The Security Council as a Gordian Knot That Should Be Cut - Essay Example

Geopolitics Assignment The UN Security Council is the most commanding body of the United Nations and is primarily responsible for the maintenance of International peace and security. The Security Council comprises representatives from fifteen countries, five of which are permanent members. Presently, the five permanent members who wield veto power are U. S., UK, China, Russia, and France. The veto power possessed by the members means that all must consent to endorse a certain resolution. The remaining ten members come from various regional groupings (Cronin & Hurd 2008, p.43). In some circumstances, the Security Council may undertake its own separate investigations; mediate between the parties, and set principles for settlement. If the dispute escalates into fighting, the Security Council’s mandate is to bring the fighting to a halt as soon as possible (Cronin & Hurd 2008, p.44). The actions may comprise ceasefire directives or sending of United Nations Peace-keeping forces to minimize tensions in the troubled areas. In addition, the Security Council has the prerogative on enforcement measures, economic sanctions such as asset freezing and trade embargoes, and collective military action. Each of the members in the council has one vote on procedural matters while an affirmative vote shapes decisions on substantive matters such as application of diplomatic or economic sanctions. The composition of the Security Council is also contentious. Critics argue that it reflects the power structure at the end of World War II, all of which has radically changed over time. A resolution by the Council needs nine positive votes to be adopted. United Nations Security Council as a Gordian knot Critics level accusations against the Security Council, especially on opaque proceedings in its functioning. Tensions relating to state sovereignty and legitimization on the use of force compounded by increasing unilateralism by the members are some of the issues that tarnish the Security Council (Malone 2004, p.9). The countries that constitute the Security Council have historically perceived their status as a witness to their political muscle. This possibly explains the ineffectiveness of the Council throughout the Cold War when the United States settled scores with its then bitter rival the USSR. Ever since the ending of the Cold War era, the Security Council has discharged its mandate better as evidenced by numerous resolutions passed. The end of Cold War heralded a radical shift in the geopolitical setting. Some of world’s most powerful countries are the ones that make up the permanent membership of the council. This predisposes the world to showmanship of political muscle at the expense of the delivery of the Security Council Mandate. The use of Veto power has in some cases been misused to settle political scores. This has led to associated components failing to meet their full potential (Trachsler 2010, p.3). Regardless of the centrality of individual state interests at the UN, the Security Council members have occasionally thwarted reform proposals. The members of the Council have been defensive to the extent of wielding institutional obstacles such as vetoing. Thus, the less powerful countries have been unable to cut the Gordian knot and forced to consent to the demands of powerful countries (Trachsler 2010, p.3). This has led to the Security Council been seen as non-representative and insensitive to the plight of the majority. Consequently, the decisions made by the Security Council are improvised and inconsistent. The UN Security Council members, especially the permanent members, frustrate the emergence of a more functional global system. The countries are mainly hostile to radical reforms, which threaten their status quo (Zedillo 2005, p.5). This has led to build up of tension on matters concerning political and military power vs. the power of legitimacy. The inconsistency within the Security Council occasioned by active or passive agenda of the members of the council has led to some countries questioning the legitimacy of its decisions. Critics question the degree to which the Council can resist the pull of selfish members who might want its resolutions to favor them. UN Security Council as a lever Regardless of its shortcomings, the United Nations Security Council has weaned itself as a functional force in global governance, especially in maintenance of peace and security. Since the end of the Cold War, the potential of the Security Council appears unlocked. The Security Council contributes immensely in making the world safer. There is a better cooperation between the powerful countries even though the rivalry and unilateralism persist (Malone 2004, p.6). The Security Council can be regarded as a guarantor of international security. This arises from enhanced response and resolution to international disputes. It would be misleading to imply that the Security Council lacks cohesiveness in totality. Nowadays, the Council enjoys disposition to tackle substantive conflicts at the global stage. The animosities that previously overshadowed the Council have reduced over time, fuelled by the changing geopolitical climate. The increment in the passage of resolutions attests this fact. The plethora of vetoes (cast or threatened), a common feature in the past, has eased with time. The Security Council acts