The way the UN Security Council works - a Simpleton explanation

The United Nations was set up in 1945 in order to prevent future wars between countries. Well, that worked well didn’t it? In very short order most of the member countries of the Security Council were at war with each other in Korea… Vietnam followed, and on the world battled for individual nations’ supremacy. Even though the UN was set up they say that there was one day without war in the 20^th Century…

The UN Security Council was set up at core of the body. It was composed of the 5 victors of World War 2 – the ‘Great Powers’ and until 1965, 6 temporary members – in 1965 this became 10.

The Great Powers are China, Russia, Great Britain, France and the United States. Shows how time has moved on – then, Russia was very much at the top table in economic and military wealth, and Britain much the same. There are arguments that Germany or the EU should have a seat at the permanent top table, which we shall cover shortly.

The 10 other members are elected by the UN General Assembly for 2 year terms. Being elected by the rest of the world you will not find nice countries like North Korea on the Security Council as they have few friends.

Geopolitics is thus in the hands of nations that disagree vehemently. On the one hand it is represented by democratic, ‘free countries’ and on the other by countries of economic and military wealth but little regard to human rights. Traditionally, Russia and China have sided with errant countries, proven to be doing things that make ‘free countries’’ eyes water for various reasons that we do not necessarily  understand.

Where one side of the table thinks that a country needs a spanking for errant behaviour then the issue may be considered a ‘Substantive Issue’ and require a unanimous vote. They all have a vote, but if there is disagreement between the Great Powers, each of the 5 permanent members has a veto that can override the rest. Consequently if North Korea nuked Japan, China would oppose a global response because they are military allies. OK, World War 3 would break out but the UN Security Council would oppose it… On the other hand, Iraq invaded oil rich Kuwait in the 90’s and the Security Council voted unanimously to give Iraq a spanking – mainly because Kuwait traded its oil with all of them. Operation Desert Storm was one of the first times the UN unanimously gave someone a spanking.  

Germany is one of the top 5 economic powers of the world at the minute, alongside Japan. They caused World War 2; and though the US wanted them to become wealthy on basis that fat and happy people aren’t as belligerent as hungry, unhappy people; they cannot get onto the top table.

There is an old saying that in democracy, ‘turkeys won’t vote for Christmas’. Would Russia stand aside for its powerful neighbour Germany? Would China and Russia want a powerful, opposing military and economic bloc like the European Union at the top table? You can hear the turkeys gobbling and arguing as to whom should be the farmer’s dinner! Fat chance.

 he flipside to all this bargaining is that if the Security Council agreed with everything the US or China wanted then the world would have had far more big wars globally than it has to date. Is the world a better place for it? There are a lot of potential wars I would want personally – I’d love to chuck Mugabe out of Zimbabwe and perhaps sort out the madness in Iran and Syria. Zimbabwe would be an easy drive. Iran and Syria would be long, protracted wars that would not be as easy – and far from a guaranteed win.

So, you have a basic understanding of the way the world works. Old empires and new are in charge, and still squabble like turkeys in a farmyard. Does it work? Depends on which side of the table you sit and your personal beliefs toward military adventure.