The UN’s vanishing act in Asia
By all appearances, the threat of military confrontation is growing in the Pacific. News that a Chinese vessel locked its fire-control radar on a Japanese ship is only the most alarming recent development. China and the Philippine squared off recently as well. Given the evident danger of conflict involving major powers, one might think that ...
By all appearances, the threat of military confrontation is growing in the Pacific. News that a Chinese vessel locked its fire-control radar on a Japanese ship is only the most alarming recent development. China and the Philippine squared off recently as well.
By all appearances, the threat of military confrontation is growing in the Pacific. News that a Chinese vessel locked its fire-control radar on a Japanese ship is only the most alarming recent development. China and the Philippine squared off recently as well.
Given the evident danger of conflict involving major powers, one might think that the world’s institutional answer to the problem of conflict—the United Nations, and specifically its Security Council—would be knee-deep in Asia’s troubled waters. In fact, the Asian maritime crises are not even on the Security Council’s agenda. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (who hails from South Korea) occasionally ruminates on the danger of the dispute and pleas for negotiations, but he is a peripheral player at best.
It’s not hard to explain the UN’s absence. China is a veto-wielding permanent Council member and is adamantly opposed to elevating the dispute to the multilateral level (at the regional level, China has worked hard to prevent ASEAN from reaching a common position). It’s not clear that the United States or Japan sees any useful role for the United Nations at the moment. No other involved state has forced the issue onto the Council’s agenda.
In many ways, today’s Security Council is frenetically active. It meets almost every day, supervises more than a dozen peacekeeping and observer missions, monitors sanctions regimes, and debates weighty topics such as how to advance the rule of law in the world. But this veneer of constant activity masks an inability to grapple substantively with some of the world’s most critical security issues–including Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, U.S. counterterrorism policies, and Asia’s territorial disputes. A huge chunk of the Council’s work is on matters of tangential importance to major powers—specifically weak internal governance in (mostly) African states. The UN was designed above all to prevent another global conflagration; more than sixty years on, the organization still struggles to be relevant in the crises most likely to spark one.
David Bosco is a professor at Indiana University’s Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies. He is the author of The Poseidon Project: The Struggle to Govern the World’s Oceans. Twitter: @multilateralist
More from Foreign Policy
Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.
The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.
Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.
How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
