Every Clime, Class and Colour

Reforming the UNSC

The United Nations Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations. All matters relating to security is brought through this council. It has five permanent members: France, United Kingdom, United States of America, Russia and China. They gained these seats as the victors of the Second World War. The council also has 10 elected members, serving two-year terms. This undemocratic arrangement is made worse by the five permanent members holding veto power over any issue. Even if four out of five nations agree on a policy, the fifth can override the decision. This means that any UN peacekeeping mission must be agreed on unanimously, if it is to come into effect. Geopolitics, and national interests must align amongst the five for this to happen. The veto power has been abused since the creation of the council with the two biggest offenders being Russia and the United States. The Cold war is filled with instances of one of these major powers putting their own interests above those of the UN. For the first 25 years of the rivalry, Russia was the main abuser, with the United States of America rarely utilising it. This flipped towards the end of the Cold War. In the 1985-1990 period, for instance, the United States of America used their veto 27 times while the Soviets none. (Kennedy, 2007). To make matters worse, the veto power has been used outside of security matters in which it was intended to be used exclusively for. Membership applications, appointments of UN officials also face the possibility of a veto.

This has proved embarrassing for the UN as a whole and has repeatedly undermined the public’s faith in the institution. Even now, the United States of America has been repeatedly vetoing any motions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and Russia is doing the same for the Ukraine War. These power games have made it so that UN Peacekeeping Operations are usually only passed for regions where there are no clashing strategic interests of the big five. Regions in which there is a clash, and Peacekeeping may be needed the most, are often left to boil over. Some of the bloodiest Cold War conflicts occurred in situations where a big five member felt threatened. There was no role for the UN in the Vietnam conflict, because of the United States of America, or in the Cambodian Civil War and Genocide, because of China (Kennedy, 2007). But that has not stopped the UN from working when they are permitted. Since Peacekeeping began in 1948, there has been over 70 missions throughout the globe, with 12 currently ongoing missions. The earliest interventions were in interstate conflicts with clear objectives. This, then shifted towards deployments, within the context of civil wars, making the missions more complex and difficult (Jett, 2019). This followed the global trend of a declining number of state-on-state wars, and an increase in civil ones.

Still, power games played through the UNSC by permanent member states are arguably one of the biggest challenges facing Peacekeeping as a whole. It is also one that is deeply rooted in the design of the UN. The UNSC permanent members gained their place as major powers in the 1945 landscape, but this balance of power has been shifting. There are now over three times more States in the world, than in 1945, and some are on track to become major powers. To accommodate this change, reform to the SC has been a topic of discussion. Expanding both the permanent members and non-permanent members is often suggested. Japan and Germany are often cited as contenders as the second and third largest funders of the UN (Kennedy, 2007). India, with its population of 1.6 billion people, is hard to ignore, as well as the fact that South America and Africa have no current permanent seats between them. An expanded UNSC would bring greater representation, and a wider focus on security issues globally. The ideal reform, however, would be the removal of the veto, and simply have a majority rules voting system. This is unlikely to happen, as the big five could threaten to leave the UN over such reform. While frustrating to would be reformers, it is important to note that without the veto, these countries may not have bought in to the idea of the UN in 1945.

The national interest of these five nations will likely continue to influence which UN missions are passed, and if they are a success or failure. It has been broadly agreed however, that any new permanent members added in the future would not have veto power (Black, 2008). A recent push for reform in 2005, saw Brazil, India, Japan and Germany as the main contenders to an expanded council. In total, the 15 members would be increased to 25. This push failed, but the debate has not ended. An expanded UNSC would allow a broader debate on when, and if, a peacekeeping mission should be pursued. With the world becoming increasingly multipolar, the UN must include these growing powers in this discussion. If they continue to be excluded, the UNSC could become increasingly irrelevant, and their resolutions ignored. This, ironically, would not be in the interest of the big five as their privileged position would lose meaning. It would also be catastrophic for the UN overall, jeopardising the existence of peacekeeping missions. Reform, would likely come slowly, piece by piece, as is typical for changes at any level of the UN. But, without change, the future peacekeeping missions will be unrepresentative of world opinion and increasingly seen as irrelevant.

Bibliography

Black, Maggie. 2008. The No-Nonsense Guide to the United Nations. Oxford: New Internationalist.

Jett, Dennis C. 2019. Why Peacekeeping Fails: 20th Anniversary Edition. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kennedy, Paul. 2006. The Parliament of Man. London: Penguin Books.