Shop on Impakter Eco
  • Women
  • Men
  • Kids
  • Beautycare
  • Home & Living
  • Food & Drinks
  • Pets
Impakter
  • Shop Eco
  • Culture
    • Art
    • Cinema
    • Entertainment
    • Literature
    • Music
    • Photography
  • Style
    • Architecture
    • Design
    • Fashion
    • Foodscape
    • Lifestyle
  • Society
    • Business
    • Environment
    • Foreign Affairs & Politics
    • Health
    • Tech
    • Science
    • Start-up
  • Impact
    • Eco Life
    • Circular Economy
    • COP26
    • CityLife
      • Copenhagen
      • San Francisco
      • Seattle
      • Sydney
    • Sustainability Series
      • SDGs Series
      • Shape Your Future
      • 2030: Dream or Reality
    • Philanthropy
      • United Nations
      • NGO & Charities
      • Essays
    • Your Voice
      • Empower Earth
      • Empower Equality
  • SUSTAINABILITY INDEX
  • Startup-Hub
    • Companies
    • Investors
    • Organisations
    • Jobs
    • Events
  • Partners
  • About
    • Team
    • Global Leaders
    • Contributors
    • Write for Impakter
    • IMPAKTER Italy
    • Republishing Content
    • Permissions and Copyright
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact
No Result
View All Result
Impakter
No Result
View All Result
Home Philanthropy

What’s wrong with the UN Security Council

Claude Forthomme - Senior EditorbyClaude Forthomme - Senior Editor
June 9, 2014
in Philanthropy, United Nations
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

To an idle observer dropping in from Outer Space, the UN Security Council is the strongest organ of the United Nations.

UN helmetTasked with maintaining peace among nations, it has been given weapons of war. When it passes a resolution, it can send troops, the blue-helmeted UN peacekeepers or “blue berets”, and force peace on belligerents. Blue berets belong to member nations’ armies, but taken together, they constitute a hefty, permanent UN force.

At this point in time, over 110,000 military personnel are permanently deployed around the world in “hot spots”, currently in 15 “missions”.

This level of intervention dates to the collapse of the Soviet Union (1988): the number of resolutions doubled, the peace-keeping budget increased by a factor of ten. So far, there have been eight major missions, with only two notable failures, Somalia and Bosnia. A respectable record nonetheless. The biggest failure however was caused by lack of intervention. This happened in 1994, when one of History’s worst genocide was perpetrated in Rwanda.                                                                                        UN Security Council debate on Rwanda, June 1994. Photo credit UN photo Milton Grant

In the photo: UN Security Council Meets on Rwanda 08 June 1994

The Security Council can do more than send troops. It can refer bloodthirsty dictators and generals responsible for “crimes against humanity” to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, a major cog in the UN machinery (done for Darfur, Libya). It can call for an arms embargo (15 on-going embargoes, including Somalia, just extended). It can send staff to oversee elections and support the democratic process as it did in Afghanistan or the Sudan.

Hervé Ladsous (right), Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, arrives in Bor, South Sudan.In the photo: Peacekeeping Chief Visits South Sudan Hervé Ladsous (right), Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, arrives in Bor, South Sudan.07 July 2013

You get headlines in the press like “the Security Council can and must act on Syria” or “Biting words but no action at Security Council”. Yes, if the UN Security Council sets its mind to it, it can do a lot.But it must set its mind to it. It cannot act if it hasn’t passed a resolution to do so.

This is the hitch. Yet its small and nimble size suggests it should be effective. With only fifteen members aboard, matters can be meaningfully debated unlike the 193-strong UN General Assembly. If you want a quick decision, forget the General Assembly, you’ll only get a cacophony. The system is not unfair: Security Council members are chosen on a rotating basis so that over time every country gets a chance to sit for two years on the Security Council. Except for the five “permanent” members, the United States, Russia, China, the UK and France.

 

The permanent members have veto power. They are the only ones who truly exercise world power.

A case in point, Syria. Nothing can be done to solve the Syrian crisis because of the Russian and Chinese veto. When those two countries stop supporting Bashar Al Assad, something might get done. The problem: the balance of power in the Security Council does not reflect the world’s current balance of power. Currently, three of those five permanent members are indisputably world super powers, the UK and France are not. When the Security Council was established and had its first session in 1946, the world, emerging from the worst war in History, was vastly different from what it is today. Let’s count the changes.

