How National Interest Disembodies the Preservation of World Peace
Joey Gardner
Poli Sci 2110-A International Relations
March 7th, 2018
After having two of the largest, most destructive wars in human existence to occur over the span of thirty years, the world sought out to have an organization that promoted world peace to prevent any further occurrences. With the failure of the League of Nations in the 1940s, the world decided to have an organization that protected states and ensured world peace. Accountability was held by the people who represented the states involved, these individuals in the organizations were the ones who were making the decisions. The creation of the United Nations was intended for maintaining peace and security globally. They also aimed to protect human rights, assist in humanitarian efforts and aid, uphold international law and promote sustainable development all over the world. This occurs specifically in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, and the Middle East. In the United Nations there are six main branches or organs which include The General Assembly, The Security Council, The Secretariat, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) , Trusteeship Council, and the International Court of Justice. They each hold their own specific role within the UN. The primary objective of the Security Council, the organ that I will be discussing, is "preserving peace." Dissimilar than the General Assembly, the Security Council was given the power to enforce measures and organized to be "a compact executive organ." In theory, the Security Council functions continuously in the U.N. While it is always working, it does not necessarily always work effectively. I believe that it has flaws within the system. These flaws include the voting system and articles within the charter that inhibit the Security Council from maintaining world peace, which is its primary objective.
The Security Council has 15 members, composed of 5 whom are permanent. Permanent members have a veto and non-permanent members do not. The United States, Great Britain, Russia, China, and France are permanent. The other 10, which was originally only 6, are non-permanent members of the Security Council. This means they are elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term with geographic distribution playing a factor in the election process. The presidency within the council is held for a one-month term, moving to the next president using the alphabetical order of candidate last names, specifically in English. Changes were proposed to the Security Council in 1997 adding permanent and non-permanent members. The nine new members consisted of five permanent with a veto and four non-permanent without a veto. Restrictions on the veto were also proposed. This was seen by many as stepping stones for eventually restructuring the Security Council. Countries like Japan, India, Germany, and Brazil wanted to be permanent without veto while Africa wanted two permanent seats and to hold veto as well. There are two types of voting in the Security Council. On a regular day-to-day matter nine votes from any member of the council, permanent or non-permanent, is obligated. On important matters nine votes is still required but of those nine votes, five need to be from permanent members. This emphasizes the power that veto has on important Security Council affairs. Generally, on day-to-day matters, the council has not taken the decline to vote or voting against a proposal as a veto. Yet in two situations, recommending applicants for membership of the U.N and approving any proposed amendments to the charter, all members are required to be in agreement. The veto has stopped substantive action by the U.N. but this just reiterates the reality that in order for action or resolution on any global major exigency, agreement by the major powers is required.
The charter allows for the Security Council to take action on any sort of danger to world peace. The Security Council generally considers matters two different ways. First being the idea of disputes or any situation that may give rise to a conflict. This is where they are merely limited to making recommendations after other ways of finding a solution have been attempted. In more serious cases like threats, breaches of peace, or "acts of aggression" , the council may take measures of enforcement to maintain world peace. Their enforcement may range from partial or full negative sanctions on diplomatic and economic affairs. However, in terms on the charter, the U.N is forbidden for intervening in "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." An example of this would be Syria exercising their right of domestic affairs. The Security Council is not able to step in because essentially it is out of their jurisdiction. Although Syria is breaching human rights, the Security Council is unable to intervene because the affairs are domestic, concerning only the nation involved. This limit was not aimed to inhibit the action of the Security Council. It was intentionally evasive on this topic of domestic conflicts that could also be viewed as threats to peace. This left a gray area where intervention could only take place if the domestic matters that could possibly threaten or have dangerous repercussions globally.
On the idea of the state, realists believe that nations are the main actors on the international stage, this is known as state-centrism. This differs from the liberalist theories in international relations which also account for non-state actors, international organizations, and institutions. A main idea of realism that ties into the idea of the Security Council being ineffective, is that realists believe there cannot be any overarching organization, government, or power that can enforce rules globally or punish bad behaviour . It is also believed that international law and organizations have little to no power or force and can only continue to exist as long as nations allow them to. An example of this is the Cold War. While there was no actual combat during the war, there was a build-up of armaments. The Cold War could be seen from a realist perspective. The Soviet Union and the United States had a strong distrust between one another and held a bi-polar balance of power. They tried to get as many allies as they could to protect themselves and attempt to spread their military and political influence globally. The nuclear arms race that was created during this time also influences the realist idea that the most important and reliable form of power is military power. It was in each sides national interest to build up their armaments in order to protect themselves and essentially have a stronger military than the other, in the case that actual conflict arose. The idea of national interest is when states act and make crucial decisions based on their own interests that benefit them, directly or indirectly. "I put for the general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after, that ceaseth only in death". As Hobbes said, self-interest and power is crucial in decisions that humans make and this also extends to choices made by the government. They will always do what is best for their state and the people inside it. These decisions are often viewed as making choices based off the betterment of yourself versus always making a choice based on morality. From a Liberalist perspective these international organizations and rules create trust, cooperation, and in some cases prosperity. Military power is not the only form of power any longer. The U.S. has had disagreements in the past with Asian and European trade allies. Since the U.S. would not take any military action to get their way in these disagreements they can use their economic and social power to apply pressure to achieve their goals.
