This week the UN Security Council added 5 new non-permanent members including Chad, and Saudi Arabia. These two particular countries have caused commentators to weigh in on if they are
worthy of theses seats. The other three countries were Lithuania, Chile, and Nigeria. Hillil Neuer of UN Watch thinks that these additions are not worthy of their new sots on the security council for particular reasons (http://www.newser.com/story/176071/un-elects-5-new-security-council-members.html). These problems being the downright oppressive regime of Saudi Arabia, were women cannot do anything, and the fact that Chad uses child soldiers within their military. I can see the criticism that Neuer has, because the UN Security Council is the most important cooperative body in the international system, and with these two regimes having seats on the security council it could look like the security council condones these practices. However, I think that such a prestigious place in the international system would force these two countries to move closer towards the international norms of rights for all, and not using children as soldiers. This happens to be what Philippe Bolopion of Human Rights Watch believes. I think that the power associated with a seat moves a nation towards international norms.
However Saudi Arabia gave up their non-permanent seat. This seems unexpected, however they have some grievances that have been caused by the security council, which begin with the lack of a quick solution to the Syrian civil war, the lack of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the inability to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons into Southwestern Asia. I would think that being on the security council would give them the ability to naturally effect change within the region, so I do not look to deeply into these reasons, however I do think that this is a reaction to the US talking to Iran, who are a longterm regional rival to Saudi Arabia. I think this is unfortunate for the region, because a nation feels that they are not being heard, which is the main point of our international system.
Good post Stuart. I think that these regimes joining the UN Security Council is a good thing because as you said it can help bring countries such as Chad to a more norm based country. I do not think it will make the UN Security Council look too poorly because it is already at such a prestigious level in the international system, so it is understood that the council would not add new members without weighing out the pros and cons first. I do find it interesting that Saudi Arabia gave up their non-permanent seat. I feel that if they are not pleased with the councils recent actions in certain political issues, that they would want to join so they could help to improve those situations themselves.
ReplyDeleteI doubt adding these members says anything about what the UN condones or disapproves of. Rather, it may more likely be a move to bring these states into a community where they may be more pressured to conform to more accepted rights and norms. They may also prove to be helpful by providing differing perspectives whenever the UN is concerned with happenings in these areas. I, like Patric, also think its odd that Saudi Arabia would give up its seat. It seems counter intuitive to leave an organization in which you could effectively voice your opinion about certain political issues that you may hold interest in.
ReplyDeleteYea I agree, I also think that it helps hold those countries accountable for doing any inappropriate things in their own countries. By becoming members, it will probably be easier to condone them since they are in the international spotlight. I think it's a good move by the UN and i agree that they probably wouldn't be doing this if the cost didn't outweigh the benefits.
ReplyDeleteI can see why Saudi Arabia would giver up their seat. The UN in theory may seem like an effective organization, however like the article says they are not really having any affect on current issues such as the Syrian civil war. They are slow to react and when they do, there is little change. Perhaps giving some these new nations non-permanent seats will give a new perspective to the security counsel and improve its effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteThough being a member definitely creates some pressures to conform to norms that otherwise wouldn't be present, I doubt the UN's ability to significantly resolve or progress on human rights issues in these countries. For many member countries within the UN have human rights conflicts (including the P-5's China and Russia), yet they are rarely brought to attention or addressed, even less so in the Security Council.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, I think it would be a mistake to exclude any country from the UN Security Council. By involving nations in norms based institutions grounded in international law, opportunities are created whereby nations like Chad can constructively interact with other nations and perhaps come to the realization that child soldiers just aren't OK policy whatever your moral bearings. Anyways, the P5 members of the UN Security Council (and only the P5 members) wield veto power over UN resolutions so no temporary member could exert any potentially endangering force within the security council.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Saudi Arabia decided to give up their seat on the security council. Perhaps this was in protest to US negotiations with Iran, as mentioned by the author, although Iran having nuclear weapons would most definitely be a threat to Saudi Arabia considering their longstanding sectarian feud.
