UNSC: Fit For Purpose? Flashcards
what is the UNSC?
the UN Security Council (UNSC) is the most powerful body within the UN, primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security
however, the extent to which it is fit for purpose is widely debated
arguments to suggest that the UN Security Council is no longer fit for purpose
it often fails to secure peace and security
the power of veto often prevents from acting
its membership is outdated
arguments to suggest that the UN Security Council is still fit for purpose
many UNSC resolutions have been highly effective
the use of veto has decreased in recent years
the argument that its membership is outdated is irrelevant
conclusion
therefore, it can be argued that while the UNSC definitely has some problems, overall it is fit for purpose
many UNSC resolutions have been highly effective
UNSC RESOLUTIONS
Firstly, the UNSC can be considered fit for purpose because it has been extremely active, approving peacekeeping operations, military intervention and sanctions across the world – many of which have been highly successful and effective
The purpose of the UNSC is to secure peace and stability and since its establishment, there has not been a World War 3 and inter-state war has decreased considerably
It has worked hard to successfully secured peace in many different conflicts
For example, in 1990, it was successful in peace-making when it mandated military action to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait and then authorised the establishment of UN safe havens within Iraq in 1991 to limit Saddam Hussein’s aggression towards his own citizens
Another UNSC success can be seen in Sierra Leone (1999 – 2005) when UN peacekeepers successfully prevented the country relapsing into conflict while a peace agreement was put in place. UN soldiers helped to destroy thousands of weapons and disarm thousands of fighters, including child soldiers. Sierra Leone now provides peacekeeping troops in Somalia
Both of these cases illustrate that when the UNSC works together, it’s collective decisions and resolutions can be highly effective. Therefore, the UNSC is fit for purpose
it often fails to secure peace and security
UNSC RESOLUTIONS
However, realists often argue that the absence of global war since 1945 has nothing to do with the UNSC and is more to do with the balance of terror that developed during the Cold War
They may also suggest that even when agreed, resolutions may not be implemented effectively which suggests that the UNSC is not entirely fit for purpose as it often fails to secure peace and stability
For instance, the UNSC resolution to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons was largely ineffective and did not prevent future conflict. The Syrian government forces were still using gas bombs against rebel forces and in 2017, a suspected government forces chemical attack took place in a Syrian town, killing at least 74 people and injuring around 550
Furthermore, UN peacekeeping missions have often been under resourced, leading such missions to be ineffective
This was the case during the Bosnian Civil War (1991-95) when peacekeepers, who did not have sufficient resources to defend themselves, failed to prevent Serb forces from executing 8000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica when Serbian forces invaded a UN declared safe zone
These tragic failures suggest the UNSC is not fit for purpose
the power of veto often prevents from acting
VETO POWER
Furthermore, the existence of the veto power poses major problems that essentially neuters the UNSC and suggests that it is not fit for purpose
Firstly, the veto has made it difficult for the UNSC to take action to deal with threats of aggression or threats to peace as it has become the mechanism through which the rivalries of major powers are played out
During the Cold War, the rivalry between the USA and USSR saw 193 vetoes used
In recent times, the veto has also led to the problem of gridlock. This involved the P5 using their veto powers to protect their national interests, meaning that the UNSC is often unable to act
The 1994 Rwandan genocide was not prevented and there has been no UN intervention in Syria since the beginning of its civil war in 2011 precisely for these reasons – the P5 put their own strategic interests first and failed to agree on military intervention
In Rwanda, UN peacekeepers were powerless to stop the genocide as the Council had not agreed on appropriate action to be taken and had not given the peacekeepers permission to intervene with force against the tribal fighters. As a result, up to 1 million civilians lost their lives
Moreover, there was a complete lack of consensus over Syria – the USA, France and the UK all aligned themselves with the Syrian rebels, while Russia and China consistently backed the Syrian government. Yet again, the UNSC was unable to act due to Russia and China vetoing any action, which illustrates the fact that the UNSC is not fit for purpose unless the P5 agrees
Russia has used their veto power more than any other P5 member, including vetoing resolutions that would have allowed chemical weapons investigations in Syria, imposed sanctions, and referred Syria to the International Criminal Court
The underlying issue is that every country in the UNSC is there to protect human interests and the interests of humanity as a whole, but the P5 tend to protect their own national interests, often at the expense of human lives
Subsequently, the UNSC is not fit for purpose
the use of veto has decreased in recent years
VETO POWER
On the other hand, veto use has become significantly less frequent which seems to indicate that the UNSC is fit for purpose and that the argument above may lack validity
Since the early 1990s, veto use by the P5 has decreased has significantly. During the Cold War (1947 – 91), the rivalry between the USA and USSR saw 193 vetoes used. In contrast, only 12 vetoes were used in the UNSC between 1990 and 2003
This has allowed the UNSC to achieve a lot more in recent decades and since 1948, it has authorised around 69 peacekeeping missions globally
Also, even when a gridlock does occur, this does not necessarily prevent the UNSC taking action. For example, it can subcontract military action as it did to US led forces during the Korean War and to regional bodies such as the African Union in Darfur
This makes the UNSC a more effective body in passing resolutions and taking collective action, suggesting that while the existence of veto power does pose some problems, the UNSC is still fit for purpose
its membership is outdated
MEMBERSHIP
Finally, it can be argued that membership of the UNSC means that it is not fit for purpose and is instead historically outdated
Membership of the P5 reflects the great powers of the post-war period but no longer reflects the realities of global politics, rendering the body outdated
Most notably, France and the UK have long since ceased to be the most powerful states in global politics, arguably being undeserving of their positions on the P5 and there have been arguments to replace them with Japan, Germany, India or Brazil
Additionally, membership is not representative either. There is a clear regional imbalance, with no representation from Africa or South America among the P5, even though many of the most rapidly developing nations and emerging powers are from these regions
Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the UN, argues that “it is indefensible today that Latin America doesn’t have a single permanent seat on the Security Council. India, with almost a fifth of the world’s population, doesn’t have a seat. Africa, with 54 countries, doesn’t have a single seat. Even Japan, the second largest contributor, does not have a permanent seat”
As the UNSC is responsible for global peace and security, it needs to be able to draw on the capabilities and political support of the world’s most powerful nations. But a lot of the world’s most powerful countries are not members of the P5
As Germany and Japan were defeated after WW2, it was clear why they did not have permanent membership. But they have since grown into extremely effective economies with some significant military power and it seems that they have stronger cases for permanent membership than France and the UK
There’s also the questions as to why Western Europe should have two permanent members when Europe is moving towards a more common foreign and security policy, especially when there are much larger, more diverse continents without a single permanent member
Arguably, a more representative and up to date UNSC would enjoy wider support and influence, helping to make it a more effective peacekeeping body
But until reform, membership renders the UNSC unfit for purpose
the argument that its membership is outdated is irrelevant
MEMBERSHIP
Nevertheless, the UNSC and its P5 is not intended to be a representative body so the argument that its membership means that it is unfit for purpose may not be appropriate
It is about having countries that can significantly contribute and influence international peace and security. The other 10 non-permanent seats on the UNSC are for regional representation, which it does fulfil as it is a requirement for 3 members to be from Africa, 2 from Latina America, 2 from Asia and so on. Therefore, reform to the P5 in terms of regional representation is not necessary
Likewise, the continued existence of the permanent powers is a way of ensuring the UN retains support from the world’s leading states. The enlargement or change to permanent membership of the could result in some of these powers withdrawing their support, as happened in the League of Nations, thus making the UNSC truly unfit for purpose
As a result, it can be claimed that for now, membership is not a problem for the effectiveness of the UNSC as it is still fit for purpose
