As Useful as Ice-Cream Men: Evaluating the Utility of the UN Security Council
During the Yugoslav war (1991-2001) my grandfather recalls UN peacekeepers swarming his home country of Croatia. Deployed by the Security Council, their mission was to mitigate the rampant violence and ethnic cleansing that occurred during the period. However, when my grandfather speaks of them, he does so with an eye-roll. At the time, Croatians referred to peacekeepers as “ice-cream men”–partially because of their all-white uniforms, and partially because they were, in my grandfather’s words, “useless.” Occasionally, they even became a hindrance to locals, who were dealing with a war in which the peacekeepers were unable to directly interfere due to UN charter rules. Because of this, UN peacekeepers were unable to efficiently retaliate as designated safe areas were systematically breached, the people in and around them brutalized and murdered. Meanwhile, the Security Council proved unwilling or unable to bring the war to a swift end or punish recalcitrant organizations in any meaningful way until well into the conflict.
All this to say, a common criticism of the Security Council itself is the fact that it is “useless.” Bloated by bureaucratic procedure and paralyzed by competing member interests, it is more concerned with image than substance. However, this criticism is not entirely accurate. Though the Security Council’s failures, especially in active conflict zones, are heavily publicized, they have also done a lot of good on the world stage–organizing and transporting humanitarian aid, seeing success in certain peacekeeping missions such as in Côte d'Ivoire in 2017, imposing sanctions and encouraging negotiations.
However, a prominent thread underpinning the Security Council’s failure in Yugoslavia and other setbacks and challenges around the world is inaction. This fatal flaw lurks in its basic structure: the Security Council is composed of ten elected members, who serve two-year terms, and five permanent members–Russia, the United Kingdom, China, the United States and France–who are known as the P5 and are able to veto any resolution. During crucial moments in a conflict, this has hindered or completely blocked the Council’s ability to act. For example, Russia’s two vetoes regarding Security Council resolutions for action in Ukraine have harmed the Council’s ability to condemn the conflict, help Ukranians in need and bring a swift end to the war. The Security Council’s mission is “the maintenance of international peace and security.” However, with the P5 in possession of veto capabilities, their ability to accomplish this task is severely diminished–especially in regard to holding P5 countries or their allies accountable on the world stage.
With rumblings of unrest reverberating throughout the world, culminating in, at present, over 110 armed conflicts and promises of more to come, changes are needed within the Security Council. For one thing, outreach matters. Listening to and prioritizing the safety of those in conflict zones is important to strengthen peacekeeping efforts and improve the Council’s image, ensuring that their peacekeepers will be viewed positively, instead of as out-of-touch “ice-cream men.” Second, while the Security Council isn’t useless, its current form has been paralyzed by inaction due to structures that have long overstayed their welcome. In order to improve its functionality and remain relevant on the global stage, changes–most prominent being the removal of veto power from P5 members–are needed to enhance the utility of the Security Council and to help it fulfil its mission.
Image courtesy of the United Nations, no year listed. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
