By Manahil Waqas - Pakistan
Are the Permanent Five truly acting in the best interests of international affairs, guided by the ethics of humility and peace they claim, or are they quietly prioritising their own agendas? This long-standing question now focuses on whether they should reconsider their approach—by either retracting or expanding their influence.
At first glance, this statement may seem confusing, as multiple solutions arise. When the human mind is confronted with a range of options, indecision is guaranteed. This is driven by underlying greed that influences not just us but also critical international organisations. A prime example is the United Nations Security Council, established in 1945 as a result of the dissolution of the League of Nations. One might wonder if the Security Council is tied to the same fate as its predecessor.
To comprehend even the most intricate functions of this body, it is crucial to recognize the influence of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China. These nations hold significant power, including the ability to veto resolutions that may be blocked despite receiving majority support if they oppose their national interests. While these countries present themselves as peace advocates, their actions are often contradictory, depending on the perspective from which they are perceived. As the only permanent members, they hold complete authority in shaping the composition of the Security Council. This is because they determine which ten non-permanent members serve the two-year terms—a reform implemented in 1965. As a result, the Security Council consists of 15 member states.
Although the United Nations Security Council was designed to be a powerful coalition of states focused on maintaining international peace and security, the world continues to face hardships on nearly every continent. From the ongoing civil unrest between the Congolese government and the armed group M23 to Ethiopia grappling with both internal strife and natural disasters to Myanmar (Burma) suffering under martial law, leaving 18.6 million people in need of humanitarian assistance, global conflicts persist at alarming rates. Additionally, one of the most tragic yet well-known destruction of peace is the conflict in occupied Palestinian territories, where it is reported that more than 38,000 civilians have been killed. This reflects the actual severity of the situation as well as the uncontrollable scale of global instability.
Even though the Security Council has taken steps to address some of these issues, significant scepticism remains regarding its professionalism. It is difficult to ignore the obvious prioritisation of national interests and agendas of the five permanent members, which neglects the goal of global peace as a result. This raises the question of whether it is sensible to expect the Security Council, controlled by the P5, to implement the ideals of international peace above the realities of global power dynamics.
Another example that highlights the Security Council's inability to resolve conflicts is the ongoing violence in the Gaza Strip, which escalated on October 7, 2023, when Hamas, a Palestinian militant group formed in 1987, launched a coordinated attack on Israel rather than Tel Aviv, killing over 1,200 people. This was met with a quick and intense military response from Israel, resulting in widespread destruction and civilian casualties in Gaza. Some view Israel's actions as genocide, while others frame the situation as war. However, to fully comprehend the complexity of this conflict, one must trace its historical roots, notably the 1948 Nakba, during which the creation of Israel displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel also occupied Gaza from 1967 to 2005, with stop-start conflict since then.
Despite numerous calls for a ceasefire, the United States, a permanent member of the Security Council and notably a key ally of Israel, has frequently used its veto power to block resolutions aimed at de-escalating the violence (Cursino). For example, in October and November 2023, the US vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions, emphasising its longstanding support for Israel. Additionally, while allegations of US officials signing weapons destined for Israel have surfaced online, these claims lack verified evidence. Nonetheless, the substantial military aid provided by the US to Israel highlights the innate selfishness of the P5 members. Furthermore, the failure of the Security Council to agree on a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since 1948 exposes the power dynamics that prioritise national interests over global peace, with the US's frequent vetoes undermining efforts for a sustained ceasefire. Moreover, this conflict is not the only evidence for UN’s inability to solve conflicts; even the Ukrainian conflict, which as of 27th October 2024, the war is entering its 935th day and Russian troops are getting closer to the cardinal, Pokrovsk therefore foreshadowing its potential invasion. This idea of the council’s failure has even been accepted by the Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, who describes the condition of the UNSC as ’unfair’, ‘ineffective’ and ‘outdated’.
The Security Council has, at times, demonstrated its capacity for effective intervention. One notable example occurred in 2011 when the Council authorised Resolution 1973 in Libya during its civil war; this was widely regarded as a necessary and successful intervention. However, such decisive action remains rare, and many diplomats argue that the Council often struggles to tackle global crises effectively due to its internal disagreements.
A significant limitation lies in the disproportionate power held by the P5, who hold veto power over decisions. However, if all member states had equal influence, without the dominance of the P5, it could lead to fairer decision-making. Still, there is a threat that no nation’s interests would be prioritised. This imbalance often undermines the collective efforts of the community aspect of the Security Council. Furthermore, the current P5 members hold their power due to historical significance. Not only are they the founding members of the United Nations, but they also promote considerable influence on global foreign policy and possess substantial military capabilities: this further cements their positions of authority, as all five are among the top 10 contributors to the organisation’s budget.
A proposed improvement to this power imbalance is expanding the permanent membership of the Council to better reflect global diversity. President Joe Biden has suggested including countries like Japan, Germany, and India, as well as nations from Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean, in hopes of securing broader representation. This proposal echoes long-standing demands for Security Council reform.
The proposed expansion of permanent members in the Security Council overlooks several key regions, such as Australia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. To achieve true global representation and balance, multiple states from each region would need to be included to avoid inter-state conflicts. For example, in South Asia, longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan would likely result in Indian-backed resolutions being unfavourable to Pakistan, and vice versa. Similarly in East Africa, the relationship between Ethiopia and Somalia could complicate regional decision-making, as one nation's priorities may outshine the other.
These challenges reveal how difficult it is to enforce fair representation in the Security Council. The issue is made worse by the fact that many UN principles, like peacekeeping, depend on member states for enforcement. Since peacekeeping forces come from 121 countries, reliance on state cooperation often creates competition between the goal of collective action and the reality of conflicting agendas and national interests.
Reforming the Security Council is further complicated by its existing structural weaknesses, particularly in terms of implementation, denoting that the council is organised in such a way that the enforcement of any action is nearly impossible until it aligns with the values of the p5 nations. The last notable amendment to the Council's structure occurred in 1965, as a result, the Council has faced constant criticism for its inability to enforce its own resolutions. If these states were to act professionally and consistently in the global interest, it could resolve many of the Council's challenges without the need for reform. However, the bridge between these promises and their follow-up course of action continues to undermine the Council's effectiveness and professionalism.
Bibliography
Patrick, Stewart. "UN Security Council Reform: What the World Thinks." 2023, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/06/un-security-council-reform-what-the-world-thinks?lang=en. Accessed 28 Jun. 2023.
Astier, Henri. "Putin Lays Out His Terms for Ceasefire in Ukraine." 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c033eyyr20do. Accessed 14 Jun. 2023.
Tahhan, Zena A., and Maram Humaid. "Six Major Developments That Shaped 2022 for Palestinians." 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/26/six-major-developments-that-shaped-2022-for-palestinians. Accessed 26 Dec. 2022.
Psaledakis, Daphne, and David Brunnstrom. "Russia, China Veto US-led UN Resolution on Gaza Ceasefire." 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-security-council-fails-pass-us-resolution-calling-immediate-ceasefire-gaza-2024-03-22/#:~:text=March%2022%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20The,proposed%20by%20the%20United%20States. Accessed 23 Mar. 2024.
"Gaza Toll Could Exceed 186,000, Lancet Study Says." 2024, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/8/gaza-toll-could-exceed-186000-lancet-study-says. Accessed 8 Jul. 2024.
Bosco, David. “Uncertain Guardians: The UN Security Council’s Past and Future.” International Journal, vol. 66, no. 2, 2011, pp. 439–49. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27976101. Accessed 27 Nov. 2024.
Comments