Reform The United Nations
Yuba Nath Lamsal
Otherwise far apart on several international issues, the UN member countries are together on one thing - they want reforms. This view was especially loudly expressed at the 65th United Nations General Assembly, which is underway in New York. From Algeria to Albania, Mongolia to Mozambique and China to Chile, all member states are of the opinion that the world body needs vigorous reforms in order to make the United Nations more representative, legitimate and efficient so that it can more effectively play its role in resolving the global challenges ranging from financial crises to peace and security to climate change.
Genuine reforms
However, disagreements on its institutional modality, regional rivalry and structural and bureaucratic hurdles have dogged the agenda of UN reforms. Although the member states have been demanding reforms in the United Nations organisational structure for the last 20 years, they are not unanimous on a single model and the modus operandi for the structural change and reforms of the global organisation. This demonstrates that genuine reforms in the United Nations are still far from realisation.
Reforms in the United Nations were long felt and demanded. However, it was not put forth so vociferously as has been done in the 65th General Assembly. But members have their own agenda and modalities of reform. The core demand calls for structural and representational reforms in the Security Council (SC), the main executive organ of the United Nations. Despite the United Nations being a world body, its functions do not seem to reflect multi-lateralism due mainly to the composition and power structure of the Security Council.
The 15-member Security Council has two types of membership - permanent and temporary. The five permanent members are the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The rest are non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term with no power to influence the decision of the UNSC. The decisions of the United Nations are influenced by the five permanent members of the Security Council who wield veto power.
The present structure of the Security Council is neither democratic nor just. Because the permanent members hold veto power, the Security Council obviously cannot take any decision that is against the will and interest of the five permanent members. The non-permanent members are just there to endorse what the permanent members decide.
Countries like Japan, Brazil and Germany want an enlargement of the Security Council so that they too can be included as a permanent member. At the same time, some regional groupings such as ASEAN, OPEC, SAARC, African Union and South American groups are pursuing vigorously for permanent representation in the Security Council.
Given the present structure of the UNSC, the representation of all the five continents has not been even. Europe has three permanent members - Russia, the United Kingdom and France - whereas Africa and South America have none. This system was devised more than six decades ago when the international scenario was completely different. Now the world has undergone a sea change. The world body also must also change in line with the new pattern and order that have evolved in the present day world. The Security Council needs to be restructured to ensure equal representation of all the continents and people in the world on equitable terms.
When the United Nations was mooted and founded, World War II had just been over. The Allied forces that had won the war decided on the modality of the United Nations. In other words, the United Nations was created as an international luxury club of the allied forces. In World War II, the United Kingdom, United States of America, France and Russia were in one camp that defeated Germany, Japan and Italy.
In the post war world order, the victors set the tone and agenda in the international order which was also got reflected in the structure of the United Nations. The victors of the war created the United Nations and incorporated provisions that gave them better say in the decision-making process of the world body whereas the rest of the world would revolve around them. Otherwise, there was no justification for having three permanent members from a single continent while depriving the other continents of their due representation.
The United Kingdom was a global power, whose colonies expanded far and wide. As a superpower of that period, it was natural for the United Kingdom to have secured its place in the Security Council with veto power. The inclusion of the USA in the Security Council can be duly justified as it represents the North American continent. Russia was given a permanent seat because it represented the communist and socialist bloc in the world. France represented the vast majority of Francophone countries mostly in Africa which were either French colonies or under the influence of France. China’s seat in the Security Council represented the Asian continent and also because it accounted for one fifth of the world’s population. Although defeated in the war, Japan and Germany were powers to reckon with. But their role was not recognised, and they were not given due place in the world body.
The international situation has changed drastically. The post World War II international scenario no longer exists at present. The once divided Germany has now been unified. Both Japan and Germany have emerged as economic powers. The United Kingdom is no longer a global power but acts just like an extended arm of the United States. The Soviet Union has disintegrated into several countries.
Russia is exercising the permanent seat of the Security Council as an inheritor of the Soviet Union, but Russia is no longer a communist or a socialist country and does not represent the socialist bloc. France, too, does not represent the entire Francophone countries. Against this backdrop, the rationale behind the permanent membership of the United Kingdom, France and Russia is being questioned. Germany is better deserving of a place in the Security Council than UK, France and Russia.
Africa is rising, and the African countries have already started asserting their legitimate share and say in the United Nations’ decision-making process. It is an injustice to Africa to deprive it a permanent seat in the Security Council. Moreover, more than 50 per cent of the issues that the Security Council deals with pertain to the African continent. Similarly, South America, too, is feeling the pinch. Brazil, which is an emerging global power, has already started demanding a stake in the UN Security Council to represent the South American continent.
UNSC’s composition
The organisational and power structure of the United Nations also needs to be reformed and changed to cope with the new realities. As long as the present composition of the United Nations Security Council continues, it will not represent the present geopolitical, geo-strategic and geo-economic realities. The first and the foremost job of the UN reform should be to change the Security Council’s composition, representational system and structure. It has to be restructured in such a way that genuine and deserving countries are given a place in the Security Council as permanent members with veto power whereas some countries that have lost relevance and validity to stay on as permanent members should be released of their role.
