Should the UN Security Council be Shuttered as an Obstacle to Peace?

The US repetitively used its veto within the UN Security Council (UNSC) regarding multiple possible Gaza ceasefires while the war raged-on last year. Nearly fifty-thousand innocent Palestinians were killed in the interim, too many were women and children. Why did the ceasefire take so long to implement? How did we come to this, where political posturing became more important than saving lives? What can be done to avoid similar situations in future?

The UNSC was established in 1946 with the high-minded goal of accomplishing what the League of Nations failed to do, which was to maintain some semblance of world peace. Per the US Council on Foreign Relations, “The Security Council… is empowered to impose binding obligations… on the UN member states to maintain peace,” and more, “…fosters negotiations, imposes sanctions, and authorizes the use of force, including the deployment of peacekeeping missions.”

During the Cold War the need for the UNSC was clear. Nuclear Armageddon was a very real possibility. Regrettably, beyond the limited success of several peacekeeping missions around the globe, the recent history of the body’s accomplishments is questionable. Gratefully, and with the singular exception of Putin’s veiled attempts at nuclear blackmail in Ukraine, the chance of atomic weapons usage is much diminished.

These days, the “Big Five” permanent members — US, UK, France, Russia, and China remain deadlocked on many international issues. There are of course ten non-permanent members that seemed to wield extraordinarily limited influence. Veto power only exists among the Big Five. The UNSC, if it were ever to agree on anything of great importance, could theoretically order UN member states to comply with their edicts.

The case of Israel is the penultimate example of the UNSC’s impotence. Israel has been in violation of international law for decades. Still, nothing happens. Zionist zealots on the West Bank have recently re-doubled their forced expropriation of Palestinian lands. The occupation continues, and, of course, Gaza has been reduced to a wasteland. The UNSC was frozen to in-action repetitively by US obstructionism. This is not altogether news to the Palestinians. Decades ago, they noticed that the Big Five appeared oblivious to their plight and predictably turned to the weapon of the powerless — acts of terrorism — such as the taking of hostages and killing of civilians.

If the UNSC is failing to serve its mandated purpose of moving humanity closer to securing the blessings of peace for the peoples of the world, then perhaps it is time to shutter this moribund function. Without a UNSC, the UN General Assembly could vote directly on key proposals and perhaps gain some greater degree of effectiveness via a well-known and well understood democratic process that recognizes the agency of the majority, while protecting the rights of those in the minority. Perhaps possession of nuclear missiles and bombs should no longer be the primary qualification for holding veto power over UN political and humanitarian positions and actions.

About the author —

Robert Bruce Adolph, a retired senior US Army Special Forces soldier is a former chief of the Middle East and North Africa within the UN Department of Safety and Security. He also once served as a university lecturer on American History, US Government, and Foreign Policy. Robert is today a successful international speaker, commentator, and author. His much lauded first book “Surviving the United Nations” was published in 2020. A second edition of that work will be out later this year. Robert’s next book bears the working title “Seeking Wisdom.” Discover more at www.robertbruceadolph.com.