Neg Case

Resolved: The United Nations should abolish permanent membership on its Security
Council.
 Our Sole Contention is Power
Subpoint A - Nuclear War

Veto Power maintained peace.

Jean-Marie, wrote in 22 says,
https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2022/12/19/a-rework-of-the-p5-as-a-cornerstone-for-peace-through-
multilateralism/#:~:text=Although%20each%20member%20holds%20equal,and%20security%20in%20th
e%20world.
Since 1945, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been entrusted with the maintenance of
international peace and security, as delineated in Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter. Initially, the
number of Council members was capped at eleven, but following the amendment of Article 23 of the
Charter—which was ratified on June 12, 1968—the figure was raised to fifteen. It includes five
permanent members (the P5), namely the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China,
and ten non-permanent members, selected by the General Assembly for two years at a time based on
the country’s contribution to the organization and geographical distribution. Although each member
holds equal voting power in procedural matters, only the P5 enjoy a special power to reject any
resolution that may hinder the maintenance of peace and security in the world. According to Article
27.3, any resolution on non-procedural matters (i.e., sanctions, military intervention in conflict zones,
admission of a new member, choice of a new secretary-general, and reform of the UNSC) must be
supported by an affirmative vote of at least nine out of fifteen members of the Council, including a
unanimous vote of the P5. As such, permanent cooperation rather than rivalry among the P5 would
better ensure international peace and security.

Veto power has ensured cooperation

Rahman, again, wrote in 23 Rahman, Sami Ur, Syeda Nosheen Bukhari, and Nasir Zaman. "ABOLISHING
VETO POWER IN THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL; FOR BETTER OR WORSE?." Pakistan Journal
of International Affairs 6.4 (2023)] [thiele]
[https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/download/932/649] [Sami Ur Rahman = Associate Professor
of Law, The University of Faisalabad, Pakistan; Bukhari = Principal, Peace International School, Multan,
Pakistan; Zaman = Freelancer/Academic Writer, Law Graduate from Bahria University Islamabad]

In 1993, Australian unfamiliar writer Gareth Evans wrote that the veto power was laid out to guarantee
that the powerful assembled countries didn't focus on things it would not be able to finish because of
extraordinary power resistance (Schindlmayr, 2001).

veto power prevents P5 nuclear war

Rahman, again, wrote in 23 Rahman, Sami Ur, Syeda Nosheen Bukhari, and Nasir Zaman. "ABOLISHING
VETO POWER IN THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL; FOR BETTER OR WORSE?." Pakistan Journal
of International Affairs 6.4 (2023)] [thiele]
[https://pjia.com.pk/index.php/pjia/article/download/932/649] [Sami Ur Rahman = Associate Professor
of Law, The University of Faisalabad, Pakistan; Bukhari = Principal, Peace International School, Multan,
Pakistan; Zaman = Freelancer/Academic Writer, Law Graduate from Bahria University Islamabad]

The fact that the veto power has kept the Security Council from approving the use of force against a
permanent member is another argument in favor of the current arrangement. Since all of the
permanent members have access to WMDs and a battle between them may have disastrous effects, this
has helped to avert a war between them. (Nollkaemper, 2022).

Extinction is caused by war

Cotton-Barratt, researcher at Future of Humanity Institute, wrote in 17, Dr. Owen Research Associate at
the Future of Humanity Institute, 2/3/2017, “Existential Risk,” Global Priorities Project,
https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Existential-Risks-2017-01-23.pdf

1.1.1 Nuclear war The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated the unprecedented
destructive power of nuclear weapons. However, even in an all-out nuclear war between the United
States and Russia, despite horrific casualties, neither country’s population is likely to be completely
destroyed by the direct effects of the blast, fire, and radiation.8 The aftermath could be much worse:
the burning of flammable materials could send massive amounts of smoke into the atmosphere, which
would absorb sunlight and cause sustained global cooling, severe ozone loss, and agricultural disruption
– a nuclear winter. According to one model 9, an all-out exchange of 4,000 weapons 10 could lead to a
drop in global temperatures of around 8°C, making it impossible to grow food for 4 to 5 years. This could
leave some survivors in parts of Australia and New Zealand, but they would be in a very precarious
situation and the threat of extinction from other sources would be great. An exchange on this scale is
only possible between the US and Russia who have more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, with
stockpiles of around 4,500 warheads each, although many are not operationally deployed.11 Some
models suggest that even a small regional nuclear war involving 100 nuclear weapons would produce a
nuclear winter serious enough to put two billion people at risk of starvation,12 though this estimate
might be pessimistic.13 Wars on this scale are unlikely to lead to outright human extinction, but this
does suggest that conflicts which are around an order of magnitude larger may be likely to threaten
civilisation. It should be emphasised that there is very large uncertainty about the effects of a large
nuclear war on global climate. This remains an area where increased academic research work, including
more detailed climate modelling and a better understanding of how survivors might be able to cope and
adapt, would have high returns. It is very difficult to precisely estimate the probability of existential risk
from nuclear war over the next century, and existing attempts leave very large confidence intervals.
According to many experts, the most likely nuclear war at present is between India and Pakistan.14
However, given the relatively modest size of their arsenals, the risk of human extinction is plausibly
greater from a conflict between the United States and Russia. Tensions between these countries have
increased in recent years and it seems unreasonable to rule out the possibility of them rising further in
the future.
 Subpoint B - Global Stability

