Last Saturday, Russian troops marched into the Crimea, a Russian-speaking region of the now-unstable Ukraine, and it looks unlikely that they will stop there. Odessa is another Russian-speaking part of Ukraine that Vladimir Putin has his eye on, and Putin has done very little to disguise his ambition for empire. The unapologetic and belligerent nature of this invasion has inspired an emergency convening of the United Nations Security Council, at which member nations will discuss possible recourse. But it is my view that the time has come for the Security Council to be revolutionized.
It is not hard to imagine a new era in international relations: Cold War II. Our recent skirmishes in the desert and the guerilla armies of our opposition would be reduced to historical memory. The rise of a new despot in Russia, the emergence of China as an economic power and the old alliance of those nations left over from the Soviet Era could mean a powerful new international enemy for the United States and her allies. These two nations — the most likely future violators of international law — are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and each holds an unimpeachable veto for any and all internationally sanctioned military action.
Moreover, when I write “international law,” I use a resoundingly regrettable term. There is no international law. The United States is often accused of being the “world police,” or of waging “unlawful, unilateral military campaigns,” but these unfortunate arrangements are de facto requirements of the U.N. The Security Council was originally made to be slow to action; fresh from the wounds of WWII, we wanted a system wherein only the most resolutely justified military actions are sanctified by international agreement. Accordingly, Russia, China, France, the U.K. and the U.S. were all given absolute veto power on any matters involving the use of force. But the problem is this: Russia and China see the West as their arrogant competitors for dignity. They oppose the Western position almost 100 percent of the time, even on matters where they have no apparent stake in the outcome (in Syria, for instance). This means that international law has no enforcement mechanism, because every time the Security Council brings forward a vote, there will be at least two nations willing to veto. The only possible enforcement left for crises are unilateral actions, particularly on the part of the United States, whose military is strong enough to act alone. And so, while the well-intentioned diplomats of the postwar period were wise to want a system slow to action, they were foolish to create a system that never moves to action at all.
It seems to me that a fix could be relatively simple. Others who have recognized this problem have gone mad in their theories of reform (postulating ideas like instating an “international army”), but a much more modest proposal seems obvious, at least to me. Let’s forget veto power — it has left international law completely impotent. I think the Security Council would still be slow to action in the case of a majority vote, but not completely abstinent in all international crises, as it is now.
When the Security Council meets this week, lots of strong words will be thrown out by the Western members: France, the U.S. and the U.K. They will threaten sanctions against Russian officials, economic freezes and the like. But I have a horrible feeling that the strong actions will come from the East: the promise to veto any Western encroachment, the promise to remain mobilized in Crimea and the promise to keep eyes on the Ukraine and beyond.
Ben Moss thinks they could have come up with a better title than “Cold War II” … Real original.
For the last hundred years the best and brightest of the civilized world have been engaged in the business of peace. In the days before the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke, it was expected that scientific progress would lead to moral progress. Nations would accept international laws and everyone would get together to replace wars with international conferences. Instead technological progress just gave us better ways to kill each other. There have been few innovations in the moral technology of global harmony since Immanuel Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” laid out a plan to grant world citizenship to all refugees and… Read more »
I hope you read this Mr. Moss because I think that your views on this particular subject need a bit reeducating (although I appreciate many of your other pieces). The fundamental flaw with your argument is that it is a completely Americanized view of the world. You place America on a pedestal- she can do no wrong, everything she does is in defense of democracy and liberty. You seem to overlook all the messed up things that our country does on a daily basis. You talk of the cold war- well ask any South American what the US did to… Read more »
Anon, Your mind has been hijacked by leftist propaganda. It is Islam that is violently expanding and colonizing not Israel. Israel has removed all settlements from Gaza. Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula – a land mass far bigger than Israel. And Israel has offered Arafat and Abbas 97% of the West Bank. Meanwhile in the last few decades Muslims have taken over and destroyed the people of Sudan, They have taken over and destroyed the people of Somalia, they are gradually taking over central and southern Nigeria, they are fighting Buddhists in southern Thailand, Chinese in NW China, Russians… Read more »
Anon, America is far from perfect but it’s doing its best to emulate you. (Just kidding) America is a flawed country it is a democracy with widely changing worldviews as well as domestic concerns. This is what democracies are like and have always been like. We are very imperfect, but I challenge you to name a more perfect Union. A Union that fro three centuries people have lined up and begged to emigrate to. I love haters of America like you. You like to compare us to European countries – countries that helped Nazis wipe out the Jews, countries that… Read more »
Ben,
Hope you enjoy it when the nuclear missles start flying.