Would a Deal to Solve North Korea Come at the Expense of Other U.N. Diplomacy?

Would a Deal to Solve North Korea Come at the Expense of Other U.N. Diplomacy?
Tens of thousands of North Koreans gather for a rally at Kim Il Sung Square meant to demonstration their rejection of U.N. sanctions, Pyongyang, Aug. 9, 2017 (AP photo by Jon Chol Jin).

What is the point of the United Nations Security Council? The U.N. Charter says that the body “has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international security,” but it has only ever played this role haphazardly. The Security Council seizes on some crises tenaciously and ignores others entirely. As a result, the doyen of U.N. studies, Adam Roberts, has aptly described the organization as a “selective security system.”

Hankerers after global governance may wish the council were more consistent. For more pragmatic observers, the interesting question is what sort of situations it selects to concentrate on. A quick glance at the council’s current work suggests that it basically picks up on two, distinctly different types of crisis.

The first type is any conflict with brutal humanitarian consequences but limited geopolitical implications, primarily in Africa. Security Council diplomats estimate that they spend between 60 and 80 percent of their time dealing with persistent trouble spots like Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Keep reading for free

Already a subscriber? Log in here .

Get instant access to the rest of this article by creating a free account below. You'll also get access to three articles of your choice each month and our free newsletter:
Subscribe for an All-Access subscription to World Politics Review
  • Immediate and instant access to the full searchable library of tens of thousands of articles.
  • Daily articles with original analysis, written by leading topic experts, delivered to you every weekday.
  • The Daily Review email, with our take on the day’s most important news, the latest WPR analysis, what’s on our radar, and more.