By Ilgin Karlidag
BRUSSELS
A recent spate of high-profile votes and vetoes by the UN Security Council has thrown the spotlight on this powerful institution – with critics saying such realpolitik needs to be challenged by expanding its membership.
Tussles over Ukraine, Palestine and Syria have been just a few examples of divisions emerging within the Security Council.
There may be 196 countries on earth, but the number of nations with the responsibility of maintaining international peace and security in the world is only five.
These are the permanent members of the UN Security Council – the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia – who have the power to veto or block any resolution.
That only five UN members have the right to veto resolutions has long sparked debates about a possible expansion of the Security Council, which has 10 non-permanent members.
Supporters claim the current UN Security Council system, established following World War II to maintain world peace, is the only viable alternative.
Critics, on the other hand, call for an end to permanent membership of the council, arguing that veto rights are used to further economic purposes and political interests, having little to do with international peace and security.
A statement by the UN Security Council on Monday condemning an attack by pro-Russian separatists on Mariupol in eastern Ukraine was vetoed by Russia – one of the Security Council’s five permanent members.
Monday’s veto was just one of many used in recent years.
On Dec. 30, the UN Security Council failed to reach a resolution on Palestinian statehood by 2017, with the U.S. vetoing it.
Hugh Lovatt, Israel/Palestine program coordinator at the European Council on Foreign Relations said on Monday: ''If the Palestinians were to go back to the Security Council with a resolution…the issue would be the U.S., in all likelihood, vetoing it. It’s not an issue on finding the necessary vote to support the Palestinians…it’s more an issue of avoiding a U.S. veto.''
In late May 2014, Russia and China vetoed a resolution that would have referred Syria to the International Criminal Court for possible prosecution for crimes committed during the country’s civil war.
This was the fourth time Russia and China blocked a UN Security Council resolution against Syria.
''If you look at the usage of the veto of the Security Council it has been used far more often over the last few years,'' Lovatt says.
''There’s no longer this sort of consensus politics…if you look at the UN Security Council it is most effective when the permanent members can agree on something,'' Lovatt adds.
'Non-representative'
Ambassador Bhagwant S. Bishnoi, India's Deputy Permanent Representative at the UN, strongly criticized the Security Council last week, describing it as being ''non-representative'' and ''lacking legitimacy.''
''While the mandate of the Security Council is to act on behalf of the wider membership, it uniquely lacks the legitimacy, on account of its non-representative character, to counsel States on the merits of political inclusiveness," Bishnoi told the Council on Jan.19.
India wants to push for reforms of the UN Security Council’s current system. India also criticizes the Council for a ''lack of transparency'' and for not adequately consulting, it claims, with other members on peace-keeping operations.
However, Hugh Lovatt says reforming the UN Security Council depends on the permanent members deciding to reform it.
''I don’t see that happening anytime soon," he says.
