nations on February 4-11, 1945, the U.S.A. and Great Britain were quite skeptical about the French Committee for National Liberation that would be converted into the provisional government of France and personally about General de Gaulle, expecting that France would slowly degrade into a second-tier state and become dependent on them both politically and economically.

But Moscow was explicitly pro-French and on December 10, 1944 the Agreement on Alliance and Mutual Assistance was signed between the USSR and France, which de facto supplied a foundation for France to be recognized as a great power and later granted a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.

The Apple of Discord

russlovo.today
Conference of Foreign Ministers of the USSR,
the U.S.A., Great Britain and China that took
place on October 19-30, 1943

The veto powers vested in the five UNSC permanent members by the UN Charter drove a wedge in their unity in the very early days of the organization. The arguments made by its opponents were in fact almost similar to those made today and were centered on the thesis that the principle of sovereign equality of states that was placed into the UN foundation contradicts the empowering of some states with extra powers. Critics of the unanimity rule for permanent members wanted to have the right of veto curtailed, with attempts made to withdraw certain international conflicts from the UN jurisdiction and place the responsibility for their settlement on appropriate regional structures.

There have been many initiatives launched, mostly by developing countries, to reform the organization, first of all, the Security Council. Motivations notwithstanding, every effort was invariably intended to eliminate or initially curb the veto powers and redistribute them in favor of the General Assembly. However, these exploits normally failed due to absence of broad support from the member states.

A most illustrative example is the S-5 initiative of Jordan, Costa Rica, Lichtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, which was on agenda in 2005-2012, when the countries tried to revise the UNSC working procedures, including the right of veto. In the end, their draft resolution failed to receive the approval of the General Assembly majority and was revoked.

France Caught in the Same Trap

By triggering a debate on limitations to veto powers, France as a UNSC permanent member might run into major reputational damage.

In this context, one might recall another long gone French foreign policy blunder – the 2011 idea of Nicolas Sarcozy to use France's dual presidency in G8 and G20 to advance UN Security Council reform. Other UNSC members stepped back, saying it was counterproductive to discuss reforms beyond the limits of the intergovernmental talks on the subject in progress since 2009 in New York within the unofficial plenary session of the General Assembly.

Moreover, it is shortsighted to regard such informal international associations as the proper platform for discussing the future of the United Nations as a universal global organization. Of major significance was also the fact that China, a UNSC permanent member, was not a G8 participant, which would deprive any debate on the Security Council reform of the inclusiveness principle. Recently, Russia has also dropped out of the group.

One-time measures are hardly sufficient for such a complicated and multilayered subject as UN and Security Council reform. Besides, initiatives of this kind may open a Pandora’s box, namely the debate on direct French and British UNSC membership because of a possible seat being given to the European Union. This prospect seems to be on the line in Berlin, which is waiting for an opening to seek control of the UNSC levers, bearing in mind its economic and political clout in the European Union.

The Outside Perspective

www.diplomatie.gouv.fr
France and the UN Security Council

In a broad historical context, the role of France in the UN Security Council has been always seen as a bridge between the West and the East, used to improve compromises on key global matters. And Paris used to be quite good at this role up until 2007 when Jacques Chirac left the stage. Whereas in 2003 France joined Russia, China and Germany to actively oppose U.S. aggression against Iraq and Washington's attempt to use the UNSC as a cover for realization of its geopolitical interests, in 2011 it emerged as an apologist of the military action in Libya. Under the Sarcozy rule, Paris not only led those who recognized the Libyan antigovernment forces but pioneered in sending its aircraft to bomb Libyan government forces under the 1973 UNSC resolution which allowed no such action. It was the French air force that attacked the motorcade of then Libyan leader Muammar Kaddafi, after which he was brutally killed by opposition gunmen.

At the same time, French forces openly supported Alassane Ouattara, a presidential runner in former French colony Cote d'Ivoire, attacking contingents loyal to ruling president Laurent Gbabo. Pushed by Paris, the UN peacekeepers in Cote d'Ivoire also sided with Mr. Ouattara.

France also did much to prepare four lopsided UNSC draft resolutions on Syria charging Damascus with the deterioration of the situation and envisaging sanctions and intervention.

Hence, it is the consistent stand of Russia and China that seems to hamper a Western-style scenario in Syria, pushing the West to employ a permanent member for launching an initiative on curtailing the veto powers.

Notably, the right of veto was applied four times by Russia and China after which progress surfaced in a Syria settlement through political and diplomatic channels. And it was definitely the Russo-Chinese veto that prevented a repeat Libyan scenario in Syria.

At that, the absolute record holder in the use of the veto is the United States which has used it 16 times since 1990. Since Washington will obviously use it again, Palestine is withholding its official application for full UN membership because the procedure involves a vote in the Security Council.

Over the same period, Russia used its veto eleven times and China – eight times, mostly on the same votes.

The future of the UN and the entire world order directly hinges on the willingness and the ability of UNSC permanent members to constructively and responsibly shape their relations, finding ways to achieve mutual understanding on the most complicated and controversial problems, which means that an absence of agreement between the permanent members is not something to be interpreted as a free hand for unilateral action.

One should understand that the right of veto is a pillar of the UN Charter. Hardly a privilege, the right of veto signifies a colossal responsibility and a guarantee that Security Council decisions reflect a weighted opinion of global community. It seems hardly an understatement that the loss of veto powers would bring an end to the credibility of the UNSC.

Hence, the French initiative appears to carry an unsettling warning that attempts are underway to dismantle the proven system of mutual control for great powers and shift the UNSC-level decision-making to such regional organizations as NATO or European Union, or groups of influence of the G7 variety.

1. History of the USSR Foreign Policy. Volume 1. Gromyko A.A., Ponomarev B.P. (editor). History. Moscow: Nauka Publishers. 1980. P. 444