{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01454775458570525, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00031625553447185326, 'mean_word_length': 4.990530303030303, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Security Council: A Winner in a Win-Win Situation

Conflict resolution through consensus is achievable only in a win-win situation but is practically impossible, if the points of dispute between the parties are critically important for both and any solution that may be arrived at, would be perceived as unfair to one of the parties or both. The United Nations was constituted as a voluntary association of countries with the basic premise that all the constituent members would be at par and the Security Council was established to arbitrate international issues as its core group acceptable to all members. Nevertheless from its very inception it was quite clear that some members have to be more equal than the rest and thus emerged the concept of having five permanent members who could exercise 'Veto'.The Council has been attempting to resolve bilateral and multilateral issues primarily through negotiations, mediation and conciliation as there is hardly any scope for enforcement, although UN charter provides for the same. Resolution of certain grave international issues such as the Korean conflict, the Congo crisis, the Rhodesian declaration of independence or the Gulf War are a few feathers in the cap of the Council, however many would still like to disagree. Very recently, in the Darfur crisis of Sudan, the Council in a historical move referred the case to the International Criminal Court by virtue of the Rome Statute, leading to framing of serious charges against the Sudanese President.However, the successes of the Council are few and far between and not complete in all respect. Several states have blatantly violated its resolutions which have led, many to question the very foundation of its constitution. In Rwanda nearly a million were killed and the Council could do precious little due to lack of consensus amongst its members, even some influential nations preferred to look the other way branding such an humanitarian issue as a 'local problem'. It has particularly failed to resolve the Indo-Pak dispute over Kashmir as both the nations find its resolutions unacceptable and/or impracticable. Unbridled Veto power conferred on the P-5 to negate any resolution, which may be unfavourable to their individual interests or against their professed political ideologies, is another significant hurdle for the Council. Important resolutions particularly those introduced during the cold war were struck down as these nations refused to exercise restraint with respect to use of the veto power. Such power coupled with the military and economic might has given them an option to abdicate their responsibilities as members of the international community as in case of Russia and France who refused to pay their part required for the Congo operation, almost driving the UN to a state of bankruptcy. The US also declined submission of reports on their counter-terrorism activities, which is otherwise mandatory for all members. It appears the rules are made, to be followed by those who cannot help and to be bent by those who are capable of doing so. This blatant discrimination puts a big question mark on the Council’s very credibility.