11 hours ago
UN Security Council faces a whole new world in 2025 — and Donald Trump is testing it
Since the end of World War II, there are two international organisations that have arguably done more than any others to prevent a third catastrophic global conflict: NATO and the United Nations Security Council.
Donald Trump, with his doctrine of American isolationism, is severely testing both — by hinting at pulling out of NATO, and bypassing the Security Council on his way to bomb Iran.
This week, NATO members met in the shadow of Trump's latest dig at the alliance, when he suggested he may not be entirely committed to NATO's Article 5 — the mutual defence pact, which states that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all.
"Depends on your definition," he said on his way to the meeting.
"There are numerous definitions of Article 5. You know that, right? But I'm committed to being their friends."
NATO members are now adjusting to the possibility of reshaping their alliance and the need to rethink their defence budgets and procurements.
The Security Council is a key part of the UN, which today celebrates 80 years since its foundation, but it is far less able to adapt than NATO.
So what impact has Trump's decision to attack Iran without going to the Security Council first had?
"I think it's done major damage," said Professor John Langmore, chair of the Initiative for Peacebuilding at Melbourne University.
"The most powerful country in the world has acted without regard to the laws and processes, and got away with it.
"It very seriously undermines the Security Council, and certainly damages its credibility."
It's widely accepted that the UN Security Council, created in the aftermath of World War II, no longer reflects the world as it was then.
Its most powerful members were the victors of the war; the US, Great Britain, France, and Russia, along with China, who all have the power to veto any resolution.
On June 5, the US vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent" ceasefire in Gaza, despite its 14 other members voting in favour.
In February, the US sided with Moscow over the war in Ukraine by drafting a Security Council resolution calling for an end to the war, but containing no criticism of Russia.
Nonetheless, Langmore believes the council continues to fulfil its main job of preventing global conflict.
"It's been highly effective because there hasn't been a World War III," he said.
"It hasn't been able to stop local more localised violence in a whole series of ways. But it has acted in ways that have prevented global war."
Chris Michaelsen, a Professor of International Law at Western Sydney University, agrees the council is still effective.
"The world is a more peaceful place," Michaelsen said.
"It doesn't seem like it, but that's an empirical fact. The number of inter-state wars in the 80 years since the establishment of the United Nations has drastically reduced."
Michaelsen said in many big crises — "Ukraine, Iran, Gaza" — the veto countries prevented the council from acting as the UN charter envisaged.
"But there are still many other crises — in Africa, and other parts of the world — where despite the massive antagonism now between the Trump administration, China and Russia, the council is still functioning," he said.
But he said while the council will survive the Trump presidency, and America's withdrawal from international bodies like the World Health Organisation, its future may depend on who sits in the White House after he leaves office.
"If it's another MAGA administration, then I think it can potentially have a lasting damaging effect on the council — because we are essentially looking at 10 years of US disengagement," he said.
"I think that's not fatal, but it leads to a further irrelevance."