The veto power is within the hands of the P5

Newsroom, (2023) continues,
https://betterworldcampaign.org/blog/un-security-council-veto
There are also ten non-permanent members of the Council, elected by the UN General
Assembly for two-year terms.Despite decades-long efforts to reform the Council, the veto
currently remains an exclusive privilege of P5 members only. When any of the P5 vote “no” in
the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their
differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from
wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).

Politically, the only way the veto gets abolished is if the UN gets abolished

Paige, law professor at Deakin University wrote in 23 [Tamsin Phillipa Paige "Stripping Russia’s veto
power on the Security Council is all but impossible. Perhaps we should expect less from the UN instead"
The Conversation. September 20, 2023][https://theconversation.com/stripping-russias-veto-power-on-
the-security-council-is-all-but-impossible-perhaps-we-should-expect-less-from-the-un-instead-213985]
[Paige = Senior Lecturer with Deakin Law School and periodically consults for the UN Office on Drugs and
Crime in relation to Maritime Crime, Graduate Certificate of Higher Ed. Learning & Teaching, Deakin
University, 2020 Doctor of Philosophy, University of Adelaide, 2018 Master of Philosophy, Australian
National University, 2014 Bachelor of Law(s), Univ. of Technology Sydney, 2012]

So, what about veto reform? If the existence of the veto prevents any Security Council action from being
taken against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine (or against any other P5 state when they engage in
similar conduct), why don’t we just reform it? Well, this can’t be done because the drafters of the UN
Charter made reform incredibly difficult. Namely, the P5 ensured they have a right to veto any proposed
reforms to the UN structure by requiring all charter amendments to be ratified by each of them, in
addition to getting a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In essence, this means reforming the
UN Charter is off the table because the P5 would be able to veto a reduction of their veto power. The
only avenue left for reform is to dissolve the UN Charter and reform the UN under a new treaty that
limits or abolishes the power of the veto. Given the state of global solidarity is very different today
compared to the end of WWII when the UN was established, I’m loathe to test this approach. A P5 that
is restrained by the Charter when it suits them is less dangerous than a P5 that opts out of international
law entirely, leaving them completely unrestrained in their aggression.

However even if this works, a lack of a veto would end the UN

Bellamy, international security professor at Griffith, wrote in 14 [Sara Davies; Alex Bellamy "Don’t be too
quick to condemn the UN Security Council power of veto" The Conversation. August 11, 2014] [thiele]
[https://theconversation.com/dont-be-too-quick-to-condemn-the-un-security-council-power-of-veto-
29980] [Davis = ARC Future Fellow, Griffith University; Bellamy = Professor of International Security,
Griffith University]

Recent events in Gaza and Ukraine and the ongoing gridlock in Syria have dominated newspapers and
airwaves – and debate in the United Nations Security Council. Despite UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-
moon voicing strong condemnation of alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza, the UN has been widely
criticised for its inability to ensure global co-operation to protect the world’s most vulnerable
populations. Given the high-profile vetoes of Russia and China on Syria and the repeated vetoes from
United States in regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict, renewed debate over United Nations Security
Council reform and attempts to curtail the controversial power of veto has ensued. So, why do some
Security Council members have the veto power? And where would the Security Council be without it?
Establishing the veto The UN Charter, proclaimed at the UN’s establishment in San Francisco in 1945,
gives the Security Council primary responsibility for international peace and security. Today, the Security
Council comprises five Permanent Members, the “P5” – China, France, the UK, the US and Russia – and
ten non-permanent members elected for a two-year term. Australia is currently one of the non-
permanent members. Nine affirmative votes are required for a resolution to pass. However, if one of the
P5 casts a negative vote, a draft resolution will not be approved. The P5’s veto powers proved
controversial in San Francisco. An Australian-led revolt against the veto was rejected by the US.
Washington argued that a world organisation that hinged on ongoing participation of the great powers
must allow them to protect their “vital interests” or fall into irrelevance. This proved to the case for the
UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, which had no veto provisions in its Covenant. By the time it
was most needed, at the onset of the Second World War, none of the most significant world powers
(US, USSR, Germany, Japan) were members. Without the veto, the UN Security Council would surely
have suffered the same fate. It is difficult to imagine how the UN would have survived the Cold War
were it not for the veto. Facing an anti-Soviet majority in the years immediately after 1945, the USSR is
unlikely to have remained committed to a capitalist-dominated UN.

