The veto power in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) — as arbitrarily wielded by its permanent members the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France — is an absurdity where the good and the bad coexist. Conceived after World War 2 in the Yalta voting formula during negotiations to establish the fledgling UN, the US insisted on a "take it or leave it" ultimatum.
The deciding vote in the US Senate would have abandoned the UN idea if the veto power for permanent members was off the table. Washington wasn't alone. Without veto rights, top global powers, including the then Soviet Union (now Russia) and China, would have ditched the UN, jeopardising the body's global viability. Non-US veto supporters claimed it was a "critical safeguard" against American domination while ensuring international stability and to curb military interventions.
From early on, critics have panned the veto power as "undemocratic". Their stance was vindicated when the UNSC failed to prevent war crimes and crimes against humanity due to its perched power base, which undermined the overall authority of the UN.
To describe the veto power as controversial is a gross understatement. In empowering itself, it has evolved into an object of ridicule, denigration and disgust, thus creating a paradox.
When it comes to voting on security concerns, the US has held a monopoly, routinely vetoing resolutions that condemned Israel as a terrorist state. Despite its drawbacks, it opened up membership to 10 non-permanent nations, to which Malaysia served for four terms between 1965 and 2016.
Another plus side: the veto doesn't affect the UN General Assembly (UNGA), where representatives of some of its 193 member states had delivered fiery speeches, condemnations and criticisms, specifically against UNSC permanent members.
Still, the permanent members aren't shy about optimising their veto power. With impunity, they use influence and wealth to impose favourable trade laws, sanctions and impractical democracy on struggling developing countries.
Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, during his two stints as prime minister, regularly criticised the veto power disparity at the UNGA, demanding restrictions or its removal. Malaysia's position is consistent: ensuring greater UN control of sanctions that won't compel member states to cut trade ties with "disagreeable" nations.
In Malaysia's view, the UN failed to prevent wars while enabling its permanent members to "rule the world". In a UNSC debate this week, Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan, while reinforcing Malaysia's demands, suggested that the UN was not "too broken" to be fixed, articulating that the only solution was to limit veto powers.
On top of financial, military and political aid, the US has flashed the veto card no less than 40 times to quash or reject resolutions to rein in Israel's deadly military aggression against Palestinians. Realistically and despite sympathetic member states' backing, no UN non-permanent member states can break the veto tyranny.
This time, however, anti-Israeli dissent reverberating across the planet, particularly in South Africa, Norway, Spain and Ireland, has embraced Malaysia's longstanding position.