By Matt Underwood Venezuela’s move to call for a UN Security Council meeting regarding US actions is, to put it mildly, an uphill battle. The fundamental issue? The United States, a permanent member of the Security Council, wields a veto. This means any resolution critical of the US, any call for sanctions, or any action deemed unfavorable to the US interests, is almost guaranteed to be blocked. It’s a system designed, some might argue, to maintain the status quo, and in this situation, it seems to stack the cards heavily against Venezuela.
The timing of this request is also interesting, especially in the context of global dynamics. Russia, another permanent member with veto power, is currently engrossed in the conflict in Ukraine. China, the fifth permanent member, has its own ambitions and priorities, notably concerning Taiwan. These geopolitical realities further complicate Venezuela’s chances of achieving any meaningful outcome through the UN Security Council. It begs the question: who, realistically, is going to come to their defense in a tangible way?
The skepticism surrounding this initiative is palpable. Critics rightly point out the UN’s limitations, and its inability to effectively address numerous ongoing international crises with significant bloodshed. Some view the whole exercise as a performative gesture, a chance for rhetoric and posturing without any real teeth. The UN, some say, is a stage for political theater rather than an effective body for enforcement. The lack of concrete action and the US’s predictable veto paint a bleak picture of the outcome.
The internal political landscape of Venezuela also adds another layer of complexity. The political instability and the shifting alliances complicate the narrative. It appears the current request comes from those in power, while the opposition is now seeking refuge in Russia, with possible political asylum. This internal division undermines the strength of their argument before the UN.
Despite the inherent obstacles, it’s not entirely a futile effort. The UN forum provides a platform for Venezuela to voice its grievances and present its case to the international community. Although a resolution with consequences is highly unlikely, the mere act of bringing the matter before the Security Council could serve several purposes. It allows Venezuela to formally document the situation, potentially forcing other nations to take a stance.
There’s also the element of optics. Even if the US vetoes any resolution, the debate and the subsequent votes will expose where the world stands on the issue. This could isolate the US politically, at least symbolically. This also gives a chance for Russia and China to show opposition to the U.S.
The potential for broader implications is also worth noting. Such an instance can potentially be used as an example to justify similar actions by other countries. It’s also an opportunity to shine a light on the UN itself. The UN is far from a perfect institution, its effectiveness often hampered by its structure and the interests of its powerful members. This situation could highlight the need for reforms within the Security Council. Some suggest the veto power of permanent members should be reconsidered, as well as the council composition.
While the immediate consequences of Venezuela’s request may be minimal, the event is not entirely without value. It provides an avenue for diplomatic engagement, a chance to document and publicize events, and a moment for international scrutiny. It is important to remember that there are civilians involved in these situations and the use of lethal force is a war crime.