?Israel and Palestine at West Bank. Assad administration in Syria. What common factor can be identified in relation to international forum? A failure of collective action. To be more specific, it is a failure of the United Nations Security Council perpetrated by Veto. Disputes from both of incidents could have been condemned early with resolution and halted if a veto power was not exercised by P5 countries in the UNSC
?UNSC is composed of 10 non-permanent members and 5 permanent members (P5). By comparison with non-permanent members who are regularly replaced by other countries with common regionality, P5 members have exclusive privilege of maintaining permanent seats in Security Council and Veto power; P5 members are composed of the US, UK, France, Russia, and China. P5 was designed since the founding of UN in 1946. The veto power was granted to the P5 ‘to transform a wartime alliance into a big-power oligarchy to secure the hard won that would follow’ (Krisch, 2008). Albeit the original intention was ‘good’, veto power now seems only causing problems.
According to John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, the US has vetoed against more than 30 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel; among them, the most recent one was in February 18, 2011; The United States vetoed a draft resolution condemning “illegal” Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Furthermore, in 2011 and 2012, China and Russia have continuously vetoed against resolutions that intended to put a stop on Assad regime’s oppression on its own people.
Such deeds of the US, China and Russia go directly against the 2005 World Summit’s ‘Responsibility to Protect (R2P) agenda’. According to the 2005 World Summit document, each state is responsible to protect its own population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. However, when it comes to be evident that a state is found to be ‘manifestly failing to protect their populations’ from these four crimes, the world’s governments should commit themselves ‘to take collective action, in a timely and decisively manner, through the UNSC, in accordance with the Charter (paragraph 139 of 2005 World Summit document). Resembling that this meeting was conducted in 2005, vetoes committed in 2011 and 2012 are very disappointing.
Albeit the Charter and World Summit document possess only limited legitimacy, grievances transpired from inability of UNSC to meet the R2P have resulted a new phenomenon. Myriad numbers of critiques and reformists of United Nations asserted for change of the system; some insist abolition of P5 and others call out for additional permanent members to reflect the contemporary world realities. Despite these arguments cannot be disputed, it is evident that P5 member countries do not have any intention of giving up their privilege; veto power is the sole legitimate ‘right’ that reassures P5’s national interests are not ignored in the international forum.
While documents coping with reform and readjustment of the system are flying over desks of bureaucratic organizations, innocent civilians are being sacrificed under oppression. In June 2013, World Health Organization (WHO) has warned the outbreaks of Cholera, typhoid and various other epidemics that may result from broken health system within Syria. However, no measure is being taken in order to fix a small aspect of the conflict; major powers are claiming their ‘national interests’ and not complying with the R2P. What happened to ‘timely and decisively manner’? If P5 countries maintain power of manipulating world’s interest while not addressing the R2P, why should the UNSC be in charge of so important decision-making procedures? What is the point of having incapable international organization? There are too much problems to be not only addressed but ‘fixed’.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
