The Green caldron - University Library

20 The Green Caldron
The "Troublesome" Veto
Carl F. Abegg
Rhetoric loi, Theme 5
SHOULD THE VETO POWER OF THE PERMANENT MEMbers
in the Security Council be eliminated? If so, what type of voting
should the Security Council and the rest of the United Nations adopt ? A
similar question was recently asked of hundreds of adult Americans, and an
overwhelming majority favored eliminating the veto because, as they said, the
Russians have abused the veto and have greatly hampered the efficiency of the
U.N. as a world government. Most of the people questioned favored giving
each country in the U.N. one vote; thus, they believed, the United Nations
would have a more democratic form of government.
An intelligent analysis of these wide-spread beliefs concerning the veto
and its relation to the United States and the United Nations proves how com-
pletely absurd this public opinion is.
First of all, the U.N. is not, and was never intended to be, a world government.
The representatives of the allied countries which met at Yalta, Dum-
barton Oaks, and San Francisco, realized that the world was not ready for a
single, central government. Their primary purpose was not to found a world
government, but to organize a league of independent, sovereign states in such
a way as to prevent war. They also knew that if war was to be prevented, the
great powers in the world would have to be united. Thus, they formulated the
unanimity of the Big Five.
While it is true that the Big Five have not remained united—as it was first
thought that they would—and that the Russians have used their veto power
for selfish political reasons, these are not sufficient reasons to do away with
the veto. It is a little-known fact that the United States also favored having
the veto clause inserted into the U. N. Charter. Our representatives to the
conferences knew that the Senate would never ratify a treaty (the Charter of
the U.N. is considered by the United States to be a treaty) which would
destroy our national sovereignty. How many of the strong advocates of a world
superstate would favor such a government, a government to which all of the
American people would owe their allegiance, if they realized that their sons
and daughters who are in the armed forces could be sent anywhere in the
world without the consent of the people of the United States?
Many of the more intelligent individuals who were questioned did not
favor completely eliminating the veto. Instead, they believed that the veto
should be modified so that it could be used only in matters concerning the use
of military forces. They believed that on all other matters each country should
have only one vote, and that a majority of these votes should decide any issue.
How intelligent their reasoning is! How democratic this would be! Under