Diplomacy & the Global Stage with Nelson S. Betancourt

Global Risk Governance

What happens when humanitarian crises go unanswered because of a veto?

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has played a central role in international peacekeeping. Yet, when confronted with some of the most severe humanitarian crises Rwanda (1994), Ukraine (2022), Palestine, and Venezuela (2019)—the Council has often failed to respond effectively. Why? Because the veto power held by its five permanent members frequently blocks life-saving action, even in the face of mass atrocities and systemic collapse.

The Structural Risk: When Governance Collides with Geopolitics

This reflection critically examines how the veto mechanism, originally designed to prevent great power conflict, has become a structural barrier in responding to 21st-century threats. Using the lens of “riskification” a concept that frames modern threats as complex, transnational, and unpredictable we can better understand how global institutions struggle to manage crises such as pandemics, forced displacement, famine, and protracted conflicts.

📌 Riskification, as used in contemporary governance theory, refers to the process by which new global threats (beyond conventional war) are framed, managed, and sometimes politicized by institutional actors.

🟦 To what extent should global institutions be responsible for reframing threats beyond traditional state-centric security?

Case of Study: Four Failures of Collective Action

• Rwanda (1994): Political inertia and global indifference led to one of the worst genocides in modern history.
• Israel–Palestine: A recurring use of vetoes blocks resolutions aimed at civilian protection and de-escalation.
• Ukraine (2022): Russia’s veto power paralyzed the Council’s response to its own aggression, eroding credibility.
• Venezuela (2019): Political stalemate prevented coordinated humanitarian aid and diplomatic dialogue.

Each case highlights how explicit or implied veto use undermines timely, coordinated, and impartial responses—weakening both operational capacity and moral legitimacy.

Graph 1. Veto History by Country (1946–2023)

Country	Total Vetoes	Key Conflicts
🇷🇺 Russia	121	Syria, Ukraine, Sudan
🇺🇸 USA	89	Israel–Palestine
🇬🇧 UK	30	Mostly during Cold War
🇫🇷 France	18	Very few since the 1980s
🇨🇳 China	19	Myanmar, Venezuela, Syria

Graph.2 Humanitarian Crisis Vetoes (2010–2023)

Country	Total Vetoes	Humanitarian Crises Involved
🇷🇺 Russia	32	28 (Syria, Ukraine, Sudan)
🇨🇳 China	17	14 (Syria, Myanmar, Venezuela)
🇺🇸 United States	12	9 (Israel–Palestine)
🇬🇧 United Kingdom	0	0
🇫🇷 France	0	0

Comparative Analysis of Veto Usage in the UN Security Council (1946–2023 vs. 2010–2023)

The first table captures the historical trajectory of veto power usage by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council from the establishment of the UN in 1945 through 2023. During this extended period:

• Russia (and previously the USSR) has used the veto most frequently, with an estimated 121 vetoes, many during the Cold War and increasingly in recent years—especially in Syria and Ukraine.
• The United States follows with approximately 89 vetoes, nearly half of which have been exercised to shield Israel in the Israel–Palestine conflict.
• The United Kingdom and France have rarely used their vetoes since the 1980s, with around 30 and 18 vetoes respectively, most of them during the Cold War era.
• China, joining the Council in 1971, has issued around 19 vetoes, with a visible increase since the 2000s, especially in relation to Syria and Myanmar.

In contrast, the second table narrows the focus to vetoes issued in the last decade and a half (2010–2023), specifically in relation to humanitarian crises:

• Russia and China dominate this period, with Russia issuing 32 vetoes, 28 of them tied to humanitarian situations, including repeated blocks on resolutions concerning Syria, Ukraine, and Sudan.
• China used its veto 17 times, with 14 vetoes directly affecting humanitarian responses in countries like Myanmar, Venezuela, and Syria.
• The United States exercised 12 vetoes, 9 of them related to the protection of Israel from international scrutiny during the Israel–Palestine conflict.
• France and the UK did not exercise their vetoes at all during this period, signaling a shift toward restraint and greater alignment with broader international consensus.

Key Insights

• Temporal Shift: While veto power was originally used during the Cold War as a tool of great-power rivalry, in recent decades it has become increasingly instrumental in blocking humanitarian action — especially by Russia, China, and the U.S.
• Normative Implications: The shift from geopolitical posturing to direct obstruction of humanitarian relief suggests a declining moral legitimacy of the UNSC in critical moments.
• Regional Biases: Veto patterns show clear geopolitical alignments — e.g., U.S. support for Israel, Russia and China shielding allies or spheres of influence — which undercuts claims of neutrality in crisis response.
• Declining Use by Western Europe: The sharp decline in veto usage by the UK and France reflects either a commitment to multilateralism or diminished global influence in veto-relevant crises.

What does silence in the face of atrocity mean for the legitimacy of the Security Council?

Learning from Others: Alternative Governance Mechanisms

Other international bodies like NATO and the Council of Europe operate under qualified majority or consensus-based voting, allowing greater institutional agility in crisis scenarios. While imperfect, these models offer comparative insight into how decision-making can be more responsive and inclusive.

Could elements of regional governance models inspire reforms within global institutions like the UN?

What’s Next? Beyond Veto-Centric Governance

This is not a call for institutional rupture. Rather, it’s a call for complementary structures—ones that are neutral, human-centered, and technically prepared to respond swiftly to humanitarian emergencies. Mechanisms based on risk assessment and collective responsibility, rather than geopolitical privilege, are urgently needed.

Conclusion: Reclaiming Multilateralism’s Moral Authority

What role can emerging states and civil society play in building these new frameworks?

To remain relevant, multilateral governance must evolve. That means moving beyond institutional paralysis toward a model grounded in human security, anticipatory risk management, and ethical global leadership. In a world that is more interconnected and volatile than ever, the real question is not just who holds the veto, but who pays the price when it’s used.

What now?

If multilateralism is to remain credible, we must rethink the structures that allow silence in the face of crisis.
The veto is not just a legal tool it’s a political message. One that determines whose security matters and whose suffering is ignored.

From Rwanda to Palestine, vetoes have not only stalled action they’ve reshaped the very meaning of legitimacy in global governance.

What kind of global order do we accept when action is subject to five privileged voices and silence to the rest?

Let’s explore that question together.

Subscribe to my newsletter on LinkedIn and follow this blog for more insights from Diplomacy and the Global World with Nelson S. Betancourt. Subscribe on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/build-relation/newsletter-follow?entityUrn=7327138055260139520