What Is The UN Security Council For?

The Security Council is the implementing arm of the United Nations to manage global crises. It has the ability to impose sanctions, as it did against Iran for its nuclear program, or order a military intervention, as was the case in Libya in 2011. Since 2014 it has only deployed two peace missions, in Haiti and the Central African Republic.

The 15 members of the Security Council meet regularly to assess threats to international security, including civil wars, natural disasters, weapons proliferation, Pandemics and terrorism.

The war in Ukraine has made the inefficiency of the Security Council more evident

However, the veto power that its five permanent members have had since the organization was created in 1945 (Russia, China, the United States, France and the United Kingdom) often makes it dysfunctional and distances it from the current geopolitical reality. Here are some of the keys to understanding the functioning of the Security Council in recent years and why calls for reform are growing:

How is it structured?

In addition to the five permanent members, known as the P5, the Security Council has ten other members, who are elected by two-thirds of the votes of the UN General Assembly. These serve non-consecutive terms of two years and do not have the right to veto. The privileged status of the P5 has its roots in the founding of the United Nations after World War II.

The presidency of the Security Council rotates monthly, ensuring some agenda-setting influence for its ten non-permanent members. The main criterion for choosing them is the contribution they make “to the maintenance of international peace and security”, often defined by financial or troop contributions to operations.

Which country has vetoed the most resolutions?

Russia (and the former USSR) is the country that has exercised the right to veto the most times. Specifically, on 153 occasions until July 2023. The United States follows, with 87 occasions (especially during the Cold War and, after it, due to issues linked to Israel). China has intensified its vetoes in recent decades (16 of the total of 19 occasions in which it has been exercised have taken place since 1997).

In recent years, the competing interests of the five members have hampered the Security Council’s ability to respond to major conflicts and crises, such as the civil war in Syria (where Russia has vetoed 15 resolutions, some alongside China, and the last July) or the Covid 19 pandemic, not to mention Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent invasion of Ukraine.

Most of the experts from various countries consulted by the think tank The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace believes that the Council’s efficiency and legitimacy have declined, particularly since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia has vetoed the two resolutions on the matter. Hence the growing desire to reform the organization or the appearance of voices calling for its expulsion from Moscow.

What are the chances of a reform?

The chances of substantial reform are considered remote, notes the think tank Council of Foreign Relations, and requires the approval of two-thirds of the UN member states. Until now, efforts to expand the number of permanent members of the Council and include other powers, whether India, Brazil, Japan or Germany, democracies born after 1945, have been held back.

For every country that competes for a seat, its rivals seek to block it because they see their own influence threatened. China, for example, opposes granting permanent seats to India and Japan.

What position does the US take on the reform?

At the UN Assembly last year, US President Joe Biden assured that reforming the Security Council should be an important objective. In his 2022 speech to the United Nations, Biden urged P5 countries to refrain from abusing the veto and called for expanding the Security Council, particularly by adding more members from Africa and Latin America.

Experts consider it still premature to evaluate Washington’s position. “It is tempting to dismiss Biden’s proposal as an act of political theater to generate goodwill among undecided nations in a context of a looming Cold War, with the United States certain that reform will never happen,” notes the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. International. For now, the result is that China and Russia have gone on the defensive.