DAR ES SALAAM: PEACE for the few? How the UN Security Council’s past is shaping global justice CONSIDERING the current state of global affairs, where powerful states can sometimes exert disproportionate influence over weaker ones, the role of the United Nations Security Council in managing global crises deserves renewed attention. The Council has accumulated enormous … The post Reforming UN Security Council for changing world appeared first on Daily News .
DAR ES SALAAM: PEACE for the few? How the UN Security Council’s past is shaping global justice CONSIDERING the current state of global affairs, where powerful states can sometimes exert disproportionate influence over weaker ones, the role of the United Nations Security Council in managing global crises deserves renewed attention.
The Council has accumulated enormous authority over more than eight decades, but its record in several major conflicts raises important questions about whether its structure remains suited to today’s world.
History offers several examples. Vietnam experienced years of conflict with limited Security Council involvement.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, UN peacekeepers have been present since 1960, yet conflict has continued, demonstrating that international presence alone cannot guarantee lasting peace. Rwanda remains one of the most painful examples.
An estimated 800,000 people were killed in about 100 days, while, at the height of the violence, the Council reduced its peacekeeping force despite warnings from its commander on the ground.
In Bosnia, the UN-established “safe area” of Srebrenica became the site of a massacre in which about 8,000 men and boys were killed.
Iraq presented another major challenge. In 2003, the United States and Britain invaded without Security Council authorisation after failing to secure it, citing weapons of mass destruction that were never found. The subsequent collapse of the Iraqi state had consequences that continue to affect the region.
Libya offers another important lesson. In 2011, the Council authorised measures to protect civilians, but the NATO operation ultimately contributed to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.
The experience subsequently influenced how Russia and China approached proposed international interventions, including those involving Syria.
Different decades have brought different conflicts, but these cases raise a recurring question: Can an institution designed in 1945 effectively respond to the political realities of the 21st century? The Security Council was never intended merely to observe crises.
Under the UN Charter, it has primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, including the authority to impose sanctions and authorise the use of force. Its decisions can be binding on member states.
Yet much of this authority is concentrated among five permanent members: The United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom, each with veto power. Gaza has provided a particularly significant contemporary test of this arrangement.
ALSO READ: Analysts optimistic about TZ’s 2029 UN Security Council seat
Since October 2023, Palestinian authorities have reported tens of thousands of deaths, while UN agencies and independent organisations have documented extensive civilian suffering and destruction.
The International Criminal Court has also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejects the allegations.
The Council’s repeated difficulty in reaching decisive action has renewed debate about whether the veto system can adequately respond to major humanitarian crises.
The same question has emerged from developments involving Iran. In June 2025, Israel launched attacks on Iranian nuclear and military facilities, followed by US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
The Security Council held emergency meetings amid competing claims concerning sovereignty, security and international law, but divisions among major powers limited its ability to produce a unified response.
This is why reform should be viewed not simply as a diplomatic exercise, but as a question of institutional effectiveness.
In 2008, the General Assembly began Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform. Since then, different groups have advanced competing proposals.
The G4: Brazil, Germany, India and Japan support permanent seats for themselves, alongside two permanent seats for Africa.
The African Group, representing 54 states, is seeking two permanent seats with full veto rights, arguing that Africa’s historical exclusion from permanent membership no longer reflects the realities of the international system.
France and Mexico have proposed that the permanent five voluntarily refrain from using the veto in situations involving mass atrocities.
Meanwhile, the Uniting for Consensus group, which includes Pakistan, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Canada and South Korea, opposes creating additional permanent seats with veto power.
It instead supports expanding elected membership, including seats that could be re-elected, to improve representation and accountability.
The difficulty is that meaningful reform requires changes to the UN Charter, with the permanent members playing a central role in the ratification process.
This creates an inherent challenge: Those with the greatest institutional privileges also have significant influence over proposals that would change those privileges.
After years of negotiations, the reform process has therefore produced considerable discussion but limited structural change.
This makes sustained engagement by the wider UN membership increasingly important.
The nearly 190 states outside the P5 can use the General Assembly, diplomatic coalitions and international opinion to maintain pressure for meaningful reform.
Among the proposals, the Uniting for Consensus approach of expanding elected membership offers one practical starting point.
Increasing elected seats from 10 to 20 could give more countries from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean greater opportunities to participate in decision-making without creating additional permanent veto powers.
Such a reform would not undo the failures of Rwanda, Iraq, Bosnia or Gaza. Nor would it immediately resolve divisions among major powers.
But it could begin moving the Council towards broader representation and greater accountability.
The goal should not simply be to create a larger Security Council. It should be to create one that better reflects today’s world and is more capable of responding collectively when peace and human life are at risk.
The international system has changed significantly since 1945. Perhaps the time has come for its most powerful security institution to change with it.
The post Reforming UN Security Council for changing world appeared first on Daily News.
