22nd Oct, 2013 –
Saudi Arabia’s decision not to accept its UN Security Council seat is an important precedent.
As a key member of the G20; the world’s most important oil producer and a significant political actor on the world stage, this is no empty symbolic gesture.
The UN Security Council has failed the Syrian people; sitting back and allowed genocide to continue. We cannot pretend that this vital global organization is fulfilling its purpose of promoting international peace and security.
Experience has proven time and time again that the Security Council is a hostage to the special interests of the permanent member states – any one of which can paralyze the international response to major crises.
Saudi Arabia’s decision can have positive benefits in several ways:
Firstly; by encouraging other states to follow this example and showing that the Security Council does not enjoy international legitimacy in its current form.
Secondly; by forcing the issue of UN reform and encouraging the international community to address this issue in a creative and positive manner. Therefore, this can also stimulate a wider public debate about the nature of the Security Council and whether it fulfills its purpose in the 21st century.
Thirdly; by highlighting the dangerous role that permanent member states like Russia have played in undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the UN and blocking humanitarian action.
Finally, by showing that Arabian Gulf states can force the global political agenda and that they are not at the behest of a handful of states with questionable claims to permanent member status.
Saudi Arabia’s decision has caused a great deal of surprise and consternation on the world stage; let’s hope that this inspires a rethink of how our international political system functions – or fails to function!