A Divided United Nations

With the escalating hostilities increasing in Iran and North Korea, it is only a matter of time when the world will once again turn the spotlight on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as the forum responsible for safeguarding the world’s security.

Likening the UN as a court, with the five permanent members of the UNSC, (United States, Russia, England, France, and China) representing the jury, the cases of Iran and North Korea continues to be deliberated even outside of the courtroom. Should it ever go to trial, there is no doubt, from this author’s mind, that the verdict will be split: the United States and Europe on one side and China and Russia on the other.

This split, (which constitutes the internal division in the UN) among the five permanent members reveals the UN’s most glaring institutional weakness. Without delving into institutional theory analysis, the problem with the UNSC is that it lacks any form of internal control, consistency and accountability among the five permanent members and does not provide incentives for them to compromise. While each member has veto power to check another, the UN, like the League of Nations that preceded it, lacks the ability to exercise power and authority over its members. For example, it did not stop the United States from taking unilateral military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime, nor has it been able to reform and effectively regulate the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in which several countries have taken advantage of its loopholes.

The problem with the UNSC is that unlike a jury, its five permanent members are not impartial. In making a decision, all have a stake in the outcome. Each government has its own national interest and political agenda they want to pursue in an attempt to steer the UN towards its desired course.

A closer examination of the nuclear weapons issue in Iran and North Korea clearly delineates the division among the five permanent members. In both cases, the UK, France and the United States want these countries to disarm while China and Russia lean more in support of Tehran and Pyongyang by encouraging diplomacy. Why? Because history and national interest has already made up each juror’s mind.

In the case of Iran, the EU3 (the UK, France and Germany) and the United States fundamentally distrust Tehran alleging its close ties to terrorist groups and fearing nuclear proliferation in the region. China and Russia, on the other hand, have a closer relationship with Tehran. Russia considers Iran a viable weapons buyer and has had a longstanding relationship with the country since the Iraq-Iran War. China maintains a close relationship with Tehran since it understands the strategic importance of tapping Iran's oil reserves to help it sustain its economic development.

Interestingly, the case with North Korea is similar and also reveals the same split among the five permanent members. Europe and United States call for North Korea to disarm, perceiving Kim Jong Il as a threat to the stability of the region while Russia and China have friendlier ties with Pyongyang. Whether it is the common bond of the old communist system they all once shared, it's obvious that Russia views Pyongyang as a viable trading partner while China considers it as one of its closest allies stemming back from the Korean War.

While the UN, in most people's eyes, represents a supranational institution capable of sustaining global leadership, in reality, only masquerades as a formal process, where the world can discuss but not actaully act upon its problems. The resolutions it ratifies, while recognized by the world, are loosely enforced.

Times have changed. Gone are the days of the Cold War where the United States and Soviet Union reigned supreme. This also marks in what I believe to be the beginning of the end of US supremacy in world affairs, as Washington slowly loses its influence to dictate its desired foreign policy to the world. The decision to go to war with Iraq may have been its last gasp as it continues to learn the repercussions of its decision ($200 billion and rising with 2200 of its soldiers dead and rising).

This new millennium has transformed the global geopolitical landscape. Once dominated by the United States as the world's only preeminent superpower for the past sixteen years after the fall of communism, we now enter a world of multi-power states, with the emergence of the EU, China and Russia; a landscape in which the world has not seen since the end of the nineteenth century. These countries’ newfound roles in the world stage have curtailed Washington’s influence and have dispersed power multilaterally. As a result, compromise among the five permanent members is more important than ever if the world is to maintain stability today. Unfortunately, divisions among these nations are slowly starting to unravel (as China secretly aids Pyongyang and Russia debates its position with Tehran) which may bring about a repeat of secret alliances and combinations common among the nineteenth century superpowers the years preceding WWI. It was to untangle these secret allainces that the League of Nations was created. Today, the world finds itself in a similar situation. This time the UN takes center stage and carries with it the burden of finding a resolution.

Sadly, it is an inadequate institution sorely in need of reform if it is to reconcile these differences and find solutions to the growing problem of nuclear proliferation. The next rounds fought in the UNSC will determine the institution's sustainability and hold with it the world's stability.