OPINION: Venezuela's vainglorious conquest of no one

The euphoric response of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro upon his country being elected as a UN Security Council member was no surprise. He described it as a "victory for Hugo Chávez," and claimed a "record triple crown" for Venezuela, which is also on the UN Human Rights Council and is soon to become leader of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Maduro can be criticized for using the Security Council vote as an excuse to boost his popularity at home, given the country's dire economic plight with rampant inflation and shortages of basic goods, along with soaring levels of crime. But one can hardly blame him – that is what politicians do for a living.

Maduro's approval ratings have been falling sharply in polls, where his lack of charisma and charm – two traits the late Chávez possessed in abundance – certainly don't help, while his tendency to make the occasional absurd claim has led some to question his mental faculties.

But was the UN vote really a victory for Venezuela? At first glance, the country won overwhelmingly, with 181 of 193 votes cast in favor and none against it. But there were no other countries on the ballot, and the region had agreed to support Venezuela as a bloc. The 'victory', then, looks rather hollow. (Angola won 190 votes and Malaysia 187 for the same reasons.)

Even so, criticism of Chile's decision to support Venezuela – given its poor human rights record in the Chávez-Maduro era – is misplaced and inevitably fell on deaf ears. It fails to consider the reality of most elections to the Security Council, namely that they are pre-arranged on a "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" basis, or more specifically, "I'll vote for you if you vote for me."

These votes have little to do with human rights. Winning a seat on the council is nearly all about prestige, as the UN cannot decide on anything without the support of all five permanent members (the US, the UK, France, Russia and China).

Which brings us to the most important point: the need for reform of the UN itself.

In terms of global security, the multilateral has become largely ineffective, with the possible exception of deployments of peacekeeping troops. Its current structure reflects the outcome of the Second World War and became obsolete decades ago. Latin America and other developing regions have far too little clout. Why should the UK and France be permanent members in the current global geopolitical scenario?

The problem is that any change can be vetoed by those same five permanent members, and proposals to make Brazil and other emerging powers permanent members have gone nowhere.

In the meantime, Maduro and others can safely use their Security Council seats in a vain attempt to boost their reputations and popularity.