The insecurity engendered by the Security Council

The Security Council’s primary responsibility is for the maintenance of international peace and security. It alone can determine the existence of any threat to peace, or act of aggression. So, the actions of any member of the Security Council, especially of its five Permanent Members, have an important influence on everyone’s security.

As part of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council was discussed at various stages before the end of World War II, and finally, it was looked at in great detail, at the conference in San Francisco in 1945 by 850 delegates (and their supporting staff) from 50 countries.

The Security Council, especially the veto powers conferred on it, were a contentious issue during that conference, and have been ever since. The smaller powers feared that when one of the “Big Five” menaced the peace, the Security Council would be powerless to act, while in the event of a clash between two states who are not members of the Security Council, the “Big Five” could act arbitrarily.

The smaller powers strove to have the power of the veto reduced. But the great powers (the USSR being the main instigator and most adamant on this issue at Yalta) insisted on this provision as vital. Eventually, the smaller powers conceded the point in the interests of setting up the world organisation. This and other vital issues were resolved only because every nation was determined to set up, if not the perfect international organisation, at least the best that could possibly be made.

The fears of the smaller powers at the San Francisco conference were vindicated. To the original misgivings could be added that any of the “Big Five” could act arbitrarily against lesser nations, or the “Big Five” are unable to act when a state is deliberately ill-treating its minorities.

The Permanent Members of the Security Council are the USA, Great Britain, France, Russia, and since 1971, The People’s Republic of China. (Previously, the Nationalist government in Taiwan represented China.)

Let us consider some examples of how the security of everyone is affected by the actions of the Permanent Members:

During the Suez crisis in 1956, two of the Permanent Members, France and Great Britain, contrived to invade the Suez canal-zone. The USA, and the USSR, viewed this action with alarm, and together with members of the General Council, halted the invasion. This brief conflict incurred considerable damage to the canal-zone, and to the Egyptians. It also emboldened the USSR to crush the popular uprising in Hungary in November 1956.

The Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when the USSR and the USA were engaged in a dangerous nuclear poker game, everyone was in suspense. The whole world was at the mercy of the two protagonists and their common sense.

In 1965 the USA got embroiled in Vietnam. The USA feared a “domino effect”, and persuaded some of the other nations to support its action. (The “domino effect” implied that if a small country should be allowed to fall to communism, than others would follow.) The Security Council had no say in what was happening in Vietnam because of the veto of the USA. The Vietnamese people suffered considerable hardship in opposing the formidable power of the USA. (Another Permanent Member, the USSR helped the Vietnamese.)

In 1968 the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia because they had the “temerity” in wanting to be independent of the Russian’s influence.

In 1979 the USSR sent troops to Afghanistan, ostensibly to bolster a communist regime there, but in reality, wanting to expand their influence and control. Another Permanent Member, the USA, opposed the invasion, and successfully helped some of the Afghan tribes to oust the Russians. Afghanistan had no chance ever since to develop a stable economy, as it has been caught up in seemingly unending turmoil.

These are some examples where one or two of the Permanent Members interfered with the peace of other nations.

Let us look at some examples where the Permanent Members were not directly involved in a conflict:

One such example is the 1967 Israeli war with Egypt and with some of the other Arab countries. The USA was very slow in formulating a cease-fire resolution in the Security Council, waiting until Israel achieved it immediate aims in that war. The USA always supported the actions of Israel, and vetoed any of the resolutions that were viewed as damaging its interests. (For example: Resolution 117, 122, 130, 131, etc.)

Another example is the conflict in the Balkans, where the USSR imposed a very restrictive mandate on the UN Peacekeepers. The UN soldiers were not able to offer any resistance to aggression. They were only mandated to defend themselves if came under direct attack. They were not mandated to repel any aggression against the “safe havens”, such as Srebrenica, not because they could not, but because they were not allowed to by the Russian vote in the Security Council. As a consequence of the Permanent Members jockeying for influence the people of ex-Yugoslavia suffered.

What influence does the Security Council have on conflicts within a state, where minorities are wilfully persecuted, such as in the Darfur region of Sudan, or the genocide in Rwanda, or the continuing disadvantage experienced of the indigenous Tibetans?

Again, in Darfur, the UN Peacekeeping force (formed by some of the African states), has a very restricted role at the insistence of China. Essentially, there is going to be no resolution of the conflict, as China sides with the Sudanese government, which allows (some would say encourages) a campaign against those who oppose the regime, and who are mainly in the Darfur region.

In Rwanda, the UN was not allowed to send troops to stop the violence, because none of the Permanent Members voted for such an action. When Kofi Annan, the Secretary General at the time visited the scene of the atrocities, he was (mistakenly) blamed for not helping. People have to remember that the Secretary General is just that, a company secretary who carries out the instruction of the directors, in this case, the instruction of the Permanent Members. If some people in Rwanda wish to blame someone for what happened, they should blame the Permanent Members - all five of them.

In Tibet, the systematic subjugation of Tibetan culture is not going to be resolved in the foreseeable future, simply because China with its veto in the Security Council does not countenance any discussion of the matter.

There is another way in which the Security Council engenders insecurity. All the Permanent Members emphasise Article 51 of the Charter of the UN, which stresses the importance of the “… inherent right of individual or collective self-defence …” when they are supplying armaments for all and sundry. The vast amount of weaponry sloshing around the trouble spots of the world, ranging from kalashnikovs to sophisticated jet aircrafts or rockets, are meant for “self-defence”. In fact it abrogates the responsibility of the Security Council, which alone should responsible for maintaining peace.

So what can be done?

At present, the Permanent Members of the Security Council are behaving like bullies in a playground, or like gang leaders. Bullies and gang leaders tend to suppress the economic and intellectual well being of the area where they operate. The amount of resources going towards maintaining the armies of the Permanent Five, instead of investing some of that money in meaningful development, can only be guessed at. As far as intellectual improvement is concerned, everyone seems to be wedded to a particular system of capitalism (as opposed to market forces).

Security is important. It always was, and always will be. But we have to devise a security system that is fair for everybody, and does not just provide security to the Permanent Members. Such as system can be achieved if all the none-aligned democracies (which excludes the Permanent Members) join together in an effort to insist on the re-negotiation of the Charter of the UN, especially, the aspects of the Charter, which deals with the composition and of the voting system within the Security Council.