Evening star., 1946-06-28
The Veto Issue


veto issue was brought tempestu-
ously to q head in the Security
Council on Wednesday exactly one
year after the signing of the United
Nations Charter. Coincidence aside,
however, the event was not particu-
larly surprising, for it had been in
the making for some time as a more
or less inevitable consequence of the
Charters own provisions and Rus
sia's peculiar insistence on Big Five
unanimity.
The situation came about as fol-
lows: ID A heavy Council majority
supported a Spanish resolution
worded in a certain way. 90 Russia
vetoed 1t through Mr.. Gromyko. 90
The majority then ruled that the
veto was invalid on the ground that
the matter was procedural, not sub
stantive, and hence not subject to a
veto. a. Mr.. Gromyko thereupon
vetoed this decision, asserting, in
effect, that any member of the Big
Five had the last word in determin-
ing what was or was not procedural
and thus could protect its veto with
a veto. And finally 90 before the
day was over the Russian veto was
employed for third time on an
other aspect of the case. with the
result that nothing was done about
Spain but to keep it on the agenda.
In all of this. of course, the
Spanish question-whatever its own
intrinsic importance-is completely
overshadowed by the question of
how far the unanimity rule can be
carried without totally incapacitat-
ing the Council. At San Francisco
last year, in formal statement, the
Big Five made special point of
assuring the world that they. would
use the veto power sparingly, but
now Russia has used it in quite the
opposite measure, carrying it to such
extremes that there seems to be
nothing in sight but Illustration for
the majority will. As the redoubta-
BILE Dr. Evatt of Australia has put it,
What has happened here is per-
fectly clear. The veto will be exer-
cised and is to be exercised until the
only proposal left is the proposal
that Mr.. Gromyko supports"
Yet, no matter how much the
world may deplore this, no matter
how discouraging it may be-and it
is certainly discouraging-the fact
remains that there is nothing in the
present U. N. Charter to prevent it.
Mr.. Gromyko's off-horse position
has exasperated nearly all the rest
of the Council, but his three vetoes
nevertheless were technically per-
missible, even the veto to protect the
veto-a device supported in the
statement issued by the Big Five at
San Francisco last year.
AS things stand today, the whole
question. of unanimity rule versus
majority rule thus seems to be near
ing the showdown stage limited at by
Secretary General Trygve Lie last
May. At that time Mr.. Lie suggested
that the Charter might have to be
amended to put an end to the fric-
tion-breeding problem and avert the
danger Of paralysis in the United
Nations. DR.. Evatt now appears to
have the same thought in mind. 1t
is good thought, but its difficulties
ought not to be underestimated. It
would require a two thirds vote of
the General Assembly and ratifica-
ton by two-thirds of the members
of the U. NJ, including the perma-
nent Council members.
In other words, the veto applies
even to the process of amending the
Charter to restrict the veto. If there
is to be any progress along that
line, therefore, Russia will have to
be much more cooperative than it
was on Wednesday. In the last
analysis, that seems to be the key to
nearly everything Russian cooper
alton. Given that, the United Ma
tions could function as effectively as
1t needs to function If the world is
to enjoy peace worthy of the name.