Two years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Veto Initiative through an effort led by Ambassador Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein. The initiative establishes that if any of the permanent members in the Security Council — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — casts a veto in a vote, the president of the General Assembly must convene a formal meeting of the body within 10 business days, incurring a debate on the disputed issue. For now, the relevant countries have stepped up to the Assembly rostrum to do as required.

However, the public may not perceive any changes in Security Council actions, as vetoes continue to be wielded, especially on resolutions related to the war in Gaza. But Wenaweser is optimistic about the initiative’s effect on Council proceedings and aims to take it further.

“The veto issue just hits a nerve,” he says, based on conversations with his fellow diplomats, adding that “it’s been more successful than I hoped and thought.”

Liechtenstein tried to push through the initiative, officially the “standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council,” in 2020, but the pandemic created delays. The initiative was finally adopted on April 26, 2022. Since then, there have been 13 votes resulting in a veto, with Russia responsible for six solo and another three with China. The US has blocked the remaining four, three of them related to the war in Gaza and the other to the question of Palestinian full membership in the UN.

In early September, we sat down with Wenaweser at the Liechtenstein mission to dig into the strategy he’s embracing on Security Council reform and to split apart the legalistic hairs. The timing was propitious, as negotiations were reaching the final sign-off by UN member states on the Pact for the Future to embody the Summit of the Future this month. Wenaweser was refreshingly casual and frank, not afraid to betray his disdain for those who sit around at the UN complaining about how bad things are but don’t stick their necks out to get anything done.

In his UN work, Wenaweser has also been a passionate defender of the International Criminal Court. Before his diplomatic training and subsequent career in foreign affairs, Wenawaser had a deep humanities background, with studies in languages, literature and film. This combination seems key to his out-of-the-box thinking and creative problem-solving.

The veto power given to the P5 is acknowledged by almost every UN member state as an enormous issue. But between one side that says no more veto and the side that won’t give it up, the P5, Wenaweser and his allies are saying that “what we want is to diminish the veto in all its aspects and take it to a place where it stops doing the harm that it is doing now.”

The stakes for Liechtenstein, Wenaweser admits, are high, especially since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “As a European country,” he says, “we’re thinking very differently about our own security in the last two years. For a long time for us, war was a thing that happens elsewhere or in our region decades ago. But now it’s a real issue.”

Outlining his road map for solving that problem, he notes: “If the Council is not doing its work, then we must do the work elsewhere. And that place is the General Assembly.” — MARIA LUISA GAMBALE

This interview is part of PassBlue’s small state series. The conversation was edited and condensed to ensure flow and clarity.

PassBlue: How did Liechtenstein become the leader on the veto initiative?

Wenaweser: It certainly has a lot to do with my trajectory here at the UN. I started taking a very active interest in Security Council reform a long time ago, 2005, when I was the adviser to the then-president on the issue. I concluded that while everybody was talking about enlargement, it was much more important to talk about working methods, issues and the veto. And Liechtenstein has a bit of a history of doing things that other people think are great, but they wouldn’t do themselves. We did the Council resolution on Myanmar, in 2022, which expressed “deep concern” over the state of emergency imposed by the military in the country, and the plenary that nobody else wanted to touch. That was bold by UN standards. We established the Syria Accountability Mechanism [which provides for investigation and prosecution of people responsible for atrocity crimes committed in Syria since March 2011], which now everybody thinks is a great idea, but nobody except us would have done it.

We don’t mind doing them ourselves. And of course, it’s an advantage that nobody thinks we’re pursuing grand policy national interests. We are a credible player, and people believe that we do it in the interests of the institution.

PassBlue: Having had the veto initiative idea for so long and now seeing it in action, how do you think it’s working out in practice?

Wenaweser: Overall, it’s been more successful than I had hoped and thought. It’s now firmly established. For example, at a meeting this morning [Sept. 6], the new president of the General Assembly talked about it. So, it’s a speaking point for everybody. It resonates very, very strongly and positively. I didn’t necessarily expect that. So, it just confirms that the veto just hits a nerve. And when people talk about Security Council enlargement, the problem is the veto. The problem is not does Brazil get a seat or does India get a seat. The problem is the veto. That’s why we have not been able to enlarge the Security Council. I think there’s huge, further potential in it because what is happening now is extremely positive, but it’s also not where it ends. So, we want to get more out of it. What we want for the General Assembly is to not only respond but to adopt its own decisions.

PassBlue: Many observers may say there are still atrocities happening unchecked, with no accountability. Where exactly do you see the positive?

Wenaweser: There is accountability now because you go to the General Assembly, and people can say what they want to say. And people are also able to propose something in response to a veto if they so wish. I think that is a game-changer. Of course, it hasn’t stopped the vetoes so far. If you look at the states that have vetoed since the adoption of the veto initiative, the Russians don’t particularly care. They’re fine vetoing and going to the General Assembly and playing the game, and they’re happy to give their speech.

