Many people were dismayed by the inability of the UN Security Council to take a position on Syria's ongoing crackdown against the popular protests. A draft resolution proposed by European powers condemning the violence in Syria was vetoed by Russia and China, traditional allies of the Syrian regime.
The US representative at the UN, Susan Rice told her Security Council counterparts it was a "sad day" for Syria and the UN. She said the UN had failed the Syrian people. "The United States is outraged that this council has utterly failed to address an urgent moral challenge and a growing threat to regional peace and security," she added.
That is not just ironic, but also absurd.
Wasn't it her boss, the US President Barack Obama, who warned that he will veto the Palestinian bid for a UN membership just a few days ago?
The Palestinian people are suffering too from a bloody campaign of oppression for almost six decades. Isn't there an "urgent moral challenge" here?
The failure of the Security Council to stand for the Palestinians and the Syrians is not surprising. The Council has always been impotent when it comes to issues relevant to the Big Five — the permanent members. It is called hypocrisy. Therefore, it is time the General Assembly took a stronger stand on the issue of UN reforms, particularly in the Security Council. There was one suggestion to abolish the veto.
The Security Council reforms have increasingly become an urgent need as the US and its allies continue to use it for political gains that have very little to do with world peace — the main objective of establishing the UN. The US has often used its veto power for slapping sanctions on Washington's — or Tel Aviv's — nemesis. The Security Council cannot be effective in addressing the world's "urgent moral challenges" without proper reforms.
