Luv Puri - Journalist and author

During the Ebola crisis, the Security Council acknowledged a health issue as threat to peace and security. The council’s unity this year would have meant cooperation in the fight against Covid-19. This could have created a framework for progress, helping countries by streamlining supply of PPE and test kits.

 

In the midst of the rising death toll globally due to Covid-19, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) impasse over a draft resolution on the pandemic is indicative of a wider institutional breakdown of the most important global body which is becoming hostage to the rivalry between the US and the People’s Republic of China.

The council has seen three presidencies since a pandemic was declared by the World Health Organisation (WHO) on March 11. In March, the People’s Republic of China was the president, in April, it was the Dominican Republic and for the month of May, it is cyber security leader Estonia. After an initial suspension, the council continues to meet through video teleconferences to transact its routine business.

However, what has also gone in parallel is the US and China bickering over a draft resolution on the pandemic. The council’s action is important as the impact of the pandemic is not just in the context of public health but also has multi-dimensional global implications, including economic, social and political.

In this context, the US has stated that it either wants a broader resolution that calls for reforms and accountability of the WHO or a narrow resolution that reiterates UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ appeal for a global ceasefire during the pandemic period. China, on the other hand, is leading the efforts to insist that apart from covering other elements, the resolution should call for support to the WHO. This is inimical to the US position as it has accused the WHO of becoming ‘literally, a pipe organ for China’. The broad principle at the council is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

In actual practice, the negotiations over any draft resolution are a task performed by the middle-level and junior diplomats of the council member-states and are mostly done outside the formal premises of the council chambers. Diplomats negotiate on the basis of broad guidance and redlines given to them by their respective capitals. In this process, at times, diplomats keep the relevant UN staff members informed about the progress. Various drafts of the resolution are exchanged amongst each other in order to arrive at a consensus on the text and the potential outcome before the senior diplomats or ambassadors formally approve in the chambers.

At a practical level, every member-state is fighting its own battle against Covid-19. However, the council’s failure to adopt an innocuous resolution in a situation of global health crisis speaks volumes of the council’s present structural and institutional inability to respond to such crises. Under Article 24, Chapter 5 of the UN Charter, the Security Council is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Strictly speaking, public health issues surrounding Covid-19 do not belong to the council’s mandate. However, the council passed Resolution 2177 in 2014 on the West African Ebola outbreak.

The 13-point resolution emphasised the need for a comprehensive support from the member-states to the crisis affected member-states, namely, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea. The resolution called on member-states, including those from the region, to lift general travel and border restrictions, imposed as a result of the Ebola outbreak. There was also a call on member-states, especially of the region, to facilitate the delivery of assistance, including qualified and specialised trained personnel besides supplies.

Obviously, the Ebola crisis was limited to a particular region, but it created a precedent as the council acknowledged a health issue as threat to peace and security. In the same vein, the council’s unity this year would have sent an effective signal to the international community to demonstrate unity and cooperation in the ongoing fight against Covid-19. This could have created a normative framework to make a tangible progress in creating a political will to help vulnerable countries by streamlining global supply lines of the personal protection equipment (PPE) and test kits.

In the recent past, this is not the first time that the council has failed to respond promptly to an emerging crisis. The Rohingya crisis, which started in August 2017, was another instance when the council continued to negotiate a resolution for over a month. Ultimately, there was consensus on a non-binding presidential statement that was issued on November 6, 2017, where it called on ‘Myanmar to end excessive military force, inter-communal violence in Rakhine State.’ But till then, over 700,000 Rohingya had already been displaced from Myanmar to Bangladesh. At that point, it was China, with its P-5 status, which opposed bid for a binding resolution against the alleged military action.

Last year, the renewal of the council’s mandate for the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), which was established in 2002, became an issue of intense negotiations between the US and China. Interestingly, in 2017 and 2018, in the context of its support to various regional initiatives, the mandate mentioned the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). In August-September last year, at the time of negotiations for the renewal of UNAMA mandate, the US and its allies opposed the inclusion of the BRI trade initiative. Ultimately, a compromise draft did not mention the BRI. China registered its protest during the concluding remarks at the adoption of the resolution of the mandate.

With this background, the present failure of the council, comprising the Permanent-5 and Elected-10, to agree on a consensual resolution, is a continuation of the progressively increasing geo-political rivalry between the US and China. Sometimes, it is just a manifestation of a clash of egos or tendencies towards hyper-nationalism of the ruling elite of the two countries.

And, this tussle is likely to cause multiple future gridlocks and prevent consensus building even on issues that were till recently considered non-polarising at the council.

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Luv Puri’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article.

Courtesy: Daily Tribune:  14th May, 2020