The United Nations Security Council – Will It Ever Do Anything Right?
Berhane Alazar
April 15, 2009
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is a body of the United Nations tasked with keeping international peace and security. According the United Nations Charter, its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action, which is exercised through United Nations Security Council Resolutions.
Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members. Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested that this is inadequate. Rather, they argue, the number of permanent members should be expanded to include non-nuclear powers, which would democratize the organization. Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether.
Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN response to a crisis. For instance, John J. Mearsheimer claimed that "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members." Ironically, Jeane Kirkpatric, a former US Ambassador to the UN described what takes place in the Security Council as "more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving,"
The practice of the permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their resolutions to the full council as a fait accompli has also drawn fire. According to Erskine Childers, "the vast majority of members - North as well as South - have made very clear about their distaste for the way three Western powers behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions."
Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a "Democratic organization", saying that it represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations.
Another concern is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world, and yet, they are expected to resolve armed conflicts. – Go figure!
How about the much talked about "UN Resolutions" their meanings and their effectiveness?
Since 1946 to date, the UNSC has passed some 1900 resolutions, which are voted on by the "fifteen members of the UNSC". If the council cannot reach consensus or a passing vote on a resolution, they may choose to produce a non-binding "Presidential Statement" instead of a Resolution.
Although I do not have the exact number, it is perhaps fair to assume that the unimplemented UN resolutions far outweigh the implemented ones. Actually, are there any implemented ones? There may be many reasons why many of these resolutions fail to be implemented. But, by far the most prevalent reason for their un-implementation is because perhaps many of the resolutions are neither fair, balanced, appropriate nor conducive for peace and security, which by definition, resolutions are supposed to entice.
The latest victim of such biased and somewhat convoluted resolution or "Presidential Statement" was the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea. Perhaps not surprisingly, North Korea´s Foreign Ministry issued a statement "flatly rejecting" the UN statement and that it will resume its nuclear weapons program; and will never again take part in the six-party denuclearization talks.
And back at home, the various UNSC resolutions "Passed unanimously" against Eritrea – a clear victim of aggression herself - is too depressing to even enumerate here. Suffice is to state that as long as the UNSC keeps on applying double standard mechanism by siding with the aggressor against the victim [as is clearly the case by constantly appeasing the Weyane regime - in the so called "Ethio/Eritrea border" issue], none of those resolutions are going to result in some fruitful conclusion. In all those resolutions, the TPLF regime has continuously refused to abide by the rule of law; and in many cases childishly taunting Eritrea to take back its legal territories that are currently illegally occupied by the Ethiopian regime. Thus, it is only logical that any resolutions that come out of this glorified boys´ club in Manhattan would remain meaningless and un-implementable. And as such only a fool would make any attempt to implement resolutions and/or Presidential Statements, which equally condemn the victim along with the villain, the aggressor and the aggressed; and more than often reward and tacitly encourage the law breaker at the expense of the law abiding party. Sadly, that has been the case with the UNSC lopsided handling for all outstanding political and security issues when it comes to Eritrea. A UN victim since the 1940s, Eritrea´s political fate was placed on the auction block by the support and instigation of the major powers of the day through such unbalanced resolutions. All these resolutions were done with the Eritrean people having no say on the political status of their country!
Needless to say, such resolutions had condemned the hard working people of Eritrea into servitude and destitute by subjugating them to the harsh and often barbaric Ethiopian rule under phony and forced union with Ethiopia for 40 long years [not counting the ugly and criminal agitations Ethiopia was employing against the civilian population through its Tigrean terrorist agents - preceding the ill fated "Federal" arrangement of 1952, which was shoved down the throat of the Eritrean people. As a direct result of that ill conceived and short sided UN slanderous action, countless human and material resources were destroyed.
As if that was not enough, even after the heroic Eritrean people have gained back their independence, which was forcefully and illegally taken from them by Ethiopia with the blessing of its allies, the UN´s complicity with Ethiopia continued unabated, this time, causing unimaginable mayhem on additional human and material assets for both Eritrea and Ethiopia – all in front of the watchful eye of the grandiose UNSC. This was done with the deafening silence of the UN, except the usual and meaningless utterance of some fake and disingenuous call on "All parties to exercise maximum restraint"! As is always the case, the UN comes back pretending that it is "Concerned" about the conflict and the "human suffering" that ensues! There is a Tigrigna proverb that states "dhri mai ab be´ati" or placing the cart before the horse. The UNSC couldn´t get any phonier than this!
The story of the UNSC and its dismal performance of the last 60 years has been a case of utter frustration and disappointment for the people of the world. The UNSC actions [inactions] are neither conducive to peace and security of our world, nor does it have the necessary credentials for clean bill of health, for the rest of us to expect it as fair, just and unbiased in the disposition of the duties entrusted on it. The UNSC is indeed in need of major reform, alright, if it is going to ever carry its mandate diligently and serve its constituents in the most transparent and unbiased form of arbitration and/or decision making. Otherwise, by remaining a tool of certain powers would not make it shine as we are constantly reminded to believe by the powers of the day! It sure is time to overhaul the UNSC. If not, I am afraid that its resolutions, which usually carry some ulterior motives besides what they state, will remain un-workable and are essentially Dead-On-arrival!
