The UN Security Council: A Shining Light or a Hopeless Endeavour?

The UN Security Council rose out of the ashes of World War II in 1946, when it was given the highest responsibility for ensuring global peace and security. Yet today in 2006, the world remains driven by conflict and tensions, from Iran to North Korea. It is necessary, therefore, to question whether the Security Council is the best mechanism to address the threats of today.

	http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilike/304840436/

The UN Security Council continues to reflect the outdated geopolitical realities of the post WWII climate, a self-appointed oligarchy. Five members are permanently represented on the Council: China, France, Russia, United States and United Kingdom. Ten non-permanent member countries are elected to work alongside the ‘big five’ for a two year period. In order to achieve a degree of regional balance, five rotating members tend to be chosen from Africa or Asia, two from Latin America, and two from Western Europe. Much pressure has been put on the Council to accept new members as new global powers have arisen since 1946, when the permanent members elected themselves. The main push comes from a group of countries, Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, who have taken on the name G4. They argue that their size, status, and not least the fact that they are large democratic countries, justify permanent seats on the Council. They call for the Council to ‘reflect the realities of the international community in the 21st century’—an idea meriting consideration given the power hierarchies that exist in the world today.

Taking a closer look at India for example, it is possible to see how difficult it is for a decision over expansion to be made. Being the world’s largest democracy and one of the fastest growing economies in the world, India feels that it has a natural claim to a seat on the council. Nevertheless, of the five permanent members, only Britain, France and Russia have openly supported India's bid to join, thanks to India's intense lobbying. The weighty voice of the U.S. is critical to the decision of whether India should enroll in the Council as a new permanent member, although it has not yet voiced its opinion. Meanwhile, the position of China is in question; India and China fought a brief war in 1962 over the boundary demarcations between the two, which remains to be resolved.

Yet even if the new members were to be accepted, it is questionable what impact they would have on the reformation of the council. The non-permanent member countries still face considerable obstacles which prevent them from achieving significant results during their time on the Security Council. They have often complained that they are merely tourists in this forum of international debate and resolution. The weight of decision-making remains with the permanent members, who have the power to veto any resolution. A single blocking veto outweighs any majority, which means that definite decisions from the Security Council are few and far between. If the new G4 countries were to be accepted, the extent of their influence would be minimal if they were not trusted with a veto. Despite their battle to join the Council, they would also be reduced to tourists.

So will they be given the power of a veto? This is most unlikely. It would require the current powers to relinquish a proportion of their authority, something they are understandably reluctant to do. Indeed, one must even wonder whether, if the new members were to be given the veto, they would have a valuable impact on the success of the Security Council itself, considering the lack of union between the current decision makers. 
 
This seems to suggest that the UN Security Council is innately flawed. The very reason for its bad press is not so much that it represents the elite. Quite the opposite, its inadequacy lies in the fact that the UN seeks collective security and acts for the good of all those involved. Post WWII, the Great Powers had a common interest in preventing another war, so they pooled their authority together to act as the world’s new guardian of peace. As we have seen in contemporary history, the interests of the major players have been so greatly divergent that the Council has been reduced to a bystander of events. The UN was completely paralyzed during the Cold War period when the iron curtain fell between East and West. Even after the Iron Curtain fell, the Security Council proved completely inept in preventing the small, dirty wars of the 1990's. It was paralyzed during the Balkan wars, in which Russia wished to protect its traditional ally Serbia, and remains a witness to the current situation in Darfur where China has a particular interest in African oil. Designed to ensure that no single great power could monopolize grand decision-making on peace and war, the Security Council now seems condemned to irrelevance for all.

Very often, the UN and the Security Council are criticised as being puppets of America. Much of this condemnation has come from the Arab countries, who accuse it of permitting violations of council resolutions by Israel, whilst acting with less tolerance towards Iraq. Indeed, it has been America that has freely used its veto in regard to action which is called for by the Council against security threats arising from Israel. Simultaneously, the Council faced criticism from the United States, especially in the run-up to the U.S.-led campaign again Iraq, as influential government figures became increasingly frustrated with UN non-action. President Bush has questioned whether the UN would ‘serve the purpose of its founding… or will it be irrelevant?’ Here lies another major dilemma for the Council, does it risk becoming irrelevant in the eyes of its biggest sponsor and indeed the world’s biggest military power, or does it risk losing credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world and act as a tool of the United States?

That the U.S. overruled the Security Council’s opposition to war with Iraq undoubtedly undermined the legitimacy of the institution. The Council has been condemned as impotent and irrelevant, yet it persists on going about the business of maintaining peace. There are over 70,000 peacekeepers distributed throughout the world that would reject the claim that the UN and its Security Council are immaterial.

What can be done? Despite many calls to introduce more members into the council and to allow these members a larger role in decision making, one must wonder whether wider membership is a feasible solution to the Council's inaction when even the major powers cannot agree. Maybe this expects too much from the Council. Frank Gaffney, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan, argued that the UN Security Council should not be endowed with great importance or moral legitimacy. ‘It is not some kind of higher moral entity where everyone leaves their national interests at the door and thereby arrives at some collective and more reasoned view’. The international power structures and struggles that exist in the world today are perhaps where the problem lies and these problems remain too great for a non-impartial body to resolve.

Nevertheless, a world without a Security Council may be an even more dangerous place. Humanity needs a place where nations can discuss their intentions. Without the UN, nations would quietly go about their business and, in the process, slowly erode international security. Surely therefore, it is best to take the approach of President Lyndon B. Johnson who declared that in life “it's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in”. This is now more than ever a pressing issue as the world faces erratic behaviour from North Korea, Iran and a number of others member states. While there is clearly a call for reform of the UN Security Council, to resign it to complete irrelevance would be a tragedy, especially since there is as yet no good substitute for it.