As the only politically-influential United Nations organ with powers of enforcement, the 15-member UN Security Council is considered the final arbiter in the world body. And all Security Council resolutions - which are mandatory, if adopted — are valid only with nine positive votes and no vetoes. So when a joint US-Britain sponsored resolution critical of the military junta in Myanmar (Burma) received nine favourable votes last week, both the US and Britain virtually claimed moral victory — despite the fact it was hit by a rare double veto from Russia and China and therefore failed to pass muster. British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry claimed that the nine votes (out of 15) were a significant achievement and that the resolution’s rejection, because of the two vetoes, was regrettable. “I regret very much that the Council was unable to reach a decision despite nine positive votes for that resolution,” Parry told reporters. “But the positive side is what united the Council,” he added.

Parry also insisted that the resolution against Myanmar “has been carried by a majority in the Council.” “The lesson ought to be that despite the protection, from what I would call an ‘ideological veto’, actually the wish expressed by members of the Security Council was quite clear and robust.” Concurring with that view, United States Ambassador Alejandro Wolff told reporters: “Regrettably, the resolution did not pass, but it enjoyed a majority of support by the membership of the Council.”

But one Arab diplomat said the same argument has never been used either by the US or Britain when Washington is in a minority or when it exercises the sole veto against Security Council resolutions passing strictures on Israel — all of which have received either nine positive votes or more.

He pointed out that both the US and Britain have a longstanding notoriety for interpreting Security Council decisions to suit their own political whims and fancies.

“Clearly, they cannot have it both ways. Nine positive votes is a majority opinion when it suits them - despite vetoes. And a single veto is also justifiable to overrule the nine when it is in their interests to do so. This is pure political hogwash,” he said. Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, said that since 1967 the US has used its veto as a key component of its multi-faceted defence of Israel. During the Cold War, when Israel played the role of “cat’s paw” of United States military strategy not only in the Middle East but around the world, Washington’s diplomatic support in the United Nations bolstered the economic and military backing of its ally, Bennis said.

“After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the US-Israeli links tightened again, and the US continued to prevent Israel from being held accountable for its violations of international law,” said Bennis. She said that in the 192-member UN General Assembly, the most common vote criticising Israel is 160 or more countries in favour, with the United States and Israel backed only by two or three of the small island states who are completely dependent on American support.

Since there is no veto in the General Assembly, the resolutions pass, but too often the United States still uses its overwhelming strategic and diplomatic power to prevent their implementation, Benis argued. —IPS