The UN Security Council has been completely ineffective during the 🇷🇺-🇺🇦 war.
That's not new, nor unexpected,...nor a problem.
[THREAD]
Just to make sure that we're on the same page: the UN Security Council is the key governing body of the United Nations. The mission of the UN Security Council is described in Article 24 of the UN Charter.
Art 24 says, "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the UN, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security."
Be "Prompt and Effective" at maintaining peace?
During the Ukraine-Russia War, the Security Council has been viewed as neither.
As @ZelenskyyUa said to the Security Council this week, "Are you ready to close the UN?...Do you think that the time of international law is gone? If your answer is no, then you need to act immediately."
With respect to the failing not being unexpected, that's because failure is baked in: it's a direct product of how the UN Security Council is designed.
The Council has 15 members, 5 permanent (🇺🇸🇬🇧🇷🇺🇨🇳🇫🇷), and 10 rotating members (with each country represented on the Council by its UN Ambassador)
Those 5 permanent members are key to the functioning of the UN Security Council.
According to Chapter 5 Article 27 of the UN Charter, all 5 permanent members must "concur" for a resolution to pass. In other words, any one of the five can "veto" a UN Security Council resolution.
This provision was deliberately added by the USA when the Charter was written. Why? Because as FDR's Secretary of State -- and "father of the UN" -- Cordell Hull pointed out, the US Senate would likely not have ratified it.
And FDR/Truman were keen to avoid another "League of Nations" debacle.
Equipped with the power to veto, the permanent members are not shy about using it.
Sometimes a resolution passes because the permanent members will "abstain", such as the 1990 resolution to remove Iraq from Kuwait (when China abstained).
At other times, a resolution passed because a permanent member was absent, such as the resolution passed out the outbreak of the Korean War (Russia was boycotting the UN at the time).
But isn't it a problem that these countries can veto resolutions? Isn't it bad that a country can go against the "will" of the "international community"?
That depends.
On the one hand, it's obviously a problem if one thinks that UN authorization is critical for building support (at home and abroad) for tackling a problem.
That is indeed a reason that major powers will choose to work through the UNSC.
That's also been seen in numerous other occasions, perhaps most infamously the US invasion of Iraq in 2003: after it was clear that the UNSC would not pass a resolution to US force against Iraq, the USA did so any how.
As @lady_professor & Amy Yuen point out in their new book on the UNSC, a lack of action can be seen as a success: during the Cold War, for instance, "the organization did not commit itself to any action that the major powers could not agree on" (p. 33). amazon.com/Bargaining-Sec…
This is not to say that frustration over a lack of action by the UNSC during this war is not understandable. But it is misplaced.