evidence: Successive U.S. administrations have argued that humanitarian intervention can be legitimate with the backing of regional organizations or "coalitions of the willing." But UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon rejected this position in 2008, saying, "The responsibility to protect does not alter, indeed it reinforces, the legal obligations of Member States to refrain from the use of force except in conformity with the Charter." This debate has been revived at various times in recent years, including in the run-up to the 2011 NATO-led Libya intervention, and during the ongoing Syrian civil war. While Russian officials have at times cited humanitarian intervention as grounds for the invasion of Ukraine, Western analysts say the war is a clear violation of international law. [...] Other critics include advocates of R2P, who say the veto gives undue deference to the political interests of the P5, leading to inaction in the face of mass atrocities. Russia’s two vetoes of Security Council action on Ukraine, for instance, have spurred calls to kick Russia out of the P5. This line of criticism was growing even before the invasion; Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the UN human rights chief from 2014 to 2018, repeatedly criticized the outsize power of the veto-wielding member states, warning that without institutional change, the United Nations could collapse. "Africa wants the veto abolished," Sierra Leonean President Julius Maada Bio said in August 2024. "However, if UN member states wish to retain the veto, it must be extended to all new permanent members as a matter of justice."