Meanwhile, the United Nations appears unable to take even modest steps to address the situation. Since Russia is a strong ally of Syria and is one of five countries (along with the U.S., Britain, France, and China) to possess veto power on the UN Security Council, it is widely believed that Russia would veto any resolution calling for economic sanctions or military force against Syria. Russia, China, and other Security Council members also believe that the U.S., France, and Britain have moved well beyond the UN mandate to protect civilians in Libya and are now seeking regime change. They oppose any condemnation of Syria that might open the door to another Libya-type intervention. Thus, French and British UN representatives have carefully worded their draft resolution on Syria to remove any potentially objectionable mention of sanctions or threats of intervention. In short, the resolution condemns Syria’s crackdown but contains no “teeth.” It is therefore unlikely to have any effect on the ground in Syria, where President Bashar al-Assad, like his father before him, is determined to crush any opposition that threatens his grip on power.
Is the UN Security Council, with its veto powers bestowed on the “Big 5” victors from World War II, a relic of a bygone era that needs to be ditched or dramatically reformed? After all, we’ve seen this deadlock all too frequently before, with Russia and China blocking action on Kosovo and Darfur, and the U.S. vetoing any resolution that condemns Israel’s behavior. Will the UN stand by as a massacre unfolds in Syria? Does any global organization whose structure prevents it from acting against such atrocities deserve to call itself a protector of international peace and security? Does it even deserve to exist?