The United Nations Security Council is defined by the United Nations Charter, Chap. V, Art. 24 as the organism that has the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” This reveals the essential role of the Security Council inside the UN as the entity responsible of achieving one of the UN’s most important goals – after all, the United Nation’s first purpose, according the Chap. I, Art 1 of the Charter, is “To maintain international peace and security.” Thus, at the internal level, from the dozens of organization that comprise the UN, the Security is the only one directly responsible to undertake the tasks that give the UN a purpose. At the international level this means that from the 192 states members of the UN, only fifteen have a voice and a vote when it comes to face a conflicts. As we will see, from these fifteen states only five can make a real difference.In order to understand the latter statement, we must look at the structure and composition of the United Nations Security Council:
| Permanent Members (same since 1945) | Non Permanent Members (elected for 2 year terms) |
| People’s Republic of | 3 from |
| | 2 from Latin America and the Caribbean |
| | 2 from |
| | 2 From |
| United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland | * 1 Arab country must be included in the seats of one these regions |
Table 1. Source: “UN Security Council”. United Nations. United Nations. 27 Oct. 2007. [http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_background.html].
The resolutions of the Security Council are decided by voting. Each member has one vote. When a procedural matter is being decided, at least nine of the fifteen members have to vote in favor. However, when it comes to important matters – the ones for which the Security Council was created for, such as the resolution of the United Nations in reaction to an international conflict – the system is quite different: these decisions are made by nine votes, which must include the votes of all the five permanent members. The Security Council itself calls this situation the rule of “great Power unanimity” (Security Council). This is what is usually known as the veto power of the permanent members – if just one of these countries does not vote affirmatively no important resolution can be made.
Thus, as its structure, functions and composition reveals, the UN is a rather undemocratic organization. The task to accomplish its most important goal and purpose (the prevention and resolution of conflicts among nations) is basically reserved to a single organization composed by a handful of states. At the same time, inside this organization even a more reduced group of states has a privileged position. Therefore, the interference of individual interests of these countries with the general purpose for which both the Security Council and the United Nations were created is inevitable.

1 comment:
Sorry for the pessimism, but I believe that there are greater powers above the UN and it’s Security Council for that matter. As long as one country has the economic and military hegemony it’s going to be really hard for any organization to stop its ambition. I mean, lets look the United States for example. As long as I know, the UN voted against the war with Iraq, but they didn’t care at all. United States attacked Iraq without a legal or a valid reason. Why? Because the oil is in the Middle East. Same thing happened in Vietnam: the NU voted against the war, but the war happened anyway.
Now, of course that if United States is part of the permanent members of the Security Council there is no way that the UN can do anything to stop them. But I believe than even if the rules of the council were different, even if the vote of the US (or any other country) wasn’t necessary for the final decision, there would always be a way to interfere with this decision. And even if the Security Council voted against a specific war or intervention, maybe the great powers of the world wouldn’t care, as we have seen many times with US.
I don’t know what can be done respect this matter. I don’t think the organization of the NU is going to change any soon, neither their rules. Despite that, I still believe that the idea of having a NU is good, and that its goal is even better. For the moment that goal is still a utopia, but hopefully one day it will be a real and concrete possibility.
Post a Comment