Misuse of Veto Powers

The Security Council of the United tions has five permanent members each of whom has veto powers even to undo unimous decisions of the other four who may be in complete agreement over a course of action. Over the years, the veto power of any one of the permanent members has scuttled a number of decisions that may have been in the best interests of humanity. One such instance of misuse of veto powers by Chi clearly demonstrates how any one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is in a position to sabotage what is intended for the greatest good of the greatest number by the other four permanent members of the Security Council. Recently, Chi's permanent representative Liu Jieyi in the UN Security Council reiterated Beijing's claim that Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohamed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar does not qualify as a terrorist who would have to face UN sanctions. Speaking to jourlists at the United tions headquarters last Friday after assuming the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council, Liu reiterated that Azhar did not meet "the Council's requirements" to be considered a terrorist. When asked about Chi exercising a virtual veto at the UN Sanctions Committee by putting a hold on Azhar being declared a terrorist subject to a range of punitive actions, Liu made a general statement to the effect that individuals and organizations on the sanctions list of the United tions would have to meet the requirements and that it was the responsibility of all the members of the Council to make sure that each requirement was followed. When he was pressed further to clarify in what way Azhar fell short of being a terrorist, Liu merely said, "The Council's requirements," implying that Azhar did not meet them, without going into any details.

Chi's stand on the issue of the export of terrorism and the UN's sanctions on such terrorists or terrorist outfits is most unfortute. Masood Azhar was the mastermind of the Pakistani terrorist action in Mumbai that had led to the death of well over a hundred people. All the terrorists were killed in army and police action except one. The sole remaining terrorist was captured and tried in India. He was subsequently hanged following court orders. If someone like Masood Azhar who masterminded such terrorist activities does not satisfy all the requirements of the UN Sanctions Committee to be declared a terrorist, it is high time the UNO made available to all countries of the world the complete list of requirements of the United tions for a terrorist like Masood Azhar to recognized for what he is. It is unfortute that a terrorist who has been exporting terrorism to other countries should fail to be recognized as such just because Chi is unwilling to take any action against Pakistan because of Chi's cordial relations with that country. Chi's repeated refusal to let the UN Security Council recognize Masood Azhar as a terrorist is just a manifestation of the typical urge of wanting to protect the interests of a rogue state that has been exporting terrorism to many parts of the world. If a responsible permanent member of the UN Security Council can stoop to the extent of misusing veto powers to protect a rogue state exporting terrorism, what is the use of all the pious talk of intertiol forums against terrorism and the so-called global war that is being waged against terrorism? If this is how the veto power of a permanent member of the UN Security can be misused in partisan ways, it will not be long before member tions of the UNO begin asking legitimate questions about the need for an intertiol forum like the United tions Organization.