By Dr. Nidal Shoukeir
It is no secret that the world today is experiencing a worrying state of instability and security deterioration, amidst a notable increase in the number of wars and the noticeable spread of hotspots around the globe. It has been striking to witness the return of a “culture of war” in recent years, ominously dominating the global scene at the expense of the “culture of peace and dialogue” that some wise individuals strive to maintain.
For instance, the draining war in Ukraine has entered its third year with no end in sight, while the conflict in Gaza is now in its seventh month with a bleak deadlock that offers no solace and threatens the future of the entire region. Conflicts and tensions abound, from the deadly conflict in Sudan and Yemen to the instability in Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and tensions in Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa, and some regions of Latin America. Not to mention the conflicts in the Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan, escalating tensions in the South China Sea, and talk of a Cold War in the Pacific between the West and China, among many others.
Also Read E-commerce needs a bulwark Bumps on the road: New BoT terms for highway construction may throw pvt investors into risk-aversion mode A needless debate Beyond PLI targets Certainly, wars, conflicts, and tensions are neither unfamiliar nor new to human societies, as they have always been an integral part of all stages of human history. However, with the advent of the new world after World War II and the revolution in communications and technology since then, many believed that the new civilized world had learned from past mistakes and was moving towards greater stability and positive crisis management.
Also Read
Why is UN Security Council rendered ‘completely ineffective’ in resolving Russia-Ukraine conflict, asks India – Defence News | The Financial Express
In this context, hopes were placed on the “United Nations,” established on October 24, 1945, on the ruins of a brief and failed experiment known as the “League of Nations.” Its establishment was challenging and would not have occurred without the approval of the victorious powers of the war at the time, namely the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia; who agreed at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 to share power by obtaining the veto right in the Security Council.
In theory, it can be said that at the “San Francisco Conference,” the world entrusted the United Nations Security Council with the fundamental tasks of maintaining peace and security worldwide. In addition to working to prevent conflicts and make peace. Among the many institutions of the United Nations, the “Security Council” is primarily responsible for the preservation of international peace and security according to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Its powers include peacekeeping operations, the imposition of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action, being the only body in the United Nations authorized to adopt binding resolutions for member states.
Canadian novelist Mary José Thériault argues that shared power is diminished power. In principle, this is a reality to a great extent, but the reality of the Security Council is much worse, with power-sharing among the five permanent members shifting from “absolute power” to “helpless power” entirely. The key to this helplessness is undoubtedly the “magic stick” called the right of “veto.”
Also Read
Israel Gaza war: UN Security Council to vote on US resolution on ceasefire – Details inside – World News | The Financial Express
It is well known that the divergences and controversies surrounding this “magic stick” do not date from today but go back even before the birth of the international organization, specifically to April 1945, when this issue was first raised during the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco. At that time, there were many objections to the veto right, and the request of the Australian delegation member, Herbert Vere Evatt, to impose more restrictions on it was rejected, fearing the failure of the conference and the unnecessary birth of the new organization. Especially after Francis Wilcox, advisor to the American delegation, frankly stated, “Either the Charter includes the right of veto, or there is no Charter at all.”
Then, with the world divided between a Western camp led by the United States and an Eastern camp led by the Soviet Union, what many feared came true, with the start of excessive and cunning use of the veto and its prominence on the international stage as a tool for political bickering. To the extent that there are personalities whose names are associated with the excessive use of the veto, such as “Mr. Niet”, referring to Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Union’s foreign minister, who might be one of those who most used the veto against Western and American draft resolutions.
It is undeniable that this intensive use of the veto has paralyzed the work of the Security Council and rendered it completely powerless, exposed to a long list of objections and incessant criticisms. It is the Council that “no longer produces useful solutions,” as French President Emmanuel Macron said, and it is also “the Sleeping Beauty waiting for a kiss to wake it up,” as Germany described it.
So it seems clear that there is consensus to criticize this Council, which will turn 79 years old next fall. Criticisms arises from various sources, both internally and externally. Some call for fundamental reforms within the Council, others demand the abolition of the veto. While still others insist on the need to expand the Council to include new permanent members such as India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa; who would also have the right of veto.
Of course, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have significantly fueled resentment and anger towards this international institution. In particular, it has failed due to Russia’s veto to take any decision to end the war in Ukraine, just as it has failed due to the US veto to adopt any kind of ceasefire to end the bloodshed of civilians in Gaza.
The truth is that many people today look with sadness and disappointment at the Security Council, which has shifted from a tool to prevent wars and make peace directly to a tool to legislate wars indirectly. Thus, one of the most powerful institutions of the United Nations, the Security Council, seems helpless and a bystander in the face of the state of insecurity in which the world finds itself today. And instead of vigorously contributing to the enforcement of international law, its absence and incapacity to fulfill its functions have fostered the spread of the “law of the jungle.”
Also Read
Israel Gaza war: UN Security Council to vote on US resolution on ceasefire – Details inside – World News | The Financial Express
Unfortunately, everyone, especially the major powers, knows that the Security Council has been desperately in need of a broad and deep reform process for a long time to breathe new life into it and truly make it a Security Council. Especially as the world today, in the current circumstances and with the dominance of the state of insecurity, seriously aspires to stability, security, and peace.
Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan rightly said that “peace is a suspended dream,” and he is correct. So, will the logic of wisdom prevail, and will the Security Council reform itself to realize the dream of security and peace, or will the logic of force prevail again, suspending this dream, perhaps awaiting a new world war to achieve it?
The author is Professor of Strategic Communications and Governmental Relations.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
By Dr. Nidal Shoukeir
It is no secret that the world today is experiencing a worrying state of instability and security deterioration, amidst a notable increase in the number of wars and the noticeable spread of hotspots around the globe. It has been striking to witness the return of a “culture of war” in recent years, ominously dominating the global scene at the expense of the “culture of peace and dialogue” that some wise individuals strive to maintain.
For instance, the draining war in Ukraine has entered its third year with no end in sight, while the conflict in Gaza is now in its seventh month with a bleak deadlock that offers no solace and threatens the future of the entire region. Conflicts and tensions abound, from the deadly conflict in Sudan and Yemen to the instability in Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and tensions in Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa, and some regions of Latin America. Not to mention the conflicts in the Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan, escalating tensions in the South China Sea, and talk of a Cold War in the Pacific between the West and China, among many others.
Certainly, wars, conflicts, and tensions are neither unfamiliar nor new to human societies, as they have always been an integral part of all stages of human history. However, with the advent of the new world after World War II and the revolution in communications and technology since then, many believed that the new civilized world had learned from past mistakes and was moving towards greater stability and positive crisis management.
In this context, hopes were placed on the “United Nations,” established on October 24, 1945, on the ruins of a brief and failed experiment known as the “League of Nations.” Its establishment was challenging and would not have occurred without the approval of the victorious powers of the war at the time, namely the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia; who agreed at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 to share power by obtaining the veto right in the Security Council.
In theory, it can be said that at the “San Francisco Conference,” the world entrusted the United Nations Security Council with the fundamental tasks of maintaining peace and security worldwide. In addition to working to prevent conflicts and make peace. Among the many institutions of the United Nations, the “Security Council” is primarily responsible for the preservation of international peace and security according to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Its powers include peacekeeping operations, the imposition of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action, being the only body in the United Nations authorized to adopt binding resolutions for member states.
Canadian novelist Mary José Thériault argues that shared power is diminished power. In principle, this is a reality to a great extent, but the reality of the Security Council is much worse, with power-sharing among the five permanent members shifting from “absolute power” to “helpless power” entirely. The key to this helplessness is undoubtedly the “magic stick” called the right of “veto.”
It is well known that the divergences and controversies surrounding this “magic stick” do not date from today but go back even before the birth of the international organization, specifically to April 1945, when this issue was first raised during the founding conference of the United Nations in San Francisco. At that time, there were many objections to the veto right, and the request of the Australian delegation member, Herbert Vere Evatt, to impose more restrictions on it was rejected, fearing the failure of the conference and the unnecessary birth of the new organization. Especially after Francis Wilcox, advisor to the American delegation, frankly stated, “Either the Charter includes the right of veto, or there is no Charter at all.”
Then, with the world divided between a Western camp led by the United States and an Eastern camp led by the Soviet Union, what many feared came true, with the start of excessive and cunning use of the veto and its prominence on the international stage as a tool for political bickering. To the extent that there are personalities whose names are associated with the excessive use of the veto, such as “Mr. Niet”, referring to Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Union’s foreign minister, who might be one of those who most used the veto against Western and American draft resolutions.
It is undeniable that this intensive use of the veto has paralyzed the work of the Security Council and rendered it completely powerless, exposed to a long list of objections and incessant criticisms. It is the Council that “no longer produces useful solutions,” as French President Emmanuel Macron said, and it is also “the Sleeping Beauty waiting for a kiss to wake it up,” as Germany described it.
So it seems clear that there is consensus to criticize this Council, which will turn 79 years old next fall. Criticisms arises from various sources, both internally and externally. Some call for fundamental reforms within the Council, others demand the abolition of the veto. While still others insist on the need to expand the Council to include new permanent members such as India, Japan, Germany, Brazil, and South Africa; who would also have the right of veto.
Of course, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have significantly fueled resentment and anger towards this international institution. In particular, it has failed due to Russia’s veto to take any decision to end the war in Ukraine, just as it has failed due to the US veto to adopt any kind of ceasefire to end the bloodshed of civilians in Gaza.
The truth is that many people today look with sadness and disappointment at the Security Council, which has shifted from a tool to prevent wars and make peace directly to a tool to legislate wars indirectly. Thus, one of the most powerful institutions of the United Nations, the Security Council, seems helpless and a bystander in the face of the state of insecurity in which the world finds itself today. And instead of vigorously contributing to the enforcement of international law, its absence and incapacity to fulfill its functions have fostered the spread of the “law of the jungle.”
Unfortunately, everyone, especially the major powers, knows that the Security Council has been desperately in need of a broad and deep reform process for a long time to breathe new life into it and truly make it a Security Council. Especially as the world today, in the current circumstances and with the dominance of the state of insecurity, seriously aspires to stability, security, and peace.
Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan rightly said that “peace is a suspended dream,” and he is correct. So, will the logic of wisdom prevail, and will the Security Council reform itself to realize the dream of security and peace, or will the logic of force prevail again, suspending this dream, perhaps awaiting a new world war to achieve it?
The author is Professor of Strategic Communications and Governmental Relations.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes, and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
Michael Kwet
visit website
