Henry Graff Blog 3

 Henry Graff

International Politics

Blog 3

Due to the dynamic nature of states and international relations, establishing and perpetuating strong authority on a global scale is a massive undertaking. Creating effective and respected systems, rules, and ideals is so difficult because of the range of cultures and ideologies around the world. Furthermore, who will delegate authority, promote ideals, and act “correctly”? Given the United State’s major role in global conflicts such as World Wars I and II, it is clear that we might be more fit for a leadership role, right? In reality, the rise and domination of particular world powers in global authority institutions, such as the United States, has put the international stage in an ineffective position. The Security Council, for example, is indefinitely led by the US, Russia, China, France, and England. This poses issues in that respective global power is completely volatile, meaning these nations are somewhat arbitrary outside of their historical significance on the global stage. In his piece Legitimacy, Power, and the Symbolic Life of the UN Security Council, Ian Hurd outlines the issues with the UN Security Council such as legitimacy, cooperation, and dominance. The US is undoubtedly important to consider in this aspect, as we see ourselves repeatedly exempt itself from the expectations of international action. Labeled American exceptionalism, this belief has allowed the US to somewhat ignore and manipulate international law in an attempt to perpetuate peace and security. Unfortunately, as Hurd states, one “threat to the legitimacy of the Council are perceptions of the dominance of the United States” (Hurd 47). As Hurd states, the makeup of the council does not truly evoke a sense of global connectivity or cooperation, largely due to the rather insignificant rotations of smaller nations. The problem, thus, becomes where the line needs to be drawn between the promotion of smaller voices and the perhaps historically sound judgment of more firmly established states. One interesting factor of the UNSC are the “informal sessions” in which “because they are not official Council meetings, do not need to be open to the non permanent member or to the public” (43). He even goes on to say that “every formal Council meeting now is a pro forma affair, scripted in these advanced informal consultations” (43). Of course, this does not mean that the five permanent members are continually working behind the scenes to manipulate global relations, but does not help to reinforce the connectivity which would ideally be promoted. A recent piece from the Associated Press titled Deputy Head of Russia's Security Council Issues Stark Threats to the West demonstrates some of the shortcomings of the UNSC in a more topical light. From late February, the Russian Security Council Representative and close friend of Vladamir Putin, Medvedev, “dismissed the sanctions as a show of Western ‘political impotence’” (Associated Press). Furthermore, he proclaimed “no particular need in maintaining diplomatic relations” and added that “we may look at each other in binoculars and gunsights” (Associated Press). Given Russia’s recent actions in and involving Ukraine, it is very interesting to hear the discourse among those permanent Security Council members. As talked about in Hurd’s piece, symbols provide a means to demonstrate intention and ideologies on the international stage. Currently, it is clear from where the symbols are being created and perpetuated, such as through the Kremlin or United States Presidency. As Medvedev demonstrated to the UNSC, symbols and labels like their ‘peacekeeping’ and American exceptionalism, similar to the ‘humanitarian’ efforts of Russia in Ukraine.