Of Words and Wars: The Security Council's Hard Life among the Great Powers

In: Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 69-75

Abstract

A fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the UN Security Council has led to the criticism following the most recent Iraq-US war, which describes the UN opposition as irrelevant & unable to act or effect change. Rather than seeing the Council in moralistic & legal terms, the Council must be viewed in realistic political terms within its historical framework. The Council was primarily established for maintaining peace & avoiding conflict among the Great Powers rather than for protection of the weak from the strong. Thus the veto guarantees inaction precisely when tension is greatest between the Great Powers. The Council has sufficient legitimacy in international politics that its approval was sought by Washington prior to the Iraq War, that countries such as Canada & Turkey followed the UN signals as to whether to support the mission, & that denial of approval realized the more modest set of UN goals & powers in that it reinforced the legal principles of the Charter & raised the costs of unilateralism to a Great Power. This is important because it influences how US foreign policy makers assess US interests in world politics. L. Kehl