Council in Crisis!

How the UN Security Council’s inefficacy elucidates a need for reform.

Among the most common gripes with supranational governing bodies is their perceived impotence. The United Nations is no stranger to this criticism; the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in particular frequently draws scorn for its ineffectual tactics and lack of real power. The UNSC needs reform, some of which could come in the form of diluted veto powers by permanent members (or an expansion of the permanent member council), more authoritative action in times of crisis, and standing by lines in the sand which have been drawn. Simply put, the UNSC needs to enhace its ability to sanction or punish member countries for actions which violate established rules, particularly pertaining to human rights.

Some concerns with the UNSC arise from its lack of representation. No African or Latin American states are among the permanent members; neither is India, despite its massive population and growing global influence. There are debates about the expansion of permanent members to make the council more inclusive, but stark disagreement exists over this proposal. The UK and France stand in favor, the US and Russia are more on the fence, and China absolutely refuses to consider it. These disagreements have been growing in magnitude in recent years, demanding attention.

Seeing as all permanent members have a final veto, the UNSC often struggles to pass more than what ultimately amounts to lackluster and milktoast resolutions. Seeing rising tensions between Western powers and China, semantics often come into question nowadays over minute details. Any statement which does not support — or, God forbid, criticizes — initiatives by China such as their Belt and Road project is immediately vetoed. The UNSC’s peacekeeping missions are oftentimes lackluster as well, failing to meaningfully intervene in instances such as the Rwandan genocide. Even with intervention, peacekeeping oftentimes fails to instill any semblance of peace as has been demonstrated with Kashmir, Somalia, and Serbia.

The UNSC is often criticized for lacking any bite behind its bark, failing to enforce lines in the sand effectively. As a case in point, China has failed to meaningfully respond to any well-founded accusations of Uyghur ‘reeducation camps.’ These camps have detained between eight hundred thousand and two million Uyghurs since the start of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tirade in 2017. Reports allege that Uyghurs and other Muslims can be detained for simply practicing their religion. Upon apprehension, they are sent to internment camps. There, they are forced to renounce Islam, pledge fidelity to the CCP, drink alcohol, and are subjected to other acts which violate their religious precepts. Stories have emerged of torture and rape in these camps as well. In the midst of these accusations, China fired back at the U.S. as needing to “take a look in the mirror” regarding their racial politics before criticizing the CCP.

Amidst this feud, the UNSC has taken little meaningful action. 22 nations — a group composed of all Western nations in the UN institution — signed a letter to the Human Rights Council articulating their concerns regarding these detention camps. Nonetheless, China responded with a counter-letter backed by 37 supporters which justified their response to “grave challenges of terrorism and extremism.”

The Chinese government has received support from over 50 countries — including ones like Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea — in support of their justified ‘counter-terrorism’ efforts. In a similar vein, next to nothing has been done regarding China’s retaking of Hong Kong in violation of the Sino-British declaration of 1984. Furthermore, the UNSC is effectively silent regarding the building of land masses in the South China sea.

These tensions are indicative of a growing rift between Western and authoritarian nations, two of which have permanent seating on the council. These divisions are only mounting, and reform must be undertaken if the UNSC is to be a prevalent actor on the global stage in coming years.

Other foreign policy crises also highlight problems within the UNSC. In the wake of a pullout driven by the US, the UNSC has urged the Taliban to provide international citizens safe passage out of the country. As is already being evidenced, the Taliban typically does not adhere to menial suggestions like these. Foreign nationals remain in the country as the Taliban continue to crack down on who has access to the sole airport in the country, raising concerns over whether the UNSC will attach any consequences to their statements or fold again in the face of pressure.

To drive home this point, India’s permanent representative to the UN T.S. Tirumurti spoke in September of this year on the flaws of UN action. “Action by the UNSC is not the first step, but the last, after exhausting all other options,” he alleged. This has been evident, and member nations of the UN are beginning to speak on this fact. “Strengthening partnerships between the UN and regional organizations is absolutely critical,” Representative Tirumurti stated. He spoke about how UN decisions have morphed into political tools, not impartial actions jointly taken by the international community. Frequently, their actions are at odds with the wishes of regional communities, groups which certainly are more in touch with the impact of UN action than diplomats. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also spoken about how “reforms in the responses, in the process, and in the character of the United Nations is the need of the hour.” These criticisms are echoed by others, particularly those who find themselves without much of a say in the processes of the UNSC.

Ultimately, we see a UNSC that is growing increasingly divided, ineffectual, and in need of reform. However, countries like Russia and China are firmly opposed to any power-sharing; something which adding more voices to the council would most definitely necessitate. The UNSC must stand by their assurances and take more active measures on a global stage. They also need to engage in more aggressive sanctioning and condemnation of countries which violate norms established by the UN. We are reaching a crossroad where we must choose how effective the Security Council is to be. Will we let it fade into apathy and fecklessness, or will we reform the institution and enable it to make meaningful contributions to the global stage?