The Chinese, not so much. They feel very uncomfortable. And I think the initiative has increased their level of discomfort with the veto. So, I think the bar for China to veto something is higher now.

The US is a special case because they co-sponsored the veto initiative. And you would have to ask them how they feel about it, because they have vetoed several times now. But our selling point to the US at the time was saying, Look, your vetoes are all Middle East vetoes. They go to the General Assembly anyway on the emergency special session [ESS]. So, the veto initiative takes all the Russian vetoes to the General Assembly, so it levels the playing field for you. Which is still true.

PassBlue: Why does it stymie China to have to defend its Council vetoes in the General Assembly? Why does it make them uncomfortable?

Wenaweser: Because they now that the veto is unpopular and want to have strong partnerships with the membership. Russia certainly cares less at this time.

PassBlue: What are some highlights on how the process is working or the actual value coming out from the General Assembly (GA) debates. What are some specific cases?

Wenaweser: The first veto since the mandate was established was on nuclear issues with DPRK [North Korea]. And the first question is always, Is the state going to show up in the General Assembly? Because you can, as a P5 country, say: I have no obligation to go to the GA and to explain my veto. I said what I had to say at the time of adoption or no adoption at the time of action in the Security Council. The GA is not the body to discuss the veto because the veto is cast in the Council.

So, that is an accountability exercise, because our argument has always been institutionally that the Security Council does its work on behalf of all of us. That’s what the UN Charter says. If I ask you to do something for me and you’re not doing it, then I can say, We had an agreement that you do this for me. By showing up, you’re accepting that premise.

That’s very big. Because the P5, to varying degrees, have all in the past said we are not accountable. We have the veto in the UN Charter. If we cast it, we cast it. If we don’t, we don’t. The rest is none of your business. So, that is extremely positive. What’s also extremely positive is just the strong interest. We have 70 to 80 states showing up, participating in the GA debates. That shows how much people care.

The third thing is that people are thinking differently about the role of the General Assembly now. And we want to take this farther because what we want is a collective mindset, where people say, If the Council doesn’t do it, then we will do it. That’s the philosophy of the veto initiative.

PassBlue: So, this is one step in a long process. As to other efforts, let’s talk first about the Pact for the Future and its work on creating momentum at least for Security Council reform and general governance reform. How much faith are you putting in that process for advancing work on the veto problem?

Wenaweser: Not much. Not to say I don’t care what the Pact of the Future says about this, but it’s also not that important. The veto initiative is there, and for me that’s enough. For us, it was also important to include the reference to Article 27(3) [in the UN Charter], which is the provision that says if you are a party to dispute, you have to abstain in a vote, because for us that is a complementary initiative. That’s much more important because that gives us a foothold to base our work on Article 27(3). The veto initiative is established. It has its own life. It will continue unless the Summit of the Future says the veto initiative is no longer valid.

PassBlue: What’s an ideal future for you with the veto overall?

Wenaweser: You have three schools of thought: The P5 that say the veto is a fact of life, get lost. Not all of them say that. The French and the Brits don’t say that. But that’s what the Russians think. And it’s what the Chinese think. The second is that the veto is bad, it should be abolished. And that is formally the view of a majority of the member states, a vast majority. But nobody believes it’s feasible, so nobody’s proposing it. But they all go in the room and say that the veto is bad, there should be no more veto. And then some people add to that that the veto should be gone. But while it’s not, I want it too. So, if you abolish it, that’s fine. But if you don’t, give it to me.

We are none of those. What we are saying is: Look, the veto is part of the Charter. We have all accepted it when we joined the UN, without enthusiasm in many cases. But it’s part of the treaty. We are not able to abolish the veto unless the P5 say they don’t want it anymore. That’s the reality legally and politically, because you cannot change the Charter unless the P5 agrees.

What we want is to diminish the veto in all its aspects and take it to a place where it stops doing the harm that it is doing now. And the veto also has a pervasive effect inside the UN system. So, the P5 think they have a God-given right to decide on senior appointments, not only on who is the secretary-general but also who is the head of the Office of Legal Affairs. They think they have a right to have a permanent seat on the Economic and Social Council. And they think they all should have a judge on the International Court of Justice. But there’s no legal basis for it.

PassBlue: In your heart of hearts, if it weren’t for the fact that the Charter says that these five particular countries have the veto, would you want that, or no?

Wenaweser: Would I write the Charter the way it was written? No. But we’re not rewriting the Charter. We live where we live and we have the treaty that we have, and it’s a good treaty. And the veto provision is a huge problem. The French and the Brits have not cast a veto since 1989. And they’re doing that because they do not believe they can afford it politically. That is where we want to get to. If the remaining three who have the veto think about it in those terms and say: This is politically a disaster for us. We really should think about this very hard and only do it in the most extreme circumstances, then we’re in a good place again.

