Does the UN Security Council still have value?
The UN Security Council sits atop the organizational chart in the international system, but many people around the world are currently wondering if the system’s leader is deeply dysfunctional.
In a speech before the Security Council last month, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pleaded: “This Security Council is the highest entity to which the peoples of the world seek sanctuary and protection; after this council, we rest our issue to the Almighty. For, if justice for our people cannot be attained here, then to where should we go?”
Abbas’ question is one of the defining queries of the international system today. If it is futile for the world’s vulnerable and powerless to appeal to the Security Council, where else can they go? If the most powerful members of the Security Council pursue only their own narrow interests, who provides global leadership? Is the reality that we live in a cynical world in which power is all that matters and the parents losing children in places such as Syria, the families suffering violence and displacement in places such as Myanmar, and the disenfranchised in places such as the Palestinian territories are all doomed? Does the UN Security Council have any value in 2018?
The council was created after the Second World War as an essential part of a new international system, and its composition still reflects post-war realities. There are five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — all of whom have veto authority over resolutions. In addition, there are 10 members elected to two-year terms. The Security Council is the primary multilateral body with legal authority to approve economic sanctions or the use of military force against actors who violate UN rules and global norms.
The veto power of the permanent members is a key component of the Security Council. It was necessary to provide that in order to gain support from the major powers after the Second World War. It is an important part of maintaining US, Chinese and Russian support for the UN system. However, it also means that each country can completely block action in the Security Council. In recent days, this has been particularly obvious to the world, as Russia blocked and then weakened resolutions to stop the carnage in Eastern Ghouta in Syria, the latest case in a pattern of Russia using its veto to shield the Assad regime. The Guardian recently quoted Ghanem Tayara, a Syrian member of a medical relief organization, who summed up the problem: “I am embarrassed for the UN Security Council… The mightiest nations on the planet cannot enforce the most basic standards of human rights and decency.”
In a speech before the Security Council last month, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pleaded: “This Security Council is the highest entity to which the peoples of the world seek sanctuary and protection; after this council, we rest our issue to the Almighty. For, if justice for our people cannot be attained here, then to where should we go?”
Abbas’ question is one of the defining queries of the international system today. If it is futile for the world’s vulnerable and powerless to appeal to the Security Council, where else can they go? If the most powerful members of the Security Council pursue only their own narrow interests, who provides global leadership? Is the reality that we live in a cynical world in which power is all that matters and the parents losing children in places such as Syria, the families suffering violence and displacement in places such as Myanmar, and the disenfranchised in places such as the Palestinian territories are all doomed? Does the UN Security Council have any value in 2018?
The council was created after the Second World War as an essential part of a new international system, and its composition still reflects post-war realities. There are five permanent members — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — all of whom have veto authority over resolutions. In addition, there are 10 members elected to two-year terms. The Security Council is the primary multilateral body with legal authority to approve economic sanctions or the use of military force against actors who violate UN rules and global norms.
The veto power of the permanent members is a key component of the Security Council. It was necessary to provide that in order to gain support from the major powers after the Second World War. It is an important part of maintaining US, Chinese and Russian support for the UN system. However, it also means that each country can completely block action in the Security Council. In recent days, this has been particularly obvious to the world, as Russia blocked and then weakened resolutions to stop the carnage in Eastern Ghouta in Syria, the latest case in a pattern of Russia using its veto to shield the Assad regime. The Guardian recently quoted Ghanem Tayara, a Syrian member of a medical relief organization, who summed up the problem: “I am embarrassed for the UN Security Council… The mightiest nations on the planet cannot enforce the most basic standards of human rights and decency.”
When the major powers have shared interests — or at least interests that do not directly conflict — the UN Security Council works better. During the 1990s after the Cold War, for example, there was more space for Russia, the United States and the other P5 members to agree on peacekeeping missions to help dial down conflicts and to agree on sanctions regimes designed to punish actors who violated international norms.Leading powers’ inability to provide leadership is eroding the system that made the world a better place, leaving the vulnerable people caught in the middle nowhere to go for help.
Kerry Boyd Anderson
Even in today’s more paralyzed environment, the UN Security Council still oversees 15 peacekeeping missions and various other projects. Furthermore, the broader UN institution does extensive good in the world and, if the veto power is the cost of maintaining the support and funding for the UN from major powers, then arguably it is worth it.
The Security Council plays a useful role in mediating relations between the major powers, providing a forum where they can express disagreements diplomatically, where they can easily talk behind the scenes and where they can look for areas of cooperation. The rotating elected members ensure that other voices are heard in the world’s corridors of power. The broader post-Second World War system has helped make the world a more secure and prosperous place, and the UN Security Council is part of that.
Nonetheless, the veto power has historically stood in the way of international efforts to address multiple conflicts and other problems. Notably, Russia used its veto to protect its allies in the Balkans war, prompting NATO to use military force outside of the UN context in the Kosovo war in the late 1990s. The United States regularly uses its veto power to defend Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. In recent years, China also has started using its veto more frequently.
Today, the council is experiencing a new era of paralysis. This reflects a diffusion of global power away from its prior concentration in the US, as well as Russia’s return to a zero-sum approach to global politics. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia today interprets its global role in direct opposition to the US. While there are still some areas of common interest, where Russia and the US can cooperate — or at least stay out of each other’s way — there are far fewer than in the initial post-Cold War era.
The reality is that, when the permanent members of the UN Security Council disagree or interpret their interests in a zero-sum competition with one other, the council loses much of its value. With the international system under increasing stress, the Security Council’s inability to provide leadership is contributing to erosion of the system that made the world a better place. When Russian, American or Chinese interests collide, the vulnerable people caught in the middle have nowhere to go for help.
- Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risks. Her previous positions include deputy director for advisory with Oxford Analytica and managing editor of Arms Control Today. Twitter: @KBAresearch
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point-of-view
