LOGIN
Click here to receive automatic email updates on the most recent developments of your favorite GGW topic.
Tit for Tat at the Security Council
Category: National Security
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The UN Security Council has once again reached a deadlock in negotiations over Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states. According to Russia’s UN ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia has created a “new reality” that nullifies previous UN resolutions safeguarding Georgia’s territorial integrity. Russia’s actions are testing the limits of the Security Council and casting doubt on the organization’s ability to manage disagreements between member states.
Western nations offered a hearty rebuke of Russia’s announcement on Tuesday. At a press conference in Crawford, Texas, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto stated, “Clearly the actions by Russia stand in contradiction to existing UN Security Council resolutions and the spirit of the UN Security Council.” The U.S. has pledged to veto any Security Council resolutions that would authorize independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. “[This act] will be dead on arrival at the UN Security Council,” said Fratto. Britain’s UN ambassador John Sawers echoed the U.S. criticism, declaring that “Russia’s actions today have put a massive block in the way of achieving a common Security Council position.”
Ironically, the West’s rhetoric mirrors that of Russia when, in February, the Federation argued that Kosovo’s independence should be determined by the Security Council. UN Resolution 1244 explicitly stated that Kosovo’s status vis-à-vis the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia could be amended under approval of the Security Council. With Russia’s veto on the matter inevitable, Western states ignored the Security Council mechanism and autonomously paved the way for Kosovo’s independence.
Indeed, the conflict in the Balkans set a precedent for Russia’s current strategy in the Caucuses. From the West, Russia learned that undermining the Security Council results in negligible consequences. Ultimately, the international system is not sufficiently robust to stop nation-states from pursuing their strategic interests—even when violating the sovereignty of other nation-states.
In a recent article, George Friedman, CEO of the independent intelligence corporation Stratfor, discusses how the current global system – the “New World Order” – is incapable of resolving conflicts of interest between states. “On August 8, a nation-state, Russia, attacked another nation-state, Georgia, out of fear of the intention of a third nation-state, the United States. This causes us to begin thinking about the ‘Real World Order,’” he said.
As the Security Council debates the future of Georgia’s territorial integrity, it will be hard pressed to transcend the strategic interests of its members. According to the rules of the “Real World Order,” disagreement between Security Council members erodes the ideals of international cooperation, causing them, in Friedman’s view, to “vanish in a new round of geopolitical conflict.” In order for the Security Council to be efficacious, a new institutional arrangement must be put in place that surmounts the tit for tat that has become the trademark of Security Council proceedings.
A JOINT PROGRAM OF