04-l

In the photo: UN Security Council Meets on Rwanda 08 June 1994

First, consider the UK and France. They were on the side of the victors but they were destroyed, mere shadows of their former historical self. Like the mythical phoenix, they rose from their ashes, but so did the World War II losers, Germany and Italy. Check, those two countries want permanent seats on the UN Security Council.

Next, the Third World. It is no longer third, many countries, the so-called BRICS, are knocking on the First World door. With rapid economic growth, there are new “big players”, Japan and India in particular. Check, but there’s no stopping the candidates. Mexico, Brazil and others emerge carried by economic growth, not to mention new demands from Africa and muslim-majority countries that all want a permanent voice.

Finally, Europe. What had started as a modest “common market” with six countries has morphed in a 28-strong European Union that cannot be ignored. Check, but what about the UK and France’s permanent seats?

The way out. Many solutions are proposed to reform the system, including expanding the number of permanent seats and adding a new category of seat (to last longer and be renewable). Reform requires agreement of two-thirds of member states and all five permanent members. Germany, Brazil, India and Japan have a foot in the door, but it’s not opening quite yet. Everybody officially supports change, yet the super powers (the US, Russia and China) are in a quandary, while France and the UK prefer the status quo. Expect the status quo, unsatisfactory as it is, not to change anytime soon…

Tags: FranceRussiaSecurity CouncilUnited NationsUnited Nations Security CouncilUnited States
Previous Post

Ether

Next Post

A Legend of Korean Modern Dance

Claude Forthomme - Senior Editor

Claude Forthomme - Senior Editor

Claude Forthomme is an economist (Columbia U. graduate) and aid expert; former director (ADG-level) of Europe and Central Asia Regional Office of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization; author of several fiction and non-fiction books in English and Italian

Related Posts

First UN Climate Conference Since the Start of the Ukraine War Begins
Climate Change

First UN Climate Conference Since the Start of the Ukraine War Begins

June 7, 2022
Girlhood Annihilated: Rates of Child Marriage Are Soaring in Ethiopia
Climate Change

Girlhood Annihilated: Rates of Child Marriage Are Soaring in Ethiopia

May 2, 2022
“Plain Wrong and Racist”: Britain’s New Migration Plans
Equal Rights

“Plain Wrong and Racist”: Britain’s New Migration Plans

April 29, 2022
Next Post
A Legend of Korean Modern Dance

A Legend of Korean Modern Dance

Please login to join discussion

Recent News

The Impact of Climate Change in Europe

The Impact of Climate Change in Europe

July 5, 2022
Water Crisis in Italy: Five Regions Declare State of Emergency

Water Crisis in Italy: Five Regions Declare State of Emergency

July 5, 2022
Defending Marine Life:  Sea Shepherd Goes From Vigilante to Scientist

Defending Marine Life: Sea Shepherd Goes From Vigilante to Scientist

July 4, 2022
impakter-logo-light

Impakter informs you through the eco news site and empowers your sustainable lifestyle with its eco products marketplace.

Visit here IMPAKTER ECO for your eco products needs.

Registered Office Address

32 Lots Road, London
SW10 0QJ, United Kingdom


IMPAKTER Limited

Company number: 10806931

Impakter is a publication that is identified by the following International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) is the following 2515-9569 (Printed) and 2515-9577 (online – Website).


Office Hours - Monday to Friday

9.30am - 5.00pm CEST


Email

stories [at] impakter.com

About Us

  • Team
  • Contributors
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Partners

By Audience

  • Lifestyle
  • Green Finance
  • Culture
  • Society
  • Style
  • Impact

Impakter Platforms

  • Media
  • Up
  • Index
  • Eco for Sellers
  • Impakter Pro

© 2022 IMPAKTER. All rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Culture
  • Style
  • Society
  • Impact
  • ECO Products Shop – Try now!
  • INDEX – Sustainability Index
  • UP – Startup Hub
  • About
    • Partners
    • Team
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
Impakter.com uses cookies to enhance your experience when visiting the website and to serve you with advertisements that might interest you. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.