Are U.S. Interests exposing the U.N. Security Council, as “outdated” and “ineffective”?

This article was originally published on Dec 10, 2024.

‍

Does the U.N. Security Council's failure to protect Palestine indicate its decline into inertia?

‍

Background

On the 20th of November, the United States vetoed the latest U.N. Security Council (UNSC) resolution that sought an “immediate, unconditional and permanent” ceasefire from the Israeli bombardment of Palestine and the continued conflict within the region. This is despite the other 14 members of the council voting in support of the resolution and pressing for an urgent break to the fighting. This marks the fifth time the US has vetoed a council resolution that would aid the hostilities in Gaza.

‍

The US reasoning relied on the fact that the resolution did not propose “a durable end to the war” as it did not include the release of Israeli hostages. US deputy ambassador to the UN, Robert Wood maintained that passing the resolution would send a “dangerous message” to the Palestinian militant group Hamas and imply that “there’s no need to come back to the negotiating table.”

‍

However, after the death of nearly 44,000 Palestinians and displacement of millions more, is an imperfect end to the violence not better than no end at all?

‍

The intertwined United States and Israeli international relations, how did it get here?

A cynical assumption would be that the US values Israeli lives more than those of Palestinians. Although this may be partly the case, the more representative truth, though just as cynical is likely that the US values neither – just good relations with Israel. The question still remains of why this partnership provokes such a steadfast defence of Israel by the United States on the global stage spanning decades to the point we are up to now.

‍

Under the façade of supporting the only functioning democratic state in the Middle east lies a self-serving interest to preserve US surveillance and influence across specific regions.

‍

The US was the first state to recognise Israel after WWII, although many states such as France were close to follow, motivated by the global guilt that followed the German atrocities during the holocaust. After the 1967 six-day war however, Israeli/French relations had soured, and a much stronger mutual reliance formed between the victorious state and the US. This was particularly because the US were suspicious that other Arab states had moved into the Soviet camp during the cold war. Influence in Israel through a mutual relationship could act as a stabilizing force in the Middle East keeping at bay tensions that would threaten US oil supply and be a countervailing force to soviet influence.

‍

The cost of this strategic leverage has been the continued investment in the Israeli military. For President Linden Johnson, it was imperative that Israel maintain their “qualitative military edge” in the Middle East. Since this assertion, the commitment to do so has been passed like a baton through administration changes regardless of political persuasion. The extent of which can most recently be seen through the 2019 renegotiations of military aid between the two states that saw the annual payment to Israel rise to US$ 3.8 billion. And this investment has seen massive returns as Israel is now the 10th largest military exporter in the world creating a U.S. reliance on the nation as well through interdependence.

‍

The flaws of the UNSC

But how does this relationship show anything about the downfall of the UN security council?

‍

It highlights the flaws of the UNSC that effect its ability to deliver on their mission of maintaining international peace and security.

‍

The veto power allows permanent member states to undermine collaborative UNSC decision making. This has a particularly detrimental effect when a permanent five member is a belligerent themselves or are in support of a belligerent regardless how morally right their motivation to block a resolution may be (such as with the US defending Israel). The council is reduced to an immovable gridlock despite the majority actually being in consensus. Not only does this significantly reduce the legitimacy of the council. But it also reiterates archaic power imbalances that favour the agendas of the Global North despite a significant increase in key players in the Global South since the UNSCs initial conception.

‍

It is important to note that this power dynamic has always been a feature of the UNSC. So why now is faith in the agency fading so drastically that even the UN Secretary General himself, Antonio Guterres deems it “outdated” and “ineffective”?

‍

An important caveat is that the UN as an institution was formed out of the ashes of two gruesome world wars. The atrocities of conflict were still fresh in the minds of Western nations resulting in a hunger for multilateralism even throughout periods of tension like the Cold War. As the diplomatic diffusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis shows, cooperation remained a respected principle in global governance. This allowed the UNSC to start to reach its overall goal of maintaining peace, evidenced by empirical data on the overall decline in interstate war throughout the years. Member states chose consistently to work through the Security Council to resolve tensions and brooding conflicts.

‍

However, in the current global climate, institutions can hardly rely on the good morals of their fellow members to ensure success. Most likely provoked by the aftermath of COVID, there has been a global surge in extremism and far right leaders, in positions of power. Concurrently, the conflict and political instability around the world has only intensified the spiral of the security dilemma and pressured countries to bolster their defence systems and become wary of other states.

‍

Is there a future for the UNSC?

For a state as with humans, in times of insecurity, consideration is quick to be replaced with a self-serving perspective geared on surviving the perceived threats. In such an atmosphere, the council’s weak implementation methods can do nothing to prevent states from ignoring international norms and normalising impunity.

‍

The council simply lacks the same degree of centrality or power that it may once have had. Particularly as discussion and state relations it seems are increasingly managed outside of the UN framework through bilateral and multilateral agreements. This is exemplified by China who despite being a P5 member has used its veto power sparingly in comparison to its peers. Despite this, it wields significant influence across the globe, more recently in African states because of the established mutual interests created through trade and investment in infrastructure.

‍

This leaves the UNSC heading for inertia. After all the council cannot even provide a forum for states to uphold and agree on areas that should be uncontentious such as the condemning of war crimes and prioritisation of human life which has blatantly been ignored when it comes to the conflict in Palestine.

‍

It is therefore hard to see how the stain of this bloodshed will not tarnish the credibility of the organisation as a whole that seemingly cannot release itself from the grips of the western imperialism it was formed out of.