Politically, the only way the veto gets abolished is if the UN gets
abolished
Paige, law professor at Deakin University wrote in 23 [Tamsin Phillipa Paige "Stripping Russia’s veto power on the
Security Council is all but impossible. Perhaps we should expect less from the UN instead" The Conversation.
September 20, 2023] [thiele] [https://theconversation.com/stripping-russias-veto-power-on-the-security-council-
is-all-but-impossible-perhaps-we-should-expect-less-from-the-un-instead-213985] [Paige = Senior Lecturer with
Deakin Law School and periodically consults for the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in relation to Maritime Crime,
Graduate Certificate of Higher Ed. Learning & Teaching, Deakin University, 2020 Doctor of Philosophy, University of
Adelaide, 2018 Master of Philosophy, Australian National University, 2014 Bachelor of Law(s), Univ. of Technology
Sydney, 2012]
So, what about veto reform? If the existence of the veto prevents any Security Council action from being
taken against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine (or against any other P5 state when they engage in
similar conduct), why don’t we just reform it? Well, this can’t be done because the drafters of the UN
Charter made reform incredibly difficult. Namely, the P5 ensured they have a right to veto any proposed
reforms to the UN structure by requiring all charter amendments to be ratified by each of them, in addition
to getting a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In essence, this means reforming the UN Charter
is off the table because the P5 would be able to veto a reduction of their veto power. The only avenue left
for reform is to dissolve the UN Charter and reform the UN under a new treaty that limits or abolishes the
power of the veto. Given the state of global solidarity is very different today compared to the end of WWII
when the UN was established, I’m loathe to test this approach. A P5 that is restrained by the Charter
when it suits them is less dangerous than a P5 that opts out of international law entirely, leaving them
completely unrestrained in their aggression.

