The United Nations (UN) Security Council met on Thursday 9 April 2020, to discuss the coronavirus pandemic. The meeting comes amid the ongoing United States-China dispute over the origin of the virus, accusations of bias levied at the World Health Organisation (WHO), and criticisms of the UN agency’s exclusion of Taiwan. While the UN should be able to sidestep these problems and provide support to those countries struggling to tackle the virus, anyone hoping the current crisis will precipitate reform of the Security Council will be disappointed.

WHY (NOT) A MEETING NOW?

Thursday’s meeting followed weeks of feuding between the Security Council’s five permanent members—Britain, France, Russia, China and the United States—over the issue. The United States has insisted that any joint declaration or resolution from the Security Council refer to the virus’s origins in the Chinese city of Wuhan. In response, China accused the United States of “groundless accusations and malicious fabrication” and of politicising the virus. China and Russia have also argued against any meeting of the Security Council on the grounds that health matters are beyond its remit, despite previously supporting resolutions on HIV/AIDS. France is also reported to be reluctant to hold a meeting before agreement is reached among its five permanent members.

Frustrated by this inaction, nine of the ten non-permanent members of the Security Council requested UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres call a meeting of the Council in spite of opposition from the permanent members, which he did last week.

TWO RESOLUTIONS UP FOR DEBATE

After Thursday’s meeting, the Security Council issued a short statement in support of the Secretary General’s current efforts to limit the potential impact of the virus. However, there appears to have been no decision on the two proposed resolutions circulated before the meeting. The first, advanced by Tunisia on behalf of the non-permanent members, calls for “an urgent, coordinated and united international action to curb the impact of COVID-19”; while the second, advanced by France, focuses on the Secretary General’s earlier call for a global ceasefire.

CONCLUSION

The failure of the Security Council to act on the coronavirus pandemic is unlikely to stop efforts to combat the virus: the UN has already released US$15 million from the Central Emergency Response Fund to the WHO and the UN Children’s Fund, and it has begun fundraising efforts to support poorer nations tackle the virus. Further, other international, regional, and national actors have taken steps to support their poorer neighbours.

No doubt the inaction of the Council will be adduced as further evidence of the need to reform its membership, but change will not be forthcoming until there is consensus on what change should look like. So far no proposal has been put forward that can overcome the tension between calls for a more representative Council and a more effective one: if five members cannot agree, why would more?

Samuel is a trainee solicitor and postgraduate at Cardiff University. He is active in several U.K.-based organisations campaigning on behalf of Hong Kong and BNOs. His research interests include transitional justice and the rule of law.

LinkedIn