UN Security Council 101 | The Multilateralist

A little wit from David Bosco on what possible ‘training’ for new Security Council members might include:

Still, with all that said, it’s hard not to smile at some of the wisdom that current Council members could offer their new colleagues. Some possible offerings:

–A session by India on how to blow your chances at a permanent Security Council seat in the space of a year.

–U.S. ambassador Susan Rice could speak on how to lecture the Security Council on responsibility without being at all certain that Congress will appropriate America’s annual UN dues. Alternatively, she could offer a seminar on how to find authorization for regime change in a resolution on protecting civilians.

–China’s ambassador could expertly lead a session on appearing powerful while abstaining repeatedly.

–Bosnia’s ambassador could expound on how to manage conflicting voting instructions from three different presidents.

–Last but not least, as Brazil prepares to depart the Council, it seems only appropriate that China, Russia, India, and South Africa should reveal once and for all the location of the secret BRICS clubhouse, where their strategy for protecting beleagured dictators is refined.

via UN Security Council 101 | The Multilateralist.

Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine – By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay

Will the Palestinians continue to press the case at the Security Council?  Meanwhile play the game that Colum Lynch suggests–and try to figure out whether each of the 15 members is vote yes, no, or abstain:

In the meantime, Turtle Bay, decided to post a copy of the latest report on the Security Council’s deliberations on Palestinian statehood. The report, which will be officially issued tomorrow, was first reported by Al Hurra….

A hint: Britain, Colombia, and France revealed they would abstain on the resolution. The United States, meanwhile, argued that Palestine could not be considered a “peace-loving” state so long as Palestinian militants were firing rockets across the border at Israeli communities.

via Inside the Security Council deliberations on Palestine – By Colum Lynch | Turtle Bay.

Disagreements at U.N. Stall Sanctions on Syria – NYTimes.com

Consensus at the United Nations doesn’t mean everyone has to agree–but in this case, they don’t.

Despite new resolve to issue a Security Council resolution addressing violence in Syria, the first negotiations on Wednesday among all 15 members of the Council over the wording bumped along an old rut.

Western nations rejected what they called a Russian attempt to equate government attacks on civilians with violent acts fomented by the opposition, while Russia disparaged what it called a stealth attempt to bring about regime change.

via Disagreements at U.N. Stall Sanctions on Syria – NYTimes.com.

U.S. Underwhelmed With Emerging Powers At U.N. : NPR

The US has been grading the new kids on the bock–such as India, Brazil, and South Africa–and appears to find their diplomatic contributions lacking:

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., says shes had a chance to get a close-up look at how those three countries have been acting on the world stage lately. Shes not sounding particularly enthusiastic.”This has been an opportunity for them to demonstrate how they might act if they were to obtain permanent membership, and for us to assess our level of enthusiasm about that,” she says. “Let me just say weve learned a lot, and not all of it, frankly, encouraging.”

via U.S. Underwhelmed With Emerging Powers At U.N. : NPR.

Palestinians have a plan B for U.N. statehood drive | The Cable

Watch the Security Council to see what happens with Palestinians efforts to promote statehood (and embarrass Western countries).  Then what?

“We hope the United States will reconsider its position and not use its veto power against the Palestinian move at the United Nations,” he said. “What happens after a veto? There are so many other options.”

Areikat said one option under serious consideration was to invoke U.N. General Assembly Resolution 377, known as “Uniting for Peace,” which was put forth by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1950 as a means of getting around an obstructionist Security Council, which at the time was unable to authorize a response to North Korea’s attacks on South Korea because the Soviet Union was rejecting all related Security Council resolutions. Resolution 377 is meant to bypass the Security Council if it “fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”

via Palestinians have a plan B for U.N. statehood drive | The Cable.

 

Susan Rice also asks the question about what happens the day after?

 

Sudan Accuses South Sudan of Inciting Violence – NYTimes.com

The Security Council is brought into what recently was an internal domestic issue, but now a dispute between nations, including the newest one of South Sudan:

Many people in the Nuba Mountains fought alongside the southern Sudanese through decades of civil war in Sudan, but while the south gained independence last month, the Nuba Mountains remained Sudanese territory, and an insurrection has been building there in recent months.

With the south’s independence, the conflict has taken on an international dimension.

“This threatening is coming from a foreign country, and this should be handled by the Security Council,” Mr. Atti said.

via Sudan Accuses South Sudan of Inciting Violence – NYTimes.com.

Whether to Intervene? Security Council Diplomacy via the BBC

Don’t miss “Wars Of Diplomacy”, a BBC documentary presented online as a podcast, highlights how diplomacy works today–taking the case of Libya and Ivory Coast.