PassBlue: What’s next on the horizon for Security Council reform?

Wenaweser: What’s going on in the Council now and the paralysis that you see across most of the files is not because of Ukraine and Gaza. That is just the geopolitical constellation that we have right now. So, between Russia, the US and China, you’re just not going to have a broad basis for agreement on most issues. That means we will have for the foreseeable future a Security Council that can’t do its work, because someone is going to veto anything meaningful. So, our choice is to either say we have a UN that does not do work on peace and security, or we do the work differently. For us it’s the latter, because the UN is an organization about peace and security. It’s not a service delivery organization that is humanitarian assistance and education and vaccinations and all these things that are also important.

The Charter says it’s a peace and security organization for our people. And we’re thinking now, as a European country, very differently about our own security in the last two years. For a long time for us, war was a thing that happens elsewhere or in our region decades ago. But now it’s a real issue. So, we want that. If the Council is not doing its work, then we must do the work elsewhere. That place is the General Assembly.

PassBlue: The failure to get a ceasefire in Gaza is a top issue that comes to people’s minds when they think about Security Council dysfunction right now. What’s come out of GA meetings on resolutions concerning Gaza?

Wenaweser: One outcome was a resolution by the General Assembly calling for a ceasefire. And we think that’s very good. I do believe that for a broader public, it doesn’t matter if a resolution was passed in the Council or in the General Assembly. People see that it was passed with 143 in favor, or it was passed with 12 votes in favor [in the Council]. What matters is that there is a resolution from a political body of the UN. Then some people say: But it’s legally binding if it comes from the Security Council. It’s not legally binding if it happens in the General Assembly.

If there is a resolution in the Security Council that is passed in the Council that is legally binding, and the country concerned says, We will not implement because this is just a hostile act against us, and nothing happens if there is no implementation, there is no value added to the text being legally binding.

Anyone who does not implement a Council resolution has little to fear. And a General Assembly resolution reflects the political will of the international community, not just the 15 states that happen to be in the Council at that moment. In that sense, a General Assembly resolution is more important. Plus, for example, the US walked out of the room when the Gaza resolution in the Council was adopted [in March], and said: This is not legally binding anyway. It’s only Chapter 6 [of the UN Charter].

We disagree with that because the Charter in Article 25 says states have an obligation to implement Security Council decisions. It doesn’t say Chapter 7; it says Council decisions. But if you have a P5 country who says some Council decisions are not legally binding, then you really must wonder: Why are we going to the Council? What’s the value added?

PassBlue: You started these efforts on Security Council reform in the mid-2000s. Do you feel like the world is in a better or worse place now? Have things improved because there’s been chipping away to keep Security Council reform on a front burner? Or has the political situation worsened so much that we’re in a worse position?

Wenaweser: If you look at the work of the Council in isolation, then I think we’re in a worse place. Simply due to geopolitical realities. But if you look at the whole picture, it is much better. The rest of the membership is much less complacent. There is much less inertia and indifference. People are less willing to just accept the status quo. Before it was always: We go to the Council. Then there is a veto. Then we go home, and we write a political report, and we go into the weekend.

That’s no longer the case. That is very positive. But it’s also necessary because we are in the process of losing the UN as a peace and security organization. And there is still a strong need to say that we want the UN in that role. We need the political UN.

PassBlue: You’ve been here 21 years and dedicated to UN security reform for almost 20 years. What keeps you going in your belief in this process?

Wenaweser: I believe in the ideals of the UN, and I believe we need the UN, probably now more than ever. And I believe in change. I believe in agency. There are always a lot of people who say you can’t do this, it’s not going to happen. Change is possible. And my understanding of my job is that I’m here to do that. We are the people that are supposed to bring change. Sometimes when I talk to my colleagues, it’s baffling. People think, This is bad, somebody should do something. And I think: Yeah, like, you? Or who are you talking about? Anyone in particular you have in mind? I really think people look at us here as agents of change. They have an expectation that we shape things around the UN. I think they are right, and we should at least try to live up this expectation.

We have the opportunity. And more than opportunity, I think we have an obligation.

This interview has been updated to reflect the ambassador’s comments more accurately.

Maria Luisa Gambale

www.veradonnafilms.com

Maria Luisa Gambale, a graduate of Harvard University, lives in New York City. In addition to writing, she produces film and media projects and is director of the 2011 film “Sarabah,” about the Senegalese rapper-activist Sister Fa. She has produced and directed video for National Geographic, ABC News, The New York Times and Fusion Network. Gambale’s work in all media can be viewed at www.veradonnafilms.com.