Finally, without the UN, extinction is inevitable

Seifman, former World Bank and USAID Health advisor, wrote in 23 [Richard Seifman "End the United Nations? Bad
Idea" Impakter. Business of Sustainability. March 28, 2023] [thiele] [https://impakter.com/end-the-united-nations-
bad-idea/] [Seifman = UNA/NCA Board Member, former World Bank Senior Health Advisor and U.S. Senior Foreign
Service Officer, and Honorary Diplomate of the American Veterinary One Health Sociery (AVOHS). Over 45 years of
experience]
Today there are those who see the United Nations as an ineffective, bloated bureaucracy that could not
prevent or condemn acts of war or human violations, for example in the Rwanda civil conflict, in Darfur or
Yemen…and now in Ukraine. But think again: dissolving it would be catastrophic though it could happen.
That “we” would like it to perform better is practically a universal desire. But the counterfactual of it
dissolving is horrifying, and yet no longer beyond the realm of the possible. Many countries that became
independent after World War II see the UN as the creation of the victors of that global conflict, mostly
American, British and to a lesser degree French — Western capitalism and notions of exporting
“democracy.” Now, other second-tier founders — the successors to then China and the Soviet Union —
see these institutions as remnants of a dated set of weakened and waning imperial countries. If China
and Russia, its two leaders meeting this week to discuss further cooperation and ostensibly confrontation
with the West, were to decide to withdraw from the UN — even if only from the Security Council — this
would likely result in many in the South following suit and leaving other entities they see as contrary to
their interests, not least the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees which hosts millions of refugees and
asylum seekers in Turkey and Syria, before and after the recent earthquake. Note in passing, that while
not a United Nations body, the International Criminal Court’s decision to indict Vladimir Putin is fully
justified given the authorized horrific conduct in Ukraine, but it will be seen as another breakpoint with the
West. In the history of grand global experiments that failed, one need go no further than the League of
Nations, which collapsed essentially because the United States did not join, having only just become a
big power as a result of engagement in World War I. The League was soon “Dead on Arrival,” which
contributed to Germany’s disregard of treaties and other efforts to prevent its rearmament, as did Japan.
Should there be a similar fate for the United Nations, the level of danger for everyone would increase by
factors of an incalculable magnitude. The ongoing work of the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO), the Universal Postal Union (UPU), the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), are
examples of UN entities coordinating critical areas of our daily lives. Further, over a dozen current UN
peacekeeping operations are in place around the world, with over 100,000 military, police and civilian
personnel from 125 countries currently serving in 14 peacekeeping operations. Further, UN humanitarian
agencies are assisting over one billion people with essential survival needs. In total, some 80 related
agencies, organizations, subsidiary bodies, programmes and independent offices are currently part of the
UN system, as shown in the UN system chart below: As the above chart amply demonstrates, every
possible area of human activity is included – technical, economic, social, cultural, legal, medical – and
every major issue concerning groups and communities of humans, from children and women to LGBTQ+
and Indigenous People is addressed by one or more of the entities listed here; even animals and the
environment have dedicated organizations: The UN has the Anthropocene covered. Perhaps, what is
most remarkable, is that, despite the high number of entities, their mandates are kept separate and when
appropriate, every effort is made to ensure that they are complementary and coordinated. Indeed,
coordination and collaboration are at the core of the UN 17 Sustainable Development Goals and made
explicit in Goal 17 which calls for strengthening the means of implementation and revitalizing the global
partnership for sustainable development — in short, and as it says on the UN website: To build a better
world, we need to be supportive, empathetic, inventive, passionate, and above all, cooperative. Dangers
facing a world without the United Nations Apart from nuclear capability now being in the hands of many,
the speed of technological change — some beneficial of course, but many readily weaponized — means
that containing actors across the widening continuum of States and other entities could well become
impossible. The COVID pandemic may turn out to be an early illustration of a world in disorder — indeed
the absence of the UN and its Security Council during the pandemic contributed to developing the
country’s sense of UN irrelevance. Nefarious politicization of the pandemic’s origin points to the potential
of weaponized fragmentation of future pandemic prevention or response, likely at an enormous human
cost. The Ukraine war is another example — and we don’t know yet how it will end, but it is already clear
that the UN in this conflict is not playing the role it could play and as its founders had envisaged, as an
essential instrument to contain war. Many countries are now present in outer space, and cooperation
seems to be failing: Russia recently decided to pull out of the international space station, while China has
created its own Tiangong space station. Such platforms are ostensibly considered science-purposed. Yet
other possible uses exist, including satellite platforms for missile launches, providing essentially no
warning for those targeted. Similar scenarios will spin out of control in electronics and artificial
intelligence, the boundaries of which offer no notion of what it may mean in disorderly global competition
in which nations strive to outwit the enemy. This is not science fiction. These new factors can be seen as
contributing to a more dehumanizing, dystopian world. All of this is not to mention the loss of collaboration
for future global public goods, such as climate change, prevention of ocean pollution, and energy security
for poorer nations. Without the UN and its agencies, these goals will become distant mirages. Looking
forward: “Law of nations” or something else? In his recent piece, entitled “The Future of Europe in a
World of Deep Disorder”, Martin Wolf mentions Immanuel Kant’s vision of “perpetual peace” founded on a
state-based “law of nations.” Our ecosystem has since become much more complex. We now live in a
world characterized by disorder, nationalism, and great-power conflict. If there is any hope for some
modicum of “peace,” it is not just European leaders, but leaders everywhere who need to find a common
cause for a rule-based international order. This brings us back to the importance of the United Nations.
As noted, some parts of the UN system work better than others, no doubt, but all are tied to the
overarching UN framework and our current world order. It is time to get beyond the order established in
past years and look creatively for future ways to engage those who might consider leaving, especially
Russia and China. Our collective interest, nay survival, may well depend on the wisdom of those
countries which built and maintain controlling interest, to have the foresight to review, propose and at
least in good faith explore ways to make the existing institutional pillars more “democratic” today. The
United States played a major role in the founding of the United Nations, and as President Truman said,
addressing himself to the San Francisco Conference in 1945: “The Charter of the United Nations which
you have just signed is a solid structure upon which we can build a better world. if we fail to use it, we
shall betray all those who have died so that we might meet here in freedom and safety to create it. If we
seek to use it selfishly – for the advantage of any one nation or any small group of nations — we shall be
equally guilty of that betrayal.” This is the existential challenge, one front and center for all of us: The
choice by all will shape, if not determine, our collective future.

Thus, we negate the resolution