On Friday, for the first time in history, a country declined to serve a term on the United Nations 
Security Council. The ten non-permanent slots are elected, with ten regions each electing one nation to serve on the Council. This year, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was elected to serve for two years, representing the culmination of years of diplomatic work to win the spot. And then the Saudis turned down the position.
While such an action is completely unprecedented (and took even the United States by surprise), the Saudis have their own reasoning for rejecting it. This action should be viewed as nothing less than the highest form of a protest vote. The Saudis are unhappy with Russian and Chinese attempts to block international action in Syria, and the US’ apparently unwillingness to act, even after Syria crossed the “red line.”
But the Saudi rejection raises an important question. Does the UN truly hold the moral imperative? While there seems to be widespread agreement that the Saudis have, at best, a long way to come in the way of political and civil rights, the Saudis have a very good point. The United Nations has failed to act in what has become one of the most hotly debated human rights issues of our generation. The United Nations works by consensus, but any efficacy breaks down on polarizing issues.
The Saudis, in essence, have publicly asked the one question that many have been asking, namely, “Can we truly trust a platform that is powerless to act?”