The perceptions of the United Nations

According to the Charter, (Article 39) the Security Council alone can decide what is a threat to international security. If the five Permanent Members agree, then enforcement action can be taken. This happened in November 1990 when resolution 678 authorised “… Member States co-operating with Kuwait … to use all necessary means … to restore international peace and security in the area”. This resolution was supported by four of the five Permanent Members. (China abstained, but did not oppose the resolution.)

Sadly, this was the only time when the Permanent Five acted with a common purpose. Hence the independent forays of the various super-powers to pursue security if they consider it of importance to their own security. Examples are the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

International law is very fragile. It can be easily ignored, though, generally, nations are reluctant to do so because it would lead to complete unpredictability. It is human nature that we seek understanding and hence predictive capability in everything. International relations is just one of the fields in which we constantly try to improve our knowledge, and hence, improve the laws relating to it.

Another important fact we ought to bear in mind, that the role of the UN Secretary General resembles that of a company secretary, who tries to make the best with the wishes of a director or directors of the company. He is a diplomat and not an executive chairman.

Can the United Nations be reformed? Can the Charter of the UN be re-negotiated? Yes, but not by hoping that the Five Permanent Members will acquiesce in the dilution of their voting power by shear force of evidence and sweet persuasion. Other nations will have to insist, collectively, on the need to provide security for all and not just for the Permanent Five, as they see fit. All the nations (other than the Permanent Five) may just be able to do that.