on a wide range of conflicts, mostly internal in nature, some of which it would have avoided in the past (Malone 2004, p.8). Notably, the Council deliberates on conflicts perpetuated by armed non-state actors, which is an emerging phenomenon since it previously dealt with interstate conflicts only. This makes the Council live up to its core mandate of securing peace and stability in the world. The Role of United Nations Security Council on Syria Crisis The Arab Spring witnessed in the Arab world from 2008 to the present has had a phenomenal influence in the administrative structures of the countries involved. The populist uprising did not spare Syria as people took to the streets in mid-March 2011 agitating for release of political prisoners and an end of the regime (Sharp & Blanchard 2012, p. 4). However, Syria’s government response to the protests was blatant and deadly, which has led to the death of more than 5000 people, most of whom were innocent civilians. The apparent crimes against humanity perpetrated by Syrian government drew condemnation from United Nations. However, the Security Council response to the crisis was disappointing due to its persisting failure to form a consensus around the crisis. The process of adopting a resolution on the crisis was marred by Russia and China vetoing the text. The vetoed text was an open condemnation of the Syrian violence. Other members of the council abstained from the vote. The opponents of the resolution stipulate that the decisions should be grounded in dialogue rather than condemnation (Sharp & Blanchard 2012, p. 5). Similarly, the opponents to the resolution were unwilling to exercise their duty of responsibility to protect. Instead, they rooted for a balanced resolution that would incorporate respect to sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Syria. The resolution had to be watered down with measures such as arm embargoes and economic sanctions dropped. Despite the substantial compromises made by the drafters, Russia and China still vetoed the resolution for the second time. This demonstrates that the Council can be an impediment rather than a support to world order. The actions of the UN Security Council can be interpreted as an attempt to reassert global influence at the expense of innocent civilians. The Security Council disagreement subscribed to the fear that international intervention in Syria could result in a regime change (Sharp & Blanchard 2012, p. 5). Nevertheless, the earlier divided UN Security Council agreed on a statement backing Annan Peace plan, which seeks an end to the yearlong bloodshed. The unified and non biding message pursues to alter the dynamics of the conflict and bring the conflict to a halt or a possible resolution. The Security Council response to Syria crisis exhibits a lack of united action resulting in a disjointed position on the international community. The vetoes frustrated international action on Syria, which confirms the assertion that United Nations Security Council is a Gordian knot that ought to be cut. The vetoes dealt a slight dent in the credibility of the Council as it underscored self interest motivated by the desire to settle scores (Strauss 2011, p.605). There is a widespread concurrence that reform of the global institutional structure is desirable and should be pursued. The United Nations Security Council has not matched the optimism of Post-World War II Order. The United Nations and its body the Security Council should exhibit and embody Post-Millennial transformation. While entire responsibility may be laid in reforming the global institution on the Security Council, the reality remains that the powerful countries are strategically positioned to lead or block reform initiatives (Bosco 2009, p. 5). In conclusion, the Security Council is a Gordian knot that should be cut to enable a more effective global institution that embodies multilateralism and represents the interests of the majority. Currently, there exist tradeoffs between various members of the General Assembly who want an expansion of the Council to realize a more representative composition, attain more legitimacy, and effectiveness. The new wave of calls for reform aims at frustrating predisposition to unilateralism or ad-hoc coalitions. References List Bosco, D. (2009). Five to rule them all: The UN Security Council and the making of the modern world, Oxford, Oxford University Press. pp.3-9. Cronin, B. & Hurd, I. (2008). The UN Security Council and the politics of International authority, New York, Routledge. pp. 43-50. Malone, D. (2004). The UN security council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century, London, Lynne Rienner. pp. 1-17. Sharp, J. & Blanchard, C. (2012). Unrest in Syria and U.S. Sanctions against the Assad Regime, Washington, Congressional Research Service. pp. 3-5. Strauss, A. (2011). Cutting the Gordian Knot: How and why the United Nations Should vest the International Court of Justice with referral Jurisdiction, Cornell International Law Journal 44 (1), pp. 604-627. Trachsler, D. (2010). UN Security Council reform: A Gordian knot? Center for Security Studies 72 (1), pp. 1-3. Zedillo, E. (2005). Reforming the United Nations for Peace and Security: Proceedings of a Workshop to Analyze the Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change. Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, Connecticut, New Haven. pp. 4-10.


 Read More