I absolutely agree with everything Stuart posted. It makes a lot of sense that Saudi Arabia and Chad would receive a lot of criticism regarding their spots on the Security Council. With Saudi Arabia's strict regime of gender inequality and Chad's exploitation of children in conflict, these countries embody many of the international issues the UN as goals to correct as highlighted in the UN Millennium Goals. Promoting Gender Equality and Empowering Women, and Reducing Child Mortality are prime examples. I would also think that being a part of the Security Council would be a positive influence on these countries to push them in a forward direction. It is somewhat unfortunate that Saudi Arabia didn't keep their seat because it would have been really interesting to see the forward progress having the seat would have made.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about in the debate today, I think it is interesting that Saudi Arabia decided to give up their seat. If anything, this is embarrassing to the UN. The UN is used to being a somewhat revered and respected institution, and to be snubbed in this way makes it look somewhat irrelevant on the international stage. I think that Saudi Arabia here is trying to make themselves look as if they are powerful enough to not need the UN. As previously said, it probably is a shame that Saudi Arabia rejected this offer as it could have opened communication with an important nation in the Middle East region.
ReplyDeleteThis is a particularly relevant post with regards to what has been discussed about international institutions in lecture and the debate. I agree that no country should be excluded from participating in the security council, so long as they commit to and abide by the international "laws of war" as discussed in the Morrow reading. However, with such differences and blatant human rights abuses in Saudi culture, I do not think they would be adequately fit to judge situations of when war is just. Thus their self removal from the system makes sense, as they would have to change their culture in order to become a proper judge on the international system of when a war is justified.
ReplyDeleteIts understandable why Saudi Arabia would not want to give up their seat in the UN. Looking at the UN, many would assume that it is an effective organization, but it in fact is more effective in limiting aspects rather than being able to submit force and prevent conflicts from arising. When they do react it is often times too late for very much good to come out of it. There should certainly be more of an emphasis of being able to keep conflicts from occurring to begin with rather than just essentially being he clean up crew.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security, to safeguard human rights, and to improve living standards. The countries that are involved in the UN must make that their absolute conquest upon joining. These two countries, who defeat the means of human rights, are not ready to be a part of the UN considering one of which detests women that they further persecute women who are rape victims and the other who uses child soldiers. Hopefully however, this will bring Chad to a new positive perspective on their own country to exterminate some of these detriments and accept the norms.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with viewing our international system as a way for nations to be heard is that international organizations largely reflex the power structure within the global order. The UN for example is said to let international discussion take place been the nations who make up the IO but the reality is that only the five nations with veto power in the security council have a real say into decisions about conflict intervention. Smaller countries in the UN have virtually no say in any matter concerning the security council, which reflects their relative power position in the international order. This power distribution is reflected in Saudi Arabia's decision to decline their non member seat since regardless of being on the security council they do not get to have veto power and therefore and little impact on the decisions of the permanent five. This is one big problem with the UN that it only promotes discussion with some of the biggest countries of the world, which already takes place regardless of the UN's existence.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post thank you! I do agree with the majority of the comments and the post that putting Chad and Saudi Arabia on the UN security council is an attempt to push them towards international norms and a way to put more pressure on them towards compliance. I do believe that international institutions such as the UN can pressure states towards these norms and promotes norms and peace. However, I do believe that one of the reasons Saudi Arabia said, "thanks but no thanks" was because of this reason. They did not need to feel the extra pressure from other states in the UN security council, and being a member did not grease their palms enough. I am curious to see how Chad reacts to membership and if they are forced to comply to maintain the benefits of being on the council.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree that there is potential for a country to change by becoming part of this institution in such a way. This center stage seat will increase the visibility of what goes on in these countries, and it is from this logic that I see being a member of the Security Council as potentially enabling change to come about in these countries. But also with this logic I feel like an argument could be made that for this exact reason of increased visibility they felt the need to turn down their seat at the UNSC. I have no idea if this reasoning holds any ground but just while reading through the logic of this argument and of these comments it seems to me that more so than any inability to solve such a complicated problem as the Israeli and Palestinian conflict, that Saudi Arabia would just rather stay in the background and continue with its wealth without being in the spotlight too much.
ReplyDeleteI agree that enhancing the role of these countries in the security council can hopefully increase the monitoring ability of the UN. The potential for higher oversight by way of acknowledging these countries as playing a greater role in the globalized world. As a result, the UN could have easier access to these countries in order to enforce international standards.
ReplyDelete