What to do

It was like a game of cat and mouse, with a UN Security Council resolution to end the Syrian conflict, after multiple drafts, being eventually vetoed by China and Russia in early February. Then, the Russian foreign minister traveled to Syria, as many nations ordered their ambassadors in Damascus to return home.

China and Russia have faced a wave of criticism from around the globe, not least because of the escalating bloodshed between Syrian forces and protesters since the veto.

The UN Security Council can hardly be satisfied with its role as an observer to the rising bloodshed in Syria, following the veto against military intervention by its two permanent members. But that doesn't mean the body has become superfluous, according to Elisabeth Schöndorf from the Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin.

No alternative

"The attention that the Security Council is currently receiving shows its relevance as a unique body that carries responsibility for international peace and security," she said. "Tragically, the failure of the resolution appears to have fueled a noticeable hike in violence in Syria."

Yet there is no alternative, Schöndorf warns. "We have no body that can perform such a function on a global scale," she said. "Within the Security Council, the nations need to negotiate with each other and take a position."

Germany's former UN Ambassador Thomas Matussek agrees. "The Security Council is the highest legitimate organ that the world has and, for this reason, the moral authority that the Security Council has should not be underestimated."

Nevertheless, the world community is appalled by the violent approach the Syrian government has taken to protect its interests, a situation with which Matussek is familiar from his term as ambassador from 2006 to 2009. "We believe, rightly so, that such action is morally reprehensible but it is something that happens often." He pointed to a similar situation with the numerous Iran resolutions, with the various parties trying to protect their own interests."

It is, argues political scientist David Bosold, common practice to protect one's own interests. It is mostly about weighing interests and moral considerations, he says. A new line-up of nations in the Security Council, he argues, would change little.

Bosold cites Nigeria, a potential candidate for a permanent seat, as an example. In the past, there were occasions when the country sought changes to draft resolutions wherever its interests were at stake.

Schöndorf shares this observation. "The decisions in the Security Council do not follow the steps of a scientific experiment," she said. It is difficult to predict, she says, whether different decisions would be reached if, for instance, more developing nations were represented in the Security Council. It is also difficult to project negotiating dynamics and, in particular, possible new coalitions.

'Responsibility to protect'

One of the reasons for the dead end is the UN Charter itself. On the one hand, the Security Council is called upon to protect world peace and international security. On the other, the Charter prevents it from intervening in the domestic affairs of a nation.

This conflict is reflected in the voting behavior of certain nations, according to Bosold. China and Russia, in particular, interpret the principle of non-interference very restrictively. "China has always been opposed to humanitarian intervention," he said. "At most, China is prepared to withhold its vote, if there are no effects like a large wave of refugees, or the outbreak of war."

Over the past years, however, the international community has shown growing interest in the principle of "responsibility to protect." The principle applies to nations that are either unwilling or unable to accept responsibility, notes Schöndorf, adding, however, that the issue of sovereignty nearly always complicates matters. "Plenty of learning processes and adjustments will be needed before the Security Council can deal with this idea of the responsibility to protect as well as with the question of what instruments it can actually use in each particular case," she said.

Due to the escalating violence in Syria, the United Nations needs to act quickly. But it is not possible to send observers or a peacekeeping mission, given the Syrian government's continued opposition. So the next option is to convene the General Assembly.

A resolution prepared by Egypt calls for condemning Syria's violations of human rights and supports a plan from the Arab League to end the conflict. Vetoes are not possible in the General Assembly and its decisions have only an appellative character. The Security Council is the only UN body that can impose sanctions.

Matussek sees other alternatives, however. "In other bodies, one could agree to unilateral sanctions or aid measures for the activists," he said.

As the conflict in Syria worsens, talk about sanctions is heating up in Berlin and other capitals around the world.

Author: Sabine Hartert-Mojdehi / jrb
Editor: Gregg Benzow