Unlike the General Assembly, the United Nations Security Council does not have true international representation. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members. Any nation may be elected to serve a temporary term on the Security Council, but critics have suggested that this is inadequate. Rather, they argue, the number of permanent members should be expanded to include non-nuclear powers, which would democratize the organization. Still other nations have advocated abolishing the concept of permanency altogether.
Another criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. As it stands, a veto from any of the permanent members can halt any possible action the Council may take. One nation's objection, rather than the opinions of a majority of nations, may cripple any possible UN response to a crisis. For instance, John J. Mearsheimer claimed that "since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members." Ironically, Jeane Kirkpatric, a former US Ambassador to the UN described what takes place in the Security Council as "more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving,"
The practice of the permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their resolutions to the full council as a fait accompli has also drawn fire. According to Erskine Childers, "the vast majority of members - North as well as South - have made very clear about their distaste for the way three Western powers behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions."
Other critics object to the idea that the UN is a "Democratic organization", saying that it represents the interests of the governments of the nations who form it and not necessarily the individuals within those nations.
Another concern is that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are five of the top ten largest arms dealing countries in the world, and yet, they are expected to resolve armed conflicts. – Go figure!
How about the much talked about "UN Resolutions" their meanings and their effectiveness?
Since 1946 to date, the UNSC has passed some 1900 resolutions, which are voted on by the "fifteen members of the UNSC". If the council cannot reach consensus or a passing vote on a resolution, they may choose to produce a non-binding "Presidential Statement" instead of a Resolution.
Although I do not have the exact number, it is perhaps fair to assume that the unimplemented UN resolutions far outweigh the implemented ones. Actually, are there any implemented ones? There may be many reasons why many of these resolutions fail to be implemented. But, by far the most prevalent reason for their un-implementation is because perhaps many of the resolutions are neither fair, balanced, appropriate nor conducive for peace and security, which by definition, resolutions are supposed to entice.
The latest victim of such biased and somewhat convoluted resolution or "Presidential Statement" was the Democratic People´s Republic of Korea. Perhaps not surprisingly, North Korea´s Foreign Ministry issued a statement "flatly rejecting" the UN statement and that it will resume its nuclear weapons program; and will never again take part in the six-party denuclearization talks.
And back at home, the various UNSC resolutions "Passed unanimously" against Eritrea – a clear victim of aggression herself - is too depressing to even enumerate here. Suffice is to state that as long as the UNSC keeps on applying double standard mechanism by siding with the aggressor against the victim [as is clearly the case by constantly appeasing the Weyane regime - in the so called "Ethio/Eritrea border" issue], none of those resolutions are going to result in some fruitful conclusion. In all those resolutions, the TPLF regime has continuously refused to abide by the rule of law; and in many cases childishly taunting Eritrea to take back its legal territories that are currently illegally occupied by the Ethiopian regime. Thus, it is only logical that any resolutions that come out of this glorified boys´ club in Manhattan would remain meaningless and un-implementable. And as such only a fool would make any attempt to implement resolutions and/or Presidential Statements, which equally condemn the victim along with the villain, the aggressor and the aggressed; and more than often reward and tacitly encourage the law breaker at the expense of the law abiding party. Sadly, that has been the case with the UNSC lopsided handling for all outstanding political and security issues when it comes to Eritrea. A UN victim since the 1940s, Eritrea´s political fate was placed on the auction block by the support and instigation of the major powers of the day through such unbalanced resolutions. All these resolutions were done with the Eritrean people having no say on the political status of their country!
Needless to say, such resolutions had condemned the hard working people of Eritrea into servitude and destitute by subjugating them to the harsh and often barbaric Ethiopian rule under phony and forced union with Ethiopia for 40 long years [not counting the ugly and criminal agitations Ethiopia was employing against the civilian population through its Tigrean terrorist agents - preceding the ill fated "Federal" arrangement of 1952, which was shoved down the throat of the Eritrean people. As a direct result of that ill conceived and short sided UN slanderous action, countless human and material resources were destroyed.
As if that was not enough, even after the heroic Eritrean people have gained back their independence, which was forcefully and illegally taken from them by Ethiopia with the blessing of its allies, the UN´s complicity with Ethiopia continued unabated, this time, causing unimaginable mayhem on additional human and material assets for both Eritrea and Ethiopia – all in front of the watchful eye of the grandiose UNSC. This was done with the deafening silence of the UN, except the usual and meaningless utterance of some fake and disingenuous call on "All parties to exercise maximum restraint"! As is always the case, the UN comes back pretending that it is "Concerned" about the conflict and the "human suffering" that ensues! There is a Tigrigna proverb that states "dhri mai ab be´ati" or placing the cart before the horse. The UNSC couldn´t get any phonier than this!
The story of the UNSC and its dismal performance of the last 60 years has been a case of utter frustration and disappointment for the people of the world. The UNSC actions [inactions] are neither conducive to peace and security of our world, nor does it have the necessary credentials for clean bill of health, for the rest of us to expect it as fair, just and unbiased in the disposition of the duties entrusted on it. The UNSC is indeed in need of major reform, alright, if it is going to ever carry its mandate diligently and serve its constituents in the most transparent and unbiased form of arbitration and/or decision making. Otherwise, by remaining a tool of certain powers would not make it shine as we are constantly reminded to believe by the powers of the day! It sure is time to overhaul the UNSC. If not, I am afraid that its resolutions, which usually carry some ulterior motives besides what they state, will remain un-workable and are essentially Dead-On-arrival!