Stalemate Slows Down Security Council

By Grace Leo

The nature of the UN Security Council is one in which resolutions are difficult to pass despite the earnest work of all members. To pass a resolution on substantive matters, unanimity must be obtained from the five permanent members (the USA, UK, France, China and Russia) in addition to the support of four other members. Thursday afternoon the Security Council attempted to address the situation in Lebanon. With an election approaching in a few months time, there have been persistent tensions between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah, a registered political party often labeled as a violent terrorist group. In attempts to ease the problem, there have currently been two resolutions put forward by the USA and Slovakia. The USA has proposed a strategy, similar to their approach towards Israel-that of division. The Delegates for the United States of America, Aren Yip Wang Yew and Lee Sung Jae, believe that the solution would be to partition Lebanon into two sectors, with the North, home to the Lebanese government and Hezbollah situated in the South. This approach looks unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion for America as the majority of the members of the Security Council are opposed to the proposition. The Delegate of Indonesia, Manish Nathani said that “[America’s resolution] is not plausible.” Other countries feel similarly and members are highly doubtful of the likelihood of the resolution passing. An alternative to America’s resolution is a proposal brought in by Slovakia. They believe in the importance of negotiating with Hezbollah as an accepted political party. However, their resolution will require a great deal of attention before it will be acceptable for many members of the council. As Isabelle Lee, Delegate of Qatar explained, “The clauses 5,6 and 7 [of the current resolution] are very vague and involve the possibility of violent action against Hezbollah.” Furthermore, even when compromises and amendments have been made, the Delegates of the USA have already decided to veto the proposition in line with the “aggressive foreign policy [the USA has maintained thus far], using the power of veto approximately three times as much as any other permanent member.”This raises the question of the practicality of the veto power possessed by the permanent members of the Security Council. It makes coming to a compromise very difficult considering the great diversity of interests the permanent members of the council possess. However, it is important that the permanent members come to agreement with each other for effective implementation of resolutions. This has been seen in history with the failure of the forerunner to the UN, the League of Nations because of the absence of the USA’s involvement. All in all, the Security Council will have a lot of work ahead of them before there is any likelihood of a resolution on Lebanon being passed. The problem in Lebanon is an important issue that effectively illustrates the difficulties the real UN experiences in reaching agreements. The Security Council is a tough arena to perform in and delegates must deal with a large number of hypothetical scenarios. Ultimately, however, they are all doing their best and will hopefully come to reach a satisfactory conclusion.