Global Terrorism Neglected by United Nations Security Council (Part II of II)

The work of the UN as a whole is supremely important to global peace. More important is the successful nature of the UNSC. Neither body has come close, in my opinion, to living up to what they should be.

“A human community cannot suddenly emancipate itself from its history; never the less, it has a measure of control over its own future.” Kramer and Yetiv both believe that the amount of work done by the Security Council before and after 11 September has been substantial and strong, but I disagree. The overall general nature coupled with the lack of any enforcement mechanism has all but rendered their work useless. Unfortunately it may be necessary for the UN to be a successful organization, and if this is to occur there must be a serious overhaul. As it stands currently the UNSC is made up of some legitimate nations, but there are nations such as Iran, China and Syria who are deadest against the progression of peace and prosperity for anyone. If the UN hopes to be successful the development of enforcement mechanisms to ensure the adoption of the terrorism conventions by member states would greatly increase the chances. According to David Stringer in an article for the Associated Press on November 2, 2007, “U.S. officials said Friday that Russia and China were keeping the U.N. Security Council from moving quickly enough toward a third set of sanctions over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment.” This only further demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the UNSC when it comes to making headway against a terrorist supporting state. “A senior Security Council diplomat at U.N. headquarters in New York said the five permanent members had not yet agreed on sanctions to be included in the new resolution. The diplomat spoke on condition of anonymity because discussions are continuing.” Sanctions against terrorism have not been successful according to Kramer and Yetiv, yet the Council still insists on trying to employ them against the biggest threat to international peace and stability—Iran. While the resolutions passed in the days following September 11, 2001 have been passed unanimously there have been abstaining voters, but beyond that it is all superficial anyway. The organization either needs to begin to take itself seriously otherwise the danger is that it will become the enabler. The UNSC record of standing up for the Human rights of terrorists and suicide bombers is unacceptable and is only hindering the progress in the Global War On Terror (GWOT). According to Global Policy Reform, “The Security Council reflects the global power structure of 1945, when most of today's nations were still under colonial rule.” In addition the reform that has been undertaken has not worked. “For more than a decade, the UN General Assembly has debated Council reform but has been unable to reach agreement.” The US would like to see many reforms at the UN, “Expansion of the U.N. Security Council is only one item on a list of reforms the United States would like to see at the United Nations and should not be the exclusive focus of the current reform effort, senior U.S. officials say.” The world realizes the organization does not belong in its current position in the international community because it seems at times only a group of thugs but because of liberal pressure from Washington and the non-partisan understanding that the US does not want to assume the official role of supreme world police force, but in all honesty the US must step up in order to put any reforms in place because this country is the only country with the means and the vision to see the UNSC and the UN as whole through to a better, more effective and necessary organization. The State Department, “stressed that management reform, peace-building, human rights, democracy, counterterrorism, and development take precedence over enlarging the Security Council.” The UNSC is so intent on becoming the organization that faces and effectively deals with issues of international security and terrorism yet the situations in the world where they could be making the difference, none is being made. “Head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, Tom Koenigs, says an increase in civilian casualties and violent incidents in 2007 shows that the international community must strengthen its resolve to help the Afghan nation.” If the UNSC cannot step up it should move over. I do not share the belief with Kramer and Yetiv that overall there has been positive action in the UNSC and that it has stepped into its role in addressing terrorism. I do believe in fact that it is a main obstacle to National Security within the US if not effectively reformed and overhauled to more accurately and honestly address the dire issues facing it on a daily basis. If terrorism is to win the world the UNSC has to let it, and as long as it continues in its current state it will. This two part article has summarized the article written by Kramer and Yetiv and delivered their argument that “Evidence strongly suggests that September 11 was a critical event in the UNSC’s response to global terrorism.” They also argued that there has been a forceful and effective response from the Security Council in response to rising threats on a global scale. Kramer and Yetiv based their research on areas including background and general thrust of resolutions, quantitative as well as qualitative changes, effective use of tools made available to fight terrorism by the CTC, and compliance by member nations. The most important tidbit uncovered by their research was that there is not one method to ensure compliance in place within all 13 conventions on the fight of global terrorism. Meaning in essence there is still an idealistic organization setup in theory, but in no way based in reality. Truly the world must stand behind the reform of this organization, because if the need arises and some tragic act occurs to cripple the world community again, the US will have to step up in its place and no one in the world would appreciate the US overtly ruling the world.