I believe that this is where a main flaw in the Security Council takes place. The idea of national interest, on an international stage, biases the great powers to use their veto against proposed matters in the council. For example, if a matter was proposed and this said matter was against the national interest of an ally, or the enemy of my enemy not only would they vote against the proposal, but you would as well. Another example would be taking a look at the voting records of the Security Council. As per the records, "between 2011 and 2015, Russia has vetoed Security Council draft resolutions on Syria four times. Similarly, China used its veto power four times, in every time acting with Russia." This is to be deemed disloyal or to create unnecessary tensions with another nation. This, I believe, is where the veto could be used and abused in some cases. It is in your national interest, in that sense, to vote with or abstain from voting if allies do, avoiding the creation of conflict. This is where the legitimacy of the voting system within the Security Council is viewed as negative. I believe that the biases and the main powers being able to veto matters proposed is a flaw. If it does not benefit that country, or a countries ally or enemy, as before mentioned they can just shut it down whether it would benefit international peace or not.
I believe that in order for the Security Council to effectively perform and meet its obligations in world crisis, it would need to be reformed. " Its role as the most powerful United Nations body is questionable." While the Security Council has the right to determine what is a threat to peace and security, it has not been too successful in its execution on world matters. Chapter V, Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations functions and powers states: " In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf." The idea that "the responsibility of protecting human rights and innocent civilians from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity" is known as responsibility to protect. This belongs to the nation that violated the rules and laws and allows for the international community to take action and responsibility. The Security Council's abidance with the Charter of the United Nations and the application of the responsibility to protect has been heavily questioned, particularly with the Syria case in the Middle East.
The Syria refugee crisis in 2011 began with anti-government protests because adolescents were arrested for putting a revolutionary slogan on a school, demanding democracy. The protests demanded the release of these individuals. Instead of going along with the view of the people and complying with the demands of the protests, and the people protesting, they instead opened fire and killed majority of the protesters. The violence ensued by the government created nationwide protests for not just democracy, but also for the President's resignation. The violence developed into a full-fledged civil war. The United Nations conducted investigations on the situation and determined all involved parties committed "war crimes, including and not restricted to murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearances." To add to this, all parties were accused of violating human rights by using civilians in their war efforts through starving them of health services, food, and water. Since this conflict in Syria started, and even though there has been reports on "violence, aggression, killings, and humanitarian crisis" , the Security Council has not been able to apply any of the proposed resolutions to re-establish peace and security. Many peace conferences failed due to a lack of action by the international community within the involved parties. Due to this lack of action this has become "the world's largest crisis since world war II" with 7.6 million people displaced within Syria and 4.3 million people displaced in countries neighbouring Syria. There were also countries unsure about bringing in refugees because they feared that people hiding as refugees would terrorize from within and spread their ideals. The Russian Federation backed the Assad Regime this entire time. President Vladimir Putin bombed areas killing not only terrorist groups but also unarmed and innocent civilians.
So why has the Security Council not taken action and intervened in the conflict in Syria? It is because of the veto power in the Security Council. Even though the Charter advocates for fast response by the Security Council it has been ineffective and maybe even corrupt or flawed. This is largely where the veto plays a huge role. The veto was created when the Soviet Union thought that the interests of the West would often conflict with their own ideals. This ran through the Cold War as each side used their veto power to inhibit action against their interests. By viewing who has exercised their veto power in the Councils votes, the U.S. has abstained from using this power. The Russians still use it if the proposal benefits the U.S. or goes against their national interest in any way. According to a report in 2015 from the Security Council, "the veto has been used in relation to a variety of situations in which human rights concerns featured prominently." I think this reiterates that states will act in their own national interest and not morally. Nations are after the betterment of themselves, not the benefit of others or society. The use of veto's has stymied the Security Council from doing anything to stop the human rights abuses. While there are many state and non-state actors who are also involved in this crisis, Russia is not the only one to blame. Rather their actions are more obvious by using the veto in the Security Council. As before mentioned, Russia vetoed four times during the attempts to solve the problems in Syria and all four times China vetoed with them.
Overall, in theory, the idea of the Security Council is great. Although that within its Charter, it has stopped itself from achieving its goal which is preserving and maintaining world peace. It being operated by the individual states of the world is also a great idea. Developing trust and cooperation among states, that are or used to be foes, is massive for international peace. It needs reformation or change because permanent members of the Security Council with a veto can ultimately shutdown anything proposed in the council. It also inhibits a solution to an international problem because of the idea of self-interest. For these reasons, there cannot be an overarching power that can enforce global rules or punish bad behaviour because of such widely conflicting views. Nations will exercise their veto in accordance of self and national interests.
Bibliography
Lagasse, Paul. "Security Council." The Columbia Encyclopedia 7, (2017): 1-10. Accessed March 2, 2018.https://searchcredoreferencecom.ezproxy.uleth.ca/content/entry/columency/united_nations/0.
Sens, Allen Gregory, and Peter, John Stoett. Global politics: orgins, currents, directions. 5th ed. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education, 2014.
"Charter of the United Nations," United Nations, accessed March 2, 2018, https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ctc/uncharter.pdf
Hobbes, Thomas. "Chapter XI, Of Difference Of Manners." In Of man, being the first part of Leviathan, edited by Charles Eliot, 44-48. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1904-1914.
"Security Council." In The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide, edited by Helicon. Helicon, 2016. http://ezproxy.uleth.ca/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/security_council/0?institutionId=2649
Khallaf, Hanouf. "VETO SYRIA: Explaining the Power of the United Nations Security Council and the Syrian Refugee Crisis," Master's Projects and Capstones, (2016): 1-89.
"2005 World Summit Outcome." United Nations. Last modified October 2005. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/ods/A-RES-60-1-E.pdf.