nal law is not an empty promise.” His rhetorics, however, were met with critical remarks from President Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica, who said that the United Nations had failed in its mission to make the world a safe place to live in. He accused the UNSC of continuously turning “a blind eye” to arms proliferation, as well as to countries that refused to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. He added that it was not possible for the world to be safe, if arms proliferation was not given top priority on the international agenda. His sentiments were echoed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who observed that Iran and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea , who were “right in front of us,” had violated Security Council resolutions to stop the testing of ballistic missiles (Security Council SC/ 9746, 2009). He stressed the need for all Council decisions to prove effective by producing positive results. Foremost on the minds of the Heads of State, however, was how the permanent five (P-5) members of the UNSC, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), propose to work together to solve the intractable nuclear issues that had existed since the Cold War. This essay seeks to analyze: i) politics within the United Nations Security Council, ii) reform in the United Nations Security Council, iii) the Security Council today - 21st Century, and iv) the role of the Secretary-General.
The first major setback that paralyzed the United Nations Security Council from managing and handling international security issues effectively, was the use of vetoes by the five permanent members (P-5)(P. Wallensteen, P. Johansson, 2004: 20). During the Cold War period, a total of 193 vetoes were casted. Of these, forty-four were concerned with electing a new Secretary-General, fifty-four concerned the election of new members to the organization, while the rest of the vetoes were used as a show of rejection of draft resolutions