A Game of Vetoes and Power Plays in the Red Sea
The first use of veto power in the Security Council
A vital artery for up to 30% of global maritime trade, the Red Sea has now found itself at the heart of escalating conflicts where economics, security, and the safety of civilian lives collide — a situation recently brought to light at the THIMUN Security Council. Attacks led by Houthi rebels in the MENA region, framed as a deterrent against Israel’s actions in Gaza, have significantly hampered the Sea’s shipping routes. Particularly, states in support of Israel, namely the U.S. and the U.K, have found themselves at the helm of the attacks. This conflict, political and religious at its core, has escalated to violations of humanitarian principles as the Houthis hijack ships and inflict casualties. The global ramifications of this issue transcend immediate violence; global trade is under threat, shipping costs are rising, and the economies of less-developed countries are disproportionately impacted. Environmental concerns also come into view, with risks of oil spills and greenhouse gases looming. Working towards an effective solution and building peace requires a nuanced approach, given the diverse interests and complex stakes involved.
Russia has now come into the spotlight as a vocal critic of a resolution presented at the Security Council yesterday, arguing that typical, run-of-the-mill solutions will not lead to lasting peace. The first to exercise their veto power was the delegation of Russia. They made waves opposing certain clauses in Resolution 2.1, calling for member states to condemn Houthi attacks and impose targeted sanctions, alongside other restrictive measures. One of these measures includes cutting off essential funding for humanitarian efforts, specifically with the likes of malaria and COVID-19. With the ongoing crisis in the Red Sea, Russia emphasises that unless the UN fosters conditions in which peace can thrive, terrorism will continue to persist— a matter that will only be exacerbated with sanctions. The delegates expressed concerns regarding the negative consequences of such forms of punishment, which include increased criminal activity and escalating tensions among others. Instead of sanctioning and relying on “measures that have been ineffective for years”, Russia urges the House to attend to new, innovative solutions that address poverty and stability as the root causes of terrorism while also keeping sovereignty in consideration. Ultimately, the Council decided to amend its approach, opting to create new clauses focused on diplomatic efforts and the socio-economic conditions that fuel terrorism.
Russia’s use of its veto power not only serves to protect its geopolitical interests but also shapes the broader discourse within the Security Council. The delegation has unexpectedly advocated for an alternative solution, enhancing its status as a key player while simultaneously countering Western influence. By not letting countries punish the Houthis, which are supported by Iran, Russia is taking the perfect opportunity to “poke the American bear”. This also raises pressing questions about the significance of the veto and whether or not it creates a power imbalance that hinders the council’s ability to build effective solutions.
In response, the delegation of Malta, Tracy Zhang and Kaden Kong, felt that Russia’s actions made sense, but were “a little unprompted and deconstructive given their lack of amendments” and that it failed to “highligh[t] this issue in the debates.” Malta went on to note that the delegate should have provided a “more substantiated reason” for its veto. Malta found Russia’s lack of action on cooperation hypocritical, as the issue is perpetuated by Russia’s supply of weapons and resources. The delegation has also defended their resolution’s approach against Russia’s portrayal of their solutions as “not novel or fresh”. They pointed out that “we’re bringing up new things”, such as efforts to reform the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, adding accountability measures, and proposing a regional forum for people to communicate on to incentivise exclusive economic benefits. According to the delegate, “Of course, when you look at each clause one by one, that may be the case. But that’s not how it works, right? So I think it’s really important to take into account the resolution as a whole when discussing the topic.”
Additionally, Malta found Russia’s shift toward collaborating with the Houthis to be quite sudden, though not unexpected. Malta remarked, “We had clauses that condemned their actions and restricted them. We were pretty adamant on not communicating with them, but they didn’t do anything against speeches or amendments, before they suddenly brought that up…they’ve never been willing to cooperate before.” This change was viewed as an attempt to retain their power and presence in the Red Sea and the Middle East— a presence largely sustained through their support and resources for Houthi forces. Malta continued, “Publicly condemning the Houthis and halting support would be detrimental to them. It would reduce their power projection and make them lose so much presence here, which of course, though unrightful, is very powerful. So we believe that this clause is reasonable, given their acts of terrorism, attacks of innocent vessels, disrupting commerce, and violating navigational rights.”
THIMUN imposes a restriction of two vetoes per conference, guiding delegates toward restraint when using this powerful tool. According to one of the Security Council chairs, Baptiste Derien, “in real life, they have to have veto power because they are much more important than those smaller countries, which is true, but sometimes they do abuse their power in committees…when there aren’t any restrictions, the delegates just abuse that option.”
The delegate of Malta echoed this sentiment, critiquing the veto system as one that creates a palpable imbalance in power, disregarding democratic processes, especially when it comes to smaller countries. “Systematically,” they claimed, “their power does undermine the representation and rights for smaller countries like Malta. But in the THIMUN conference, it wasn’t that bad because they just vetoed one clause. The U.K. tried to veto one clause as well, but it got denied. In real life, it’s much more significant how veto power affects solutions being passed. You see a lot of these solutions that everybody votes in favour of, and then the U.S, for instance, vetoes it and it just doesn’t pass”.
All in all, the Red Sea conflict illustrates the intricate interplay of power, national interests, and ideological clashes on display in the Security Council. As seen here, vetoes remain a formidable force of power that not only amplifies the voices of influential nations but also limits the efficacy of collective decision-making. This highlights the complex and oftentimes contradictory strategies superpowers employ to maintain their presence and pursue their interests. In a region already fraught with violence and economic strain, the Red Sea will remain an arena where diplomacy and international collaboration are put to the ultimate test— will they prioritise the shared interests of peacekeeping and global stability or continue to play the classic game of balancing power dynamics?
