Strategic Panorama 2009 - 2010 - IEEE

Florentino Portero Rodríguez
An organisation set up to solve problems often becomes no more than
a blocking mechanism of a great power that seeks to legitimise a particular
action. The General Assembly is often used to criticise the United States,
Israel and Europe. On many occasions the Security Council has been a
witness to American attempts, on occasions backed by European states,
to carry forward resolutions that justify the use of force, with very mixed
results. This markedly anti-western tone is due to these other nations’
need to legitimise their own acts in law. As democracies they love law
and make it the framework for their acts. Both times the United States
invaded Iraq it sought a resolution justifying the invasion, with unequal
and never fully satisfactory results. On the contrary, states which operate
outside the democratic sphere do not feel the need to seek a legitimacy
which they regard as inherent in the defence of national interests. It never
crossed Russia’s mind to ask the Security Council to authorise it to invade
and occupy Georgia. Nor have its recent threats about the future of
Crimea gone through the Council. It is paradoxical that democratic states
should feel the need to seek backing for actions approved by democratic
procedures from organisations—such as the Security Council—that are
deeply antidemocratic in both their makeup and their voting system. It is a
consequence of respect for law extrapolated beyond civil society.
The inaction of the Security Council as a consequence of the exercise, or
mere threat, of the right of veto has simply resulted in the action in question
being performed outside its area of influence. The threat of a Russian veto
with respect to the Kosovo crisis did not prevent the campaign of air strikes
that ended with the retreat of the Serbian troops and eventually the defeat
of Milosevic himself. The Franco-Russian manoeuvre to prevent the invasion
of Iraq did not paralyse the military operations; it damaged the United
States’ international image but at the cost of drawing attention to the powerlessness
of its rivals. The US troops have gained control of the country,
albeit with difficulty, but nothing remains of the Franco-Russian agreement.
The Security Council allows showdowns between the great powers, but in
the end it is the one that truly is great which asserts its authority.
The Security Council needs to embark on a thorough overhaul in the
short and medium term. Even if it succeeds, the overhaul will probably be
less drastic than necessary. At best the Council will be able to carry on
playing its highly useful role as a meeting point where the major powers
can exchange information and attempt to bring their positions closer together.
A low-key but very important function. What the Council will never be
is a world government or a democratic organisation. The price of having
— 107 —