By Carl Ginther
Syria is yet another example of why the Security Council needs to change. But can it?
It would be a wonderful day in history for thousands, if not millions around the world, if Russia were stripped of its veto powers within the UN Security Council in light of recent events in Syria. It would be a wonderful day in history for north of a billion people worldwide if India and/or Japan assumed that right. Perhaps China would even feel greater diplomatic heat and step away from another infamous “non-intervention veto”. But it was the P5, the victors of World War II, who were bequeathed the throne of supranational public policy and authority, albeit sixty-five years ago. Many believe this blueprint should be revised for the sake of long-term United Nations Security Council (UNSC) relevance. The rationale follows that Security Council reform is critical, especially considering the rise of India and the lack of veto-power representation from the Middle East, not to mention Africa, where the most salient world history is being carved out as you read what I offer in this passage.
But I write with a message of realism, rather than idealism, to tell it like it is. Change will not come. Instead, we on the outside will indefinitely debate UN relevance regarding security issues as follows. On the one hand, there is little doubt that the UN can provide responses to world security threats that no other multi-lateral entity in the world can provide. Libya is case in point, but on the other hand, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is arguably dead now and considered by many as regime change doctrine. On the one hand, the UN is a relevant, much needed, albeit intricate option for the United States and her interests. While the US may have the bulk force, capable of striking an Iraq or containing an Iran, or intervening for humanitarian purposes, it is no longer in the political or financial interest of the US to go it alone in most cases, especially in the Middle East, and especially in these financial times. There is no other multi-lateral entity in the world that can provide such a security service, also know as burden sharing. But again, on the other hand, nations have the right to remain sovereign and that includes striking and defending unilaterally and the UN is but one option.
Reform is happening as we read and write within the UN, but the song remains the same regarding the Security Council. Why? Despite what the UN can provide, high politics and money rather than humane decision-making too often prevail, as we see time and again failures to decisively act on North Korea, China’s swallowing of Tibet, Rwanda, Serbia and Kosovo (President Clinton knew Russia would veto any action there), and now Syria. A senior UN official recently estimated the consequences of his own organizations shortcomings in Syria at 7,500 deaths, 100 deaths per day as of the end of February, 2012 (BBC). And, the song will remain the same, and the UN relevance debate over security atrocities will continue, back and forth as a pendulum. Why? As long as you have the Russia/China hypocritical “non-intervention” veto bloc; and as long as diplomats such as Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov saying Russia will veto any resolution that seeks to remove Assad from power; this means blatant high politics and avarice disguised in “non-intervention” lingo persist. Syria’s main supplier of weapons is Russia.
So, what about shifting veto powers from Russian hands? No. The veto right is untouchable. In this light, the future is not bright for Security Council structural reformists so long as veto protocol remains the same and China and Russia support each other within the P5; so long as the United States, France, and Britain fund fifty percent of the organization as a whole, and the US would rather engage than isolate Russia for a second time in 75 years; and so long as alternatives to the UN for global security issues, such as regional security bodies, do not arise in great force- no significant takers thus far. Even if, say, Arab nations were to get their act together, could and would they respond proportionately and effectively, considering the bonds between Shia dictators, and the complexity of “power politics mapping dangerously onto regional power struggles, which are in turn underpinned by sectarian ones,” as described here? Not in the near future.
Then, how about veto right expansion or redistribution? This could make representation more equitable and change pressure dynamics for the better. From the US perspective, “spreading the power” of Security Council veto rights could mean even greater diplomatic challenges. As the US Ambassador to the UN simply but effectively stated when she visited our MBA class, the countries with power don’t want to renounce it. And, governments do not often renounce privileges unless greater ones can be achieved, or something tremendous would be lost otherwise. The potential loss is irrelevance, but diplomatic pushback is weak to date. Additionally, governments held accountable by their people would have much to potentially lose. Why would the US (or the other guys) risk its position in the world, or the addition of a friend today who could be a foe in a half century’s time, assuming the UN remains relevant until then?
Finally, the aforementioned logic of power can be applied to the idea of redistribution. A more “fair” distribution would mean the US turning its back on France or the UK (i.e. reducing the “Europe share” to 1), considering Russia is not an option. Assuming cash contribution (and history) is king, a conversation about veto right redistribution or expansion could take place if and when poor countries plus, say, Japan and Germany declare themselves larger financial contributors to the system, but again, even if that were the case, why would the US (or the other guys) accept or even allow such conversations considering they likely mean fundamental changes to the way UN business is done; in other words, a massive ceding of power away from the powers that be. Could the P5 become P6, 7, 8, 9…, just as the G7 became the G20? It is very hard to imagine, as it appears control and power today remain paramount.
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.