Think Again: The U.N. Security Council

With a U.S. president chairing the world’s top security body for the first time, it’s worth asking: What does the U.N. Security Council do, exactly? The answer, it turns, out, is more than you think, and less than you might hope.

BY DAVID BOSCO | SEPTEMBER 23, 2009

"The Security Council Is All Talk and No Action."

Not true. The 15-member U.N. Security Council (UNSC) that has responsibility for maintaining international peace and security has actually been very busy lately. In the last 20 years, its five permanent and 10 rotating members have authorized more than a dozen peacekeeping missions, imposed sanctions or arms embargoes on 10 states, and created several war crimes tribunals to prosecute those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity, including sittings heads of state. That makes the UNSC particularly important in desperate corners of the world -- think Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- where blue helmets, U.N. mediators, and humanitarian aid convoys help shape realities on the ground. And while some recent council decisions, including the deployment of peacekeepers to Sudan and the imposition of sanctions on North Korea, took months of debate to sort out, the UNSC moves at a much quicker clip today than it did during most of the Cold War, when animosity between the superpowers often crippled any hope of compromise. In comparison, the Security Council has been a beehive of activity since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

True, plenty of the council's frenetic efforts have required tortuous negotiation, but as it turns out, talk is an important aspect of what the council does. Achieving consensus among the council's five veto-wielding permanent members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China -- is rarely easy. Each power has a unique set of interests and relationships that it seeks to protect. Even when the permanent five (P5) members can agree, they have to convince at least four of the elected council members in order to take formal action. Frustrating though it can be, that process -- of the major powers talking to each other day after day -- is one of the council's principal contributions to international stability. Through sheer repetition, the Security Council has instilled a culture of great-power consultation and compromise that may be as important to international peace as any peacekeeping mission, sanctions regime, or war crimes investigation.

STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: UNITED NATIONS
 

David Bosco is assistant professor at American University’s School of International Service and author of Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World.

AVRAM

10:18 AM ET

September 23, 2009

Legitimacy

Bosco writes, "Imagine, for example, a council with India as a permanent member that passed resolutions condemning Pakistan. From Islamabad, the new council would certainly look less legitimate than it does today."

How is this any different from the actions taken by the current UNSC? How are the actions coreced and pushed by US against Iran viewed from Tehran?

Legitimacy is a question of moral superiority derived from just actions. There is nothing other than realpolitic involved in any UNSC actions. Israel can have as many nuclear weapons as it desires without any consequences. Iran cannot even develop technology for civilian use. Remember, IAEA is obligated to help NPT signatories develop civilian technology, a step US has vetoed in case of Iran every time. UNSC is also required to enforce resolutions of 1948 and 1967 borders of Palestine. You should also think the council would have done something about the bombing of UN buildings in gaza. I guess all this is irrelevant because there is no legitimacy or moral authority to the UNSC. What matters is coercive power and nothing else.

 

AVRAM

10:38 AM ET

September 23, 2009

"Who cares?" if military action taken without UNSC is illeagal?

On one side the logically challenged author argues we shouldn't care if military action is illeagal. Later the guy argues that India joining UNSC will make it less legitimate!!! "Who cares?"

If noone should care about illeagal military actions, who should care about legitimacy of the council?

Why does morons get to make a living writing for formerly legitimate publications? Then again, "who cares?"