Beyond the Crisis Theatre, The Urgent Case for a UN Board of Peace and Sustainable Security

Beyond the Crisis Theatre, The Urgent Case for a UN Board of Peace and Sustainable Security

As the United Nations commemorates the 80th anniversary of its founding, the chasm between its noble ideals and its operational inadequacies has never been more glaring. Conceived in the ashes of World War II to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” the UN today finds itself increasingly sidelined in a world riven by protracted conflicts, geopolitical rivalries, and a pervasive sense of international paralysis. The recent article by former Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, proposing a “Board of Peace and Sustainable Security” (BPSS), is not merely a policy suggestion; it is a profound diagnosis of a systemic failure and a visionary blueprint for a functional, relevant, and effective United Nations for the 21st century. The proposal strikes at the heart of a critical flaw in the global security architecture: the international community’s short attention span and its institutional inability to sustain peace once the guns fall silent.

The Diagnosis: The Institutional Void in Sustaining Peace

The current UN system is brilliantly designed for crisis management but woefully unequipped for peace sustenance. This is not a failure of intent but, as Rao correctly identifies, a failure of “institutional design.” The architecture created in 1945 possesses powerful tools for specific phases of conflict, but lacks a dedicated mechanism to bridge the perilous gap between them.

• The UN Security Council (UNSC): As the pinnacle of the UN’s security apparatus, the UNSC is structured to be episodic and reactive. It authorizes military interventions, imposes sanctions, and mandates peacekeeping missions. However, its work is often hamstrung by the veto power of the P5 (the five permanent members: the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom), and its engagement tends to be crisis-driven. Once a resolution is passed or a mission is deployed, the Council’s intense focus often wanes, moving on to the next emergency. It is a fire brigade, not a construction crew tasked with rebuilding after the flames are doused.

• UN Peacekeeping Missions: These blue-helmeted forces are crucial for stabilizing conflict zones, monitoring ceasefires, and protecting civilians. However, they are often deployed without a clear, achievable, and long-term political strategy. They can become “indefinite holding missions,” maintaining a fragile calm but doing little to address the underlying political grievances that sparked the conflict in the first place. A peacekeeping mission without a parallel, robust political process is a stopgap measure, not a solution.

• The Peacebuilding Commission (PBC): Established in 2005, the PBC was a recognition of the need for post-conflict institution-building. It plays a valuable role in marshaling resources and advising on recovery. Yet, as Rao points out, it lacks the mandate, authority, and political clout to engage robustly during active, fragile political transitions. It operates on the margins, unable to command the attention of powerful states or hold conflict parties accountable to their commitments.

The result of this institutional patchwork is a cycle of relapse. From South Sudan to Afghanistan, and in countless other conflicts, we witness a familiar pattern: a flurry of diplomatic activity leads to a shaky peace agreement; the international community declares a victory and withdraws its high-level political engagement; underlying tensions fester; and eventually, violence erupts anew. Diplomacy, as Rao eloquently states, has become “a form of crisis theatre – activated too late and withdrawn too early.” The UN loses continuity, context, and momentum. It forgets the lessons of yesterday, ensuring they must be relearned at a terrible cost tomorrow.

The Proposal: A Board of Peace and Sustainable Security

The proposed Board of Peace and Sustainable Security is designed explicitly to fill this void. Its genius lies in its pragmatic and legally feasible approach. Instead of getting bogged down in the intractable debate over UNSC reform—a worthy but perpetually stalled endeavour—Rao advocates for “functional reform.” This involves using existing powers under the UN Charter, specifically Article 22 of the UN General Assembly (UNGA), which allows it to establish subsidiary bodies.

The BPSS would not challenge the UNSC’s primacy on matters of international peace and security. It would not authorize military force or impose sanctions. Crucially, it would not venture into the politically sensitive realm of early-warning or pre-conflict intervention, which many member states, particularly in the Global South, view as a potential pretext for neo-colonial interference. Instead, it would occupy a “clearly defined space”: providing structured, persistent, and high-level political engagement during and after conflict, precisely when the international presence typically dissipates.

Core Functions and Tools:

1. Political Accompaniment: The Board would act as a permanent, high-level companion to nations navigating the treacherous path from war to peace. It would reinforce nationally-led dialogues, ensuring that peace agreements are not just signed but implemented.

2. Coordinating Diplomacy: It would serve as a central node to coordinate often-disparate diplomatic initiatives from regional organizations, individual states, and other UN bodies, creating a unified and coherent international strategy.

3. Linking Peacekeeping to Politics: The Board would work to ensure that peacekeeping missions are tied to “achievable political pathways,” preventing them from becoming perpetual, aimless deployments. It would provide the political strategy that the military component lacks.

4. Guardian of Institutional Memory: In a system where personnel rotate and priorities shift, the BPSS would be the institutional repository of memory. It would track commitments, monitor progress, and hold all parties accountable long after the media spotlight has moved on.

Architecture of Credibility: Representation and Functioning

The credibility of such a body would hinge entirely on its composition and modus operandi. Rao’s proposal wisely avoids recreating the elitist and paralyzing structures it seeks to complement.

