Russia and China blind to Syria

The United Nations has been critical in preserving the post-1945 international settlement. Indeed, it cannot be a coincidence that the world has enjoyed an extended period of peace between the major powers since the end of the Second World War and that, throughout this time, global affairs have been governed by an institution far stronger and more decisive than its League of Nations predecessor.

However, the divided reaction of the world’s most powerful nation states to recent events in Syria has brought into sharp focus some of the structural problems which beset the UN and which threaten its long-term credibility.
Of course, this does not mean that it is headed the same way as its earlier incarnation in failing to prevent a destructive world war; the challenge facing its authority is much more subtle, but nonetheless serious.

At the root of its difficulties lies the ability of any of the permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto a resolution. Upon first examination, this may seem like a logical requirement to ensure that actions undertaken by the international community carry a broad consensus. Practically, however, it is a requirement that does much to undermine the UN’s standing.

Putin’s primary concern is not the protection of human rights in Syria, but a desire to prop up a key ally in the region.

This has been starkly apparent in the case of Syria, in which permanent Security Council members Russia and China have, throughout the entire history of the crisis, consistently vetoed resolutions to condemn the violence inflicted by President Assad upon his own people. Even now, after the US and Russia have brokered an agreement to rid the Syrian government of its chemical weapons supply, Putin threatens to veto any resolution that contains the possibility of military action, rendering the diplomatic ‘solution’ toothless.

It takes limited deduction to recognise that Putin’s primary concern is not the protection of human rights in Syria,
but a desire to prop up a key ally in the region. Yet the UN bestows upon Russia – along with each of the other Permanent Security Council members – the role of an absolute moral arbiter in global affairs, able to determine the course of global affairs, e.g. regarding human rights in Syria, even when ill-disguised self-interest is often at the heart of their motivations. This constrains the ability of the UN to arrive at meaningful decisions and so threatens to erode its authority.

There needs to be some acknowledgement within the UN’s decision-making process that members of the Permanent Security Council are not impartial jurors, but imperfect nation states with their own agendas and foreign policy ambitions.
This means making the ability of Permanent Security Council Members to veto a resolution more circumscribed, in recognition of the fact that isolated, dissenting members are quite probably being obstructive not out of reason, but of calculation, and effectively hijacking the UN for their own ends.

There is a difference between striving for consensus and protecting against unilateral action

Of course, clear provisions must remain in place for resolutions to be vetoed by the Security Council; the UN would otherwise lose much of its purpose as an international decision-making body. However, it will also have little purpose if, as an organisation, it becomes unworkable as a source of decision-making and merely another route for powerful states to safeguard vested interests abroad.

None of this is to deny the important work that the UN does in maintaining the balance of international relations and seeking a level of consensus in the hugely important matters over which it presides. However, there is a difference between striving for consensus and protecting against unilateral action, on the one hand, and making it difficult to arrive at any meaningful decisions – and becoming vulnerable to manipulation by individual members – on the other.

If the UN’s internal structure continues to err on the side of the latter, then it will be the loser. Such a consequence would be unfortunate for the whole of global society.

“See no evil, hear no evil” ~Charley-Kai John~

[divider]
Header image courtesy of flickr.com/ FreedomHouse