General Assembly Press Release. “MORE DELEGATES URGE RESTRICTION OF SECURITY COUNCIL VETO AS GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCLUDES REFORM DEBATE”. January 11, 2001. – “MOHAMMED ALDOURI (Iraq) said the relationship between the Security Council and Iraq was in reality nothing more than a relationship between his country and two permanent members of the Council. As such, it had violated an important principle of the United Nations Charter, which stipulated that the Council acted on behalf of its Members States, rather that according to the wishes of certain actors who dominated Council decisions in accordance with their own interests. Such selectivity was not only evident in its relationship with Iraq, but in the scandalous position of the Council towards crimes committed against the Palestinian people for the past 50 years.
The Council wanted its relationship with Iraq to set a precedent that would frighten and deter other States, he said. It had achieved that by adopting political measures under a legal guise, but in truth they had little legal basis. The Council did not heed international law, and that reflected negatively on it with respect to humanitarian issues in Iraq. Questions about Iraq were considered in the Council behind closed doors and Iraq was prevented from attending any discussions. The same applied to the Council Committee established under resolution 661 regarding the Iraq people -– their food, medicine and humanitarian needs. The Iraqi representative had to wait outside with others, such as journalists, to find out anything.”
Tarik Kafala. “The Veto and how to use it”. BBC News Online. September 17, 2003. – “Since 1945, when the United Nations was founded, the Soviet Union and Russia have used their veto at the Security Council 120 times, the United States 76 times, Britain 32, France 18 and China only five[…]The heavy use of the veto by the Soviet Union and the United States have gone a long way to discrediting the veto system.”
The United States has been the lone voice in blocking a resolution 54 times, as of 2003.[1]
Bardo Fassbender. UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspecitve. 1997 – “Malaysia is of the view that ‘an assessment of utilization of veto power would indicate that the veto is being used in support of partisan and national interests rather than in defense of issues and principles and in the interests of the international community.’ ‘The idea of a veto has amplified the dominant role of the permanent members of the security council, turning them out to be an exclusive group which has diminished the role of non-permanent members. The threat of a veto on recent occasions has been utilized to stymie worthwhile initiatives of other members of the security council.'”
According to Lybia, the UN SC veto “accords a right to a small number of States and enables them to paralyze any action that the Council wishes to take where such action conflicts with their interests or the interests of their allies, in disregard of the wishes of the States Members of the United Nations on whose behalf they are acting.”[2]
Comment & Debate