UN Security Council: The role it is playing today

From the failing security council of yesterday to the humanitarian council of tomorrow. Is this the transformation that we, Indians, desire?

The UN Security Council's primary role is to maintain international peace and security while also resolving conflicts by addressing their root causes. As a second objective, it is in charge of determining when and where a UN peacekeeping force is needed and addressing a subsidiary pursuit. 

The United Nations has always been involved in turbulent situations and is doing all in its ability to ensure that they prevail in Ukraine and for all mankind.

However, lately, it has been pursuing the secondary purpose of being a humanitarian council, rather than the primary goal of maintaining world peace and security. The most current example is that of the situation in Syria and Ukraine. The UN Security council has merely applied a band-aid. Its role in maintaining peace and security has never been as weak as it is now, and it is only going to get weaker, if structural and administrative changes aren’t debated upon and enforced. The crisis in Ukraine justifies this. When the invasion began, the council was obliged to concentrate on resolving the issue, when in place, it simply attended to the problems. As the war progresses, it will continue to seek to facilitate humanitarian assistance in Ukraine and elsewhere rather than making an attempt to eliminate it.  

"The United Nations was born out of war to end war.” It was established to avoid exactly the kind of aggression and hostility being faced by the Ukrainians today. However, that objective has not been achieved. 

Well! Why isn’t there action from the UN Security Council?
Why isn’t it taking stringent action against Russia? 

Simply and directly put, it is because of the structural and administrative problems of the UN Security council, neither of which will go away on its own. 

The United Nations Security Council has 15 members: five permanent members and ten non-permanent members who are chosen for two-year terms. The 5 permanent members are China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The permanent members have the right and authority to veto a draft resolution and for it to be adopted, none of the permanent members should veto it. 

Over the years, it has become clear that the permanent members of the Security Council oppose a resolution for domestic or strategic considerations rather than for its impact on international peace and security. Some countries have been granted carte blanche to violate international law and violate human rights.

Since 2011, China and Russia have vetoed four draft resolutions on Syria. Since 1972, the United States has exercised its veto power 42 times in favour of Israel.
The big question here is whether there was any justification for China and Russia vetoing council motions in the early days of the Syrian conflict? 

Just to satisfy one country’s ego, the genuine requirements and legitimate interests of the other countries must not be sacrificed.  

Moreover, the permanent members today, represent the global power structure as it existed in 1945, not as it exists today. Arab, Latin and African countries still lack a permanent seat, reducing their contribution to the organisation. This is unlikely to change anytime soon. All the permanent members must first agree on whether or not to grow their club, and then on which nations should be added. The five nations ruling the horseshoe table have always vetoed a proposal that diluted their power. 

Some time back, the UN Security Council failed to adopt the Draft Resolution on ending the Ukraine Crisis (demanded Moscow to immediately stop its attack on Ukraine and withdraw all troops), as the Russian Federation vetoed it.
A ‘no’ vote from any one of the five permanent members of the Council halts proceedings on any measure put before it. This is precisely why the UN Security council has not been able to act forcefully against Russia. 

Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council has opted to govern and inflict death and untold pain, staining the United Nations Charter with "innocent blood" and burying it beneath the ruins of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities.

Russia can veto this resolution, but not our voices, not the truth, not the principles, not the Ukrainian people and never the UN Charter. It is past time for countries to show respect for the principles enshrined in the Charter. 

Humanitarian assistance is not an appropriate substitute for the UN Security council when it fails to achieve the core mission for which it was established? 

New reforms should be brought in, sought, reconsidered, amended and concurred upon. The UNSC's administration and structural design must be revisited, evaluated and revised keeping in mind the interests of all countries.

In the words of Secretary General António Guterres, we must give peace another chance.