Otherwise far apart on several international issues, the UN member countries are together on one thing - they want reforms. This view was especially loudly expressed at the 65th United Nations General Assembly, which is underway in New York. From Algeria to Albania, Mongolia to Mozambique and China to Chile, all member states are of the opinion that the world body needs vigorous reforms in order to make the United Nations more representative, legitimate and efficient so that it can more effectively play its role in resolving the global challenges ranging from financial crises to peace and security to climate change.
Genuine reforms
However, disagreements on its institutional modality, regional rivalry and structural and bureaucratic hurdles have dogged the agenda of UN reforms. Although the member states have been demanding reforms in the United Nations organisational structure for the last 20 years, they are not unanimous on a single model and the modus operandi for the structural change and reforms of the global organisation. This demonstrates that genuine reforms in the United Nations are still far from realisation.
Reforms in the United Nations were long felt and demanded. However, it was not put forth so vociferously as has been done in the 65th General Assembly. But members have their own agenda and modalities of reform. The core demand calls for structural and representational reforms in the Security Council (SC), the main executive organ of the United Nations. Despite the United Nations being a world body, its functions do not seem to reflect multi-lateralism due mainly to the composition and power structure of the Security Council.
The 15-member Security Council has two types of membership - permanent and temporary. The five permanent members are the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China. The rest are non-permanent members that are elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term with no power to influence the decision of the UNSC. The decisions of the United Nations are influenced by the five permanent members of the Security Council who wield veto power.
The present structure of the Security Council is neither democratic nor just. Because the permanent members hold veto power, the Security Council obviously cannot take any decision that is against the will and interest of the five permanent members. The non-permanent members are just there to endorse what the permanent members decide.
Countries like Japan, Brazil and Germany want an enlargement of the Security Council so that they too can be included as a permanent member. At the same time, some regional groupings such as ASEAN, OPEC, SAARC, African Union and South American groups are pursuing vigorously for permanent representation in the Security Council.
Given the present structure of the UNSC, the representation of all the five continents has not been even. Europe has three permanent members - Russia, the United Kingdom and France - whereas Africa and South America have none. This system was devised more than six decades ago when the international scenario was completely different. Now the world has undergone a sea change. The world body also must also change in line with the new pattern and order that have evolved in the present day world. The Security Council needs to be restructured to ensure equal representation of all the continents and people in the world on equitable terms.
When the United Nations was mooted and founded, World War II had just been over. The Allied forces that had won the war decided on the modality of the United Nations. In other words, the United Nations was created as an international luxury club of the allied forces. In World War II, the United Kingdom, United States of America, France and Russia were in one camp that defeated Germany, Japan and Italy.
In the post war world order, the victors set the tone and agenda in the international order which was also got reflected in the structure of the United Nations. The victors of the war created the United Nations and incorporated provisions that gave them better say in the decision-making process of the world body whereas the rest of the world would revolve around them. Otherwise, there was no justification for having three permanent members from a single continent while depriving the other continents of their due representation.
The United Kingdom was a global power, whose colonies expanded far and wide. As a superpower of that period, it was natural for the United Kingdom to have secured its place in the Security Council with veto power. The inclusion of the USA in the Security Council can be duly justified as it represents the North American continent. Russia was given a permanent seat because it represented the communist and socialist bloc in the world. France represented the vast majority of Francophone countries mostly in Africa which were either French colonies or under the influence of France. China’s seat in the Security Council represented the Asian continent and also because it accounted for one fifth of the world’s population. Although defeated in the war, Japan and Germany were powers to reckon with. But their role was not recognised, and they were not given due place in the world body.
The international situation has changed drastically. The post World War II international scenario no longer exists at present. The once divided Germany has now been unified. Both Japan and Germany have emerged as economic powers. The United Kingdom is no longer a global power but acts just like an extended arm of the United States. The Soviet Union has disintegrated into several countries.
Russia is exercising the permanent seat of the Security Council as an inheritor of the Soviet Union, but Russia is no longer a communist or a socialist country and does not represent the socialist bloc. France, too, does not represent the entire Francophone countries. Against this backdrop, the rationale behind the permanent membership of the United Kingdom, France and Russia is being questioned. Germany is better deserving of a place in the Security Council than UK, France and Russia.
Africa is rising, and the African countries have already started asserting their legitimate share and say in the United Nations’ decision-making process. It is an injustice to Africa to deprive it a permanent seat in the Security Council. Moreover, more than 50 per cent of the issues that the Security Council deals with pertain to the African continent. Similarly, South America, too, is feeling the pinch. Brazil, which is an emerging global power, has already started demanding a stake in the UN Security Council to represent the South American continent.
UNSC’s composition
The organisational and power structure of the United Nations also needs to be reformed and changed to cope with the new realities. As long as the present composition of the United Nations Security Council continues, it will not represent the present geopolitical, geo-strategic and geo-economic realities. The first and the foremost job of the UN reform should be to change the Security Council’s composition, representational system and structure. It has to be restructured in such a way that genuine and deserving countries are given a place in the Security Council as permanent members with veto power whereas some countries that have lost relevance and validity to stay on as permanent members should be released of their role.
Comments
Post a Comment