The insecurity engendered by the Security Council

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.