The aspiration to attain political unification on a global scale has been a desired objective since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945. The then alliance of influential governments made the notion of one glorious cooperative government a relatively plausible one, however, nearly seventy years after its inception, is a unified force what we really have-or is it a totalitarianism of the strong having superiority over the weak? The organizations tilted regulations not only prevent a true and equal balance from ever developing, but it also contributes to a tit-for-tat relationship amongst the superpowers that only leads to negative ramifications for the powerless. An example of such an instance can be seen in the UN Security Council and the ensuing turmoil in Syria.
Representing the considered victors of WWII, the UN Security Council’s permanent members (United States, United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia) have the ability to veto any drafted council resolutions irrespective of international support.(1) The ramifications of this ability are incontrovertibly seen with the recent events occurring in Syria and the use of chemical weapons. It was in July of 2012 when the initial resolution to impose sanctions on Damascus was proposed in an attempt to control the escalating violence within the region. Though the proposal was supported by a vast majority of the UN Security Council’s members, it failed to be adopted due to the resolutions rejection by two of the council’s permanent members: China and Russia.(2) These countries resistance to collaborate towards a resolution in Syria continues today in despite of the recent events and the countries use of Sarin Gas-which should be noted was classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the UN in their 687 Resolution.(3) These countries have already offered inclinations that should a proposal to intervene in Syria be yet again presented that they will again support a veto.
As China and Russia are traditional allies of Syria, their outright refusal to approve any such forceful action draws it criticisms as well as frustrations from those in favor of such resolutions. However, do their rejections have merit, or are they really just giving the United States a taste of their own medicine? Since the early seventies, the United States has been the strong holder of the most vetoes-with a majority of them being in regards to Israel and championing their (often joint) political interest-where much like the case of China and Russia in Syria, the United States vetoes in support of Israel often placed them on the defensive of international pressures.
A cohesive global government once seemed so obtainable but is becoming ever more alluring. The evolving contentions and incessant political maneuvering between supposed partnering countries has the United Nations in a constant drift further away from their initial ambitions. The opportunity for development is still feasible, though only if the preoccupation with political superiority dwindles dramatically amongst the relevant members. Maybe the next seventy years will prove to be a bit more promising than the previous seventy.