What good is the United Nations?

OPINION:

Last Friday, Russia used its veto power as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to overrule a resolution compelling Moscow to halt its invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has since asked U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to strip Russia of its vote at the Security Council, and some have understandably argued that Russia’s permanent member status should be revoked.

We agree, but since this is not legally possible, short of Russia approving its own removal with a charter amendment, the Ukraine crisis raises an important question: What good is the U.N. if it is powerless to stop its own leadership from breaking international law, committing war crimes and murdering innocent civilians as Russian President Vladimir Putin is right now?

The Security Council is the most powerful arm of the international organization. Unlike the General Assembly, in which all 193 countries vote on nonbinding resolutions that only have a declaratory effect, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions, such as assembling and deploying multinational forces to intervene as the U.N. did in Bosnia in 1995 and Haiti in 2004. 

Security Council passage requires 9 out of 15 members to approve absent a vote from any permanent member, which includes China, France, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom. This means that even if other members overwhelmingly vote to support action if any one of those five permanent members vetoes it, the motion fails. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the pinnacle action that international system idealists have always feared. A permanent member has committed an Article 2.4 violation in which a permanent Security Council member with omnipotent veto power violates the territorial integrity of another while committing brutal war crimes in broad daylight for the world to watch. 

To deflect this horrific reality and keep up appearances, member states made a Hail Mary pass by voting to hold a General Assembly emergency special session on Monday. The appearance of this Hail Mary pass led many to believe the U.N. had actually stripped Russia of its veto power, enabling the other 192 members to condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. 

The reality is that all the move accomplished was shifting the vote from the Security Council where Russia has veto power — to the General Assembly part of the U.N., where such veto power does not exist. This may sound clever, but the downside to this move is that, unlike the Security Council, the General Assembly lacks the power to do little more than make declaratory statements. 

The result is a U.N. that was able to vote against Russia with words, but no action. 

Some have argued this move is a step in the right direction. Diplomats speaking to various press outlets have said the purpose of the General Assembly special session would be to “force the 193 members of the U.N. to take a position” on the invasion and Russia’s “violation of the U.N. Charter,” while offering them an opportunity to condemn the war in a declaratory fashion. 

While many argue some bite is better than none, the teeth marks are only temporary and leave no permanent scar, perpetuating the illusion of choice for nonpermanent council members. Simply put, this decadeslong cycle has kept most nations captive of an institution and process that empowers China and Russia to do whatever they want — all the while making it look like the global community approves. 

Those two countries may have been on the right side of history in the Second World War, but the world has dramatically changed since then as both member states have acted aggressively toward other countries and pushed for extraterritorial dominance.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has proven that the present structure of the U.N. Charter is problematic in today’s international system. In time, the international community may come together to find solutions. But admitting there is a problem is the first step — and it is a step the free world must now take regardless of how painful it may be.