In turning down the United Nations Security Council rotating seat, Saudi Arabia has taken a courageous decision that not many countries would take and has passed up an opportunity many countries would be eager to seize if they had half the chance. For the next two years, Saudi Arabia would have enjoyed a highly coveted seat in the UN Security Council, the organization's most powerful body. For the first time, Saudi Arabia would have sat at the world's foremost diplomatic table from which it would have had a strong voice in matters dealing with international peace and security. Saudi Arabia would have entered a UN body which has the power to authorize military action, like the 1950 Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and Libya in 2011. However, Saudi Arabia is to let all this go, refusing to accept its rotating Security Council seat, saying that the Council is incapable of ending wars and resolving conflicts. In citing "double standards" in the Security Council, the Kingdom was telling the UN that it has so far failed in dealing properly with what it set out to do in 1945. The product of World War II, the deadliest conflict in history, the UN was supposed to stop wars between countries, but its track record in ending conflict is woeful. It has been argued that the five permanent members of the Security Council, who are all nuclear powers, have created an exclusive nuclear club that predominately addresses the strategic interests and political motives of the permanent members to the detriment of other states. Since three of the five permanent members are European, and four are predominantly white Western nations, the Security Council has been described as a pillar of global apartheid. Perhaps the biggest criticism of the Security Council involves the veto power of the five permanent nations. This “no” vote – granted to the great powers that were the victors of World War II - is enough to strike down any given proposal if just one permanent Security Council member disagrees. This has stymied the UN's work over the decades and has given it a reputation for being ineffective and even futile. Instead of general global good, permanent members often use this veto power to strike down measures that run contrary to their individual national interests. They will also use it simply to overrule another member in shows of power and vanity, as with Russia and the US. Or the veto comes to the aid of a special partnership like that of Israel with the US which between 1982 and today has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions that were critical of Tel Aviv. Because of the veto which handcuffs action, there has been criticism of the UN's inaction, no more these days than on Syria, where 100,000 people have been killed and millions displaced in the two and a half years since the Syrian civil war began. The Security Council's effectiveness and relevance is also questioned by many because in most high-profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution. The last time the Security Council adopted a resolution of note was last month's demand that Syria's chemical weapons be eradicated. But the proviso was that it would not threaten automatic punitive action against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's government if it does not comply. This is the Security Council that Saudi Arabia has refused to join because the UN body is incapable of shouldering its responsibilities toward world peace.