In the space of just over ten days in March 2011, the United Nations Security Council passed two of its most significant, emphatic and far-reaching resolutions in decades. Claire Bolderson looks at how the world body used a new-found strength to intervene militarily in Libya and Ivory Coast and assesses how the decisions have changed the course of these two brutal conflicts.

via BBC – Podcasts – Documentaries.

To Act or Not in Libya? Latest Diplomatic Maneuvers

Momentum is gaining as the Security Council (live webcast) meets today to consider a resolution authorizing “all necessary measures, and its likely to happen, according to WaPo, with the US waiting for it and the European pushing it (partly).

It would only be a “go” with some key abstentions, which David Bosco breaks down:

Its worth noting that the right of permanent members to abstain–while by now deeply established in Security Council practice–doesnt find much support in the UN Charter, which provides that valid Council resolutions “shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members.”

via Abstention games on the Security Council | The Multilateralist.

Max Boot in the WSJ and Thomas P.M. Barnett make the counterpoint to Sec Gates that a No Fly Zone wouldn’t be that hard to do–although my sense is that these things are always more challenging than they appear.

Sanctions, Suspension, and the Start of a Global Response to Libya

With its citizens largely evacuated, Western nations had a freer hand to talk tough at the UN today.  On Feb. 23, Turtle Bay blogger Colum Lync proffered a laundry list for the Security Council to frustrate Qaddafi.  How did they do?

The U.N. Security Council unanimously imposed travel and asset sanctions on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and close aides, ratcheting up pressure on him to quit before any more blood is shed in a popular revolt against his rule.

It also adopted an arms embargo and called for the deadly crackdown against anti-Gaddafi protesters to be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation and possible prosecution of anyone responsible for killing civilians.

via U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions on Gaddafi | Reuters.

The Human Rights Council called a unique special session to suspend Libya–a bold and unique action for the oft-criticized body.

Here are a few other slices at getting a sense of the debates that are now happening–and will be coming around the corner in the days and weeks ahead:

• The politics of the now-former-Qadaffi ambassador-turned-free agent, Western discussions, and the role China played (i.e., not using its veto as one of the P5) are explored in the Times.
• The Peterson Institute for Int’l Economics has an interesting chronology of events, as well as an economic impact assessment of sanctions on Libya among other items.
• David Bosco asks “where are the emerging powers” that we seem to hear about constantly? He answers that pershaps Western “slippage in relative power hasn’t yet worked its way into foreign policy” and perhaps there are major policy differences in viewing Libya’s situation.
• Both in terms of global leadership (and domestic policy skirmishes) the debate is on for “Who Lost Libya?”–with all of its moral, ethical, and even political (2012, anyone?) implications.  Biden quotes former Congressman Tom Lantos (with former State Dept planner Anne-Marie Slaughter tweeting for action) and  on the other side Hitch writing in Slate that President Obama’s response was “dithering and pathetic,” (and he’s not alone).

 

Security Council Reform and Obama’s Case for India

Fixing the Security Council (SC) is not a new idea.   President Obama’s proposal to add India to the P5 “club” is part international politics, part UN-reform with some domestic policy-cum-job-creation on the side.

“The just and sustainable international order that America seeks includes a United Nations that is efficient, effective, credible and legitimate,” the president said. “That is why I can say today — in the years ahead, I look forward to a reformed U.N. Security Council that includes India as a permanent member.”

via Obama Backs India for Seat on Security Council – NYTimes.com.

But getting the job done isn’t easy.  The process was negotiated as recently as September 2010, with recent developments including “adding permanent seats for the immediate future and putting off a decision on the veto issue, as well as another proposal to add only non-permanent seats, but to extend the length of such terms.”  Although at least three major proposals are on the table, enlargement risks limiting one of the SC strengths–its smallness.  Consider the dysfunctional nature of NATO, which has a similar security focus.   Council reform faces a plethora of challenge Thomas G. Weiss, a key scholar, observes in his analysis The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform.

Deeper discussion that will appeal to game theory and voting policy wonks include consideration of weighted voting and regional representation as detailed by retired U of Minnesota professor Joseph Schwartzberg (pdf 1 and pdf 2).  But change is hard and opens up a series of debates and disagreements.  Erik Voten writes in Monkey Cage that there are two possible moves:  new members agreeing on a single reform proposal or irrelevance for the SC.  Maybe in the end another observer was right, when he notes, “There’s nothing wrong with the United Nations–except its members.”

The stakes are almost as high for the United Nations as they are for India and other would-be SC powers such as Africa, Brazil, and others.  Contrary to what some may have thought,  the UN isn’t the only game in town anymore with the G20 and other forums play key roles in global economics and conflict.  But David Bosco writes in The Multilateralist that he doesn’t see the G20 as a viable alternative…at least not yet.  (See his NPR interview for another summary.)

If you’re still wondering about this issue, take a look at this recommended reading at Global Policy’s UN Reform page, including current information, articles, proposals, documents, and more.