• Representative, Not Elitist: The BPSS would not be a closed club of powerful states. Instead, it would feature a rotating membership of about two dozen states, elected by the UNGA for fixed terms. This ensures balance, renewal, and legitimacy. Formal guarantees for regional representation would ensure that Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and West Asia have a meaningful voice, reflecting the reality that most contemporary conflicts are in these regions.

• Empowering Regional Actors: In a critical innovation, regional organizations (like the African Union, ASEAN, or the European Union) would not be mere observers but full participants. This acknowledges that sustainable peace is often shaped as much in Addis Ababa, Jakarta, and Brussels as in New York.

• Veto-Free Zone: Power within the Board would not be derived from permanent seats or paralyzed by vetoes. It would be built on the principle of participation, creating a more democratic and agile deliberative space.

• A Working Body, Not a Talking Shop: The BPSS would be a action-oriented institution. Agenda items could only be introduced by a UN member-state, a regional organization, or the UN Secretary-General, ensuring focus and relevance. While civil society could have a consultative role, voting power would remain with states, balancing inclusivity with efficiency.

The Philosophy of “Sustainable Security”

At the heart of this proposal is the powerful concept of “sustainable security.” This moves beyond the traditional, narrow focus on ceasefires and security sector reform. It recognizes that lasting peace cannot be maintained by security arrangements alone. Stability endures when political agreements are gradually legitimized through effective governance, social inclusion, economic development, and responsible leadership.

Sustainable security is not “preventive intervention by another name.” It respects national sovereignty and emerges from negotiated settlements that are implemented over time, not from solutions imposed from outside. It is a patient, long-term commitment that links security directly to political reality, aligning peace efforts with governance, development, and regional cooperation. It is the antithesis of the quick-fix, “crisis theatre” approach that has so often failed.

Conclusion: A Pragmatic Path to a More Perfect UN

The call for a Board of Peace and Sustainable Security is a testament to pragmatic idealism. It acknowledges that while the quest for a perfectly representative and powerful UNSC must continue, the world cannot afford to wait. People in conflict zones from Gaza to Sudan to Myanmar need a functioning international system today.

This proposal does not require a rewriting of the UN Charter or a radical redistribution of geopolitical power. It uses the tools already available to make the UN better at its core job: managing conflict responsibly. It is a reform that remembers the first principles of the UN—that peace must be sustained, political commitments must be accompanied, and diplomacy must be a disciplined, ongoing process. By creating an institution built for processes rather than just for moments, the UN can begin to heal its most damaging weakness. As the world navigates an increasingly turbulent century, such functional, achievable innovation is not just desirable; it is an urgent necessity for the survival and relevance of the United Nations itself.

Q&A Section

Q1: How is the proposed Board of Peace and Sustainable Security (BPSS) different from the UN Security Council?
A1: The UNSC is a reactive, crisis-driven body with the power to authorize force and impose sanctions. It is often paralyzed by geopolitical rivalries and the veto power of its permanent members. The BPSS, in contrast, would be a proactive, process-oriented body focused on the long-term political work of sustaining peace after conflicts. It would have no veto power, a rotating membership for broader representation, and its tools would be political accompaniment and coordination, not military or coercive measures.

Q2: Why not just reform the UN Security Council instead of creating a new body?
A2: Reforming the UNSC, particularly by expanding its permanent membership, is a politically fraught process that has been stalled for decades. The BPSS proposal offers a path of “functional reform” that uses the existing authority of the UN General Assembly, making it a more immediately achievable goal. It is not an alternative to UNSC reform but a complementary innovation that can address a specific institutional weakness without getting bogged down in the intractable debate over permanent seats and veto powers.

Q3: What is “sustainable security” and how does it differ from traditional peacekeeping?
A3: Traditional peacekeeping focuses on stabilizing a conflict zone through military presence and monitoring ceasefires. “Sustainable security” is a broader, more holistic concept. It recognizes that true stability requires legitimate political processes, inclusive governance, and economic development. While peacekeeping manages the symptoms of conflict (violence), sustainable security addresses the root causes (political grievances, lack of opportunity). It ensures that security efforts are tied to a viable political pathway.

Q4: How would the BPSS avoid becoming just another ineffective UN bureaucracy?
A4: The proposal includes several design features to ensure efficiency and relevance. Its agenda would be tightly controlled, with items introduced only by member states, regional bodies, or the UN Secretary-General. Its rotating membership would keep it dynamic and representative. Most importantly, its mandate is specifically defined as maintaining political continuity and tracking commitments, preventing “mandate drift.” It is conceived as a “working body,” not a forum for speeches.

Q5: Why is the inclusion of regional organizations as full participants so important?
A5: Regional organizations like the African Union often have deeper contextual knowledge, greater legitimacy, and a more sustained stake in resolving conflicts within their neighbourhood than distant global powers. By making them full participants, the BPSS would tap into this crucial expertise and leverage, ensuring that international efforts are grounded in regional realities. This bridges a major gap in the current system, where global and regional diplomacy often operate in silos.