The United Nations Security Council has so far failed to resolve many of the world’s most pressing problems. The dispute over occupied Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as nothing less than a sword hanging over the neck of South Asia and, by extension, the wider world, carrying with it the potential to expose the international community to the threat of a nuclear war.
The Kashmir issue is not merely a longstanding territorial dispute; it represents a serious security threat because of which two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, have not only repeatedly confronted each other but have also carried out military operations against one another. This has repeatedly raised fears across the world of a possible nuclear confrontation, to the extent that US President Donald Trump claimed that he had stopped a war between two nuclear-armed countries that could have resulted in the deaths of millions of people. Against this backdrop, the continuing dispute between Pakistan and India over occupied Kashmir can be described as yet another major failure of the United Nations. Similarly, the massacre of Palestinians at the hands of Israel in Gaza is further evidence that when countries such as the United States and Israel wish, they can subject an entire nation to devastation and bloodshed, while resolutions against them are blocked through the veto.
The power of veto remains a bone stuck in the throat of the United Nations member states even today. Under the 1945 Charter, the five permanent members of the 15-member Security Council—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France—possess the authority to exercise the veto and prevent the adoption of a resolution. Under Article 27, decisions on important matters require nine affirmative votes, including the concurrence of all permanent members, meaning that even a single country possessing veto power can bring the entire process to a halt. The consequence is that global issues that attract intense international attention and, at times, become catalysts for large-scale killing and destruction can remain unresolved for years and sometimes decades. Occupied Jammu and Kashmir is one such issue, having remained unresolved for the past 79 years, with its roots dating back to 1947 and the independence of Pakistan.
Returning to the past, multiple resolutions concerning the killing and destruction in Gaza after 2023 have also remained largely ineffective because they were adopted under Chapters V or VI of the Charter, which do not provide an effective enforcement mechanism. The United States vetoed several resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Eight vetoes were recorded in 2024 and four in 2025, while the Security Council adopted only 44 resolutions in 2025—the lowest number since 1991.
Next month, on September 8, 2026, the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly will begin, with intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) on Security Council reform continuing into their 18th year. The discussions will focus on issues including limitations on the use of the veto, an expansion of membership, and greater regional representation. Under the joint initiative of France and Mexico, the call for voluntary restraint in exercising the veto in cases of genocide or mass atrocities has so far secured the support of 118 countries, bringing it close to the two-thirds threshold.
There is no specific provision in the Charter prohibiting the veto; rather, the veto itself is expressly incorporated into Article 27. Any amendment requires ratification by a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly under Article 108, along with the consent of all five permanent members. Under Article 109, a General Conference may also be convened to review the Charter, but ultimately, approval from the countries holding veto power would still be necessary. Therefore, from a technical and legal standpoint, abolishing or even substantially limiting the veto power of the major global powers, while not entirely impossible, is unquestionably an extremely difficult undertaking.
Pakistan’s clear position is that no country should possess veto power, and the country stands by the principle of “Reform for all, privileges for none.” Pakistan is a member of the “Uniting for Consensus” group, which includes countries such as Italy, Argentina, Canada, Colombia, South Korea, Mexico, Spain, Türkiye, Indonesia, Malta and San Marino. The group opposes the creation of additional permanent seats on the Security Council and instead advocates increasing the number of elected members so that, through broader consensus, the influence of the veto can not only be reduced but its mechanism can also be subject to reform.
At the global level, countries and groups reinforcing Pakistan’s position include the African Group, small island developing states, the Nordic countries and several developing nations. France and Mexico’s initiative to promote restraint in the use of the veto is also broadly consistent with Pakistan’s position. However, countries such as China and Russia regard the veto as a fundamental pillar of the Charter, while the United States strongly opposes any substantial alteration to the existing structure of the Security Council.
The reality is that until the yoke of the veto is removed from the world’s neck, obstruction in the resolution of major global issues will persist, while massacres such as those witnessed in Gaza and the unjust shedding of blood will continue. If, at the forthcoming General Assembly session, member states unite and intensify political pressure, some avenues towards peace may perhaps be opened and a glimmer of hope may emerge. Otherwise, the Security Council risks remaining trapped in the political realities of the 1940s. Even under such circumstances, countries such as Pakistan must continue their struggle for meaningful reform.
