Security Council Part Two

This entry is a continuation of the previous one. Since the Security Council is one of the most important of the United Nations organs, I thought it would be well worth writing a second entry to further educate my readers.
The Security Council sits in New York, but if it wishes can also convene elsewhere. The work of the council means that it needs to address pressing issues of today, so it is often in the news. One of the main criticisms of the council, alongside the criticism of its membership, is that the council has often been shy of ordering the use of military might. Now, this may seem sensible in an organization such as the UN which is devoted to world peace, but many critics believe that the Security Council has failed the victims of atrocities the world over by failing to act. For example, the United Nations remained basically paralyzed and useless during the Rwandan Genocide, when between 800 thousand and 1 million people were mass murdered. Today, the Security Council is unable to take action in Darfur, where the UN estimates 450 thousand people have been killed through an ongoing conflict. This is because China, a permanent member with the veto power, has extensive trade relations with Sudan, and needs Sudan's oil to fuel its huge energy needs.
Another test of the Security Council came before the US led war in Iraq. The threat of a French veto meant that the US had to simply circumvent the council and launch a war outside of the UN framework. What it did prove, however, was that even the mighty US sought the Council's nod before going to war.